> Origyptian Wrote:
> Thanos: Explain how is placing the provenance
> of the Khufuankh sarcophagus within the OK an
> "assumption" and how were the methods used to
> determine this not "scientifically valid?
> > In truth, I just don't see how it qualifies as
> > having provenance in the OK in the first place.
> You can suggest the sarcophagus itself predates
> the OK and was repurposed, but there is no doubt
> this "repurposing" was done in the OK. Hopefully
> you can understand that and why.
Yes, of course. But by "provenance" I inferred "original creation" and not when it was repurposed for a funerary purpose. Sorry about the ambiguity.
> > I don't accept the Kings List as indicating sequence
> > of construction since the lists themselves have
> > plenty of contradictions, and the assignment of
> > kings to each monument establishes a contrived
> > context which could easily be based on mere
> > adaption.
> The contradictions are inconsequential to the
> greater context and as a whole are in general
> agreement regardless.
The "greater" context "as a whole" is comprised of many small amendments to the tenets which slowly add up, such as King's lists, stray stones in the rubble that contain engravings, and other sundry findings, all of which have been assembled "as a whole" into a "greater" context. But from my chair it's all contrived from cherry picked findings that are subject to ambiguous interpretations while ignoring the contradictory physical evidence. This has been debated ad nauseam, so let's not rekindle that here.
> The king lists are
> irrelevant as to what is the OK and what is not
> therefore OK provenance can be solely derived
> archaeologically despite who the king lists say
> ruled when. Just because the king lists quibble
> over the minutia of the order of rulers does not
> change the archeological context of the OK meaning
> that because of these minor discrepancies
> therefore the OK can somehow be placed before the
> 1st Dynasty ect. This is nonsense.
Is the Kings list irrelevant to the Giza pyramid sequence?
> > I disagree with your characterization of "merely"
> > and "overwhelming".
> The fact it is made of granite is the only
> reason you suggest it was not made in the OK so I
> think this qualifies as "merely".
First of all, let's not say "it" since such stonework is all over the place and not in just a single instance. However, even if it was a single instance, it still needs to be reconciled within the limited technology generally accepted to be the case in the OK. So I don't see this as a "mere" contradiction despite your effort to minimize it.
> And as far as "overwhelming OK provenance", at the
> Giza cemeteries where this sarcophagus is found,
> the evidence of OK provenance is indeed
You keep using that word "provenance" differently than I do. I agree the "cemeteries" were used in the OK for a funerary purpose. But there is no firm evidence that puts their original construction during the OK, and even if they were indeed created during the OK, that does not necessarily require that the pyramids were built during that same time vs. built far earlier, adapated by a later culture, reinterpreted to have a funerary purpose, thereby warranting the creation of surrounding cemeteries. In other words, I am not as convinced as you seem to be that those "cemeteries" were originally built as cemeteries. I allow for the possibility of a repurposing by a later culture. Obviously, the dating of the Giza sequence falls apart under such a model.
> There is nothing for you to
> "disagree" with. There are several hundred
> mastabas and tombs on the Giza plateau and with
> the exception of a relative few, most after the
> fact, every single one is directly related to OK
> provenance. This does not mean the entirety of all
> the structures there date to this period, but the
> only people of which we find any evidence of
> clearly do.
Why do you assume their original purpose was necessarily to house anything having to do with humans?
> So for you to say all at Giza was the
> work of a lost civilization what this means is
> that people exclusively from the OK moved in and
> took the whole place over down to just about the
> last mastaba and removed all evidence of any prior
> cultural existence "lost" or otherwise. I would
> say this qualifies as "overwhelming".
When people move into an existing house do they keep artifacts there from the previous family or do they clear out everything and load the house up with their own stuff?
I know people who not only remove any speck of dust from the previous owners, they also scrub the place down, set off a few bug bombs, lay down new carpets, install new kitchens and bathrooms, etc., even redo the surrounding landscaping, before moving in on Day 1.
To claim that an adaption society wouldn't clear out all the useless artifacts and keep all the useful artifacts from the previous residents and repurposed is what seems "overwhelming" to me, just as it's overwhelming to assume the previous civilization woudn't take everything of value with them when they left. Let's agree to disagree on that one.
> There is a small amount of evidence at Giza which
> directly or circumstantially suggests an earlier
> dynastic presence, but nothing beyond the
> historical period of the Dynastic era itself. I do
> beleive it possible a population existed in the
> area responsible for the Sphinx and associated
> temples et al that may have predated dynastic
> Egypt, but as said numerous times before a
> population sufficient enough to build the
> pyramids, 100's of mastabas, pave the place, make
> boat pits ect, ect just is not there.
If you feel that strongly about it, then the onus is on your shoulders to explain how such massive construction projects could have been accomplished by early bronze age primitives.
> No amount of OK "squatters" could remove such a presence
> entirely from existence nor absorb the culture as
> to be otherwise indistinguishable from their own
> not to mention as you would have it to apply no
> different to the whole of Egyptian history
> wherever these is a big block, statue or piece of
First of all, you really have no basis for making that statement because you don't know how long ago those buildings were constructed or how many civilizations passed through there with a firey passion to eradicate the earlier civilization. Secondly, there is plenty of evidence still remaining from the earlier civilizations, and that evidence is simply the construction they left behind that the later civilization either found useful or indestructable. The rest was destroyed or disassembled for building components used elsewhere.
Suffice to say, I am not as quick as you are to write off that possibility. As you said, let's not rekindle this old argument here.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11-Apr-16 00:07 by Origyptian.