From: owner-ane To: ane-digest@oi.uchicago.edu Subject: Ancient Near East Digest V4 #6 Reply-To: Errors-To: owner-ane Precedence: bulk Ancient Near East Digest Sunday, 7 July 1996 Volume 04 : Number 006 Biblical Chronology Propriety on ANE Re: Pyramids native to Egypt? - NONSENSE Re: Manetho and Heliacal Risings Sirius - Sothic Year? Re: Biblical Chronology Re: Biblical Chronology Pyramids native to Egypt? - Naturally Re: Manetho and Heliacal Risings Re: The African Substratum - Reply Re: Pyramids native to Egypt? - Naturally Re: Pyramids native to Egypt? - Naturally Re: Pyramids native to Egypt? - Naturally Re: Chronology - Manetho and Pandorus Re: Pyramids native to Egypt? - Naturally Re: Pyramids native to Egypt? - NONSENSE Pyramids native to Egypt? - Of course. Re: Biblical Chronology Re: Biblical chronology Pyramids and ziggurats: the movie Re: Pyramids native to Egypt? - Of course. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christina Van Spoor Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 14:58:09 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Biblical Chronology 11:42 AM 7/6/96 -0400, you wrote: >On Sat, 6 Jul 1996, Jesse S. Cook III wrote: > >> >> Mr. Gibson: I do not now nor have I ever used the Bible to "anchor" history. >> Are you so ignorant that you don't know about Ussher's date? Of course, the >> earth was not created in 4004 or 4104 BC, but have you any idea when it was? > > >I thought the earth was created in -3759 = 5756 years ago. > >liz Only if you are foolish enough to believe the load of bollocks the church has been trying to spoon feed the gullible in society for lo these two millenia. Archaeologists have _absolutely_ no business proving the validity of that edited document, nor any other that is held up as religious scripture. Archaeolgy is scientifically based, therefore, scietific and substantiated fact must be presented in order to disprove the common knowlege that the earth is not merely a few thousand years old but in fact millions of years. I suppose next they will tell us that paleantology is a "conspiricy" of the secular society in some Satanic plot... What next? Sincerely, Christina VanSpoor xina@netins.net ------------------------------ From: cejo@midway.uchicago.edu (Charles E. Jones) Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 15:02:18 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Propriety on ANE With reference to recent traffic on ANE. Taunts and replies to taunts are _not_ welcome on ANE - even on the unmoderated option. It is not acceptable to publish mail sent to you off-list. If a thread is a private conversation, move it off-list and _do not_ send copies to the list. - -Chuck Jones- [ANE owner] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Charles E. Jones Research Archivist - Bibliographer The Oriental Institute - Chicago 1155 E. 58th St. Chicago IL 60637-1569 Voice (312) 702-9537 Fax (312) 702-9853 cejo@midway.uchicago.edu http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/DEPT/RA/ABZU/ABZU.HTML ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ------------------------------ From: AKaulins@aol.com Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 16:54:11 -0400 Subject: Re: Pyramids native to Egypt? - NONSENSE Sorry Ian - in spite of my promise not to post to ANE in July and August, someone has to retort to your wild speculations on the elements of building construction with some rational argument. This is just too central an issue not to reply (whereas, if you want to talk about doves on monuments and similar important themes, I will not intrude). In 4000 years, archaeologists will be hard pressed to be made to believe that the skyscrapers of New York City or elsewhere in the USA (should some remains exists) trace their origins to the first log cabins built on the new continent, which traced their origins back to similar structures in Europe - e.g. Scandinavia, where by and large, skyscraper structures of this kind still do not exist. All known migrated cultures bring their cultural elements, including methods of building, the principle of tools required for such building, the systems of measurement used, etc. with them. These do not appear suddenly in a culture out of thin air but are developed over millenia. The migrated peoples then adapt their knowledge to locally available materials, building resources and circumstances, labor supply, etc. and with time improve upon old types of building or develop new styles. Initially, since people in a new area