From: owner-ane@ (ANE Digest) To: ane-digest Subject: ANE Digest V1999 #12 Reply-To: Sender: owner-ane@ Errors-To: owner-ane@ Precedence: bulk ANE Digest Wednesday, January 13 1999 Volume 1999 : Number 012 R: ane Sothis Cycle ane Tia and Tia ane Israeli archaeological surveys in Lebanon from 1982 ane Archaeological opportunity - Sudan ane Magic-Medicine Seminar - Reading Re: ane Tia and Tia ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 15:52:24 +0100 From: "raphael" Subject: R: ane Sothis Cycle Messaggio a più sezioni in formato MIME. - ------=_NextPart_000_01BE37FA.38C8FBC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Well... just a couple of things: egyptians were aware of the "365-days-only-year" as they were aware that after decennials, the Rise of Sothis (wich is not invented but reported in original ancient texts) didn't correspond with the Nile action. That's why (after thinking that the cosmogonical order was changed by Gods in fury...) in Late egyptian history (Ptolemaic period) 5 days called (epagomenos) were added to datings, Excuse for poor english! :)) Raphael Antonini Don Mills wrote: - ---------- Dear List-members, I have extracted the following from a posting to an "Ancient Sites" discussion group. It attempts to undermine, if not eliminate, the Sothis dating method as a central pillar of Egyptian historical dating. (The author describes Sothis dating as "certainly mythical", and says "it can never have worked in practise.") My relatively limited knowledge of astronomy can't spot flaws in the argument, but my limited mathematical ability says that (based on the information in the posting), after a "Great Year" of "1460 years at 365¼ days", the Egyptian civil calendar should have been about nine days out from the astronomical state of affairs -- i.e., the calendrical first day of the year would have occurred nine days before (or should that be after?) the true heliacal rising of Sirius. (1460 x 365.25635 / 365.25 = 1460.025 years; 0.025 years = 9.125 days). What do list members know about the astronomical dating method? Are the conclusions of the Ancient Sites author ("Russobarbus Cornelius") pertinent? Would a nine-day difference between (Egyptian) theory and (celestial) actuality (if my own computation is valid) affect astronomically-established accepted datings? Are there Egyptian documents pre-dating Censorinus that confirm the Sothis Cycle as the basis of the Egyptian calendar? And, BTW, is the equation of Sothis with Sirius sound, and if so, what is its basis? If not, what other candidates might there be? Regards, Don Mills Wellington New Zealand - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---- A real year is about a quarter of a day longer than 365 days, which is why we insert leap years. But since the Egyptians didn't invent the leap year until 238 BC, their ancient calendar slipped a day every four years, relative to the seasons. After 730 years of this, a religious celebration that had begun as a spring festival, say, would be celebrated in autumn. It would require 1461 years at 365 days each (equal to 1460 years at 365¼ days) for all festivals to cycle back to the seasons they started from. In the 3rd century AD, Censorinus (a Roman author) explained that the Egyptians had kept track of this 1460-year "Great Year" by co-ordinating it with the star "Sothis" (in Egyptian, Sopdet), which Egyptologists equate with Sirius; and that such a 1460-year cycle had completed in 138 AD. Accordingly, *if his information was correct*, previous Great Years would have begun in 1322 BC, 2782 BC, and 4242 BC. In 1904, the chronologist Eduard Meyer reasoned that if he could find records of events in Egyptian history dated by the calendar, which also recorded a particular fixed position of Sothis, he could identify