You have mentioned the word conspiracy in your post 12 times in the context of if being inapplicable to the information you supplied, blissfully unaware you are the source of the conspiracy theories.
Or that I mention it after the idea had been introduced. I have written an aweful lot of words so 12 times is not much. I think the idea has been mentioned by others way more.
But it doesn't matter. It was inevitable now it seems that such a thread like this would bring up such a word. I have to deal with that and that is what I am doing. Like I said in some ways this is actually redirecting things back to the point of the OP.
Which was about how we see the evidence and human history and the different worldviews where one is more orthodox and strictly by the rule book of material science and the other open to more transcedent knowledge. For which the orthodox and material worldview thinks conspiracy.
That we are debating the idea of conspiracy as opposed to 'real science' is philosophical.
People who engage in conspiracy theories ignore the evidence which contradicts the conspiracy or distort the evidence so it fits their worldview.
Yes and this can be exactly the same for those who claim to be siding with the evidence. Case in point, precision vases must be made by orthodox tools because thats whats in the records. Yet orthodox tools don't match the signatures. Oh thats right lets appeal to elbow grease which can mimick the evidence of machining.
Your conspiracy theory is Ramesses II forged Old Kingdom statues and monuments as proof the New Kingdom pharaohs couldn’t produce the same standards. The evidence however which you chose to ignore was a sizeable percentage of his works were original and the main victim of his forgeries was the 18th dynasty pharaoh Amenhotep III who lived 200 years beforehand and was clearly not an Old Kingdom pharaoh.
But this itself is based on whether the works he usurped from 200 years ealier were in fact works 200 years earlier. I am saying the whole 'whoever has his name on it' is the creator of the work is questionable. Some works have 2 or 3 nsames on it.
The basic premise is that apart from the pyramids all the works of the old kindom are in the hardest stones. Or at least the great ones that stand out with precision and quality. The issue is the orthodoxy of who is attributed the works along with the tools. The tools even if Ramesses II commissioned them don't match the signatures.
But we see this signature prevelent in the old kingdom where it seems to originate and maybe even earlier. They are the originators. The point is we could just about appreciate that some of these works came much later when the tools improved such as steel and the wheel. But the highest of quality and precision is coming from the old kingdom and maybe earlier. At a time not expected due to the primitive tools and knowledge.
An example of distorting the evidence is the find of a 6th dynasty granite obelisk which is considerable smaller and cruder than the 18th dynasty obelisks which you claim could only have been produced in the Old Kingdom.
Well I am not saying everything, I don't know. But this does not deny the quality and precision of the old kingdom works. I showed the precision vases, boxes and pillars to within 1,000th of an inch perfection. With machine marks on them.
We should be going by the highest quality for the level of knowledge and tech and I think the old kingdom is unsurpassed in that sense.
Why does the archaeological evidence show the opposite; shouldn’t the 6th dynasty granite obelisk have been of a similar standard to those attributed to Hatshepsut, Thutmose III and Ramesses II as they no longer possessed the technology of producing larger and more refined obelisks?
I don't know with some specific examples. Its not as if there was one quality for the old kingdom. The great works seem a specialised area among other less quality works. Its interesting that most of these old works almost belong to one family in a relative short time of around 200 years.
All I know is we see some of the best in the old kingdom and that this same signature is seen in works attributed to later dynasties. But it doesn't really matter as even what is claimed as new kingdom works don't match the knowledge and tech in the orthodox records.
The other question which arises how did Hatshepsut, Thutmose III and Ramesses II lacking this unknown technology and relying solely on Bronze Age chisels were able to erase the cartouche of the Old Kingdom pharaoh, carve their own and leave no evidence of tampering which according to your logic should have been impossible?
Easy, the old kingdom works mostly had no glyphs on them for whatever reason. But we can definitely see how the later glyphs are of a completely different signature to the work itself.
Why would a new kingdom pharaoh and especially Ramesses who bragged out his great works create such amazing precision and quality finish only to virtually scribble like a child all over it with crooked and unfinished lines. Why create a beautiful finish only to destroy the quality with a poorly finished cartouche.
I gave this example of what looks like childs scribble on precision made boxes at Saqqara. !00 ton precision and polished to perfection to within a 1,000th of an inch in all points of reference made in Diorite. Spoilt by some vandel chiseling what looks like a kid did it.
Why would a pharoah commission such perfection only to have it spoilt by crooked lines and poor quality work. More like a latter addition. There are only 3 of 10 or so boxes with scribble on them and this is how they are dated.