are just starting, the buildings built are worse than those in the areas from which they came because there is no established infrastructure nor is there an adequate supply of tools and means of transportation (roads, etc.) Your arguments that the pyramids developed in Egypt out nothingness from some early supposed indigenous prototypes in Africa from a previously non-existent foundation of tools, knowledge, understanding of static, linear measurement, etc. is at best, preposterous, and it is clear you know nothing of architecture and building. What you write is far more fantastic than anything Bauval could imagine, be he right or wrong, and could only come from someone who has probably never mortared a single brick, never hewn a rock, never laid a building foundation, never had to level a flat area - all skills, which simultaneous to YOUR completely imagined and ultra-fantastic theory of the origins of the pyramids suddenly appear out of nowhere in Egypt. Poppycock. Furthermore, Sir, and to all those out there who support these kinds of ridiculous scholarly flirtations with the entire area of construction and building, about which some of you out there in ANE apparently know next to nothing, you might consider that evidence of the physical sciences regarding the Egyptian blood types completely negates your theories, since both Hebrews and Egyptians (in contradistinction to the Arabs) have blood types similar to those found in eastern Europe and more northerly Eurasia - so that NEITHER of them can be indigenous to Egypt - and so therefore, can the pyramids also not be indigenous to Egypt. (See here Kelus and Lukascewicz, Probleme der Blutgruppenforschung, Fischer Verlag - a mathematically calculated dendrite of world populations by blood types). The time is coming when the humanities, and especially the historians, linguists and archaeologists, will start to have to come with grips with the physical sciences and the hard facts these sciences produce. Otherwise, it is all hand-waving, a lot of well-meaning academic opinion and, as one famous literate once wrote, the sound and fury signifying nothing. - - Andis Kaulins ------------------------------ From: AKaulins@aol.com Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 17:25:05 -0400 Subject: Re: Manetho and Heliacal Risings Dear Wayne, (CC to ANE - the Ancient Near East forum, which might be of interest to you) Your question about alleging the accuracy of heliacal risings to a day in the ancient near East is an excellent one. Indeed, we know that the Babylonians were satisfied to measure heliacal risings to within 5 days (see here Werner Papke, Die Sterne von Bablyon [The Stars of Babylon], Gustav-Luebbe Verlag, Bergisch-Gladbach, Germany), so that observations over years would most surely have been necessary to be more accurate, given the vagaries of weather. Measurements are of course made somewhat easier in a desert-like arid climate (I spent six months in Arizona and you have never seen the sky until you see it on a moonless night in the desert). Furthermore, we have evidence that the ancients had trouble determining the periods to a day, especially where star clusters are involved. If my analysis concerning the Pharaohs is correct, then Africanus used 62 days for the difference in heliacal risings between the lower left star of Pegasus (the Great Square) and the Pleiades whereas Eusebius writes only 60. In fact, this difference in dating the so-called reigns of the pharaohs is additional evidence that these reigns are not human years - since there is no doubt if a king rules let us say 25 years - and the ancients would not suddenly write, e.g. 23 or 27. Manetho's sums of the reigns of the pharaohs also support this analysis, since the sums appended to each of the Dynasties of the Old Kingdom by him often do not add up - for example, the lengths of the individual reigns given by Manetho (Julius Africanus) for the first dynasty are 62-57-31-23-20-26-18-26 for a total of 263, but Manetho sums them as summing 253. The kings of the fourth dynasty (the builders of the Great Pyramids) ruled, according to Manetho, 29-63-66-63-25-22-7-9 years respectively, for an added total of 284 whereas Manetho specifically gives the sum of 277 after them. If it were true, as I allege, that these are periods between heliacal risings, then, of course, it would support the intelligence of your query, i.e. that the individual periods were in fact not entirely accurate as to a day - presuming of course, that heliacal