On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 05:30:27 -0600, in sci.archaeology,
>In article <gf22m21t0injfrju6hnh4cbdfeh4i81q0j@xxxxxxx>,
>eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx (Eric Stevens) wrote:
>> which is currently dated by many Egyptologists to between
>> about 2950-2920 and 2800-2770 BC [172, 205]
> And the latest King list I can find (2001) dates it to
>> and to assign an arbitrarily equal reign to each of the eight >
>kings of this dynasty,
> Which is a big assumption.
>> Among the indicators of a untimely end for Semerkhet is the >
>fact that of all of the First Dynasty Kings and the first two >
>kings of the Second Dynasty, he is the only one not to be >
>represented by a mastaba tomb at Saqqara .
> There are other possible reasons. The reign name of the Pharaoh
>usually had religious significance. Semerkhet is significantly
>different from other kings of the First and Second dynasty
>indicating a possible difference of religion with a
>correspondingly different burial practice. Compare with
>Akentaton. This would also account for signs and portents during
>> First Dynasty structures consistently show the
>> effects of intentional burning, and most, especially those at
>> Helwan, appear to have been razed.
> Perhaps this indicates the transition from First to Second
>Dynasty was not voluntary. Or that early Second Dynasty rulers
>were worried about the magical effect of First Dynasty
>inscriptions. An impact big enough to raze some structures would
>raze them all for a distance from the impact point, the pattern
>would be clear. Besides an impact that great would have destroyed
>Egypt completely, not left something for the Second Dynasty,
>Mastaba tombs were tough.
I think the claimed impact is in the Indian Ocean, and that the effect on
the area of Egypt was on rainfall, etc.
Doug Weller --
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk
Amun - co-owner/co-moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/