Aine Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Whoever occupied Egypt even prior to the First
> Dynasty are by definition AE themselves. I don't
> think this is rocket science here.

Sure, of course. They are referred to as 'pre-Dynastic ancient Egyptians'.


> There are king
> lists that Egyptologists are happy to use when it
> supports them, but when those same lists talk
> about ancient kings before the unification, well,
> they call it myth and legend.

Which king lists are you specifically talking about? There is a difference between those inscribed at the Wadi and those in Manetho. If you mean the former, these are not considered 'myth and legend' by Egyptology. Do you have a citation for the specific persons who have said this, or are you just making it up? If you mean the latter, his list is most definitely part 'myth and legend'.


> Egyptian civilization didn't spring up out of
> nowhere. It can't have. It evolved over many, many
> years. The unification in c. 3100 BC implies that
> even at that early date North Africa had a
> substantial population and complex political
> structure.

That is correct.


> In short, they'd been there for quite some time.
> They didn't develop over night.
>
> They were AE.

Correct. And if you would like to be more exact, northeast Africa has been populated by homo sapiens for 100's of 1000's of years. Over time, the indigenous people developed/honed their culture both from within and with some external influences. This development and advancement in culture culminated in the c.3100 BCE unification of Egypt.


> I don't have a horse in this race

You replied. You have one in.

> but unless the
> Egyptologists can come up with a contemporary
> document that shows definitively that Giza was
> built c. 2500 BC, then their entire timeline is
> subject to scientific scrutiny no matter how much
> they want to circle the wagons.

You think it requires a contemporary document to suggest a time frame? That, and only that? You mean any other cultural artifacts, buildings, etc are irrelevant to dating ancient people? Only documents can suggest a time frame? Please don't invoke 'science' when you clearly don't understand the idea of contextual reasoning.

> You demand such evidence from anyone who disagrees
> with you, but can't produce the same level of
> evidence.

Strawman BS, Aine. Sorry, it is.

I am not demanding evidence just because someone disagrees with me. This mischaracterizes my reason(s) for demanding evidence. I demand it because claims require it.

And this mantra of saying evidence is never produced suggesting the AEs built the pyramids is childish in the extreme: artifacts, writings, pottery, buildings, archaeo-astronomy, etc ... millions of individual pieces of things taken from the ground and corroborated with context and scrutiny tell us with pretty darn good logic the AEs built the pyramids. It is asked, it is given. Then it's trumpeted, "Give us the evidence!", then it is given, and around-and-round you go. It is annoying to the ends of the galaxy people keep saying there is nothing whatsoever when in fact there is. If you don't think so, then how can you have made this statement at the start of your post:

Quote

Aine Wrote:

"> Whoever occupied Egypt even prior to the First
> Dynasty are by definition AE themselves. I don't
> think this is rocket science here."

AND

"> Egyptian civilization didn't spring up out of
> nowhere. It can't have. It evolved over many, many
> years. The unification in c. 3100 BC implies that
> even at that early date North Africa had a
> substantial population and complex political
> structure."

See? What material evidence makes you think people 'occupied Egypt even prior to the First Dynasty', and that knowing so is not 'rocket science'? What material evidence did you employ to determine 'Egyptian civilization didn't spring out of nowhere'? On what grounds do you state there was a 'unification in c.3100 BCE'? That 'North Africa had a substantial population and complex political structure'?

Hmm?

According to you and your ideas of evidence, where is your evidence to say such things, Aine? Well, we know the answer don't we? Because there is archaeological evidence showing us Egypt was 'occupied prior to the First Dynasty'; there is evidence showing us Egypt 'didn't spring from nowhere'; there is evidence to suggest a 'unification in c.3100 BCE; there is evidence 'North Africa had a substantial population and complex political structure'.

Spare us your ballooned hypocrisy, please and thank you.