risings are intended. The sums of Manetho, by the way, are typical for the type of data which has been ignored by the Egyptologists and Oriental scholars, since they do not fit into the accepted picture. If the numbers given by Manetho were actually lengths of human rule by human rulers, then these problems of summation would not occur.. - - Andis Kaulins ------------------------------ From: AKaulins@aol.com Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 17:46:04 -0400 Subject: Sirius - Sothic Year? Dear ANE members, I received the following question today from Wayne Atchison (wayne_atchison@msgate.wdl.lmco.com) and forward it to ANE for answering by the experts in the field. Since it is alleged in Egyptology that the Pharaohs calculated the Sothic year using Sirius, and considering the many views which have been espoused recently on astronomy by the ANE experts in the field, the answering of his question regarding Sirius should be simple for you - and I ask you to eMail your answer to Wayne with a copy to me if you desire. I will answer Wayne separately on the other questions he poses. Thank you. >To: AKaulins@aol.com (AKaulins) >I'm reading your material on the celestial alternative interpretation of Genesis, and am >very intrigued. A question that must be answered for me to understand how to verify >your findings (with my own computer and software) is that of the time of the rising or setting of the stars you are specifying. That is, how are "you" determining their day of rising / >setting? >I am assuming that you are talking about the day in which the specified star rises >above the horizon in the morning prior to the sun's rising. I am assuming that the node >star is the 180 degree opposite star. I am assuming that you are refering to an >astronomical rising of the star before the sun's rising, ie. if light were not a factor, which >rises first. However, the evidence I have suggests that the determination of the day in >which Sirius is said to rise once a year was a visual determination, requiring Sirius to be about 13 degrees above the horizon at sunrise. >Would you be so kind as to provide me with some comments which would confirm or >deny the above assumptions, and a statement about your research into how the rising >of Sirius was determined, visual (at which degree above the horizon) or astronomical? >Thanks for any comments or references you may provide. >Wayne ------------------------------ From: Brad Harrison Date: Tue, 28 Aug 1956 06:14:12 +0000 Subject: Re: Biblical Chronology Bereshit Rabbah is a fine text for an insight of the grand flexability of the Rabbinic mind towards various interpritation of the Genesis narrative. Some of the ideas of these third, fourth cent. Rabbis are very consistent with several modern theories of evolution, particularly the Nemises theory. The theory where the Earth was hit by meteors that allowed new species to adapt and evolve. But what is too often the case simple people seek simple answers. I am a Bible believing Christian, as well as a "scientist". The Earth is as old as geological time tells us and there is no contradiction in scripture for it being that old. How can the earth be created in six days if the Sun was not created till the third fourth day? How can there be a day without a Sun? For the scripture stated that the Sun was created so there could be days, weeks and years. Even many of the ancient Hebrews realized that this was a metaphor. But that sometimes takes a little extra thought. But I do apologize to all list members as this has nothing to do with the Ancient Near East:( And I am a little disturbed by the tone that this has been duscussed. We should be comparing the Hebrew creation myth with that of other Near Eastern creation myths. And not Christian dogmatics. Lechem aka: Brad Harrison Philly Pa ------------------------------ From: jimgros@indirect.com (James D. Grosbach) Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 19:58:21 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: Biblical Chronology At 02:58 PM 7/6/96 -0500, Christina Van Spoor wrote: > 11:42 AM 7/6/96 -0400, you wrote: >>On Sat, 6 Jul 1996, Jesse S. Cook III wrote: >> >>> >>> Mr. Gibson: I do not now nor have I ever used the Bible to "anchor" history. >>> Are you so ignorant that you don't know about Ussher's date? Of course, the >>> earth was not created in 4004 or 4104 BC, but have you any idea when it was? >> >> >>I thought the earth was created in -3759 = 5756 years ago. >> >>liz > >Only if you are