Replies

I would not put much stock in such conclusions about the Old Kingdom. What little we know comes from Upper Egypt. What we do not know lies in Lower Egypt (Giza and so forth) which is buried under hundreds of feet of Nile mud.

We do not know, for instance, the actual progression of Pharaohs as the Kings List is an old forgery, but is used nonetheless for official dating. Many Pharaohs had different names during their reigns, many of those names were identical to the names of Pharaohs which came before or proceeded them; some names are historically unknown, while others appear out of place on the List; a very confusing state of affairs.

Then there is the whole culture/societal situation. We think in linear and logical ways. They did not. They thought more along the lines of what we call symbolic thinking - radically different. To attribute features of Western civilization and thought like ‘progress’, ‘liberalism’, and ‘conservatism’ to them is to make them like us which they were not; a god to them was not an actual being, but a symbol of a particular train of thought or situation.

It goes on. They are a very fascinating people who may or may not be who they are currently believed to be. The whole of Egyptology and particularly the Old Kingdom is in turmoil, despite the heavy handedness of certain authority figures to keep the lid on as they have a lot invested in the current historical linear model of those times.

Egyptian archaeology is rigidly controlled by those individuals and by the Egyptian government so as to not rock the boat. This means that only those archaeologists and historians which are state approved may do research within the country, and even then some areas seem to be out of bounds, or permission given is revoked at the last minute for no particular reason.