when the year of the event was, relative to the Sothic cycle. A search through 4,000 years of documented Egyptian history has revealed six such dates, of which three could be related to the reigns of known Pharaohs. On this basis, Pharaoh Sesostris III was "fixed" as having been alive in 1866 BC, Amenhotep I's 9th year was fixed as 1538 BC, and Thutmose III was alive in 1458 BC. It's fair to say that the entire chronology of ancient Egypt rests on these three dates; all others are filled in by trying to identify excavated royal monuments with the names in the "ruined façade" of Manetho's king lists. Yet close examination shows that these "fixed" dates are all based on very shaky assumptions. The document giving the 1866 date *doesn't name the Pharaoh it relates to*; "Sesostris" was felt to be the "most likely" candidate, but is by no means certain. The 1538 date is based on a badly damaged document that needed extensive reconstruction and conjectural amendment before it could be read, and which in any case describes a 360-day year rather than the 365-day year the Sothis Cycle hinges on. The 1458 date seems to relate to Thutmose III, but the document neither gives the year of his reign, nor claims that it has the required relationship to Sothis (the so-called "heliacal rising"). As if this weren't bad enough, the Sothis cycle itself is certainly mythical. Besides Censorinus, only Theon of Alexandria (4th century AD) can be interpreted as referring to it, and *if he does*, he sets the start of the latest cycle in 26 BC, rather than Censorinus' date of 139 AD that Egyptologists use. However, the whole concept founders on the fact that the year as measured against the stars (the "sidereal year") is not 365.25 days long, but 365.25635 days long. It takes 1460 quarter-days to accumulate a whole year (the 1461st year of the cycle), thereby bringing the calendar back into line with the seasons. But .25635 of a day requires 1424.8346 years to accumulate 365 days, which would still leave the calendar 304 days out of phase with the seasons – which is why our modern calendars have additional adjustments beyond four-yearly leap-years. (Years 1700, 1800, and 1900 weren't leap years; 2000 will be one; 4000 won't). We must conclude that Censorinus computed his "Great Year" artificially from the best measurement he had for the sidereal year (365¼ days); *but it can never have worked in practise*. In summary: a.. the cycle supposedly began in 2782 or even 4242 BC, but no document *hints* at its existence before the 3rd century AD, and no Egyptian document until the 4th; b.. those two documents differ by over 160 years in the date they assign to the turn of the cycle; c.. the three "historical" dates derived from the cycle that supposedly give absolute certainty to Egyptian chronology are derived by dubious interpretation of fragmentary texts; d.. the cycle depends on a civil year of 365 days being maintained across millennia, but the Ebers papyrus (?1500 BC) and Canopus decree (238 BC) both describe a 360-day year; e.. the theory assumes a sidereal year of exactly 365¼ days; in fact, it is longer by almost ten minutes, confounding the whole idea of a 1460 (1461)-year cycle. - ---------- - ------=_NextPart_000_01BE37FA.38C8FBC0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Well... just a couple of things: = egyptians were aware of the "365-days-only-year" as they were = aware that after decennials, the Rise of Sothis (wich is not invented = but reported in original ancient texts) didn't correspond with the Nile = action. That's why (after thinking that the cosmogonical order was = changed by Gods in fury...) in Late egyptian history (Ptolemaic period) = 5 days called (epagomenos) were added to datings,
Excuse for poor = english! :))
Raphael Antonini