foolish enough to believe the load of bollocks the church >has been trying to spoon feed the gullible in society for lo these two millenia. > >Archaeologists have _absolutely_ no business proving the validity of that >edited document, nor any other that is held up as religious scripture. >Archaeolgy is scientifically based, therefore, scietific and substantiated >fact must be presented in order to disprove the common knowlege that the >earth is not merely a few thousand years old but in fact millions of years. > >I suppose next they will tell us that paleantology is a "conspiricy" of the >secular society in some Satanic plot... > >What next? > >Sincerely, > >Christina VanSpoor >xina@netins.net > > > > NEXT they'll be telling us that paleantology is a conspiracy? Read any fundamentalist Christian magazine or newsletter (they can be found in barbershops (oops, hair styling salons) dentist's offices, etc. Some of these folks have been ridiculing paleantology for decades (albeit not for millions of years). To hear it from them, God put all those fossils in the rocks just to confuse, confound, and ridicule the "godless scientists." Some even have the exact date of creation figured out. It's still a big issue in public schools in many parts of America...In many school districts biology teachers especially have to tiptoe carefully around the origin and dates of life forms. Liz's question about the discrepancy between the Jewish date and the Ussherian dates of creation is worth investigation itself, though. According to the fundamentalist Christians, this should be the year 6,000 (I'm surprised they aren't making more hoopla over it!)Or, actually, 5,999 since there was no "year zero." So there's still time to organize a big bash. Or should that be a Big Bang Bash? James D. Grosbach ------------------------------ From: mc2499@mclink.it (Ian Hutchesson) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1996 05:22:56 +0200 Subject: Pyramids native to Egypt? - Naturally Gosh Andis, How many days did it take to get you out of the closet? You're now back peddling the the fantastic (again). >Initially, since people in a new area are just starting, the buildings built >are worse than those in the areas from which they came because there is no >established infrastructure nor is there an adequate supply of tools and means >of transportation (roads, etc.) Stone had been worked for some time. It was used for facing temples and other buildings. There were already tools and experience. The difference here is a new use of the knowledge. Nothing strange nor fantastic. >Your arguments that the pyramids developed in Egypt out nothingness You didn't read my posts! Shame. Not out of nothingness, out of previous elements developed in new ways -- in simple plain clear observeable steps. >from some >early supposed indigenous prototypes in Africa Egypt to be precise. >from a previously non-existent >foundation of tools, knowledge, understanding of static, linear measurement, >etc. Obviously you believe that the Egyptians did nothing for the centuries before the construction of the first pyramids, not learning to use stone, not developing any mathematics, not developing astronomical observational skills. They didn't construct enormous palace-like structures as funerary monuments for their pharaohs by themselves. They wuz helped, because they were incompetent, I guess. If you took time to examine the building construction of the pyramids you will see that the builders had a good understanding of the physical forces in operation with such big structures. They attempted various means to compensate for the enormous forces in operation, as can be seen in the experiments with the ways they laid their courses of stone and protected their central chambers. >is at best, preposterous, and it is clear you know nothing of >architecture and building. Sad rhetoric here, Andis. If you only read certain books then you won't get the full picture. >What you write is far more fantastic than >anything Bauval could imagine, be he right or wrong, and could only come >from someone who has probably never mortared a single brick, never hewn a >rock, never laid a building foundation, never had to level a flat area - all >skills, which simultaneous to YOUR completely imagined and ultra-fantastic >theory of the origins of the pyramids suddenly appear out of nowhere in >Egypt. Poppycock. An armchair Egyptologist, I'd guess. You should go and look at the stuctures close up. Have a good walk around Djoser's pyramid: