Subject: Re: Biblical view of Egypt cannot be disproven by mere rude propaganda
From: August Matthusen
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 19:04:58 -0700
Eliyehowah yammered:
[snip]
> 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.
Amazing. SpamKing Jr., Richard Schiller (aka Elija-whoever), having
the gall to lecture on netiquette. Spammed any prophecies that
came true lately, Dickie? How 'bout that slaughter of the kings
at the UN? Ya sure blew that one.
[snip]
> 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.
Geez Dickie, I liked your posts better when you were telling the
world about your hemmorhoids. That seems to be the one thing you
*really* know something about.
> A voice crying out and going unheard,
You're heard but ignored. How about providing the prophecies
for which I keep asking: When will your unemployment run out?
When will your computer goodies be repossessed? And a new one:
When will you have to get a job?
Regards,
August Matthusen
[A voice crying out and going unheard by a voice supposedly crying
out and going unheard]
Subject: Re: AFRICAN monuments...Qustul
From: pmanansala@csus.edu (Paul Kekai Manansala)
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 96 23:35:52 GMT
In article <326BB24B.3D94@utoronto.ca>,
Troy Sagrillo wrote:
>> 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.
That's interesting but not relevant to the idea that dynastic Egypt
began due to Nubian influence, just as Egyptian tradition suggests.
Besides, much of the evidence points to the probability that Badari
pottery was derived from the Khartoum "mesolithic" (Keita, 1993, Arkell,
1975, Brunton and Caton-Thompson, 1928)), or due to Saharan influence
combined with impulses from Nubia (Hassan, 1988). But all of this
has little to do with Egyptian traditions concerning the founding of
the dynasties.
>
>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.
>
I'm not sure if the information you posted was available to Winters when
he wrote the article.
>> 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.
>
Refer to Williams works. Also Hoffman's _Egypt before the Pharaohs_.
>> 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.
Says who?
>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).
>
I'm afraid I cannot agree with this interpretation.
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).
>
No, I don't think your analysis is correct. I refer you again to Williams
most recent works. The finds at Abydos are not older than those of Qustul.
>> 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.
>
Yes, at Edfu they did so directly. However, in many other ways
they also made this clear.
Regards,
Paul Kekai Manansala
Subject: Update on activities on the Giza plateau
From: Doug Weller
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 07:24:15 +0100
The following information is, IMHO, an accurate update of the
situation regarding some of the activities on the Giza Plateau. It
is based on some first hand information as well as a bit of second
hand stuff about Hawass (or even 3rd hand!). But I think it is
pretty accurate.
Earlier this year a team from FSU visited the plateau and after
some exploratory work submitted a proposal for some studies on
the plateau. This proposal focused on two aspects. One was to collect
samples that might be suitable for dating structures (cosmic-ray
exposure ages, C14, light exposure ages, pollen, ect.) and to study
classical stratigraphic relationship around the Sphinx Temple quay.
Another proposal was submitted at the same time by Joe Schor which
would involve exploration of what he thinks the geophysical data
indicates to be underground voids. Evidently one option in Schor's
proposal is excavation of some sort. I don't know the status of
this proposal.
The second aspect of the FSU proposal has to do with construction of
some of the monuments (eg the possibility that the entire Sphinx
Temple was carved in place and not built of large blocks removed from
around the Sphinx), and how original relief on the plateau might have
been used in construction of the pyramids.
If you haven't guessed yet, the people involved in the FSU proposal
are geologists. I believe that there is some advice from an archaeologist
but direct involvement will depend upon availability at the time of
the trip.
Boris Said and Schor have indeed been making a video which one hopes
will be much more scientific than that made by Boris and West. IF
FSU is involved in this at all it will only be with their approval
and right to view any final editorial cuts. I don't know where/how
it will be broadcast. FSU has insisted on this after an earlier video
was made with the university's name in credits without their permission.
That video was made before FSU actually visited Egypt in April.
