Hermione Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MJ Thomas Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > "...and therefore it is simply not an
> important
> > question."
> >
> > In other words: if you don't know the answer,
> then
> > ignore the question.
>
> Well, I don't think that's necessarily quite so,
> MJ ... What I understood Anthony to be saying was
> that, if other technological methods had been
> used, then there would surely be evidence of them.
> (Although I suppose that it could be argued that
> there might have been evidence that just didn't
> make it into the archaeological record ... )
>



Actually, that misses the mark by a smidge as well.

What I'm saying is that IF there was another method used, and yet there is no apparent impact of this other method on the culture, religion, beliefs or history of the culture in any meaningful way, then the method/technology used is simply not important.

For example, we have multiple scenes/reliefs/paintings across nearly all of Egyptian history showing people baking bread in strange, conical shaped "pots". We even have the existence of these pots confirmed by Lehner in his recent excavations of the village of the workers at Giza. The question remains, though... why were they shaped like cones? Doesn't that make them incredibly difficult to handle and store, since they don't have a bottom on which they can be set? We can probably answer this question by doing experiments with the different shaped pots, and maybe even make some startling revelation about the ancient Egyptians' knowledge of baking technology... but it won't change anything meaningful regarding what we know of the culture. It's just a flukey little thing they did.

It's definitely not a "don't know/don't ask" policy. It's a "Does it make enough of a difference to our understanding of Egypt to warrant time and resources to research it?" policy.

Anthony

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