At this point you are proving yourself not just an idiot, but a liar and fraud.
Stop playing your stupid little games and be a man and just quote me where I said they were "original" as in the person who built the pylons also added the reliefs? If you can't then put your big boy pants on and stop being such a loser and admit the fact you made a mistake, God forbid apologize, and correct yourself.
> > "Your inability to recognise the design
> > disparity will go along way to explain your why
> > you fail to recognise the primitive nature of
> > architectural embellishment relative to the
> > overall architectural design..
> Do you recognise (see) the design disparity?
> > For that reason we'll have to agree to
> > disagree."
> > Ya know, that sure sounds like an insult to me.
> > you were so interested in "agreeing to
> > then why did you take it upon yourself to
> > me with for no reason?
> "Agreeing to disagree" is not an insult, it's a
> gentleman's solution to differing opinions.
Are you really this dumb or just playing more of your stupid games?
> I said 100 200 or whatever, meaning X period of
> time. However I would expect it to be more than
> one cultural generation so yes 100 should be
Do not lie. This is not why you said it you said it because you were unsure of exactly what I said.
> > So be honest and just answer the
> > then Jon-were you or were you not implying
> > of the later addition of the reliefs that the
> > Temple was built by someone other than the
> > or Egyptians, i.e. long before either by an as
> > unknown culture? I know you were. You know you
> > were. Origyptian knows you were which he
> > wholeheartedly agrees.
> Crystal ball again or voices in your head??
> You are creating your own narrative and then
> arguing against your own narrative.
More lies and stupid games.
> Because that's what art analyses is. The analyses
> of an artwork/architecture without prior knowledge
> of said artwork.
This is exactly not what "art analysis" is you retard. Seriously, are you just lying to not admit how ignorant you are and not lose an argument again or are you really that stupid? Knowing the history and provenance of the art is "art analysis 101". Art Analysis.
And yet a few lines below you say: "In the case of no documentary or little historical evidence we have no option. In this case visual analyses worked. I'm trained to do it. I'm qualified to do it at post graduate level, It's what I do."
Sweet Jeezus. The point is you didn't even bother to look you maroon. And save your "qualified-trained-to-do-it-post-graduate" BS. As if we didn't already know, when you say moronic things like this: "Because that's what art analyses is. The analyses of an artwork/architecture without prior knowledge of said artwork." it is clear the little piece of paper you cuddle with every night next to the Origyptian doll you made out of pillowcases and old underwear means jack squat.
> We don't always have documentary evidence.
The point is that we are obligated to try and find out. Duh. Just save your nonsense. You are just making up lame excuses to not take responsibility for your ignorance and laziness.
> According to you, in this case I was correct.
That the reliefs were made after the completion of the pylon, yes.
> artwork was applied by a culture divorced from the
> original construction culture.
Again, stupid or lying? Quite clearly both at this point. This is exactly the opposite of what I said you hack. You are truly quite pathetic and small as to keep playing these stupid games. You just acknowledged that I said Ptolemy XII placed the reliefs less than 100yrs after the completion of the pylons yet now you dishonestly characterize this as me saying you are "correct" that the culture that made the art was "divorced from the original construction culture? A child would understand how patently false this is on multiple levels.
And ironically, despite your continuing refusal to admit the fact you are trying to claim the temple was not built by the Ptolemies, i.e. instead belongs to the LC, yet here you are all but saying exactly that.
I made the blanket statement the pylons were built less than 100yrs before PXII made the relief. To be precise, it was built by his predecessor Ptolemy IX which the gap between the beginning of PIX's rule and the end of PXII's is 64yrs, or "less than 100yrs".
For further details:
The Pylon was erected by Ptolemy IX (116-107 BC) before he was ousted from power by his brother Alexander (Ptolemy X Alexander I 107-88 BC), who was later usurped by another ruler (Ptolemy IX Soter II 88-80 BC), for its exterior reliefs show Ptolemy XII Neos Dionysos (80-58 BC) smiting foes before Horus the Elder.
This site says:
Erected by Ptolemy IX (88-81 BC), the Pylon was one of the last features to be added. Standing 37m high, it is among the largest in Egypt. Its reliefs show a later Ptolemaic ruler, Neos Dionysos (Ptolemy VIII), smiting his enemies before Horus the Elder.
PIX ruled several times within his life which the 1st source quotes his first reign and the second his last. Regardless, no matter what the pylons would have been completed AFTER Ptolemy XII was born possibly even directly before he took power which he may have had a hand in the finishing touches.
And Jon says:
"The artwork was applied by a culture divorced from the original construction culture."
Pfft. What a maroon.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 03-Aug-17 21:54 by Thanos5150.