Chris Tedder Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> It depends what "little" evidence means. If its
> buildings, then little evidence exists - for one
> simple reason - ancient Iunu lies under the
> Matariya district of Cairo - the only surviving
> obelisk dates from the Middle Kingdom, Dyn 12,
> Senwosret.


Absolutely.


>
>
> However, either Iunu existed before Dyn 5 or it
> did not, but as Rahotep was 'Great Seer of Iunu',
> this is obviously explicit textual evidence that
> Iunu did exist already early Dyn 4 and most
> probably in Dyn 3, as Imhotep was also 'Great
> Seer'.




Hold on there. Being the "Great Seer of Iunu" was not necessarily the same thing as being "The Great Seer". This probably only referred to a peson who was allowed into the innermost sanctuary of a god's temple, where he could "See the Great One". The grammar on that name also changed over time, so one has to be very careful how it is interpreted and compared. There is no way we can extrapolate backwards to Imhotep on that one.



>
> Also a summary of the contents written on the
> outside of a Dyn 3 beer jar that may have once
> held papyri, reads: "Year of: The Following of
> Horus; 11th occasion of the count of the herds of
> Iunu" This was discovered in 1981 at Abw, and is
> textual evidence for Iunu already in Dyn 3, so
> again here is explicit textual evidence that Iunu
> existed before Dyn 5.


That is one item, really, that predates Dynasty IV.



>
>
> Explicit textual evidence dated to the era in
> question is "much" evidence, so why is this a
> problem for you - Iunu existed or it did not
> before Dyn 5, and it most certainly did before Dyn
> 5, as the evidence clearly shows.



You have provided exactly one inscription from Dynasty III. A beer jar, possibly holding scrolls.

You have provided exactly one inscription from Dynasty IV, a priestly title.


The Priestly Title is the important one, since the inscription on the beer jar could just be a reference to a village that had cattle.

I think it is "solid" evidence, but I would not say it is "much" evidence. The word "much" implies a large quantity, as opposed to a single find of substantial quality, which is what we have in the priestly title from Dynasty IV. You can't be a priest of a town without a temple.

Thank you for clarifying.


Anthony

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.