How do we know that Amenhotep’s original cartouche makes it his. Just like Ramesses who reused other pharoahs stuff.
Anyway you must have missed that I pointed out that even if it was from the middle kingdom it is still knowledge and tech beyond the capabilities of the tools on record. The whole Egyptian era has amazing works but especially early on is amazing.
You are really scraping the bottom of the barrel to the point of absurdity.
Ramesses II usurped over a 100 statues and numerous monuments of Amenhotep III and by an amazing coincidence all of these were from the Old Kingdom which Amenhotep had also usurped??
What the actual evidence tells us is Amenhotep may have usurped some Middle Kingdom statues and from his great-grandfather Thutmose III.
I will ask you again given you went into detail the act of usurpation leaves tell-tale signs, explain how obelisks attributed to Hatshepsut, Thutmose III and Ramesses II are from the Old Kingdom when there is no evidence of erasure of the original pharaoh’s identity?
But this is what I did not want which was to get bogged down in specific examples and lose track of the overall point. Which was on a global scale of knowledge and tech that we see very early and well advanced for what we consider for that time and the primitive tools. Along with other evidence such as exeperiences and the stories told by the very people.
You don't get make a ridiculous claim the New Kingdom accomplishments in granite is based on lying pharaohs and not expect a refutation of this nonsense.
If the evidence points to what you say and I have not checked then it is what it is. I am not trying to force any conspiracy or deny there was amazing works later. Just questioning the signatures that don't match the tools even if thats later dynasties.
Actually there is little inscriptions on works from the old kingdom. Thats why it was like an open invitation to usurp these works I think.
Not if there were no old kingdom inscriptions on the old kingdom works to begin with.
So now you are making things up or to put it less diplomatically being dishonest.
Do I need to remind in your very link the discovery of the 6th dynasty granite obelisk stated “
There is an inscription on one side of the obelisk, with what seems to be the beginning of the titles and the name of Queen Ankhnespepy II.”
Queen Ankhnespepy II was a Queen of the 6th dynasty pharaoh Pepy I.
Once again how did Hatshepsut, Thutmose III and Ramesses II leave no tell-tale signs of erasing these Old Kingdom inscriptions on obelisks?
OK fair enough. If its the evidence then you need to explain the out of place works. My whole point is that we see the same level if not better than the middle or new kingdom works in old kingdom ones. Its the time factor. It may be concievable that later works could be managed with later knowledge and tech such as the use of steel and the wheel.
But what we see in the old kingdom has none of this. It is more or less out of nowhere and even superior to the later works without any modern help.
We have not even begun to look at the entire evidence all over the world for out of place works. There are too many pointing to advanced knowledge an tech well beyond what we thought to be explained by chisels and pounders.
By focussing on the subject of obelisks not only are 18th dynasty obelisks vastly superior to their Old Kingdom counterparts but equally telling are your counterarguments based on being contradicted by your own links and resorting to a grand conspiracy theory of New Kingdom pharaohs engaging in widespread fraud would make Apollo landing denialists proud.
As I pointed out which is something you also have ignored that the tech involved in some of these works like the vases is beyond craftmanship. In some ways its almost a conspiracy to keep claiming its sheer freehand craft to explain this. Its actually saying that freehand craftsmen some how felt and by sight alone shaped in 3D what mtaches in signatures to what we call controlled machine precision tool making.
They happened to be able to blindly guess within microns all the relational angles to all points of the works, and match almost perfectly geoometry by luck.
Art and crafts is not techincal precision tool making. It would be like getting an artist to make a precision tool for NASA parts freehand and get it near perfect. Happening once maybe it was luck. But even then its impossible because it goes beyond luck getting so many relational points correct.
The signatures match some sort of advanced lathing with a fixed point cutter able to remain steady and produce such a 3D signature. That is well beyond what ancient Egyptians tools in the records.
What a profoundly ignorant bigoted statement directly against craftsmen.
I suggest you go back to the relevant thread, not only is there is zero evidence of micron accuracy as nothing has been peer reviewed but there is also a provenance issue as there is no evidence the samples tested by your youtuber conspiracy theorists were even predynastic vases.
You have to remember that I am not disputing that there were great works later. The whole Egytian period is amazing for that time. It stands out and anyone admits that.
My point is that we see a level of knowledge and tech in the earliest dynasties full stop, that are out of place, fullstop. That don't match the tools on record, fullstop. All the debate on individual pieces whether they are old, new or middle kingdom does not change this fact.
It doesn't mean that because later works are just as good that somehow this proves old kingdom works must have been made by the traditional tools. This is the arguement I think you are trying to make. That the old kingdom works are just everyday works all made by the same method which is the orthodox tools and methods on record. Therefore the old works are nothing out of the ordinary.
Let me ask. Do you think that the signatures in the old kingdom works can be explained by the orthodox methods claimed. I think it was yourself who even identified that cuts in the granite was made by a modern tool like a circular saw due to its signature.
Can you say that the other signatures that cause us to come to the same conclusion of modern signatures that these are all actually modern forgeries and that there are no actual signatures that cause you to question that they were done with the primitive toos on record.
I can understand why you get up the noses of so many posters, the issues have been discussed and HAVE BEEN DONE TO DEATH.
If don’t understand the answers, have the memory of a goldfish or in pure denial node that’s your problem.
Your argument is based on personal incredulity, has no supportive evidence and ignores the evidence which contradicts your conspiracy theory.