Or this rough and inferior cartouche from Ramesses II on a beautifully polished piece. See how even the creases and every knook and cranny is polished to perfection. Then along comes another pharoah who is suppose to have made it with the same tech and wrecks it.
This is a Hyksos Sphinx. As you can see the fine lines in the ribs and its polished to the point the Diorite shines which is hard to do. But notice the later inferior cartouche that has a completely different signature to the work itself. Like someone actually did use a primitive chisel. You would think this would have the same level of quality so as to not deminish the work itself if the creator was the same person.
Thats apart from the obvious stamps where a later pharoah has actually changed the previous glyphs into his own or even stamped a cartouche over existing works and spoiling it. See this reused obelisk has the glyphs verticle rather than how obelisk use horizontal glyphs. Ramesses is reusing an older work he found as a wall.
Another example where he stamps his cartouche right over the preexisting work. In this case covering a belt, knife and the fine engraved lines of the skirt. In fact this example has two pharoahs stamped on it.
The interesting thing is these granite statues are suppose to be of Ramesses. Why would he go to all that trouble to finely shape the belt, knife and pattern on the skirt to then destroy this with a cartouche over work that would have taken weeks to finely craft.
They usually reserve a space or don't do any work under the cartouche. This seems an obvious later addition over work that was already in existence and Ramesses has usurped it.
The other a blantant stamp across a larger work covering the original fine work. Always usurping the finest hard stone works. There are many of these examples and along with the signatures matching so well the old kingdom I don;t think we should be assuming the named stamped is the creator.
The other piece of evidence is that this is not just restricted to Egypt but seen all over the world. Its the accumulation of these out of place works that question the orthodoxy that its just the primitive tools in the records.
I could show you though I know you won't like it of many examples that are hard to explain with the traditional tools. Where what is claimed by pounding, splitting, copper sawing in no way resembles the signatures and in fact the signatures reflect advanced knowledge and tech.
This 8300–7500 cal. B.C obsidian bracelet which is around 10,000 years old has evidence of sophisticated turning. When the wheel was not even suppose to have been invented or had very simple applications. Let alone controlled machine like signatures.
Multi-scale tribological analysis of the technique of manufacture of an obsidian bracelet from Aşıklı Höyük (Aceramic Neolithic, Central Anatolia)
Discussion
Our study produced evidence for skilled work of the obsidian bracelet from Aşıklı Höyük. This evidence is:
* The choice of high quality obsidian
* The use of different movements and abrasive materials for making the bracelet
* The creation of a complex form and the control of symmetry during the shaping
* The near absence of manufacturing errors and the ability to deal with defects
Then there is your statement which is a rare example of consistency, the golden age of pyramid building lasted for around 80 years. The 6th dynasty pyramids were constructed at least 200 years after the Great Pyramid and vastly inferior in both size and quality. The pyramid cores were no longer composed of cut limestone blocks but limestone chips, sand and rubble held together by a gypsum and lime mortar.
If they could cut and figure granite in the 6th dynasty to a standard unobtainable in the 18th dynasty, why did they cease cutting limestone blocks for their pyramid cores which would have been considerably easier?
I don't know. Maybe they found the secret lol. I don't think it was laziness of lack of knowledge or tech. If the later dynasties could create works to the high level of the old kingdom then they had the same knowledge and tech.
But the question is as with the examples and evidence of widspread inherentence and reusing of older works and that the new kingdom sites once had oldkingdom sites and works on them. Its a question mark for at least some of these works being older. If you say the new kingdom actually usurped middle kingdom works then its a contradiction that the knowledge disappeared.
I just don't know but I am not going to assume that certain works belong to certain times because of a stamp on them. When the works that are stamped contain all the signatures of the old kingdom as shown already.
You are clearly a candidate for the Dunning Kruger effect, you can boast about arguing logically but the reality is there are gaping holes in your logic a truck can be driven through.
Your so called logic which is based on conspiracy theories does not stand up to scrutiny when compared to the archaeological evidence.
I don't think so. I think given the examples and evidence shown so far its clear there are out of place works and questions marks on their age. But basically forgetting all the times and who did what.
The fact is the very best of works is seen very, very early and possibly even pre dynastic that is on par if not better than later works. In a time when it should be a less quality and precision gradually improving to a higher level. Except we are seeing the complete opposite in these old kingdom works.