> In other words, still no evidence that they
> were constructed in the 3rd
> millennium BC.
As predicted. Despite the fact this is not true and you know it, this is not the question being asked yet time and again you refuse to provide any actual evidence to back your claims instead choosing to play the same tired games. Good for you.
> I do see a growing doubt in both the tomb
Where? How it it growing? Can you give any source to support this claim?
> as well as a 3rd millennium BC
Or this one?
> as more recent reassessments are made
> of the veracity of conclusions
By who? Who is making these "recent reassessments" that would constitute a "growing body" of any kind? I have a guess.
> drawn by early
> investigators (security mechanisms,
Promoted here by you.
> problematics of applying associative context to
> determine provenance),
Promoted here by you.
> and also new investigations
> (Baalbek, Goblekli, Eastern Desert harbors,
> Peruvian Andes),
Can you cite any "new investigations" of Baalbek that have added to this "growing body"? And keep in mind that many have talked about this long before you started vapidly droning on about it, as if you were the first to raise such questions in which many of us here, including myself, do not agree the foundations were built by the Romans. But I suppose you would't know that would you?
Can you cite any "new investigations" of Gobekli Tepe that suggests anything other than it was made by humans c. 9,000BC?
"Eastern Desert harbors"?? Lol. Holy ___ balls. Ultimately what I was driving at as obviously your whole "growing body of evidence" BS is only in your mind, but I didn't think you were that delusional to actually include the harbors as an example when you know full well this is all you, roundly rejected, unknown by anyone beyond this forum. Why don't you throw Mons Caudianus in there again while you're at it (which you have in the past) or the idea the AE didn't even understand the pyramids were man-made until the Greeks came along.
The fact is, as was already obvious and why I asked, is that all of these "recent reassessments" which you claim constitutes some kind of "growing body of evidence" is all in your mind. Have you ever even read a book by an alternative author? Or actually listened to what anyone here has to say?
I ask you for any evidence of this "growing body of evidence" and the only person you cite is yourself? Lol. Very weird.
> not to mention that no additional
> evidence has surfaced since the publications you
> cited, which only further amplifies the tenuous
> nature of those old notions.
And yet everything that has been discovered since actually does as it contributes to the greater context of AE stoneworking and culture within this period, yet by the same token not one spec of evidence has been discovered since to contradict the fact the pyramids were built after the 4th millennium. Funny how that works.
And given the fact you haven't even read any of these books what is it do you actually think has been discovered or not since then? Its all new to you.
> But regardless of whether you agree the body of
> evidence against those notions is growing or not,
Where is there any room for "disagreement" as you either have sources to back up your claims or you don't? Which insanely all you have to offer is yourself and your thousands of posts repeating the same things over and over again. If this is your evidence of your as-yet-undefined "higher standard of proof" then I guess this means there is a "growing body of evidence" pyrmaids were built using geysers as well.
> there remains insufficient evidence to
> characterize an OK provenance
Not true. And again by the same token zero evidence, "insufficient" or otherwise, to "characterize" a provenance outside the Dynastic period.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02-Jan-17 14:44 by Thanos5150.