Approval for the FSU proposal has not yet been obtained. Schor has
stated to my informants (:-)) that Hawass was replaced, which confirms
some rumours I've seen.
So far as November the 6th is concerned, the FSU team has no plans
to be in Egypt and certainly doesn't include any tunneling in any
aspect of their proposal.
On the weathering of the Sphinx body: the fellow from the University of
Louisville (is that Gauri?) was close, I'm told.
The type of weathering observed is quite typical of the way limestone
with high gypsum content weathers in desert environments. Geologists have
called the process "salt fretting" and it has been described thoroughly
by a fellow named Allen at the University of Virginia.
Schoch failed to notice that the process is occurring today (not
10,000 years ago)!
A secret pyramid door? I haven't found anything out that suggests
that there is one, but Hawass indeed did do some silly things in
front of a camera, probably for an Egyptian TV show, during which he
seems to have an inspired revelation an points out a hidden door.
The geophysical, subsurface data, and can be interpreted to represent
voids underground. Interpretations are model dependent, and while
they might be man made features, they could be natural karst features
from dissolved limestones (which can beseen intersecting the
surface around and on the plateau).
To the geophysicist, the simpliest way to model the data is to do so
with simple geometric shapes and volumes. When his model then results
in something drawn as a rectangular void - it does not necessarily
reflect reality - but we shall see.
To recap about FSU -- their geologists, and perhaps an archaeologist,
will, if their application is approved, collect samples for dating (as
agreed with Schor) and make further observations of rocks that might
satisfy their curiosity regarding construction techniques.
This will probably be a fairly short investigation.
That's what I know. Please don't ask me for more, as I can't answer
any questions about it!
--
Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
Subject: Re: Egyptians were and are...
From: mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal)
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 07:42:09 GMT
"S. F. Thomas" wrote:
>But modern Egyptians--I have seen them with my own eyes--are
>hardly homogeneous. They range from dark black to blonde and
>blue-eyed.
>It seems to me, coming from the Caribbean, where we have a
>similar range of hues, and where the explanation is obvious,
>ie. race-mixing, that the explanation in the case of Egypt
>is the same.
Yes.
>Certainly, we know as historical fact, that
>Egypt has had inflows of people from Greece, Rome, Persia,
>Arabia, Turkey, etc., etc. The question which interests those
>of us who come to your country and see all the statuary of
>what to us look very much like Black Africans, is whether
>they were the *original* Egyptians who *founded* the civilization
>whose wonders, including the pyramids, we still gaze upon
>today. It is a fair question, not one to be dismissed as
>a priori absurd.
You are right, it is a "fair" question, not to be dismissed on
a-priori grounds. What I don't understand is how to match
this with your own words, later on:
>I expect you to deny it of course. As you seek to deny the
>essential Black African-ness of those who created ancient
>Egyptian high culture. But I won't believe you.
I think you're not practising what you preach...
>So I was curious whether modern Egypt suffers from a similar
>color psychosis. I cannot know for sure, but my guess is
>yes, based on my observations and the Egyptians I have known
>over the years. One give-away of course lies in what it
>calls itself: The ARAB Republic of Egypt, almost defiantly,
I believe this dates from the time when Egypt and Syria
merged in the UAR ("United Arab Republic"), as a first step
towards the unification of the whole Arab world. Nothing
came of it, but the name UAR was retained by the Egyptians.
>as though one might be tempted to assume otherwise, probably
>rightly. After all, such countries as Oman, or Kuwait, or
>Iraq do not similarly have to pronounce their Arab-ness.
There's the United Arab Emirates, of course...
