> From what I know of Old Kingdom Egyptian pyramid
> construction, each attempt logically follows a readily
> recognizable progression of concept, technique and refinement
> from Saqqara through Giza’s Great Pyramid.
There may well be other similarities that are not recognized or even visible such as each pyramid being composed of five steps or most pyramids being built over existing natural or artificial structure. These other similarities could be of far more importance to the reason or means they were built. I believe Drew is of the opinion that a better understanding of when they were built would yield information about why. But in any case our knowledge of any similarities is almost strictly superficial. Even that they were all tombs is hardly established fact yet is assumed by most people.
> Given the inherent mysticism of the evolutionary ancient
> Egyptian belief system, the eventual adoration of Imhotep, in
> that his cult blossomed subsequently some 500 years later,
> would arguably be akin to a similar adulation of Michelangelo
> or Nostradamus in our time, were we systemically so inclined.
> To rely solely on Imhotep’s architectural accomplishments, for
> his contemporaneous and historical significance, would be
> ‘selling short’ the nascent nature of his known endeavors.
I don't believe there's any real evidence that the ancients were "mystical" at all. Until something they built or something they said is understood I think the term "enigmatic" would be more accurate. That Imhotep was elevated to a sort of "sainthood" certainly says something about Imhotep but it says far more about those who came to consider him so important. That he is remembered as a very learned man implies these people considered knowledge to be valuable and respectable. One has to suspect they considered Imhotep important to their culture or way of thinking.
> The ages of these structures substantially ‘fit’ with the more
> recent studies conducted on dynastic kingship chronologies,
> corresponding comfortably with said edifices.
I'd agree that it's unlikely the Great pyramid itself could possibly have been built much earlier than 4000 BC and probably closer to 2750 BC but what of any structure subsumed by G1?
I don't understand why people believe this was a greenfield site when constructiuon began. There is evidence everywhere the this exact location was demanded by some unknown. Whether it was dictated by the stars of Orion's belt or a magnetic field or a million other possibilities is mostly guesswork. Perhaps they really were mystical and this was the only spot Khufu's ka could return each day.
Whatever the reality it's going to require a great deal more data than is getting collected to determine.
> I, too, share your interest in the entrance gable of the Great
> Pyramid. Are you fully convinced that the
> mounds” are genuinely synchronous with the original
> construction? Have you considered that what is now visible may
> be the product of early exploration/exploitation attempts,
> either through discovery/treasure hunting or intentional
It is interesting as well as are the symbols. I imagine it was something fundamental to building but easily forgotten so they inscribed it to remind all the builders. I imagine they both "say" the same thing; one for illiterates and one for those who could read.