How is it distortions and fairy tales. You have not even commented on my replies but made an unsupported assertion. I said that we have evidence (fact) of old an old kingdom site with the foundations found under the later additions from the new kingdom. We have a 4th dynasty priest inscribed on a pillar base.
This suggests that there was an old kingdom core that later was expanded on. How is this fantasy. What happened to the old kingdom granite works. Considering granite was a precious commodity theres no way these were just thrown out and dumped. They were reused in the same temple later.
Why when we have clear evidence of Ramesses II doing this. I gave you the evidence. This is fact.
All old kingdom works were in the hardest stones and have lasted the longest. Apart from the pyramids for obvious reasons. I gave you an example of how the old kingdom pillars look the same as the granite pillars in Karnak. I gave you example of Ramesses II putting his name on granite statues and obelisks.
Are you saying there were no old kingdom granite works left at these sites when later pharoahs and kings added to it. If so where did the granite works go. The logic is in the signatures matching the old kingdom works and not the new kingdom works who rarely worked in granite.
Here is the old kingdom work pillar
View attachment 369514
Here is the new kindom pillars made in sandstone sections. Notice how the sandstone pillar is jutted up against the one piece granite pillar. The granite pillar matches almost perfectly the old kingdom one.
If we are going by signatures and if there were old old kingdom works in the original core of the site already there. It seems logical and reasonable that these are old kingdom works.
View attachment 369512
The temple at Deir El Bahari is mostly sandstone, and limestone as far as I understand with a small amount of granite. Though still magnificent it is not as great as the precise works from the earliest dynasties such as at Giza, Abu Sir, Abu Awash and Saqqara in the harest stones.
I guess its a matter of opinion but its well recognised that the great pyramids and hard stone percision works represent the best of Egyptian works that have never been surpassed. The Giza pyramid was the highest human made structure in the world up until the Eiffel Tower in the late 19th century.
I disagree. Its reminiscent of Roman architecture. Though amazing I don't think it rivals the great pyramids and other precision works of the old kingdom in the hardest of stones.
Evenso this only supports the great ability and advanced knowledge and tech even in later dynasties. But I don't think anything rivals the old kingdom works.
Another feature of the old kingdom discovered or rather rediscovered is a Labyerinth that is suppose to be like a city under ground near
Hawara. There is also some massive structure under the Giza pyramid. We have not fully discovered the full extent of these great works.
But we know even back as far as 480BC Herodolus mentions the labyrinth and describes it greater than the pyramids. Flinders Petrie discovered at the location a massive block about 8 metres down he thought was the foundation and assumed it had all been robbed. But now GPR has discovered a city sized labyrinth with massive halls and miles of tunnels. There is some massive metallic structure at the center.
The
The Mataha Expedition with modern tech discovered the labyrinth in 2008 but this was covered up and hidden from the public. A good example of how the orthodox establishment hides discoveries.
Like I said we have the evidence that pharoahs usurped older works. Some works have 2 or 3 different pharoahs claiming the works. All these sites began in old kingdom times and were added to. So it seems logical that there would have been some original granite works at these sites. Where are they.
If the old kingdom worked exclusively in hard stones and especially granite and the new kingdom worked mainly in sandstone and limestone then its not so rediculous to think that theres a good chance some of these granite works are from the old kingdom. Especially as shown that the signatures almost perfectly match the old kingdom examples.
lol, I thought the signatures were important if your wanting to use th science.
Its actually the complete opposite. All old kingdom works are made in hardest stones with minor limestone as trimmings. Apart from the pyramids and for good reason. But all the statues, boxes, sarcophagi, columens, obelisk and vases are in the hardest stones and of a much higher quality and precision.
Whereas the majority of new kingdom works are standstone or limestone and sectional. If we are going by signatures then the granite works in these new kingdom sites match the signatures of the old kingdom I think.
Very impressive. I don't know. It looks good but it would have to be tested. I mean we know artists can do good works. The Romans produced some great statues. But these are in softer stones and I don't think as near perfect to the earlier works.
The fact that these old kingdom works are so early is the incredible thing.
Your creating a strawman I think. Assuming that these examples are on par with the old kingdom works. They are good but not that good. It is widely acknowledged that the greatest works come from the old kingdom.