Subject: Re: ** Decimation of American Indians By European Disease **
From: rejohnsn@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 12:52:57 -0500
On Sat, 19 Oct 1996, joseph pigott wrote:
> >Emmett Jordan wrote:
> >
> > Regarding diseases that native Americans had, that spread to Europe,
> > high on the list is syphilis. It was determined that Spanish mercenary
> > troops who had been to America with Columbus, joined the army of
> > Charles VIII when he invaded Italy. Europe's first epidemic of
> > syphilis broke out around Naples in late 1494, during it's seige.
> > Archaeologists have confirmed syphilis in native Americans that
>
> I would be most interested in the citations that show the
> native-Americans gave syphillis to the Europeans. Also in your
> correspondence you said high on the "list" and then only gave syphillis
> as an example. Syphillis as a disease endemic to the New World is the
> subject of much debate. Until I receive some very solid proof I still
> believe the native-Americans were the receipients of the vast majority of
> diseases. Please read Jared Diamond's article in DISCOVERY magazine
I just read something this weekend -- I don't remember what offhand, but
I'll try to remember to look for it -- that suggested that syphilis may
have emreged in Native America from yaws, which was imported with the
Native Americans, and that syphilis may then have been returned to the
Old World via the explorers. I recall that another difficulty was with
identifying specific diseases from a group that leave very similar
skeletal indicators, of which syphilis and yaws are two.
Cheers,
Rebecca Lynn Johnson
Ph.D. stud., Dept. of Anthropology, U Iowa
Subject: Re: BLACKNESS in Egyptian Art, Murals, etc. (REPOST)
From: "S. F. Thomas"
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 13:09:25 -0400
Katherine M. Griffis wrote:
>
> "S. F. Thomas" wrote:
>
> >Saida wrote:
> >>
>
> >> Her famous bust is painted with pinkish skin tones, I believe, but there
> >> is no evidence making her anything but a native Egyptian. No one knows
> >> who Nefertiti was before she became Queen of Egypt.
>
> >Why is it that there is no talk of "artistic canon" when
> >Nefertiti and pink skin tones are involved?
>
> For one, it's an Amarna Period art piece, S.F Thomas: during *that
> period*, the Egyptian Canon was not adhered to as closely. the
> artistic rule for the Amarna Period was *ankh em ma'at*, or "shown as
> it appears".
Interesting hypothesis, which I take with a large grain of
salt...
(( cuts ))
> So, in other words, we have NO OTHER works to cite here but Diop?
The truth or falsity of an argument does not rest on the
number of "experts" cited in support, rather on the quality
of the argumentation.
(( cuts ))
> >See above. Refute Diop if you can. He lays bare facts,
> >hypotheses and arguments. Quite unlike so many eurocentric
> >propagandists who assert dogma and lay claim to false
> >authority.
>
> Would Diop to quote the references and cites he gives *correctly*,
> yes, I would buy into the fact that he has done the research without
> having *seen the actual evidence*. Hardly convincing, and hardly what
> I call *precise scholarship* here....
>
> Diop has attempted to make points in *many areas* that are just
> wrong; he attributes quotes to authors who have said *no such things*,
> and he draws conclusions from the barest of statements and cites, and
> usually with no evidence.
>
> Yet, you believe HIS works stand against *ACTUAL evidence and work in
> the field*, all because of some *perceived Eurocentric (READ: racist,
> according to Thomas here and others) conspiracy* that, based upon the
> last 30-40 years of research, is absurd. We *did have that problem*
> in the late 19th - early 20th centuries.
Thank you for that confession, at least.
> However, since about 1960,
> there have been *massive re-thinks* and re-writes of Egyptian history
> based on new evidence, new viewpoints, and aggressive scholars bent on
> learning the *truth* about the people and culture that give us better
> insight into the actual progression of the civilization.
Evidently the rethinking is not massive enough, and still
colored by eurocentric prejudices.
( snip )
> Say what you want about what Yurco has pointed out, for example (and
> you have), but the issue of the massive *diversity* of the North
> African peoples in the pre-dynastic and earlier phases of history IS
> undeniable. It was not just ONE people who created Egypt, and they
> weren't ALL one race either (other than likely being *homo sapiens
> sapiens*).
>
> It was *many groups*, passing in and out of the Levant area over the
> period of thousands of years, settling, intermingling with several
> other groups, and so on. Some of these people eventually moved on to
> *other points in the Levant and Mediterranean*, and did final
> settlement there. This accounts for many *similar features* within
> cultures to that of Egypt, Mesopotamian, Dravidian, and even some
> Asiatic groups of the era.
This is an interesting (also ideological) *hypothesis*. As to the
unfolding of the Egyptian high culture, you have no argument from
me. There was clearly an intermingling of peoples. As to the
*origins*, however, I do not believe that there was intermingling
in the beginning. And in the beginning, the clear evidence it seems
to me supports a Black African provenance.
> It is NOT
>
> ONE GROUP (from Africa) --------->-------------> ALL OTHER GROUPS
> AND CULTURES (Including the cultures of Egypt and so on)
>
> but more like
>
>
> SEVERAL DIFFERING GROUPS (traveling from various locations of the
> globe) -------->(settled and then traverse from) CENTRAL LOCATION
> (EGYPT, INDIA ETC.) -------> traveling and re-settling (permanently)
>
> / | | | | \
>
> Europe (Medit) Africa Near East Black Sea and Asia
>
> The issues are MORE complex than Diop presents, and can show the
> possibilities that man may have progressed from parallel developments
> all over the world , rather than a straight linear development. This
> is something that *has to* be considered as well, as not everyone can
> agree on the "Africa was first in everything" theory.
Yes, the eurocentric mind would naturally balk at that kind of
conclusion even if all the facts pointed in that direction. I have
my views as to why that is, which I think has to do with
the eurocentric mind inferring an assertion of Black superiority
in such a finding. Where no such inference is warranted. But
Whites have for so long labored under a delusion as to their own
superiority, manifest destiny, and so forth, that they can't stand
to have their really quite stupid bubble burst. It is a delusion,
in fact a psychosis, that has wrought great damange to people all
over the world. And it is time to give it a rest. Let us move on...
not based on ideology, feel-good or otherwise, but on truth. That
is what will set us ALL free.
( snip )
> Regards --
>
> Katherine Griffis (Greenberg)
> Member of the American Research Center in Egypt
Regards,
S. F. Thomas
Subject: Re: Tetiae Infirmae verbs "(iri) was re:Father=Creator=Pater=Ptah=Pitar
From: Saida
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 11:18:06 -0500
Steve Whittet wrote:
> Saida says the Ptah was pronounced as "Ftah"
> perhaps it was. In that case I would be just
> completely wrong. It is true that Arabic substitutes
> a "b" for "p". I don't happen to think the Egyptians
> did that, but, if that's what Saida says then yes,
> I could be wrong.
Steve, I think you have reached a wrong conclusion in this thread, but I
apologize for "Ftah". I was just being facetitious--trying to hook it
up with the German "fertig" or "finished". I don't have any idea how
the god's name was actually pronounced, but it is written with "p" and
"p" and "f" seem pretty clear and separate in Egyptian. Yet I was quite
serious in the post where I said that "Father" does not seem to have
been one of Ptah's several titles by which he was known. Even if people
*thought* of him as a creator or father of this and that, this is
abstract thing and can't be perpetuated as spoken language. The main
point I am trying to make is--if Ptah's primary image was of a "father"
this would have been his primary title. The fact that it was not is
tough to get around.
>
> >Now, for the grammar :"Ptah the maker" would be ptah irerw.
> >That is, grammatically speacking.
In this case, whether the grammar is correct or not is very much beside
the point, I'm afraid. "Ptah the Maker" is simply not a known title--at
least to my knowledge.
>
> >In fact, ptH irr would NOT translate "the maker", but "Ptah who acts".
