>>19828467I find it hard to evaluate such arguments about the age of Egyptian monumentality because the two sides (traditional 5 way-older) seem to talk past each other and their claims diverge so much that they seem to be perceiving reality completely different to each other. I am also not a geologist/water flow specialist/engineer/ancient tool expert so how am I to discern what is true? T
his is the same problem that exists for most knowledge: as an individual I do not have the broad ranging knowledge to evaluate all these claims. People might say Napoleon won a battle in such a place, and this is why - but I, as an individual, can't really prove he ever even existed.
The main thing for me is it doesn't seem impossible for the Egyptians to have built such a thing, even thought it is clearly every impressive, they had massive food surpluses from the Nile, a large population that could be moved, a river to move things, and a great degree of centralisation very early in history. You can see how important that centralisation and good food conditions are because in the intermediate periods where control was weak they accomplished far less.
idk man, it doesn't help that some of the "alternative archaeologists"'s claims are sometimes just complete bullshit where 5 mins of reading an academic paper/knowing anything about history can sniff it out. I am much less inclined to believe an overarching theory (that I can't verify) if certain details that I know are very unlikely/wrong within it (that I can verify) are scattered throughout it.
