Dave L Wrote:

> Yes, well part of the problem with the
> 'Anthropological' model approach is that it has
> based many of its models on the 'established'
> tendency critiques, and not the actual
> archaeological surveys and the conclusions of the
> excavators. You will not have come across this in
> the scholarship you are being exposed to however

But you feel free to site Renfrew?

I would consider Renfrew pretty free of your biases

>
> Well, these are special structures. They are not
> just a heap of stones by any means
I never said they were just heaps of stone, my origional post to this thread, was along the lines of why do people look at the pyramids and ancient Egypt and see the need for super creators, math knowledge we cannot say they had, and secret theories, such as OTC, when Egypt fits anthropoligcal models. that when coupled with archaeological evidence support their creation by Egyptians as tombs.

There's a bit of a grey area with Egypt (and some others as well) that is not covered with these models of yours and the anthropologists. They certainly had symbolic tradition they considered sacred that we cannot and should not ignore and which we do not fully understand. It is this thatis not appreciated with models and theories

> Yes, but this is a meaningless statement
No, this was my entire issue. It seems meaningless because its obvious, but people do it.

>
> Well this is ridiculous. The ECS does not exclude
> the possibility of the OCT at all, and the OCT was
> never proposed as an alternative to the ECS. The
> two have nothing on common beyond the fact they
> are TLAs (Three Letter Abbreviations) and could
> quite happily co-exist
The theories concerning Early Complex Societies allow for the construction of the pyramids without the secret 10000 BCE knowledge that is part of the OTC.

Oh dear. Your ECS models don't account for astronomical ceilings in funerary traditions either. It doesn't mean they are wrong though. I think your should look at the archaeology first, and the theory after

Additionally, if Egypt were somehow recipient of such ancient knowledge, its place in, and the status of all, Early Complex Socieites would be questionable, as they would certainly not be early by comparison.

No. Egypt was not the recipient of such knowledge. It was the creator of such knowledge

Finally, there really is no good evidence for the OTC, but that is another matter.

Listen Thadd, I've forgotten more about the OCT than you will ever know

> BTW I am aware of the history etc of anthropology,
> but that's like saying scientists are all open to
> being fooled because there have been scientific
> hoaxes and the basis of science is tied to things
> like alchemy.
>
Not all scholars are brainwashed by older theories. Blood letting is an old theory, but it is not secretly pushing scholars in some dirrection.

But there are influences you are evidently completely unaware of


> Thanks. I will read these and get back to this

No problem, the Trigger one is the most Egypt focused probably the most interesting theory between the three.

OK, I'll read it tomorrow what I am at the library

> Well, not only did you bring up your
> qualifications and then proceed to announce to
> everyone on the site that Egypt was not special,
> you then portrayed me critcised you for
> criticising me as "pseudohistorical bashing of
> people with real scholarly backgrounds".
This I would apologize for (the pseudohistorical) As I have said I missread your Renfrew point, and thought you were pointlessly bashing him as a scholar (though certain points you make about anthropologists still border on this). And this is pretty much a part of the definition some use for pseudohistory and pseudoarchaeology.

No, IMO I agree with Renfrew and most all of the top scholars. It's the misplaced ones I have problems with. That's what I quoted him as support for me

I did not boast my qualifications in this thread, I asked a question, I brought up my work in another thread, where I was specifically introducing myself.

OK, fine

>So that
> was specifically what required me to pull you up
> as slipping into arrogance somewhat. As for the
> OCT, until you have read the Pyramid Texts and
> understood the astronomical ceilings you will not
> have any basis for evaluating what is correct and
> what is not. It is a very complex issue, and even
> top Egyptologists have problems establishing what
> is correct and what is not, and there are several
> Top Egyptologists who post to this site.
The OTC has been shown to make little if any sence, especially since the pyramids do not actually mirror the belt of Orion, unless you turn the sky upside down. (And I have read some of the pyramid texts, because I disagree with a theory does not mean I am somhow underread).

The upside down argument made by Krupp was shows to be erroneous years ago. Even he accepted that

>
> Much Much later for the pyramids. As for the mask,
> I did say there were comparible metalworking skils
> elsewhere albeit on a smaller scale
Yes later, but they but relative to the begining of their early complex society, it is in the same sort of time period. Also note, this thread from the begining has been about Egypt's place when compared to other similar cultures.

Well, despite the fact they were much later, none of them achieved the same magnitude of construction as Egypt either, or the quality of sculpture

>
> >
> > Remember that while they built the highest
> man
> > made structures on earth, they were also
> using
> > stone tools to do most of their farming while
> the
> > Mesopotamians were moving on to metal
> implements
> > and they did not have the wheel until after
> the
> > Hyksos.
> >
> > Nonsense. The pyramids were build with
> hundreds of
> > tons of bronze saws manufactured and repaired
> for
> > the purpose. Their metal work really was
> second to
> > none, although yes the mesopotamians had
> > comparable metal craftsmanship albeit on a
> smaller
> > scale in the 3rd millenium B.C.
> I said farming implements. The use of metal in
> Egypt was largely controlled and restricted by the
> upper class/government. Whereas in Mesopotamia
> many people owned metalic implements and weapons.
>
>
> Well. You need to give specific facts here - I am
> not sure what/when you are talking about.

The Egyptians used primarily stone tools on a day to day basis. The metalic implements were largely state owned and distributed.

Do you have evidence for this assertion?

>
> Yes, at points, and they also dominated for long
> periods as well. If they had never lost we would
> still be under Pharaonic rule!

Well yes, but my point, is that they were not, on a large scale, succesful in much military conquest.

They were not conquerors. Egypt was their domain, and the survival of Egypt was their objective

> Yes, but you need to start being more specific,
> and not lumping a whole bunch of concepts under
> one 'tendency critique'. We know that's a flawed
> method
My entire point is why imagine that the Egyptians needed help, and other early complex societies could somehow build comparable monuments.

Nobody ever built anything comparible to Giza before the modern Era. That is exactly my point