fmetrol Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In the Abydos area where Khasekhemwy boats have
> been excavated is a mud brick enclosure which has
> been described as a pre-cursor to Djosers complex.
> In fact David O'Connor considers this complex and
> the boats to be the origin of the pyramids.
>

Being the origin of the Djoser complex does not necessarily equate to being the origin of the pyramid. Remember... the Djoser complex started as a mastaba complex.

> So here we are talking about the end of the 2nd
> dynasty.


But we're still not talking about pyramids. You're making a false connection here. Of course Djoser's complex would mimic earlier complexes... that's the Egyptian way. However, the pyramid was the new element. Finding a new element in an old style complex does not immediately make the new element old.


>
> All of the undated pyramids from Seila to el-Kula
> are simply described as "possibly being" 3rd
> dynasty * which is totally acceptable to
> archaeology because pyramids without burials are a
> worry which is what I originally wrote.


They're not a worry at all.

Huni's pyramid at Elephantine is just a fact. It certainly isn't his tomb, and I know of no Egyptologists who give it a second thought.




>
> There is nothing there to strengthen your position
> so there is little need to create a new subthread
> headed "Once again".
>


Frankly, I see no evidence, again, to support your contention that the mini-pyramids be taken out of their Third Dynasty context. We have no tombs for these kings, and we have pyramids with no kings specifically designated. We have a construction concept that post-dates Djoser and pre-dates Huni, and we have kings that post-date Djoser and pre-date Huni with no tombs.

You're going to have to come up with something solid to take them away from their accepted Dynasty III.



> * Baines and Malek - Atlas of Ancient Egypt..




Anthony

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