> >When used to mean "to create", iri is normaly followed by a complement :
> >e.g.ir pt, qmA ntt nbt :'who made heaven, who created everything that
> >exist".Thus, I'm a little bit afraid your point doesn't hold, Steve.
>
> You say it is normally followed by a
> phonetic compliment "pth irr"
>
> Would not "pth irr", "Ptah makes" be pronounced
> "Ptah" phonetic complement "r"?
> >
> >Now, you have to find the epithet somewhere if you want to
> >further your point.
>
> Ok, the other issue was: Is there an instance in which Ptah
> the creator, is refered to in an inscription as having
> made or done or created something? To me that would seem
> likely, but I by no means have access to every inscription
> pertaining to the issue.
>
> I used the example of "hwt ka pth rh" "The house of Ptah
> creates knowledge", which ok, it is a different verb, but
> still has the sense of to make or do ...plus knowledge.
>
> Now this opened up another can of worms because usuallly
> "hwt" means house in the general sense and when it is the
> house of a god is translated "temple".
>
> This particular house is translated by Budge as the city of
> Memphis. I asked why we might not, considering the gods involved,
> Sehket and Ptah, gods associated with knowledge,consider it a
> college or university, or perhaps a college town?
> The equivalent of Oxford.
>
> Troy then raised the issue of whether Budge is correct in his
> spelling. The goddess is elsewhere refered to as Sekhmet. I
> looked in three other sources and the only "m" glyph I could
> find was the goddess Mut associated with Sekhet as a determinative.
>
> It also raised the question in my mind as to whether the sort
> of gibberish which Budge translates is worth anything?
>
> I don't happen to think the Egyptians were idiots. I therefore
> expect their inscriptions to make some sense.
>
> Now the general sense of these inscriptions from the
> "Book of the Dead" (Book of the Way of Coming Forth
> into the Light [Textbook of Advice on how to Succeed])
> could be:
>
> 1.)A plea to the gods on behalf of the deceased to keep
> all his parts together so he can function in the afterlife
> where he will rise up to heaven and dwell with the god Ptah
> in the house of his mind where there is a good deal of
> wisdom to be learned.
>
> The mourners implore the dead man not to flee from death
> as if it were an enemy but to embrace it and get the dying
> and the mourning over with quickly.
>
> 2.)A certification by an official (mortician) that he has examined
> all the parts and they are properly prepared for internment
> in Memphis.
>
> The mortician says he placed the heart in a heartcase before
> it had a chance to mortify or become rank and stink to high heaven..
>
> 3.)A certification by an official (doctor) that he has examined
> all the parts and they are functioning properly so that he may
> allow the admittence a student to the university where there is
> a good deal of wisdom to be learned.
>
> The student tells the Goddess Sekhet, he burns with a passion
> to be educated and to achieve high position and rank. He asks
> her to help him not to mess up on his entrance examinations
> and to get them over with quickly and allow him to succeed.
>
> It is to a large degree the fact that the "pyramid texts" are
> buried with mummies in their coffins that associates them with
> death.
>
> Many documents found buried with mummies do have other
> associations including legal contracts, medical texts, mathematical
> tracts, advice of fathers to sons.
>
> Any written document which might have been considered evidence
> when it came time for the goddess Ma'at to measure weigh and
> judge the heartcase of the individual against her feather of
> truth to determine whether or not this was an individual who
> had truly lived their life according to their idea of what was
> right and proper could be bound up with the "Book of the Dead"
>
> How do we know that Budge has not occasionaly mixed together
> a papyrus having to do with admission to college, buried with
> the deceased as evidence of his accomplishments in life but
> tied up with other papyri having to do with his funeral and
> so interpreted as a funeral text?
>
> >regards,
> >
> >--
> >
> >Serge Rosmorduc,
>
> steve
Subject: Biblical view of Egypt cannot be disproven by mere rude propaganda
From: Eliyehowah
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 13:48:37 +0000
> >Sounds like _Egyptian Light, Hebrew Fire_. However, you are generalizing to extreme
> >excess. The cult of Osiris most certainly did not approve of the cult of Set, for instance.
> >Whether or not most Egyptians regarded their religion as multi-monotheistic is, and will
> >remain, open to question.
Xina wrote:
>I use the Kemetic
> (Old Kingdom or "original") names, with the Greek in perentheses. For
> future reference, I do not use Greek names of Kemetic (Egyptian) Netjers
> (Deities) if I can help it. It may save on confusion for the masses,
> but it is not *accurate* which is something that is of utmost importance
> to me.
> >Excuse my biblical references, however the point remains the same...
> I do not use the bible as a reference point simply because the pyramid
> texts, and coffin texts of Egypt pre-date it. I am not a Christian
Being that these posts are for the whole world. Amazing that you must share
your immediate responce regarding the Bible. Clearly my stating that the
analysis was a contrast between biblical and Egyptian was NOT enough
for you to let stand without your public declaration of archeological faith.
You come on quite harshly, so hope you can stand my posted reply.
>I do
> admit that sooner or later you have to take those texts into account but
> that is all they are, an account, and not always an "objective one". In
> order to consider the bible, then we must also consider all scripture of
> the period, particularly the scripture of the people about whom we are
> talking. I will excuse you, but I will refute each of your claims in
> turn, please forgive my purist tendancies, it is a habit of mine I have
> no intention of changing.
This behavior is excusable, in fact quite commendable if in email.
But as a post, it is this behavior which makes conventions and
newsgroups nothing more than quibbling disputes. If you wish to know
biblical alignment then ask before slamming with your own perspective.
>What you are quoting and citing to back your
> claims in no way shape or form represents Original Old Kingdom or
> Kemetic social or religious thought. They are two different mindsets.
> .I find
> >that the war between Osiris and Set are reversed. Here is the biblical and then theEgyptian view of the two at war. The biblical view of Egypt
> >is opposite of the Egyptian as the constructed view by Ramses' priests.
> Rameses? How did you come up with Rameses? Excuse me but Rameses is
> the name of eleven Per'aas, (Pharaohs)they were none of them Netjer.
Sorry to generalize by saying Ramses (1314 BC? 1304 BC? 1290 BC? there
are still 1322 BC floating around based on a false Sothic July 20 for Memphis).
The Egyptians DID believe in the Flood of Noah. This is evident by the 40-day
creation myth of Osiris dead in his coffin. It is further evident by January (Janus)
named after Egyptian Jannes and being the winter solstice month (Jan 6 equated
with Tybi 6) as the end of that 40 days starting the seasonal year with WINTER
not Sepdet (Sothis) since that Flood whose constellation is AQUARIUS...the Inundation.
So you have yet to prove the Egyptian flood is Sothic Nile versus the Aquarius season
of Creation's Inundation.
> >Biblically, the Hyksos established Memphis in 2030 BC ten years before Narmer became Mena by gathering the kings of the 42 nomes into a HOUSE or Pharaoh.
> Where have you established these dates from?
Herodotus (and other Greek sources) verify 350 years from Egyptian Creation (Flood)
to Pharaoh. This agrees with the Bible which indicates Noah's existence kept
the Shemetic-Hamitic division enforced til he died 350 years after the Flood.
>What is your choronology? Old or New?
The contrast of Egyptian Septuagint Genesis to Greek Septuagint Genesis
to Hebrew Genesis. The Alexandrian Egyptian Septuagint aligns exactly
with the Turin Papyrus canon until the Greeks removed Cainan as a
130-year old person, recognizing that Cainan is a word for Chaldea.
Thus Arpakshad became father to Chaldea at 130. In Hebrew chronology,
this 130th year is Peleg building his house with the birth of Reu.
(I do not use my own skeletal chronology....Flood 2370 BC,
Arpakshad born Julian Apr 4 of 2368 BC until Peleg founds Ur in 2239 BC).