you can see the phases in its developments -- you can see the first stage mastaba from the east and the seam of the first pyramid structure. But I suppose if you don't want to look, you won't see what's before your nose. The developments from Djoser's mastaba to Cheops's were many and are well documented, but let's forget about them because they are too simple to explain the fantasticist's desires for them. >Furthermore, Sir, and to all those out there who support these kinds of >ridiculous scholarly flirtations with the entire area of construction and >building, about which some of you out there in ANE apparently know next to >nothing, Scholarly flirtations (-: If so, better than your unscholarly flirtations. But I'd think that "flirtation" is an underevaluation of the documentation behind the analysis of the development of the pyramids. >you might consider that evidence of the physical sciences regarding >the Egyptian blood types completely negates your theories, You may consider the fact that the Egyptians wore only green underwear as being of some importance to the development of the pyramids, but I don't. We are dealing with the architectural development of pyramids, let's stick to that -- there is quite enough evidence to be dealt with without bringing in more complications whose relevance is highly debatable. > >The time is coming when the humanities, and especially the historians, >linguists and archaeologists, will start to have to come with grips with the >physical sciences and the hard facts these sciences produce. This seems to show an extreme lack of understanding of the skills necessary for such pursuits as archaeology, many of which are the matter of the physical sciences. It doesn't augur well for coming to grasps with linguistics or history either, for both are heavily evidence based, which is something that your numerous posts have failed to understand. >Otherwise, it is >all hand-waving, a lot of well-meaning academic opinion and, as one famous >literate once wrote, the sound and fury signifying nothing. Faulkner (& Macbeth) cuts both ways. "..It is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury Signifying nothing." You have brushed aside clear signs of coherence in the local Egyptian development of pyramids without analysing them. You have ignored plain evidence and gone for the outlandish. Method is essential: I'd like to see some from you. And please, no more idiot tales. Cheers, Ian Hutchesson ------------------------------ From: Patrick Ryan Date: Sun, 07 Jul 1996 00:17:38 -0700 Subject: Re: Manetho and Heliacal Risings AKaulins@aol.com wrote: >... Dear Andis: In Budge's _Book of Kings_, two lists are given for the I. MYTHICAL PERIOD: Manetho's and Pandorus'. The numbers are completely different. Dynasty I: Hephaistos Man. - 9000 years Pand. - 727-3/4 years II: Helios 992 80-1/6 III: Agatho-daimon 700 56-7/12 IV: Kronos 501 40-1/2 V: Osiris & Isis 433 35 VI: Typhon 359 29 The relationship between the two sets of numbers is not obvious; and to my knowledge, no one has ever attempted to relate the two sets systematically; however, they can be: If one assumes that Manetho's figures are MONTHs of 29.531 days, and we estimate a YEAR at 365.26 days: 9000 x 29.531 / 365.26 = 727.64332 cf. Pan. 727-3/4 992 80.20246 80-1/6 700 56.59448 56-7/12 501 40.50547 40-1/2 433 35.00772 35 359 29.02488 29 I think two things are obvious. If Manetho's figures do NOT represent months, then, at least, Pandorus (or his source) thought they did. The exactitude of these correspondences suggests to me that they cannot be actual reigns of anybody. What I think they represent, and the same is true of the Sumerian king-lists with impossibly long reigns, is some astronomical cycle that was considered important. Therefore the total dynasty years of reign is meaningless since these cycles are running concurrently. It is obvious that the "reign" of Hephaistos is almost 10x longer than the next reign. I am not an astronomer; and though I have looked at these relationships for many years, I cannot identify the cycle involved. I would suggest that the period of Hephaistos is connected with the pole-star, however; and the others with the five anciently observable planets. As a tentative assignment of identifications, I would suggest the following: Helios Saturn Saturn is considered the representative of the sun in the night sky Agatho-Daimon Jupiter in his role as weather-god Kronos Mars in his agricultural role Osiris/Isis Venus Typhon Mercury Pat Ryan