Don Mills = wrote:
----------

Dear List-members,

I have extracted = the following from a posting to an "Ancient = Sites"
discussion group.  It attempts to undermine, if not = eliminate, the Sothis
dating method as a central pillar of Egyptian = historical dating.  (The
author describes Sothis dating as = "certainly mythical", and says "it can
never have = worked in practise.")

My relatively limited knowledge of = astronomy can't spot flaws in the
argument, but my limited = mathematical ability says that (based on the
information in the = posting), after a "Great Year" of "1460 years at = 365=BC
days", the Egyptian civil calendar should have been about = nine days out from
the astronomical state of affairs -- i.e., the = calendrical first day of the
year would have occurred nine days = before (or should that be after?) the
true heliacal rising of Sirius. =  (1460 x 365.25635 / 365.25 =3D 1460.025
years; 0.025 years =3D = 9.125 days).

What do list members know about the astronomical = dating method?  Are the
conclusions of the Ancient Sites author = ("Russobarbus Cornelius") pertinent?
Would a nine-day = difference between (Egyptian) theory and (celestial)
actuality (if my = own computation is valid) affect astronomically-established
accepted = datings?  Are there Egyptian documents pre-dating Censorinus = that
confirm the Sothis Cycle as the basis of the Egyptian calendar? =  And, BTW,
is the equation of Sothis with Sirius sound, and if = so, what is its basis?
If not, what other candidates might there = be?

Regards,

Don Mills
Wellington
New = Zealand


------------------------------------------------------= - ----------------------
----

A real year is about a quarter of = a day longer than 365 days, which is why
we insert leap years. But = since the Egyptians didn't invent the leap year
until 238 BC, their = ancient calendar slipped a day every four years,
relative to the = seasons. After 730 years of this, a religious celebration
that had = begun as a spring festival, say, would be celebrated in autumn. = It
would require 1461 years at 365 days each (equal to 1460 years at = 365=BC days)
for all festivals to cycle back to the seasons they = started from.

In the 3rd century AD, Censorinus (a Roman author) = explained that the
Egyptians had kept track of this 1460-year = "Great Year" by co-ordinating it
with the star = "Sothis" (in Egyptian, Sopdet), which Egyptologists = equate
with Sirius; and that such a 1460-year cycle had completed in = 138 AD.
Accordingly, *if his information was correct*, previous Great = Years would
have begun in 1322 BC, 2782 BC, and 4242 BC.

In = 1904, the chronologist Eduard Meyer reasoned that if he could = find
records of events in Egyptian history dated by the calendar, = which also
recorded a particular fixed position of Sothis, he could = identify when the
year of the event was, relative to the Sothic = cycle. A search through 4,000
years of documented Egyptian history = has revealed six such dates, of which
three could be related to the = reigns of known Pharaohs. On this basis,
Pharaoh Sesostris III was = "fixed" as having been alive in 1866 BC, Amenhotep
I's 9th = year was fixed as 1538 BC, and Thutmose III was alive in 1458 = BC.

It's fair to say that the entire chronology of ancient Egypt = rests on these
three dates; all others are filled in by trying to = identify excavated royal
monuments with the names in the "ruined = fa=E7ade" of Manetho's king lists. Yet
close examination shows = that these "fixed" dates are all based on very = shaky
assumptions. The document giving the 1866 date *doesn't name = the Pharaoh it
relates to*; "Sesostris" was felt to be the = "most likely" candidate, but is
by no means certain. The = 1538 date is based on a badly damaged document that
needed extensive = reconstruction and conjectural amendment before it could be
read, and = which in any case describes a 360-day year rather than the = 365-day
year the Sothis Cycle hinges on. The 1458 date seems to = relate to Thutmose
III, but the document neither gives the year of = his reign, nor claims that
it has the required relationship to Sothis = (the so-called "heliacal
rising").=0A=
As if this weren't bad enough, the Sothis cycle itself is = certainly
mythical. Besides Censorinus, only Theon of Alexandria (4th = century AD) can
be interpreted as referring to it, and *if he does*, = he sets the start of
the latest cycle in 26 BC, rather than = Censorinus' date of 139 AD that
Egyptologists use. However, the whole = concept founders on the fact that the
year as measured against the = stars (the "sidereal year") is not 365.25 days
long, but = 365.25635 days long. It takes 1460 quarter-days to accumulate a
whole = year (the 1461st year of the cycle), thereby bringing the = calendar
back into line with the seasons. But .25635 of a day = requires 1424.8346
years to accumulate 365 days, which would still = leave the calendar 304 days
out of phase with the seasons =96 which = is why our modern calendars have
additional adjustments beyond = four-yearly leap-years. (Years 1700, 1800, and
1900 weren't leap = years; 2000 will be one; 4000 won't).

We must conclude that = Censorinus computed his "Great Year" artificially from
the = best measurement he had for the sidereal year (365=BC days); *but it = can
never have worked in practise*.