In any case, there is no denying that Arabic is the language spoken in
Egypt these days. But it was not the language of the Ancient Egyptian
culture. Language is an important factor in determining ethnicity,
more than skin colour. And the facts of the Egyptian language speak
against a Nubian origin for Egyptian culture. The Ancient Egyptian
language is not related in any way to modern Nubian or the ancient
Meroitic language of Nubia (Kush). It is instead related to the
languages of the Semites in the Near East, of the Berbers in the North
African Maghreb, the Chadic peoples in North Nigeria (Hausaland) and
the Cushitic peoples in the Horn of Africa (Somalia, Ethiopia). This
language family is called Afro-Asiatic nowadays (to avoid the earlier
"racist" term Hamito-Semitic), and is indeed racially mixed: the
Chadics and the Cushites are predominantly "black", the Berbers,
Egyptians and Semites predominantly "white", despite racial mixture in
all groups. As the original "homeland" of the Afro-Asiatic language
family is still unknown, we don't know if they were "originally"
"black" or "white". In any case, it is likely that all modern humans
(and thus all human languages) originated in Sub-Saharan Africa, so
that we're all "black" originally, just gradually less so the longer
it has been since one has been "out of Africa" and in colder/dryer
climes. As to the Ancient Egyptians, the close ties with Semitic,
Berber and Beja that their language betrays, make a local North
African origin the most likely. If you have to put a racial tag to
it: "brown". But since the Nile valley is the gate between
Sub-Saharan Africa and the rest of the world (since the drying up of
the Sahara desert), and the door to Nubia was always open both ways,
racial mixture was to be expected, and indeed occurred.
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal ~ ~
Amsterdam _____________ ~ ~
mcv@pi.net |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig
Subject: Real Egyptian Chronolgy vs. Elijah-With-An-Agenda and Biblical Dates
From: Xina
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 07:36:20 +0000
t 01:48 PM 10/21/96 +0000, Elijahwithanagenda wrote:
>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 have been blasted to the rafters by cooler heads than yours I assure
you.
>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.
Why? So you can tell me it is the "infalable word Of God". Sorry,
mister, your God not mine. He left me cold and standing being beaten in
his name, I want no part of it . I said it 'can be taken into account
You wont mind too terribly though if we take into account the *fact* its
been edited lets see.....well over 500 times over the past 2000 years do
you? I thought God warned you folks against doing that. I vaguely
remember after reading it at the end of the book when he said
that....that *is* what was said wasnt it?
>> 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).
I dont know enough about the Astrological Calendars to make that
assertion. And I know that even the best scholars and scientists cannot
or have not been able to narrow it down to the specific decade, and yet
in one fell swoop you seem to be qualified to do so. How can this be?
Do you know something that we dont (please see Alan Gardiner's Egypt of
the pharohs and his commentary on Chronologies and calendars).
>The Egyptians DID believe in the Flood of Noah. This is evident by the 40-day
>creation myth of Osiris dead in his coffin.
(snipped comparisons)
>
>> >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.
Oh you mean the arising from the Nun. Yes thats a mythos, not
literalism. Or are you aware of Egyptian symbological thought? The
Egyptian language was constructed quite differently from our own and
they were quite fond of puns, anagrams, word plays, etc. You must take
these things into consideration. If we take them as 'literal' it would
be no different than some archaeologist digging up a torn piece of
Shakespeare's "Hamlet" and translating it literally.
************************************************
King: Now Hamlet, where is Polonius?
Hamlet: At Supper.
King: At Supper? Where?
Hamlet: Not where he eats but where he is eaten ; a certain convocation
of politic worms are e'en at him. Your worm is your only emperor for
diet; we fat all creatures to fat us, and we fat ourselves for maggots:
your fat king, your lean beggar, is but variable service two dishes, but
one table and that's end.
********************************************************************************************************
From this exchange if taken literally, as Bika Reed suggested in her
works, one may comment to these conslusions:
"that the British considered maggots thier main food. That maggot flesh
was highly esteemed, for even the king ate it. The text, though obscure
and corroded, leaves no doubt that societaal definitions were clearly
demarcated by size to be fat was clearly both an honour and social
advantage while to be lean was the stigma of beggary and low birth.
Eating maggots was so important that all statne functions were concluded
with this gastronomic event."
See how silly literalism can be? Your behaving exactly the same.