proto19@mail.idt.net ------------------------------ From: avigdor horovitz Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1996 08:37:53 +0300 (IDT) Subject: Re: The African Substratum - Reply Dear Ian, YOur's may be more historical, but mine is more elegant. So don't disturb me with facts! They make terrible newsprint. All the best, Avigdor On Thu, 4 Jul 1996, Ian Hutchesson wrote: > Dear Laura, > > I think you needn't worry: Avigdor's post reads like a scholarly stir. > Ur-Nammu (2070 bce) was clearly later than the main phase of pyramid > building. The physical evidence from Egypt shows that the pyramids were a > native development: one only needs note the developments in the construction > of Djoser's pyramid -- from mastaba to small step pyramid to large step > pyramid (suggests Djoser lived too long: "well Imhotep, can't you do > something to improve on it?") -- along with the various attempts by Senefru > -- from the failed Meidum pyramid to the first true pyramid, the flattish > Northern Stone Pyramid, at Dahshur (via the Bent Pyramid whose angles were > probably feared wrong). It was Senefru's son Khufu (Cheops) who got the > classical form down, building on Senefru's developments. And I did like the > "Old Pharaoh" bit. > > On ziggurat/ziqqurat, the president of Lybia has a name that has been > rendered Gheddafi as well as Qadafi (and various other ways). I've seen both > in the literature. > > (To any knowledgeable types: what was Khufu's proper name?) > > Cheers, > > Ian Hutchesson > It's only those diehard fantasts that won't accept the obvious evidence that > the pyramids were a local phenomenon and that the Egyptians were capable > astronomers and mathematicians. > ------------------------------ From: Patrick Ryan Date: Sun, 07 Jul 1996 00:49:20 -0700 Subject: Re: Pyramids native to Egypt? - Naturally Ian Hutchesson wrote: ... Pat Ryan wrote: Dear Ian: I, too, would like to accept the simplest explanation: that the Great Pyramids are a strictly Egyptian development but perhaps you can help me in that endeavor by answering a few questions for me, for which I do not have the answers. 1) I think everyone admits that the Great Pyramid (Khufu?) is very accurately aligned to the cardinal points; a) with what instrument were the Egyptians able to achieve such an accurate idea of the cardinal points? b) with what tools were the Egyptians able to translate this into the siting of the Great Pyramid? 2) The sarcophagus(?) in the King's Chamber of the Great Pyramid is made of a very hard granite; a) with what tool did the Egyptians remove the material that creates the box? These are practical questions. Do you have the answers? Pat Ryan proto19@mail.idt.net ------------------------------ From: Robert Moldenhauer Date: Sun, 07 Jul 96 07:44 CDT Subject: Re: Pyramids native to Egypt? - Naturally >1) I think everyone admits that the Great Pyramid (Khufu?) is very >accurately aligned to the cardinal points; > > a) with what instrument were the Egyptians able to achieve such an >accurate idea of the cardinal points? The sun. > > b) with what tools were the Egyptians able to translate this into the >siting of the Great Pyramid? > Their eyes. *--------------------------------------------------------------------------* | Robert C. Moldenhauer Archaeologist (Middle East) | | Computer Programmer Water Resource Management Specialist | | Wisc. Dept. of Natural Resources +1 (608) 264-8971 | | 101 South Webster St., Box 7921 RMoldenhauer@macc.wisc.edu (internet) | | Madison, Wis 53707 U.S.A. RMoldenhauer@wiscmacc (bitnet) | *--------------------------------------------------------------------------* Certe, Toto, sentio nos in Kansate non iam adesse! ------------------------------ From: Patrick Ryan Date: Sun, 07 Jul 1996 08:06:56 -0700 Subject: Re: Pyramids native to Egypt? - Naturally Robert Moldenhauer wrote: > > > >1) I think everyone admits that the Great Pyramid (Khufu?) is very > >accurately aligned to the cardinal points; > > > > a) with what instrument were the Egyptians able to achieve such an > >accurate idea of the cardinal points? > > The sun. > > > > > b) with what tools were the Egyptians able to translate this into the > >siting of the Great Pyramid? > > > > Their eyes. > > Dear Mr. Moldenhauer: Thank you for your humorous contribution to the discussion. How clever of you to assume that instrument could mean star; and tool could mean bodily organ. Of course, you left out an answer to my question on the excavation of the granite from the sarcophagus. Let