Archaeologica.org

Min, hmmmm, min (fish god), minnow (fish), Minoa (state), anyway.

Min, do you think the amount of rainfall lessened significantly when the "Old Kingdom" demised?

Minimalist wrote:Most of what we know about AE comes from Egyptian sources, Harte. Do they prominently write their disasters on the temple walls? Of course not, neither does G. W. Bush. Still, we do have records which indicate when things were not going so well.

Or even when things are going well. The "Pharoah's Helicopter" glyphs at Dendera are a quick example that comes to my mind. Egyptians were constantly scratching out one king's name for another more recent one, save money and glorify the king that's looking over your shoulder at the same time. You know, the one that holds the whip at the time.

Minimalist wrote:The bible-thumpers overlook them when they make the argument that the Egyptians (but never the "Israelites") lie about their history. Of course, when the bible-thumpers think they can make a case for the Exodus narrative in Egyptian records they do not hesitate to trot out those same texts that they earlier swore did not exist.

I think I already said as much, and I know I already said I agreed with you on this.

Harte

Genesis Veracity wrote:How 'bout the heavy water erosion of the limestone of the Sphinx quarry, the Valley Temple, and the Osirion?

And do you really think that powerful and majestic "Old Kingdom" Egypt could have flourished in that desert environment which it is today?

When I said evidence, I meant evidence. See, such erosion can just as easily be explained by back-dating the construction of the things that display it. Not saying that I agree with that, but my feeling is that there needs to be more confirmation of whatever wet periods there have been at Giza before we jump off the deep end of the sphinx controversy based on the water erosion argument. IOW, pretty much what you said in your previous post. What I mean by that is archaeoclimatological, not archaeological, evidence.

Harte

Harte, previously you said that you agree with the conventional timeline, so now you don't, or now you are undecided?

Harte, how can you establish an archaeoclimatological date if you don't have a date on the ground? You're trying to squirm away.

Genesis Veracity wrote:Harte, previously you said that you agree with the conventional timeline, so now you don't, or now you are undecided?

At this point, I have to agree with something like the traditional date, just like I said. Pending further evidence. Keep in mind that the generally accepted date for sphinx construction is itself based on very slim evidence, at least so far.

Genesis Veracity wrote:Harte, how can you establish an archaeoclimatological date if you don't have a date on the ground? You're trying to squirm away.

The same way they arrived at the date for the wet period Schoch ascribes his water erosion to. Scientifically.

No, I'm not squirming, it's just that you sounded so sure about the climatological conditions at Giza during the early dynastic period, and what you think is at odds with what experts (somewhat) agree on. So I wondered if you knew of any scientific evidence for your opinion.

BTW, the Egyptians themselves left decent records regarding rain and growing seasons etc. while they were there. The Nile valley is nowhere near as dry and arid as you seem to think it is, even today, and it's well known that desertification had not progressed nearly as far as it has today during the Egyptian dynastic period.

Harte

Harte, what date does Schoch scientifically ascribe to the water erosion of the Sphinx? I didn't know he had stated a date, so please, what date does he say?

Harte, do you think the Ipuwer Papyrus describes a devastation of the land, by drought, famine, pestilence, you name it, so did it not dry out drastically there then, to end ancient Egypt's most sophisticated and majestic period at around 1500 B.C.?

The bible-thumpers overlook them when they make the argument that the Egyptians (but never the "Israelites") lie about their history

well i pointed that out because r.k. harrison made a valid point and observation, why else would there be little record of the isrraelites in egypt. Harte has pointed out that the egyptians blotted out previous names and i know they have done it when a pharaoh or his queen fell into disfavor (i believe Nefertiti was one such lucky person).

so why not the israelites? they would be associated with the loss of the first born child of each egyptian so it would make sense to wipe away any memory associated with such a horrific vent.

Well, if you want my honest opinion then, here it is. Not being schooled in the subject of geology, I have to stick with a much more recent date for sphinx construction based on the lack of evidence for any longish term settlement of any culture at Giza prior to the culture we call the "Egyptians.

thank you and at least you can post references to back up your opinion. to me it really doesn't matter where they place the sphynx, right now the 'romantic' dating would be to have it as a symbol of a lost society and it would give people something to do.

so i guess schoch has done a favor for many people in proposing his conclusions.

Most of what we know about AE comes from Egyptian sources,

which may be a huge problem. yes we have stone records but how accurate are the portrayals?i know egyptologists are not going to admit mistakes (if the bosnian pyramid is any indication) and they hang on to their accepted history like a dog with a bone so i don't expect much help or honesty from that quarter.

So I wondered if you knew of any scientific evidence for your opinion.

good luck.

Min, do you think the amount of rainfall lessened significantly when the "Old Kingdom" demised?

A very complex issue and one which has been kicked around on this board a number of times in the past.

One of the last discussions I recall mentioned recent findings which indicated that the Sahara was a verdant grassland with lakes and rivers until sometime around 5-6,000 BC. As the Sahara dried the lakes and rivers vanished the only reliable source of water in the region was the Nile, hence the expansion of population in pre-dynastic Egypt which eventually led to the establishment of dynastic Egypt.

If that is the case, and it was a compelling argument as I recall, then even thought the process of desertification continues to this day, Egypt reached a position quite quickly where it was not rainfall dependent early in its history. If they were building with mud brick by the first dynasty it certainly seems that constant rainfall was not a major issue for them. One source about the First Intermediate Period which I read (but don't feel like going to look for now) suggested that the Nile floods had declined
for a period of consecutive years. If true, this would be indicative of a lack of rainfall in the Ethiopian highlands where the Nile rises, not in Egypt itself.

So, I guess after kicking it around, the answer to your original question is "no."

why else would there be little record of the isrraelites in egypt

Because they were never there.

Min, you'll find that the middle latitudes of the earth were drying out at around 1500 B.C., one of the reasons for the mass migrations of people groups in that timeframe.

The Sahara continues to spread as of today. Seems largely irrelevant to Egypt at the time, however.

Oh, so you deny that there were mass-migrations of people-groups circa 1500 B.C.?

I said it is irrelevant to Egypt. That seems clear enough.

Egypt existed as a state from 3,000 BC, dependent on the Nile.