(snipped)
>(I do not use my own skeletal chronology....Flood 2370 BC,
Thats good, because the Egyptian chronology is older than 3600 years.
>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
How is it then that there are sites in Egypt that are older and clearly
undestroyed by the 'Flood' then?
>
>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.
Again, Im aware of this, but the date is not something that even the
scholars agree on. You have narrowed it down to the last decade. What
is your criteria and methodology that allows you to do this?
>
>> 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.
Which one? I have about four thanks.
>
>>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.
But the Memphite Triad was older and established. Why would it be
necessary to 'push it out'?
>> 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).
I havent made any exultation of my income or name from this. I simply
cited (verbatim BTW) from "The Dictionary of Ancient Egypt", Edited by
the British Museum (see the citation under Memphis, on page 180 written
by Ian Shaw and Paul Nicholson , Abrams Publishing 1995, ....I do assume
you have *seen* it?) You can also see the citation on the "Hyskos' on
page 136 of same said book.
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).
Where is the archeaological evidence for both the 'plagues' and the
existence of Moses? Im not being insolent, Im asking. I want something
else other than the bible. The Isrealites left NO evidence in Egypt,
nor is there any substantiated evidence of their "exodus".
>> >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).
The Pyramids Platau was built in the Second and Third dynasty which is
2686-2613 BC begining with the Step Pyramid. How is it you are able to
dispense with 600 years of history? Please see Page 233 of the
Dictionary of Ancient Egypt.
>> *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.
No, thats 3100 BC, why the reason for the large discrepency in years?
Again, what part of the equation are you tossing out and why?
>(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.
Give me a break! 500?! If you find solid evidence *anyone* having that
lived that long, then I will put store in that figure, if not, its just
folklore and legend.
>> >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).
Again, thats the wrong time period. That is not Late Middle Kingdom.
Unas was 2375-2345 BC, the Hyksos invasion didnt occur until the end of
the 13th Dynasty, which places that date at c. 1800-1650 BC. Again, we
have a hideous discrepency in your dates here.
(snipped figures provided by elijah)
Again, I will investigate your data further, but I should warn you the
dates which I cite are from a 1995 source. I think the British Museum
is pretty well renowned as scholarship in Egyptology goes.
>> Which Rameses, sir/madam? There were *ELEVEN* of them! Can you give me
>> a clue as to which one you might possibly mean?
>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
Thank you. I also received an email from an associate who uses the
Kemetic wording, and she explained it to me. The use of the Greek is
what confused me. As I said, I dont use it if I can help it. Thank you
for the information.
>> However, biblically
>> >the 7th month THOTH
Understood. Thank you.
>
>> 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.
According to the Old Kingdom sources it does. We are talking about a
language that we are still learning more about daily, which have
multiple meanings attached to them. 16 tenses etc etc. I find it
amusing that you can just simply state Im 'wrong'....If I said a
particular word in Kemetic/Egyptian, I could mean alot of different
things. You have to take into account determinatives, etc etc. Again,
you are taking one meaning and thinking with your language's
constraints' the Egyptians didnt do language the same way.
>
>>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.
Would you please look up the name of Djehuti or of Tehuti...Any good
source will tell you that it is an earlier version of the greek word,
'Thoth'. You dont have to take my word for it. See' The Neteru of
Kemet' by Tamara Legan.
>>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.
Actually, believe it or not, if you are *truly* offering it, I would
love to see your notes. Then I can compare them with some of my sources.
This has been an enlightening exercise. Thank you for calling me on my
shit, and now Im calling you on yours. I do apolgize for my 'abruptness
and rudeness'. I I may be loud and obnoxious at times, but I know when
to shut up and listen. Just be sure to keep any prosteltizing and
attempts of converting me to Christianity and I think we can agree to
disagree.
>> (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.
Im sure He/She just might. I guess I take a more objective view that
*all *scripture, not just that of the Hebrews and Christians as having
inherrent value, and one not to the exclusion of the other.