In summary:

=    a.. the cycle supposedly began in 2782 or even 4242 = BC, but no document
*hints* at its existence before the 3rd century = AD, and no Egyptian document
until the 4th;
   b.. = those two documents differ by over 160 years in the date they = assign
to the turn of the cycle;
   c.. the three = "historical" dates derived from the cycle that = supposedly
give absolute certainty to Egyptian chronology are derived = by dubious
interpretation of fragmentary texts;
=    d.. the cycle depends on a civil year of 365 days = being maintained
across millennia, but the Ebers papyrus (?1500 BC) = and Canopus decree (238
BC) both describe a 360-day year;
=    e.. the theory assumes a sidereal year of exactly = 365=BC days; in fact, it
is longer by almost ten minutes, confounding = the whole idea of a 1460
(1461)-year cycle.
----------

- ------=_NextPart_000_01BE37FA.38C8FBC0-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 06:08:56 -0800 From: "Greg Reeder" Subject: ane Tia and Tia This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_001B_01BE3DF2.09599B80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable An 18th Dynasty Egyptian couple buried at Sakkara both had the same = personal name, "Tia." She was sister to Ramesses II, he was an high administration = official. See: The Hidden Tombs of Memphis by Geoffrey Martin and his new book (which I have not seen yet?) The Tomb of Tia and Tia: A Royal Monument of the Ramesside Period in the Memphite Necropolis. Martin says that Tia's husband was ..." apparently not a relative, who curiously bore the same personal name as herself." ( Hidden Tombs p .101.) This gets to the heart of a problem I have been working on for some = time. Are the names of individuals inscribed on the walls of their tombs = always the names they were born with or is it possible that people received new names at important transitions in their life? Yes I know about = nicknames but I am asking about new names they would then use in official discourse. = Is it just a coincidence that Tia and Tia had the same name? I would be interested to hear of other husbands and wives who shared = names that were the same or similar and in instances of other names people = took on and became known but that differed from their birth name. And in this = light how do we distinguish the birth name from the other names, nicknames included? =20 Greg Reeder reeder@sirius.com =20 http://www.egyptology.com/ - ------=_NextPart_000_001B_01BE3DF2.09599B80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
An 18th Dynasty Egyptian couple buried at Sakkara both had the same = personal  name,
"Tia."  She was sister to = Ramesses II, he=20 was an high administration official.
See:  The Hidden Tombs of = Memphis=20 by Geoffrey Martin and his new book
(which I have not seen yet?) The = Tomb of=20 Tia
and Tia: A Royal Monument of the Ramesside Period in the=20 Memphite
Necropolis.

Martin says that Tia's husband was = ..."=20 apparently not a relative, who
curiously bore the same personal name = as=20 herself."
( Hidden Tombs p .101.)
This gets to the heart of a = problem=20 I have been working on for some time.
Are the names of individuals = inscribed=20 on the walls of their tombs always
the names they were born with or = is it=20 possible that people received new
names at important = transitions =20 in  their life? Yes I know about nicknames but
I am asking about = new=20 names they would then use in official discourse. Is it
just a = coincidence=20 that Tia and Tia had the same name?


  I would be = interested to=20 hear of other husbands and wives who shared names
that were the same = or=20 similar and in instances of other names people took on
and became = known but=20 that differed from their birth name. And in this light
how do we = distinguish=20 the birth name from the other names, nicknames
included? 

