Thadd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Joanne Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Fine, but you are the one who said they were
> older
> > and stated it as a fact. If you believe that,
> then
> > that's enough to explore a connection.
>
> There is a difference between positing something,
> and having it actually be in a comparable and
> usable context.
> In this case, it is one thing to say that the PTs
> may be as old as fourth dynasty, it is another to
> attempt to use them as proof of thinking during
> the fourth dynasty.

You didn't say they "may be as old as fourth dynasty." You said they are older. Also, unless you have a good reason for suspecting a major change in thinking, there's no particular reason not to use them to consider thinking in the fourth dynasty.

> > That depends on whether or not you buy
> Krupp's
> > argument. It's been debated for years
> around
> > here, though I think many old files have
> > disappeared. Not everyone agrees on the
> > Krupp-side down.
>
> Well, it's either one or the other, they match up
> perfectly or they don't, they are upside down or
> they aren't.

It's not so clear cut. There are differing opinions.

> Clearly, even Bauval's images of them make it
> clear they are upside down.

I'm not going to rehash all the old arguments, but they are only upside down if you buy Krupp's argument.

> > The OCT went through a number of
> incarnations. The
> > original theory did not call for such an
> early
> > date. The LC thing with the very early date
> went
> > off the deep end.
>
> Without that early date they don't match up in
> position.

I think you should read the OCT if you want to discuss it. The early date is not necessary.