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.
Again, my apologies. I have the opinion that fundamentalists need to
play by the same rules that scientists use, if you cannot have your way,
I find that the answer is to bash the scientists or change the rules so
that your figures 'fit'.
>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.)
That's "Lady" when it suits me to be one. At other times its just
simply 'Bitch'. So, my question to you is what is wrong with Hindu texts
and Chinese texts that *predate* the Christian ones by thousands of
years? And if you say the 'absence of Jesus' Im sorry you are going to
have to come up with something else. (You guys are the new kids on the
block, why should the world change to fit your filter?) Why is peaceful
co-existence with the beleif systems of other people so intolerant for
fundamentalist Christians? Im sorry, I guess it stems from years abuse
heaped on humanity in 'Gods 'name, some of which I experienced
firsthand. Thats not Truth in my book.
>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).
No, they are 5th Dynasty. The Pyramid Texts of Unas are dated at
2375-2345 BC. Please see The Egyptian Kingdoms by Dr. Rosalie David (You
*have* heard of her, havent you?) (You really are stuck on the
2030/2020 Bc date)
>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.
Your right. I was wrong to have answered in such an insolent manner. I
should have been far less personal and just presented the facts and let
you hang yourself with that. BTW, for the record, my "nick" is a
signature that I have had for about 12 years. When Computers were new
and there were a dozen Chris' in our lab, I shortened my given name of
Christina to be Xina, sort of like Xma. And as far as the show,......I
have *never* seen it. I live in a log cabin in the woods, and I dont
want cable, (thank you very much). And if I *did* get it, I doubt quite
seriously I would do much with that show than flip right past it. So
much for that insult, I get that at least once a day, its hardly
original at this point.
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.
I *always* go for the crotch. It it tends to make them keep it in their
pants that way. ;)
. 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
I did cite my sources above. I have cited page numbers and will eat
crow before the world. I dont like the bible being forced down my
throat sideways, hence my knee-jerk reaction. Call it a core issue. Im
not surprised at your holier than thou attitude and debunking legitimate
archaeology and science. Most Christians tout their beliefs of love and
tolerance just fine and tell me how much 'God will knock me down'. Yes,
he or rather his followers have knocked me down, and its only because of
sheer tenacity and will and Netjer's Good Graces that I still live.
. 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 nothing of my desires. I *do* sincerely apologize. Im blunt
and rude because those who wave that book in my face have made it
abundantly clear they want only the world they would make. There is no
room for anyone or anything else. Is that so? Or did I miss something
about the Christian agenda, Elijah? Convert or be toast. Somewhere I
want to beleive in a benevolent Creator, one that doesnt need to rewrite
history to prove that its right or threaten in order to obtain someones
love, but that is oh-so -hard when someone is standing over you with a
crucifix beating you with it.
Thank you in 'furthering my education'. ;)
Ankh udja seneb!
Christina
Subject: Re: BLACKNESS in Egyptian Art, Murals, etc. (REPOST)
From: grifcon@mindspring.com (Katherine Griffis)
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 12:04:01 GMT
"S. F. Thomas" wrote:
>Katherine M. Griffis wrote:
>> >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...
Suit yourself: This IS and has been the view of Egyptian art LONG
before Afrocentrism reared his head, and will continue to be, in
relation to the religious views of the period. Even the Egyptians
themselves noted the change in their texts (SEE: Amarna Letters, and
in the Hymn to the Aten)
>(( 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.
Quite, and as I have pointed out several instances here, misquotes and
"out of context" quotes from authors to make them *say* what they
didn't say and mean somewhat establishes the *quality* of the
arguments of "Afrocentrism" . When I see some more solid evidence
than shown here, I will study it thoroughly, and likely agree with it.
>(( 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.
I haven't made any statement that *any other Egyptologist* would have
made: it would be absurd to do otherwise. Egyptology's history shows
us that there were *bounders and cads* in this profession, as in **any
other**