Origyptian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> There is virtually zero evidence supporting that
> notion and a lot that contradicts it, including
> the complete lack of evidence that the tools and
> methods existed to do that kind of work at that
> time, there isn't a single mention of those
> structures by the allegedly contemporaneous
> culture in any of its writings, and there is
> evidence that one or more of those monuments on
> Giza were already standing by the time a man named
> "Khufu" arrived during that time.

That's it in a nutshell. But if you say that two twos are four some people will respond they don't want to know what 2 x 2 is they want to know what 2 + 2 is.

OK, there's no evidence surviving from the 3rd millineum BC so why would anyone expect more from the 5th or 6th? There's one thing though and that is that there was far more water back in the earlier time. This is important for several reasons such as explaning why they'd build at all high up out of the Nile Valley and to explain the weathering on the Sphinx. It's apparent the pyramids were built with the weight of water and it's a virtual certainty the Ur Nile flowed in those days which might explain both the source and the pressure for water needed to lift stones and build.

All this water would make the Nile very difficult to cross and Giza was the northern most point that it could be crossed making it important economically and militarily.

This is precious little evidence but one needs precious little evidence to counter a speculative argument.

And now I'm in the same camp with Shoch.