me remedy your omission: why the Egyptians used their fingernails, the skilled use of which they developed by carefully observing native African animals over millenia of autochthonous development. If your act ever comes to the Civic Center here, please let me know. Pat Ryan proto19@mail.idt.net ------------------------------ From: AKaulins@aol.com Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1996 09:34:00 -0400 Subject: Re: Chronology - Manetho and Pandorus Dear Pat, WELCOME TO THE RANKS OF THE DISCOVERERS ! You have probably opened a new Pandorus' Box! (Mea Culpa, but for something this important, I redid your numbers on my calculator and except for the here insignificant rounding of the last digit, yours figures are correct.) As someone who has dealt for years with these problems of making sense out of the numbers of the alleged lengths of reign of the pharaohs and the alleged lengths of life of the Biblical Patriarchs, I can say, for my part, that you have clearly callibrated the two lists correctly. Why did I not think of this? It remains now to discover what the numbers mean. That the Pandorus list means years might be inferred from the fact that Pandorus uses fractions of 12, i.e. remainder segments of months of the year. So I think you are on the right track here in presuming that Pandorus meant years and that Manetho meant synodic months. I do not want to comment on your tentative identifications until I check all the astronomical cycles which might come into question. Nochmals, Kongratuliere! - - Andis ------------------------------ From: David Meadows Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1996 09:58:14 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Pyramids native to Egypt? - Naturally Pardon me for butting in on this one ... I can't resist: At 00:49 7/7/96 -0700, Patrick Ryan wrote: >1) I think everyone admits that the Great Pyramid (Khufu?) is very >accurately aligned to the cardinal points; > > a) with what instrument were the Egyptians able to achieve such an >accurate idea of the cardinal points? As I mentioned in a previous post, they used a highly technical instrument called a "stick". Actually, they probably used three. Go outside first thing in the morning and plant a stick in the ground. Plant another stick at the tip of the shadow of that stick. Go away for a few hours, chip out your granite sarcophagus for a while then come back and note where the shadow of your original stick has gone. Put another stick there. Now if you take a line and join your second and third stick, you have a line that is oriented east and west (west, of course, probably being the most significant direction for the Egyptians building tombs). > > b) with what tools were the Egyptians able to translate this into the >siting of the Great Pyramid? Probably some other technical apparatus called "string" > >2) The sarcophagus(?) in the King's Chamber of the Great Pyramid is made >of a very hard granite; > > a) with what tool did the Egyptians remove the material that creates >the box? Very likely something called a "chisel". Bauval makes this sound like it would take forever ... well let's keep in mind they have probably a couple of decades to do this. And don't be thinking that "well today when we cut granite countertops we use a big diamond studded saw". We're not cutting a long, narrow granite countertop which requires such equipment to keep from shattering. We're simply going to use our chisel to chisel out a series of parallel lines, then chisel out the material between those lines and so on. > >These are practical questions. Do you have the answers? I'm sure that some of us do ... dm ------------------------------ From: David Meadows Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1996 09:58:17 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Pyramids native to Egypt? - NONSENSE Might I suggest that as a group we agree not to reply to AK's most recent post on the list (carry on in private if you like)? It is clear that he will soon have a television show of his own and really isn't worth our time any more ... dm (bracing himself for the stock "freedom of speech" rant but already setting up the kill file) ------------------------------ From: mc2499@mclink.it (Ian Hutchesson) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1996 16:24:08 +0200 Subject: Pyramids native to Egypt? - Of course. Dear Pat, I hope you're not suggesting that your questions are basically unanswerable given the knowledge we have of the ancient