However in the Turin Papyrus the Flood is quite clearly 3090-3089 BC
versus this 2370-2369 BC. This is because they inaugurated the calendar
in 340 AM as Memphite July 17 of 2750 BC with Thoth 1 and omitted the 5 epagomenal
days for the one year 2321 BC as the death of Peleg and Unas. Contrast this
to the biblical 340 AM of Memphite July 17 as Phamenoth 1 of 2030 BC for
the death of Peleg and Unas.
** FIGURES **
TCP vs. Genesis
3090 BC / 2370 BC Flood
135 35
130 --
130 30
134 34
239 239
------ ------
768 338 Peleg of Ur dies same year as Unas of Saqqara
Unas' death creates Sokar, and Peleg's death creates Osiris.
TPC = 3089-2321 BC but Genesis = 2368-2030 BC
The 768-year lunar-venus record is explained as from Jannes (2368-1600 BC)
(12x 64-year cycle; actual Aquarius venus is 769y = 3x243y venus +40).
> The Hyksos did *not* establish Memphis in 2030 BC; it was originally
> called Men-Nefer, the capital city for most of the Pharaonic periods.
Men (Mena) made Memphis into a city in 2020 BC as part of the agreement
for these Shemetic kings to join in creating the united city-states as one
HOUSE of Pharaoh.
> it is centered on the modern village of Mit-Rahinea.
I am aware of all this. Care for a scan of its groundplans...temple of Ptah etc.
>It was the capital
> of the first Lower Egyptian Nome and the administrative capital during
> the EARLY dynastic periods! Which means 3100-2686 BC, quite a
> difference of dates. It is claimed that it was founded by Mena but that
> is not substantiated. As for the cities deities, they are as follows:
> Ptah, Sekhmet and Nefertem these are the most ancient of all the Kemetic
> deities, so your "Osiris" references are very much out of place in this
> city and it simply ' just doesnt wash'.
The Hamitic Egyptians pushed the observance of Osiris out of the city.
That is why the Hyksos kings who founded Memphis and created the calendar
then left with the Israelites as citizens of a better nation.
> As for the Hyksos, I think you need to read a bit more ancient history.
> The Hyksos migrated into Egypt in the *late* Middle Kingdom and rose to
> power in the Second Intermideiate period which was 1800-1600 BC) again,
> your dates are sadly off by *any* chronology.
I read to learn the truth. NOT to adopt the scraps of you who have slaughtered it
in reconstructing so that you may exalt your names (and incomes). The 518 years
of Hyksos are from Peleg's (and Unas' death of 5th dynasty) 2030 BC to the
Exodus of 1513 BC. Sepdet (Sothis) drifted 180 days forward in 720 years
so that the 25-year lunar calendar (309 moons) switched seasons in 725 years
(Ur's foundation 2239 BC to 1514 BC plagues of Egypt).
> >It was in 2029 BC that they created Osiris as the moon-god of the Nile valley, the same year as Sokar, being respectively the deaths of Peleg in Ur, and Unas
> >years after Set (the Big Dipper) was established in the pyramid plateau (2170 BC).
> *sigh* Wasir or Ausar (Osiris) was regarded as the originator of Egypt,
> he taught the people to govern and to farm and plant. Please cite your
> sources for your dating because you are completely off on both the
> mythos and the time periods. His original cult center was the Osirion
> at Abydos, which some believe was built by Sety I. (1294-1279 BC).
Abydos is assigned to Osiris only because it is the burial place of Narmer
who was renamed as Mena in 2020 BC.
(Narmer-rod killed his slang nickname Nimr-rod by agreeing in 2020 BC
with the Hyksos who founded Memphis in 2030 BC that they would in
the future call him Mena not Nimrod. He died at the age of 500 according
to Moslems. And this was in 1770 BC (Seder Olam chronology, and
Hammurabi's Marduk...NOT the original Marduk 2009 BC of Eusebius, Ussher,
Hippolytus and Josephus).
> >But in 1601 BC Jannes insisted that
> >Osiris was the winter solstice moon appearing after the dark 40-day sky of the Flood.
This is where the 768-year record enslaved Israelites as intruding Hyksos.
But the Hyksos had entered Egypt in 2030 BC 280 years before Joseph did
(in 1750 BC at 17 when Hammurabi died), and 302 years before Jacob his father
brought the whole family of 70 with three generations of servants. Believing the
768-year record was Hyksos intrusion on their calendar, the Egyptians saw fit
to place it as 3089-2321 BC (Unas dies and Hyksos invade). However, this
increases the span by 243-year venus. (518+243 or 243+518). This venus of 2321 BC
is 243 years before 2078 BC (birth of Haran measuring 3600 moons from Flood)
but is 292-year calendar dated venus to 2029 BC where Parker informs us
that Osiris is lunar and assigned to the month Koiak. You will find your
Isis-Osiris on May 5/6 dated Koiak 24/25 as the original Christmas or suicide
at Ur C-14 dated as 2030 BC according to the 1969 Nobel 12 world convention
in Sweden.
> The "flood" has never been substantiated or proven in any way in
> egyptology, so your biblical references to Kemetic/Egyptian history and
> cosmogony is completely irrelevant.
> >(lunar-venus = 768 years, but Aquarius flood venus 769 yrs=243+243+243+40 )
> >The epoch revised from Jan 2369 BC to that of Jan 3089 BC by Ramses TPC
> Which Rameses, sir/madam? There were *ELEVEN* of them! Can you give me
> a clue as to which one you might possibly mean?
Which Ramses would not answer which year. Because you scholars do not agree
on the years of Ramses. Thus I will point out that the TCP measures 1800 Egyptian
years of venus (1799 Julian) as 3089-1290 BC.
> >who refused to see that Phamenoth 1 was the inaugurated New Year, based on Thoth being called the New Year during the 12th dynasty.
> Excuse me, forgive my insolence, or ignorance or both, but just *who* is
> Phamenoth?! I cannot find one single reference to this person anywhere,
> not even in BUDGE!!
Greek names in original inaugurated order; Thoth became 1st month in 1513 BC
reinauguration after Hyksos left as new citizens of Israel following Moses.
[7] Thoth [1] Phamenoth
[8] Phaophi [2] Pharmuthi
[9] Hathyr [3] Pachon
[10] Koiak [4] Pauni
[11] Tybi [5] Epeiph (=sothic month of Exodus in 1513 BC)
[12] Mecheir [6] Mesore
> However, biblically
> >the 7th month THOTH
> Excuse me?! Month of Thoth?! Are you even remotely familiar with the
> Egyptian calendar!? The year was divided into three seasons, Akhet
> (inundation), Peret (springtime) and Shemu (harvest).
These seasons are the names from 1513 BC onward. During the 12th dynasty
these seasonal names are Akhet (winter date of Noah's Flood), Peroyet (coming-forth)
and Shemu (deficiency). Sorry, you are wrong, it doe NOT mean harvest.
>As to the name of the months, none called "Thoth", which is the Greek 'equivalent'
>of the Kemetic (Egyptian) word which is Dejhuti.
How wrong you are, since any and every book of calendars will tell you that
Thoth is the Greek name for the first month.
>Might I suggest a basic course in the language of the ancient Egyptians
and a perusal of the book "Calendars of Ancient Egypt" by R.A. Parker.
You are 10 years too late for your suggestion.
I have two copies of Parker's book you list here. Which shall I scan for you,
the highlighted with my notes, or the clean copy.
> >The Hyksos are accused of bringing Set into pure Osiris worship which is opposite
> >of the sources they come from (moon from Ur's Euphrates valley worshipped as
> >moon of Memphis' Nile valley,
> (snipped a lot of mixed up nonsense from Newage and biblical sources
> that have not yet been substantiated.Thats quite a hodge podge! Would
> you be so kind as to cite your sources? )
You presume it is new age. Your accusation is false. Though I must admit
you certainly are bold enough to stand up as the TRUTH for the whole world.
