Martin Stower Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> “The bottom image was identified as a modern
> fake in an earlier discussion.”
>
> Really? Then you won’t mind linking to the
> discussion and showing us that the identification
> was evidenced, argued and other than mere
> assertion on your part.


The point is that the evidence that this inscription is contemporaneous with the construction of an OK pyramid is slim. I recall a post that claimed it resembled an 18th or 19th century AD art style (which implies a fake), and Hassan, himself, (doc pg. 58) acknowledges the contradiction and states that the inscription, which he found near a 12th Dynasty statue, resembles "modern" principles of perspective which would have been "unique" throughout ancient Egpyt:

"Near the spot where we found [a fine sandstone statue of a man, a Priest of the Goddess Sekhmet, of Memphis, whose name was Hotep...from the X l l t h Dynasty (2000-1788 B.C.], but not actually with it, were a number of small votive stelae, some of which were inscribed, and some bearing representations of the Sphinx. The most interesting of these shows the Sphinx and Pyramids, rendered in a manner which is unique in the history of Egyptian art, so far as I am aware (Fig. 12). It shows the Sphinx with the two largest pyramids in the background, and is drawn in accordance with modern rules of perspective, of which the Egyptians have always thought to have been ignorant."

So whether it was "fake" or "modern" or "unique in the history of Egyptian art", the point is that there's no indication that it's contemporaneous with any Dynastic pyramid construction at all, let alone Old Kingdom.




Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03-Feb-17 14:46 by Origyptian.