> "...and though provenance and/or source is often contested,
> several iron objects have been found dated to the OK and earlier".
Claims of something being "dated" without knowing the method used to ascertain such provenance are dubious. We've been burned far too many times by the catch-all "contextual dating" which has been the preferred -- and very problematic -- method of orthodoxy for centuries. And so if you are referring to contextual dating, then such provenance and/or source will indeed continue to be contested.
> As there is in Mesopotamia and
> Anatolia. You speak of hypotheticals in the
> negative to argue your narrative yet there is
> circumstantial evidence that says otherwise which
> also gives credence to equally valid
Agree to disagree. Hypotheticals aside, the fact is, that stonework exists and there is nothing that specifically acknowledges such stonework was actually achieved by OK AE among the huge volume of engravings, papyri, and artifacts that has survived the millennia.
> Regardless, to quote myself again:
> "Personally, I do not believe the OK AE smelted
> iron, but would have rather imported it, possibly
> from Anatolia/Caucasus".
No evidence of any OK AE smelted iron in any buildings, engravings, tombs, nothing...except as implied by the actual stonework which could have been achieved millennia earlier and the achievement of which is acknowledged nowhere in the OK historic narrative. I still don't understand how a "tsunami" could have caused the entire surface of the earth's oceans to rise and bury that Indian site so far and deep offshore, so there's obviously a very faulty premise going on in that article. I also don't see how such a relatively modern dating in India has any implications regarding the stonework of OK AE.
> > Finally, regarding those "swords" that dated to
> > 3300BC, do you know how they were "dated", e.g.,
> > directly vs. through context?
> Of course I do.
> Apparently you did not read and/or understand as
> usual. The "relevance" is the history of
> metalworking in general existing (by extension)
> for more than a 2,000yrs before dynastic Egypt let
> alone the pyramid age.
I continue to be amazed and amused by your continued lack of respect here.
"Metalworking" does not necessary imply granite stonework, or even iron. Nor does it imply anything about transporting 100 ton slabs of granite to a contrsuction site 600 miles away, nor does it account for the construction methods required to create millions of tons of monolithic masonry over the first 200 years of the bronze age. There is absolutely zero evidence that such technology ever made it to Egypt by virtue of its total absence within the otherwise voluminous historic narrative left behind by the OK AE.
> Origyptian wrote...
> > Also, if they are "swords", they appear to be strictly
> > ornamental/symbolic since they do not have a
> > functional guard or grip that fits a human hand.
> ...and? To make replicas of real world objects for
> ornamental/symbolic purposes only speaks to a
> higher level of cultural sophistication and is
> actually quite interesting.
Sorry, but a set of ornate Turkish copper meat skewers do not imply a "higher level of cultural sophistication" and certainly don't imply a technology that can work granite and construct all of the major pyramids within the first 200 years of the bronze age.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 18-Apr-16 04:29 by Origyptian.