Dave L Wrote:
> I would consider Renfrew pretty free of your
> biases
That's interesting, as I am not opose to many theories Renfrew has. I simply disagree with
OCT and the theories of super cultures before Egypt.
I don't see why this means I possess biases.

>
> 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, they had symbolic ideas etc, but scholarship is still limited to what is visible and evident from material and textual remains.

>
> 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
>
Um, it doesn't not account for them, I don't know why you are stating that in the slitest.
>
> > 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
You have continously failed to show such influence on my thoughts.

> 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
>
Missplaced ones? That seems to be a rather strange term to use.
>
> The upside down argument made by Krupp was shows
> to be erroneous years ago. Even he accepted that

The idea that the pyramids do not match up to the Orion stars, because they bend the wrong way is still supported by many who oppose the idea of the OCT.

> 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

A) Quality of culture is a term that makes no sence here, and is really unscientific

The Mesoamericans had many more sites, and many more individual buildings than the Egyptians.

> 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?

See Trigger's book, sited before or.
Whittaker, John C. Flintknapping: Making and Understanding Stone Tools. Austin Tx: University of Texas Press, 1994.

The Egyptians worked stone for a long period beyond their development of metals. There are various finds of such things as scyth blades made of kapped stone to support this.

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

Except that to do this, there were periods they saw conquest as necessary.
They lacked the wheel until the Hyksos and they did not have as large an amount of metal weapons available to their armies.
>
> Nobody ever built anything comparible to Giza
> before the modern Era. That is exactly my point
>
How is something like Mohenjo-daro, Copan, Harappa, Tikal, or Oaxaca not comparable on scale or ability?