 
Greg = Reeder
 
reeder@sirius.com  =
 
http://www.egyptology.com/
 
- ------=_NextPart_000_001B_01BE3DF2.09599B80-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 15:48:46 +0000 From: Edward Fox Subject: ane Israeli archaeological surveys in Lebanon from 1982 Some list-members may recall that I am writing a book about the life and work of the late Dr. Albert Glock, who was the director of the Institute of Palestinian Archaeology at Birzeit University in the West Bank. Glock was greatly preoccupied by the relationship between archaeology and politics in Israel/Palestine, and I have run across an issue in my research into this aspect of his work about which I would like to solicit list-members' advice and information. In conversation with another archaeological writer, I was told that after Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982, archaeological surveys were conducted of the land occupied by the Israeli forces. I put this in the passive because I do not know under whose auspices these surveys were conducted. Could anyone tell me more about this, or point me towards a good source of information about it? With thanks, - -- Edward Fox e-mail: website: http://www.diamondtent.demon.co.uk/ voice/fax: +44 171 813 2733 post: 136 Leighton Road, London NW5 2RG, UK-EU PGP public key: ID 6E1E9FE4 - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.3i for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBNdF0ESk7+HVuHp/kEQI6fwCgmzyUmO6ZmWzOuzaIHQaOlKqp dPIAn3SR 5mSGxcz0F0PevJaARqYuEvgU =JvuR - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 14:19:05 -0600 From: "Charles E. Jones" Subject: ane Archaeological opportunity - Sudan Forwarded on behalf of the undersigned, to whom responses and inquiries should be directed. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Reply-To: David Edwards At short notice, there is a vacancy for an archaeologist capable of processing/recording pottery, and helping with digging if interested, in central Sudan late Feb-April (up to 2 months salary available - duration negotiable). All expenses and salary around 1,000 sterling a month (possibly more) - dealing with material from test excavations around pottery workshop, discovered in 1997 - 1st century AD. Fabulous monumental site (Musawwart es Sofra) in desert environment with friendly team from Humboldt University, Berlin. Brilliant place, hassle free and interesting pottery which just needs someone to do basic field recording unsupervised - but can take it further if they want. If you fancy a trip away, get back to me for further details by e-mail - this address or dne1000@cus.cam.ac.uk. Dave Edwards McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research Cambridge CB2 3ER ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 16:54:21 -0600 From: "Charles E. Jones" Subject: ane Magic-Medicine Seminar - Reading Forwarded on behalf of the undersigned, to whom responses and inquiries should be directed. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx M A G I C The University of Reading, Department of Classics E Research Seminars, Spring 1999 Season Wednesdays 5pm D 20 January Emilie Savage-Smith (Wellcome Unit, Oxford) Countering Disease with Magic: Medieval Islamic artifacts versus texts I 3 February Mark Geller (UCL) Anatomy of Babylonian Medicine C 17 February Nicola Cavanagh (Birmingham) Mutilating Men: Corpses, corporeality and I the witch in Roman literature 3 March Bob Arnott (Birmingham) N Magic and Healing in the Sanctuaries of Minoan Crete E 17 March Irina Metzler (Reading) Responses to Disability in Mediaeval Europe: Between medicine and magic All meetings are on Wednesdays at 5pm, and will be held in Room 40, Faculty of Letters and Social Sciences. For further information, please contact Helen King (H.King@Reading.ac.uk), Dept of Classics, PO Box 217, Faculty of Letters, University of Reading, Whiteknights, Reading, RG6 6AA, tel: +44 (0) 118 9318420. The seminar is also advertised on the WWW at: http://www.rdg.ac.uk/AcaDepts/lk/Classsics/medicinemagic.html - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please forward this announcement to other mailing lists or potentially interested colleagues. Cheers, Gabby. John-Gabriel Bodard J.G.Bodard@Reading.ac.UK ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 00:10:34 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) From: Marcio L Redondo Subject: Re: ane Tia and Tia Hi Greg > I would be interested to hear of other husbands and wives who shared names > that were the same or similar and in instances of other names people took on > and became known but that differed from their birth name. And in this light > how do we distinguish the birth name from the other names, nicknames > included? Are you interested only in Egyptian instances of husbands and wives sharing the same name? If not, there is a modern-day example. In Brazil there is a well-known politician, Iris Rezende is his name, whose wife is also called Iris. Regards, Marcio ======================================================= Marcio L. Redondo E-mail: mredondo@liverpool.ac.uk Fax: +44 151 794 2226 Phone: +44 151 280 1095 Address: 26 Springwood Avenue Liverpool L19 4TX England ======================================================= ------------------------------ End of ANE Digest V1999 #12 *************************** Back issues are available on the Oriental Institute World-Wide Web (WWW) site at: http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/ANE/OI_ANE.html