Dont be so sure God wont knock you down very hard.
> I think before you start preaching with such tenacity and using Greek
> references based on the original Kemetic (egyptian) which are pretty far
> off by either Rohl's or the original chronology you study and compare
> some more. While I agree with some of Rohl's assertions as
> *possibilities*,
Do NOT accuse me of being a Rohl worshipper. I think back to your line one
over the stink of who I thought the quote belong to. You should look at
yourself and how you aimlessly accuse where my sources are from.
Rohl (who cares); New Age (bull...new age is the American acceptance of very
old Hindu and Chinese notions); presumptuousness that I dont read Parker
or Gardiner...(better quit lady/ oops mister.)
> It is a
> well known fact that the Pyramid texts (which I really suggest strongly
> that you *read* along with Sir Alan Gardiner's Egypt of the Pharaohs,
> before you come back and start regurgitating dates and doing comparisons
> that you are not qualified to make.
The pyramid texts are 6th dynasty. They are the DEATH of the 5th dynasty
which is in full agreement of being Peleg's death (2030 BC not 2321 BC).
Set was created 140 years before the Osiris following Peleg's death
(8 months January 6 moon of 2029 BC and 4 more months May Koiak moon)
>>A voice crying out and going unheard,
> With your sloppy research I dont doubt it.
Xina or Zena (or whatever TV show your doing right now), your voice barks too
loud. If anyone is sloppy it is you since you do not know the Greek names
for Egyptian calendar months. They are the predominant choice in all
presentations of the Egyptian calendar. And I and all other readers see
that your replies are not given with ANY sources at all, because you seem to think
that YOU as its source is sufficient. Look at the GOOSE publicly poking in the crotch of the
GANDER. There are thousands of topics discussed on these newsgroups
without freely presenting you the sources for you to steal and publish. Much less
the room. I have the sources, choose to post as brief as possible. And it is the interested ones
NOT the egotistical rebuttals who kindly ask and receive. I see that
YOU have not presented any sources, no pages, no chapters, no authors for
ANYTHING you say as if you are above that need. You feel your posted reply
of an opinion supercedes thru derogatory remarks alone. You snuff out for others
what you choose to rule. Sorry babe, we all pay equally to share info with others.
Take a look in the mirror. Your opening apology for your being blunt, rude, and kraz
does NOT fall under the definition of being exact or accuracy. My signature is
a declaration of your kind existing til the world dies from following you.
You know more about Egypt than Moses did. Gee, babe help them with their plagues,
try and stop their deaths this year. Exodus is back, and like Noah it's going thru
Armageddon where this time there wont be no New Kingdom Egypt to claim that
history was different and all Shemetic blamed.
************
A voice crying out and going unheard,
http://www.execpc.com/~elijah/myPhoto.gif
(40 years Oct 7) Nehemiah's (9:1) 50th JUBILEE of Tishri 24
elijah@wi.net
elijah@execpc.com
asteroid@execpc.com
Discover the world's true chronology thru the Bible at
http://www.execpc.com/~elijah
God's 1000 years has begun Sep 14 of 1996.
http://www.execpc.com/~elijah/Ezra1991CE.gif
Subject: Re: Great Pyramid Dimensions.
From: martins@dcs.shef.ac.uk (Martin Stower)
Date: 21 Oct 1996 18:41:40 GMT
maguirre wrote:
>You speak of distance in half a minute of equatorial longitude.
It take it latitude was intended . . .
>My understanding is that you refere to the
>elipsoid that passes over both Poles. The Polar radius of
>the Earth is 6356 755 m => Earth elipsoid over the Poles
>40007910 m => Divided by 360*60*2 = 926.1090. Your value is
>921,455.7. Here there is something wrong.
The Encyclopaedia Britannica (1993) puts it like this:
. . . The length of a degree of arc of latitude is approximately
111 km (69 miles), varying, because of the nonuniformity of the
Earth's curvature, from 110.567 km (68.706 miles) at the Equator
to 111.699 km (69.41 miles) at the poles. . . .
- so half a minute of arc of equatorial latitude is not the same as the
polar ellipsoid divided by (360 x 60 x 2 = 43200).
Fix himself, in his Pyramid Odyssey, emphasises this variation; he seems
not to have noticed how this undermines his claim, that the pyramid
represents the earth on a scale of 1:43200. Were that the aim, length
of arc of latitude - due to its variation - would be the least appropriate
thing to represent in the perimeter of the pyramid.
Fix quotes figures from several notionally authoritative sources,
including the Britannica. The figures in the 1993 Britannica differ
from the ones he gives, so presumably they represent a more recent
estimate.
Assuming no significant variation within a degree, and using the
Britannica figure, half a minute of arc of equatorial latititude will
equal 110567/120 = 921.392 m. Cole's perimeter for the pyramid I get
to 921.453 m. (I don't know why there's a 2 mm discrepancy, and I'm
not going to worry about it.) It's still very close - just 61 mm
off - but somehow it just doesn't _look_ as impressive.
Strong agreement with your other remarks.
Martin
Subject: Re: The Minoan Linear A Language?
From: ab292@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Christopher John Camfield)
Date: 21 Oct 1996 19:29:01 GMT
Okay, more Phoenicianism... I can't resist replying. :)
I'm trying to keep your overall picture in mind, but when individual
details poke holes in it, I have to mention them.
Anyhow, I think that there are logistical problems with your scenario. Any
early contact between the Aegean and Levant would probably have occured
because of traders or explorers, not patrolling fleets of ships filled
with warriors. It would have been quite an accomplishment to send a force
of subjection from the Levant to the Aegean, considering the distance and
potential supply problems. You also have to keep in mind the primitive
state of naval combat of the time, which meant that it was primarily force
of arms, not naval skill, that decided the issue. Numbers of ships would
certainly have an effect, but resistance could still be given on land. I
don't see this as "easy" at all!
Just to check... you do know that the proto-Greeks were very probably not
indigenous, right? Or are you not convinced by the place-name arguments?
(endings in 'nth', etc) I very much doubt that the Myceneans were on the
mainland as early as c. 3000 BCE. The identity of the more advanced
settlement on the mainland rather depends on the overall picture you
accept.
> 3) We have no ship evidence that we can ascribe directly to
> Minoans/Mycenaeans. Only the boat styles that we associate with Sidon,
> Tyr, and Byblos. Namely Phoenician. Not Egyptian, as their vessels
> were poorly suited for Sea traval.
Oh, so the depictions of boats on their pottery isn't evidence?
If Thucydides' (much later) remark about the first triremes being
built in Corinth means first anywhere, then the Phoenicians didn't invent
them... but they certainly built them. Or vice-versa, if it was a
Phoenician invention. A technology does not a cultural identity make.
It's an IDEA, and ideas can be transmitted much more quickly than large
numbers of people.
> 4) I find it very unlikely that the indigineous Minoans would just
> happen to figure our a writing system, just as they happen to figure out
> how to build boats, just as they happen to build larger stone buildings,
> just as they happen to make significant advancements in pottery, etc.
Oh, I see, they were just too stupid, is that it?
Geometric pottery was pretty elaborate, and it was developed in isolation...
but we don't even need to talk about isolation. I'm NOT arguing that the
Minoans invented everything from scratch. I AM arguing that local
development, modification, and elaboration was possible. Linear A could
have been developed after the Minoans encountered eastern writing systems
and developed one for themselves. NOTHING requires that the Phoenicians
be there ruling.
> And, how could they, in all likelyhood, develop a strong boating mastery
> when the Phoenicians had had traditional mastery of the Mediterranean
> for centuries before we suspect sea-trade-worthy ships used by the
> Minoans. The Minoans would have had to develop alongside the masters.
> But really, there's no evidence that the Minoans actually piloted any
> boats.
