> Martin Stower Wrote:
> > And of course this lost civilisation, for all of
> > its technical accomplishments, was (conveniently)
> > preliterate and apictorial, so no distinctive
> > inscriptions and no depictions (in carved relief)
> > of itself may be expected.
> Correct why carve inscriptions into stone?
A survey of the many civilisations (including our own) which actually do or have done this may suggest an answer or two.
Sophisticated planning and organisation of labour on a large scale do tend to go with literacy and the use of pictures (diagrams).
> > Why, even the corrosion products of its ferrous
> > tools have been swept away—and of course these
> > tools were (conveniently) purely ferrous, with no
> > more durable components: no composites, odd when
> > stoneworking is the function credited to them.
> Even the most durable modern man made materials
> have a very limited life. We can slow down the
> process of degradation but we cannot halt it. We
> have no idea what tool materials were used.
Our knowledge of the physical world (materials possible and materials worked on) provides no idea?
> > No surviving sign of the infrastructure supporting
> > these tools: no remnants of its power-distribution
> > grids, no sign of its (doubtless advanced and
> > extensive) mining of iron ore.
> All produced using man made materials therefore
> totally gone.. Dust.
Sorry, which is it? Totally gone, or dust? Dust with determinate characteristics. Petrie nailed this one long since:
Iron working is an important subject in the history of culture, and the appearances of this metal in Egypt are curiously sporadic. The notion, often suggested, that it might rust away and disappear, is absurd; nothing is more permanent and noticeable than iron rust. . . . [The Arts & Crafts of Ancient Egypt]
> > And of course it didn’t bury its dead or provide
> > them with any durable or recognisable memorial.
> Probably not. Why should they?
Because most human cultures do?
You wouldn’t be saying something implausible and silly here, would you?
> > No sign of its settlements, detritus, impact on
> > the environment.
> Are you referring to the notion that the OK AE
> constructed the great pyramid?
> > Unlike, in short, any civilisation we know
> > of—but then that’s the point, isn’t it?
> You are claiming that the 4th AE are responsible
> and somehow managed to leave no archaeological
> record of their tools techniques and engineering..
No, I’m not claiming this. You’re claiming it and imputing the claim to me.
> What is the difference?
Could it be that we have ample evidence of dynastic Egypt and no evidence at all (and no possibility even in principle of evidence) of your posited “lost” civilisation?
> You say the 4th AE built and left no trace
Which, if you think about it, is self-contradictory (which is one reason I don’t say it).
> I disagree in that if these construction projects
> had occurred just 4500 years ago there would be
> ample evidence in the archaeological record.
Perhaps you should look for it harder.
> > The civilisation posited is an unknown and
> > unknowable one—which may leave some
> > wondering if there is any reason at all to
> > believe in it.
> Not necessarily unknowable. Not necessary to
Provide us with some knowledge of it, then.
> All of your arguments can equally by used to argue
> against 4th dynasty provenance.
No, they can’t. Try reading them again. We have ample evidence of there being a pharaonic civilisation and ample evidence of there being (what’s classified as) the 4th dynasty of that civilisation. We have their burials, settlements, inscriptions. We have some (not complete) knowledge of their technics, including their system of measurement.
Not so with your posited “lost” civilisation.
> Where is the necessary 4th dynasty industrial
> infrastructure that somehow disappeared without
> trace while simultaneously preserving a mountain
> artistic and cultural artifacts??
Whatever problem there may be with the 4th dynasty is turned up to infinity with your posited “lost” civilisation. There is no evidence of it.
> > As a theory, ancient astronauts has the advantage
> > here. At least we can say that they took their
> > technology away with them.
> > M.
> How long do you think that man made artifacts made
> of anything other than stone can survive without
> Stainless steel, alloys, plastics,??
Nihil ad nihilum fit. Nothing becomes nothing. Nothing is annihilated. These things leave decomposition products, as outlined above in the case of iron.
And of course they (conveniently) used no stone at all in their vanished infrastructure, even with it being so very durable and their having (ex hypothesi) no problem at all in working it.
> Again, every unthinking knee jerk argument you
> made can be equally applied to the 4th AE.
> No tools, no technology, no engineering, no
> adequate infrastructure.
No knee-jerk argument and your statements are false. Clearly that dynasty had a stoneworking technology, if only the evidence of the inscriptions is considered—and no adequate infrastructure is weak. The correct comparison is an infrastructure versus no evidenced infrastructure at all. Agricultural surplus, the resources of a nation, a hierarchy, a bureaucracy, writing combined with use of pictures, the rudiments of mathematics, a system of measurement—the requirements of large-scale planning, large-scale organisation of labour and ambitious architecture.
> With one major difference, they didn't have
> degradation through the passage of TIME on their
This is the nearest you have to an argument.
> 20 to 30 thousand years. No problem. Everything
> gone.. Dust..
Yeah, right, “dust” again. This a technical term? Dust of the right kind is evidence. Care to show us some?
> Of course with the exception of natural stone.
Says you. I don’t buy it. Ancient astronauts remain the better explanation.