HI Anthony,


> > I don't really think in dynasties. Using
> dynasties
> > is a fake classification, which the AEs never
> use,
> > as you well know. As to being end of the 5th
> or
> > beginning of the 6th, well.... the difference
> is
> > one year, isn't it? Or for example, mid 4th
> to
> > beginning of 5th is only 50 years i.e. one
> > generation only.
>
>
> umm... that's two generations...lol.


I guess that depends whether you are talking about royals or pyramidbuilders hauling stone. In the case of the former, I don't agree with you, but in the latter case I agree completely.


> > Had the beliefs changed, the certainly
> > we would see that on the Palermo Stone, eh?
>
> No.
>
> There's no reference to other beliefs changing on
> the stone.

Yes there is. If you look at the records, you can quite clearly see how Iunu became important during the 5th and 6th dynasties. Just for example.



Why should a later copy (which is what
> the Palermo stone is, in effect) reflect anything
> but what they thought the beliefs should always
> have been?


If the later dynasties, when copying the Turin Canon, had inserted their own beliefs into the yearly counts and the order of the kings, then certainly we would see other kind of things on the Canon. More of Ra, for example, and certainly mentions of Osiris.


>
> Great historical revisionists, those ancient
> Egyptians....


Yes, they were. But I am not talking about Seti's kings list here, but a record that obviously was striving for historical accuracy. Or that's what the specialists ay about it, seen that it is so different from other records. To generalise anything in AE is very dangerous, Anthony.
Question: if the Palermo Stone mentioned Khnum during the 3rd and 4th dynasties, would you be more willing to give it historical signifiance?





Ritva