Define "mastery of the Mediterranean". Do you imagine fleets of patrolling
Phoenician ships calmly cruising the Med and putting down any attempts to
build ships?
The Athenians built up a substantial navy in a relatively very short period
of time, consisting of vessels which were far more complicated to build and
operate than anything the Bronze Age ever saw. Wasn't it supposed to have
been one beached Carthaginian ship that allowed Rome to build a navy?
> 5) Their "language" as I have said before only listed items. This
> sounds more like a picture-coded trade iconery than a language.
> So there we go. There are many more little bits of reasons, but this
> should do for now. Also, Linear A doesn't have to have been
> independantly created as I was saying before. That just seems to make
> sense barring furthur scientific knowledge of it. However Cyrus Gordon
> has done some interesting work (I just found out) linking Minoan Linear
> A with West Semetic.
And isn't accepted by everyone, as I've read.
> I'll Briefly address the idea of the creation of Minoan religion:
> [my points will seem to digress into the more general argument]
>
> 1-The palace, temple, and storehouse was one and the same.
Is this identical with practices in the Levant?
> 2-They probably worshipped a bull god. This parallel's the classic
> Mesopotamian religious symbol for the highest god to be depicted as
> riding or standing on a bull. Even Zeus was later depicted this way.
It's certainly possible that the bull was a sacred animal, but there is
evidence that Minoan religion was oriented towards agriculture, with a
major fertility goddess plus others. There were mountain-peak, tree,
and house sanctuaries, with bloodless sacrifices. Snakes were venerated
(as protective spirits?) to the point that the Minoans made small holes at
the base of their walls, not large enough for real snakes, but perhaps to
invite them in "in spirit". I refer you again to the chapter in Walter
Burkert's _Greek Religion_.
> 3-It fits into the rest of the hypotheses.
> [these next points require more thought to link...]
> 4-There is evidence that a higher class was distinct from the lower.
What evidence? That there seems to have been a higher class? Heaven
forbid.
> 5-There is evidence that the lower class revolted against the upper at
> the beginning of the Dark Age (c1200-1100 bce). The sea worthy fled
> Greece and the simpler peoples stayed although they lost Eastern
> contacts, trade, metalworking, writing, stonemasonry, and just about
> everything else that I hypothesize was only there from the Phoenicians.
So none of the metalworkers, stonemasons, shipwrights, or scribes were
among the lower classes?
Quite a while before the collapse at the end of the Bronze Age, the Myceneans
from the mainland had taken over Crete. There's lots of evidence for
this. (artwork, Linear B, etc...)
> I *do* think that by this time the Mycenaeans were a more racially
> integrated and diffused people than the early Minoans, although still a
> distinct split of class and knowledge. Greek tradition attributes the
> cause of the Dark Age to "the return of the Dorians". I say that they
> didn't physically return to the Peloponnese but that they revolted and
> returned to power. (of course it would have to be more complicated than
> that, perhaps involving a particular Dorian bunch (proto-Spartans?)
> actually returning from somewhere and starting a revolution to oust the
> rich ruling class) This also explains why Greeks therafter venerated
> the simple and effective warlike ways of the Spartans, who I hypothesize
> were the Dorians to begin the revolt.
What on earth leads you to any such conclusion? The Spartans were
fairly typical Dorians until they managed to conquer Messenia, and were
forced to adapt a drastic lifestyle to maintain their hold over the
conquered populace. Didn't you know that?
--
Chris Camfield - ab292@freenet.carleton.ca
"You're nothing in the eyes of the world
But you're going up and down in the elevator still..." (FINN)
Subject: Re: BLACKNESS in Egyptian Art, Murals, etc. (REPOST)
From: "S. F. Thomas"
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 16:01:18 -0400
Saida wrote:
>
> S. F. Thomas wrote:
> >
> > Saida wrote:
> > >
> > > S. F. Thomas wrote:Saida:
> >
> > > See you under the bridge, Troll! Other than that valediction, your
> > > drivel will get no more attention from me.
>
> Thomas:
>
> > Sounds more like a malediction than a valediction...
> > In any case, fare thee well. I do not think I'll miss
> > your less than incisive contributions.
>
> He is right about the malediction part, at least. I don't know about
> the rest of you guys, but I resent being labelled as a Eurocentrist
> (maybe because I am an Asiatic-American ;-^) or being pigeon-holed in
> this fashion.
I don't recall labelling *you* eurocentrist. I speak of
eurocentric scholars and eurocentric scholarship. What books
have you written? OTOH, if you think the shoe fits, and
you obviously do, by all means wear it.
> This guy, with his numerous posts (and complete disregard
> of everyone else's) is threatening to take over this group.
I am posting from soc.culture.african.american. My server
reports that there are 2406 messages in this group. I don't
think I'm about to take over this group. I don't know from
where you post, but if my few posts threaten to take it over,
then blame those who started the cross-posting. I did not.
> I would
> like to remind you of one Peter Bromfield and of how it became
> impossible to discuss any topic without him introducing a racist element
> into it. This one won't go away until nobody responds to him any
> longer.
I welcomed your valediction...er, malediction... and still
look forward to not hearing from you anymore...
> In his eyes, we are all misguided idiots, anyway, and the only
> "incisive" one (sounds more like "derisive" to me) is himself.
Please... I can speak for myself; don't put words in my mouth.
If I reciprocated, and welcomed, your valediction, that hardly
counts as a blanket condemnation of some group the identity
of which I do not even know. I do hope they are not ALL like
you... because you, sir or madam, second person singular, are
a fool, not even worthy of derision. Again, I welcome, and
heartily reciprocate your valediction/malediction. If I engage
in disputation with a fool, who then is the fool?
> Personally, I am allergic to trolls...nast little devils. Kerchoo!
And my mother did not raise a fool...
Goodbye.
Subject: Re: BLACKNESS in Egyptian Art, Murals, etc. (REPOST)
From: Saida
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 16:23:16 -0500
> > > > S. F. Thomas wrote:Saida:
> > >
> > > > See you under the bridge, Troll! Other than that valediction, your
> > > > drivel will get no more attention from me.
> >
> I welcomed your valediction...er, malediction... and still
> look forward to not hearing from you anymore...
>
> > In his eyes, we are all misguided idiots, anyway, and the only
> > "incisive" one (sounds more like "derisive" to me) is himself.
>
> Please... I can speak for myself; don't put words in my mouth.
> If I reciprocated, and welcomed, your valediction, that hardly
> counts as a blanket condemnation of some group the identity
> of which I do not even know. I do hope they are not ALL like
> you... because you, sir or madam, second person singular, are
> a fool, not even worthy of derision. Again, I welcome, and
> heartily reciprocate your valediction/malediction. If I engage
> in disputation with a fool, who then is the fool?
>
> > Personally, I am allergic to trolls...nast little devils. Kerchoo!
>
> And my mother did not raise a fool...
>
> Goodbye.
Hey, could have FOOLED us! Ta, ta Rumpelstilskin!
Subject: Absolutely The Last Word On King Arthur
From: Dominic Green
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 22:52:50 +0100
Is the King dead, or does he live on? And if so, where? The sites of
his most famous battles are themselves shrouded in Mystery. Where is
the River Tribruit? Where is Fort Guinnion? Where is the Wood of
Celidon? The location of Badon, at least, is known for certain to have
been at Badbury in Dorset, whose ancient Saxon name is Baddanburg, known
for its fluffy, pink and yellow cake confectioneries, in each section of
which may be found the exact same Cross of Our Lord which Arthur is
known to have humped sweating on his shoulders about the battlefield,
preferring to whack his enemies with it in preference to using Sword and
Shield like any Normal Romano-Briton. Can it be possible that this same
cruciform symbol could be found in two separate places in Early
Christian Europe entirely by coincidence?
