Right. Symbolism was established in Egypt based on an enormous amount of extremely gaudy art everywhere, except in G1, where its thought that they took a turn towards the secretive and extremely subtle. So considering how prevalent it was all over the place, there simply had to be something resembling symbolism in the G1 for it to be included in that dynastic period.

Its always felt like a stretch to me, back to the Occam's deal. I'd say the argument of G1 being a tomb based on the sarcophagus is a far less challenging leap. But then this particular subject has probably been batted back and forth for a long time, and I'm not up on all the key points of that argument, so I won't attempt to take you on with that.

But considering my perspective of 'caution' towards that interpretation from an almost total ignorance about that line of thinking, maybe you can send me down a rabbit hole on the main arguments about that part that would take the 'stretch' or 'leap' feel off of it for me, with some helpful links or something.