The Wood of Celidon, meanwhile, seems an impenetrable term at first
perusal. However, upon returning to the subject after only a modicum of
Nubian Black Ground Mummy Snuff, it becomes a reference to Celadon
Pottery produced in China, indicating that Arthur's Knights rampaged
across Central Asia in search of rapine, pillage and Delicate Pale Green
Glazes before being heavily defeated at the Battle of Kowloon. The
Battle of Guinnion, meanwhile, refers to a detour to attack pagan
Crocodile Hunters in New Guinea, and the River Tribruit to Trivandrum in
Southern India. Thus we may see that the majority of Arthurian battles
were unwisely fought in a Land War in Asia, and must have ended with the
evacuation of the Logrian Embassy in Kamchatka (the historical location
of Camelot), by warhorse, from the roof.
However, all modern Arthurian researches are hampered by the inaccuracy
of currently accepted chronology. One example is that of the Arthurian
King of Gwynedd, Maelgwyn, who was also indisputably the mistress of
King Charles II of England. This is particularly interesting, for these
two individuals are conventionally held to have lived in the Sixth and
Seventeenth Centuries respectively. It is my belief that Welsh and
English chronologies are currently misaligned, and that a more correct
interpretation of history would place Wales in the middle of the Ninth
Century. This begs the astounding conclusion that Wales is still an
Independent Principality, and that our Leaders have Lied To Us when they
claim to Own it. I myself have visited Wales, and was not obliged to
show my Passport; however, this is not surprising, since Wales is a
fellow member of the European Economic Co-Prosperity Sphere with which
Britain has undergone Economic and Military Union. I was pleased to
discover that Our Queen's face appears on the Welsh Five Ecu Note.
Presumably, the Welsh Queen is too ugly to be allowed to appear on
Money, and so Our Queen has been used instead. I have heard Windsor
Davies referred to as 'That Welsh Queen' with great frequency by
Sergeant Majors in the Army, and if this be so, the poor lady is indeed
most ill-favoured, and is in addition not even in possession of a
Wonderful Personality. However, her Moustache is most impressive, more
so even than that of Our Dear Queen Mother.
I trust that this settles the matter with Finality.
Yours
Reverend Colonel Ignatius Churchward Von Berlitz M.A. (Dom. Sci.) Oxon.
(Oklahoma)
Subject: Re: Egyptians Viewed Hyksos Osiris as intrusion (I think someone needs to research alot better!!)
From: Xina
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 16:57:05 +0000
Hello Serge!
Serge Rosmorduc wrote:
>
> Hello,
> You are mostly right, and the post you answered to was rather absurd. However, a
> few comments that might interest you :
>
> Well, actually, Abydos was originaly the cult center of Wepwaet, and Osiris cult centered more on Busiris. Osiris took the place of Wepwaet during the Old Kingdom.
Thank you
>
> These are the Coptic month names, which appear from time to time during the New kingdom.
(snipped slightly)
Thank you again for the clarification, Serge. I know now what he
meant. It was worded in such a way that was confusing to me and I didnt
find any references to the name in what have on my own shelf.
>
> I agree for the beginning. For the end, I'd be more cautious. I'm not sure that transliteration from hieroglyphs are always more accurate than the greek rendering. The last provides an interesting clue of late
> prononciation.
I will take your word for it over Elijahs any day, simply because of
your research on the subject. (I think you have a *wonderful* Web Page
and Software BTW!!)
> Bye,
>
> nfr snb.
And you as well! :)
Xina
>
> Serge
>
> --
>
> Serge Rosmorduc,
>
> rosmord@lifac1.ens-cachan.fr
> lifac
> ENS de Cachan
> 61, avenue du Pr\'esident Wilson
> 94235 Cachan Cedex
> tel (16 1) 47 40 24 93
> fax (16 1) 47 40 24 64
> http://weblifac.ens-cachan.fr/~rosmord/AEgypt.html
Subject: Re: American Indians - Ice Age - Mammoths - The Great flood & Noah
From: lwalker@tinterlog.com (lawrence walker)
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 00:01:22 GMT
B Seward wrote:
>Dominic Green wrote:
>>
>> Many slanders have been spoken against the name of the Native American
>> Noble Savage; the Indian has been accused of being Descended from a
>> Spider Monkey with its Tail Removed; he has been accused of Human
>> Sacrifice and Cannibalism; he has even been accused of being an Idyllic
>> Pre-Lapsarian Society Free of Materialistic Greed and Close To The
>> Heartbeat of Gaia.
>>
>> It has also been claimed that Native Americans are the descendants of
>> Extremely Displaced Hebrews.
>I have a theory about the American Indians and I do not know if it has
>ever been touched on, but here we go. Before I continue, I would like
>to say that I am not arguing whether the bible is historical or not
>(which
>I do believe it is).
I agree , I also believe it's hysterical.
>The bible speaks of all races springing from Adam & Eve. What races
>were
>on the Earth before the Great Flood of Noah's time? We don't know, but
>the
>bible later says that Noah's sons is where our races come from.
I think it might have left out Camptown (do-dah ,do-dah) and maybe
Pimlico.
>Ge 9:18-19, "And Noah's sons who came out of the ark were Shem and Ham
>and
>Ja'pheth. Later Ham was the father of Ca'naan. These three were Noah's
>sons, and from these was all the earth's population spread abroad."
>From
>which we get the threefold division of the human family into the
>Japhetic,
>Hamitic, and Semitic races.
Well at least we're all descended from the same family.
Actually Shem was replaced by Harpo. So it properly should be called
the Harpoic race, not to be confused with "Rat race" who were
descended from Rat and are not Noah-tic.
>The bible speaks of the resultant peoples of Noah's sons but what races
>came from their wives? Perhaps these wives were of different races
>also.
>Explaining races that may not have sprang from Shem, Ham, and Ja'pheth.
Likely Cainites which explains the "bad seed"
>But first let me express my view of the Ice Age and Mammoths. Where did
>the water from the flood go? Gen. 8:5 says, "And the waters kept on
>progressively lessening until the tenth month. In the tenth month, on
>the
>first of the month, the tops of the mountains appeared." This could
>be where the ice age comes from.
But, of course ! When God pulled the plug most of the water drained
into the center of the earth but since it was October a lot of it
froze before it could all drain away
> It is known that the various date
>testing
>of carbon is progessively inaccurate the further back you go. Could it
>be
>because of the canopy of water and the mist the bible says was around
>the
>earth, that prevented radiation to hit the earth? If so, then the first
>man, and dinosaurs, and ice age could be a lot closer than scientists
>believe. In this scenario, Noah could have brought with him different
>kinds
>of animal types, instead of the traditional two of the same animals.
>What
>I mean is instead of two "classic" elephants, he could have brought an
>elephant and a mammoth, a polar bear and a black bear, etc, etc.
Sounds dangerously like race mixing to me, but would ex plain the
brown bear.
>Back to the American Indians, in my scenario after Nimrod and when the
>languages were confused, a group indians may have taken the mammoths and
>ventured north to the cold region. Traveling must have been slow with
>these
>creatures, many must have died and the indians needed every scrap of
>energy
>to survive, so used every scrap from the mammoths. As we have seen in
>the
>past the indians use every ounce of meat and bones of animals. When the
>indians found the north american continent, there were probably no
>mammoths
>left in their groups.
They buried a lot of them in Siberia for the trip back.
>But you may say, "Surely they didn't take all the mammoths with them, so
>there should be mammoths still alive in europe." Who's to say there
>aren't.
>Perhaps there are a few somewhere, after all isn't there a different
>species
>of elephant with a different skull shape alive today? Dominant genes is
>another factor to think on.
There are reports that southern savages shaved them for heathen
practices and after a while their hair just stopped growin.
>Bradley J Seward
Sharp as a tack Brad. Who says fundamentalists are fuzzy-minded.
Subject: Re: BLACKNESS in Egyptian Art, Murals, etc. (REPOST)
From: August Matthusen
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 17:32:42 -0700
Saida wrote:
>
> S. F. Thomas wrote:
> >
> > Saida wrote:
> > >
> > > S. F. Thomas wrote:Saida:
> >
> > > See you under the bridge, Troll! Other than that valediction, your
> > > drivel will get no more attention from me.
>
> Thomas:
>
> > Sounds more like a malediction than a valediction...
> > In any case, fare thee well. I do not think I'll miss
> > your less than incisive contributions.
>
> He is right about the malediction part, at least. I don't know about
> the rest of you guys, but I resent being labelled as a Eurocentrist
> (maybe because I am an Asiatic-American ;-^) or being pigeon-holed in
> this fashion.
[snip]
I did notice that Katherine's comments about Diop's
scholarship got skipped over without response. Some kind
of new affirmative action program for publications and
scholarship, perhaps? Request refutation and then ignore it?
At least S.F. appears to be ascribing ancient Egyptian
achievements to humans. Given the mind set of this
type of ad hominem attack (i.e., discarding arguments not
by logic but rather by claiming some type of -centrism),
how long before von Daniken starts claiming his critics
are anthropocentric? Or how long until West, Bauval, and
Hancock start claiming their critics are Kmtocentric (or
Aegyptocentric, maybe)?
Regards,
August Matthusen
Subject: Re: BLACKNESS in Egyptian Art, Murals, etc. (REPOST)
From: Troy Sagrillo
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 15:28:01 GMT
S. F. Thomas wrote:
>
> Troy Sagrillo wrote:
> >
> > S. F. Thomas wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > (It is, btw, revealing that some of those conquerors were
> > > sufficiently offended by the Black African nose on the
> > > sphinx to have blown it off with cannon fire.)
> >
> > I hope you are not referring to the myth that Napoleon supposedly had
> > the nose shot off.
>
> No, I meant no such implication. And it is the first I'm
> hearing of this "myth". I had always heard that the Mamelukes
> were the culprits.
Glad to hear we are in agreement! A lot of rather-less informed people
believe that Napoleon's troops were resposible for the destruction of
the Sphinx's nose by shooting it off. I thought you might believe this
as well since you made reference to it being blown off "with cannon
fire". al-Maqrizi makes no reference to cannon fire, and I hardly doubt
that a Sufi khanqah (convent) in 708 AH/1378 CE had access to fire arms
or artillary of any sort. In fact the Mamluks where hard pressed for
fire arms through out their history; this is one of the reasons the
Ottomans waxed them in 1517.
>
> > It was mutilated in 708 AH/1378 CE for
> > **iconoclastic** reasons (having *nothing* to do with "Black Africans"),
> > an event recorded in al-Maqrizi's Khitat.
>
> Well that's one *hypothesis*, I suppose...
Actually, it is documented history from the time, not just a hypothesis.
> Either way, the deed was accomplished by *foreign* invader...
No not really. The sufis who did this were Egyptians. THe Mamluks were
for the most part isolated from the general population, and if I
remember correctly, were not allowed to marry at this point in their
history (though they were later).
Take care,
Troy Sagrillo
Subject: Re: Great Pyramid Dimensions.
From: Rodney Small
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 21:44:12 -0700
Martin Stower wrote:
>
> maguirre wrote:
>
> >You speak of distance in half a minute of equatorial longitude.
>
> It take it latitude was intended . . .
>
> >My understanding is that you refere to the
> >elipsoid that passes over both Poles. The Polar radius of
> >the Earth is 6356 755 m => Earth elipsoid over the Poles
> >40007910 m => Divided by 360*60*2 = 926.1090. Your value is
> >921,455.7. Here there is something wrong.
Nope, nothing wrong -- see below.
> The Encyclopaedia Britannica (1993) puts it like this:
>
> . . . The length of a degree of arc of latitude is approximately
> 111 km (69 miles), varying, because of the nonuniformity of the
> Earth's curvature, from 110.567 km (68.706 miles) at the Equator
> to 111.699 km (69.41 miles) at the poles. . . .
>
> - so half a minute of arc of equatorial latitude is not the same as the
> polar ellipsoid divided by (360 x 60 x 2 = 43200).
Correct.
> Fix himself, in his Pyramid Odyssey, emphasises this variation; he seems
> not to have noticed how this undermines his claim, that the pyramid
> represents the earth on a scale of 1:43200. Were that the aim, length
> of arc of latitude - due to its variation - would be the least appropriate
> thing to represent in the perimeter of the pyramid.
I disagree. Because the earth bulges at the equator and is flattened at the poles, the
polar circumference of about 40,008 km (24,860 miles) is about 67 km (42 miles) less
than the equatorial circumference, and the polar circumference cannot be derived by
multiplying half a minute of equatorial latitude by 43,200 -- in contrast to the
equatorial circumference, which can be derived by multiplying half a minute of
equatorial longitude by 43,200. Nonetheless, because there are 43,200 half minutes of
latitude in the polar circumference, half a minute of equatorial latitude equals
1/43,200 of a great circle around the earth, just as half a minute of equatorial
longitude does.
> Fix quotes figures from several notionally authoritative sources,
> including the Britannica. The figures in the 1993 Britannica differ
> from the ones he gives, so presumably they represent a more recent
> estimate.
Not true. Like other encyclopedias, the Brittanica has the unfortunate habit of
neglecting to update figures. The below figure of 110,567 meters they are using is
from the Clarke Spheroid of 1866! (I am quite serious, see American Practical
Navigator (Government Printing Office, Washington, 1958), p. 956.)
> Assuming no significant variation within a degree, and using the
> Britannica figure, half a minute of arc of equatorial latititude will
> equal 110567/120 = 921.392 m.
You're calculation is correct -- a mathematician confirmed to me that the average half
minute of latitude at the equator is virtually identical to the half minute exactly
at the equator. However, the best estimate of a degree of equatorial latitude (to my
knowledge) is the 1964 International Astronomical Union (IAU) International Ellipsoid,
which was recognized by the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics in 1967.
According to this figure of the earth, the formula for determining the distance in one
degree of latitude is (in meters): 111,133.35 - 559.84 cosine 2x + 1.17 cosine 4x,
where x is the mid-latitude of the arc. At the equator, where the cosine of the angle
= 1, one degree of latitude equals 110,574.68 meters and half a minute of latitude
(1/120 of a degree) equals 921,455.7 mm. See The Astronomical Almanac for the Year
1995 (Government Printing Office, Washington, 1993) p. K-5. (By the way, the
Astronomical Almanac has updated several estimates of the earth since 1964, but still
uses the above formula. Accordingly, I presume it remains the best estimate, but if
someone knows of a better one, please advise.)
> Cole's perimeter for the pyramid I get
> to 921.453 m. (I don't know why there's a 2 mm discrepancy, and I'm
> not going to worry about it.) It's still very close - just 61 mm
> off - but somehow it just doesn't _look_ as impressive.
But that's the point I have been trying to make -- while the perimeter of the Great
Pyramid as measured by Cole deviates from the Clarke Spheroid of 1866 distance for
half a minute of equatorial latitude by 61 mm, it is virtually identical to the IAU
Ellipsoid of 1964 distance. Regarding the 2 mm discrepancy, in his 1925 survey Cole
stated that the North side of the Great Pyramid is divided by a line on the pavement
that extends out from the bottom of the Pyramid; and the distance from this line to
the northwest corner is 115,090 mm and to the northeast corner is 115,161 mm. The
total of these two measurements is 230,251 mm, versus Cole's stated measurement of
230,253 for the entire North side. However, Livio Stechinni, who contends that this
is a contradiction, appears to have overlooked the possibility that the width of the
line on the pavement could be two mm, and that Cole measured 115,090 mm from the west
end of the line and 115,161 mm from the east end of the line, which would eliminate
any contradiction. I presume this line is still visible, and so perhaps the next time
a reader of these boards visits the Great Pyramid, (s)he could measure and see whether
the line is that wide. In any event, even if one uses (as Fix did) the 921,453 mm
figure, the deviation between this figure and the IAU Ellipsoid distance for half a
minute of equatorial latitude is less than 3 mm. That's why I don't think this
correspondence can be so easily dismissed as a coincidence, particularly in light of
the polar radius and equatorial longitude correlations on the same 1/43,200 scale
that I have previously discussed (although the longitude correlation does diminish
somewhat without the mysterious 17.5 inches that Davidson and Aldersmith added in to
the sockets' perimeter. Bear in mind, however, as noted by Martin, that Petrie's
survey of the sockets was hampered by debris around the base, and so the longitude
correlation could be understated).
Subject: Re: AFRICAN monuments...Qustul
From: Troy Sagrillo
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 17:26:51 GMT
> In article <326A7527.594@utoronto.ca>,
> Troy Sagrillo wrote:
> >Paul Kekai Manansala wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <3269149F.2F51@utoronto.ca>,
> >> Troy Sagrillo wrote:
> >First of all, let's not fool ourselves. We are dealing with
> >archaeological sequence dating, not absolute dates -- there is a *great*
> >deal of play in the numbers in these early periods (which are generally
> >based on C14). Secondly, the earliest date that Williams gives for the
> >Qustul material is the transition from Naqqada IIa to Naqqada IIb; he
> >does *not* give an absolute date of any sort anywhere in his site
> >report. BTW, the report is:
> >
> >Williams, Bruce Breyer. 1986. Excavations Between Abu Simbel and the
> >Sudan Frontier; Part 1: The A-Group Cemetary at Qustul: Cemetary L. The
> >University of Chicago Oriental Institute Nubian Expedition 3 (Campagne
> >internationale pour la sauvaegarde des monuments de la Nubie). Chicago:
> >University of Chicago Press.
> >
>
> I believe the dates going back to 3,800 BC is based on newer material.
Again, we are discussing relative dating here anyhow (ie, what is older
relitive to the other). The only way to determine an absolute date is
through C14 and other archaeometric proceedures. There are none
published in the Qustul site report itself. I am sure that the 3,800
date is based on a general trend in the C14 dates from a variety of
sites. But again, it is not the issue here.
> [clip]
> >In conclusion, there is no significant evidence from Qustul that any
> >aspect of pharaonic rule had its origins in A-Group Nubia. On the
> >contrary, there is a great deal of evidence that the chiefs of Qustul
> >where simply importing Egyptian (and some Syro-Palestinian) materials
> >from their more sophisticated Egyptian neighbours to the north (and by
> >sophisticated, I mean in terms of archaeologial **material** culture).
> >The older royal tombs at Abydos are testiment that political and
> >cultural influence was moving southwards rather than northwards.
> >
>
> I'm afraid that none of the material you cited is of any importance
> in nullifying Williams argument.
Hmmmm..... Let's see here:
Williams says the Qustul material is dated to Naqqada IIIa-b and that
there is no evidence of royal tombs in Egypt at this time. Wrong: the
German excavations at Abydos have revealed a number of Naqqada IIa
tombs, a period *older* than those at Qustul, which continue in an
uninterrupted tradition right through to the Early Dynastic Period. No
interpretation needed here -- the facts are clear. All the other stuff
(inscense burners, etc.) are just ephemera to this now. Abydos is
demonstably older than Qustul.
And while we are on the topic of royal tombs, I would question the use
of that term with those in Cemetery L at Qustul. They are typical
A-Group tombs (either a simple trench, or a trench with a burial cist
cut into the side, usually blocked off by stone); the burial cist of the
largest (L24) is a mere 5.6 x 3.0 metres). The only thing terribly
unusual about them is the large number of imported goods (mainly
Egyptian but some Syro-Palestinian EB I ceramics as well); this is not
too surprising given the proximity of Egypt to Qustul.
On the other hand the tombs in Cemetery U at Umm al-Qa`ab (Abydos) are
quite sophisticated: they are square -- very often multi-chambered --
structures lined with mud brick. One of the more impressive tombs, U-j,
is 9.10 x 7.25 metres in size and conists of 12 chambers; it dates to
Naqqada IIIa2, the period just before the IIIa-b transition of Qustul).
In addition to a Hq3 sceptre of ivory, a cylinder seal with the name
Hor-ka was found, not to mention over 700 imported Syro-Palestinian
vessels (only a handful at Qustul); faience objects were also recovered
-- and this is just *one* tomb.
> First of all, nobody is denying
> that the Egyptians had royal tombs before the dynastic period.
My apologise then. I thought when you wrote Winters's had said "no royal
tombs in Lower and Upper Egypt" you believed this. Glad to see that we
can agree on at least somethings! Apparently only Winters believes this.
> The
> evidence is in the appearance of A-group tombs in *Upper Egypt*
> prior to the dynastic period.
What A-Group tombs in Upper Egypt? Qustul is in Lower Nubia, not Upper
Egypt (as defined by the ancient Egptians). It is of course in *modern*
Egypt, very close to Abu Simbel in fact.
> You don't address the Egyptians own
> tradition regarding the founding of the unified dynasties by
> invaders from Ta-Seti.
The *Ptolemaic* traditions of the *Predynastic* Period, some 3500 yrs
earlier are not exactly of great historical worth in this matter. The
texts at Idfu (Edfu) you mention in citation from Budge (assuming he
even translated it sufficently) are nothing more than temple propoganda
to bolster the prestige of the Horus temple there, and hopefully enhance
their authority. Similar Ptolemaic "historical" pseudoepigrapha is to be
seen in the Bentresh Stela (from the temple of Khonsu at Karnak) which
claims Ramesses II received gifts and homage from Bactria, and in the
Famine Stela at Aswan (where the temple of Khnum was claiming revenue
and strengthing their privilages against the rising power of the priests
of Isis at Philae).
> Also, Keita has shown that the cranial
> evidence supports the contention of a Nubian provenance of the
> First Dynasty by the close relationship of royal cranial remains with
> a series from Kerma.
This has nothing to do with the estabishment of "pharaonic" culture
(Williams' argument). It is a question of physical anthropology, and one
that I very much doubt. Recent work by the University of Alberta is
showing another story. But since I am not a physical anthropologist, I
will not comment further.
> The contention by some Egyptologists that all the cultural items in Qustul
> were simply borrowed from Egypt is unfounded and biased. Many of these
> items clearly are found at Qustul prior to appearing in Egypt.
See above. They occur at Abydos well before those of QUstul. The
limestone of the QUstul incense burner is from Egypt (limestone does not
occur in Nubia). The Egyptian ceramics are well known through out the
Egyptian Nile valley (at least as far as the Cairo region; Lower
Egyptian cultural groups had their own ceramic traditions); even
Williams noted this. His "Pe-hor" serekh (which is in fact jsut a falcon
on a box (*maybe* a serekh) and not a name (MANY others like it all the
way north into Palestine)) is on an Egyptian pot (again, *even* Williams
notes this). However, no one (save you, or at least as I read it)
thinks "all the cultural items in Qustul were simply borrowed from
Egypt" -- obviously A-Group cermaics are present in vast numbers, and
the tombs themselves are typical of A-Group. It is just the recognisibly
Egyptian and Palestinian items that are imports. (btw, A-Group ceramics
are quite nicely decorated with geometric patterns and such -- Egyptian
ceramics are rather ugly and bland in comparison -- they're quite easy
to id).
> By their own traditions, (expressed in a number of ways), the Egyptians
> credited the march of culture as coming up northward from Ta-Seti,
> or Khenti-Hen-nefer "the land of the Gods."
No they didn't. The Egyptians said no such thing.
Cheers,
Troy Sagrillo