Egyptians and that we should abandon the most consistent theory for the fantastic. This would be like abandoning the evolutionary theory for creationism. We're not dealing with faith here, but with facts and holes in our knowledge. >I, too, would like to accept the simplest explanation: that the Great >Pyramids are a strictly Egyptian development but perhaps you can help me >in that endeavor by answering a few questions for me, for which I do not >have the answers. > >1) I think everyone admits that the Great Pyramid (Khufu?) is very >accurately aligned to the cardinal points; It is worth noting that there is a progression of accuracy from Djoser's to that of Cheops: Djoser's 3 degree error Meidum 24 minutes Bent 10 minutes Cheops's 5 minutes (east face) & 2 minutes (south) I'd guess that the south side of Cheops's was luck (!), noting that Khafre's was also 5 minutes and Menkaure's was 14 minutes. There will be limits to the accuracy possible with the means that they had available. Perhaps if there were some consistency you might have more chance of suggesting the fantastic. Taking the evidence out of context doesn't help the cause. > > a) with what instrument were the Egyptians able to achieve such an >accurate idea of the cardinal points? Robert Moldauer answered this, saying the sun. Your response was simple ridicule. Obviously he is right in referring to astronomical phenomena: I'd be more inclined to think it was the stars that gave the accuracy, using Polaris as one of the major points of reference to supply north. > > b) with what tools were the Egyptians able to translate this into the >siting of the Great Pyramid? Again, although I don't have a definite answer, I'd go with Robert: eyes. However separating your problem into two questions tends to split the solution unnecessarily. The most likely process would be to deal with the projections of the lines of the various stars involved based on their setting and rising positions, then bisecting the angle formed physically on the site. I think the eyes have it. Let me just add that the mathematics that we know about deals with rendering the most accurate values for very small quantities. (And I do like dm's sticks and string!) >2) The sarcophagus(?) in the King's Chamber of the Great Pyramid is made >of a very hard granite; > > a) with what tool did the Egyptians remove the material that creates >the box? What has this got to do with the development of pyramid architecture? There was an interesting debate on TV recently between Vincent Bugliosi and Alan Dershowitz regarding evidence in the OJ Simpson trial. Bugliosi was pushing for looking at the evidence and Dershowitz was pushing reasonable doubt through throwing enough red-herrings up to fog the issues. You're fogging here Pat. Bye, Ian ------------------------------ From: jcook@awod.com (Jesse S. Cook III) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1996 10:30:11 -0400 Subject: Re: Biblical Chronology On 6 July 1996, Christina Van Spoor wrote: >Only if you are foolish enough to believe the load of bollocks the church >has been trying to spoon feed the gullible in society for lo these two millenia. > >Archaeologists have _absolutely_ no business proving the validity of that >edited document, nor any other that is held up as religious scripture. >Archaeolgy is scientifically based, therefore, scietific and substantiated >fact must be presented in order to disprove the common knowlege that the >earth is not merely a few thousand years old but in fact millions of years. > >I suppose next they will tell us that paleantology is a "conspiricy" of the >secular society in some Satanic plot... That's pretty much what the creationists have been saying at least since the Scopes Trial in 1925 (the same year that Raymond Dart reported his findings on the Taung child, a two-and-a-half-million-year-old hominid). Jesse S. Cook III E-Mail: jcook@awod.com Post Office Box 40984 or Charleston, SC 29485 USA 201-9573@mcimail.com "Our attitude toward others is not determined by who *they* are; it is determined by who *we* are." ------------------------------ From: jcook@awod.com (Jesse S. Cook III) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1996 10:30:39 -0400 Subject: Re: Biblical chronology On Saturday, 6 July 1996, Liz Fried wrote: >>>I thought the earth was created in -3759 = 5756 years ago. >>> >>>liz >> >> Are you serious, Liz? > >I am just as serious as you are. :) > >(But seriously, this is the date of the present year on the Jewish >calendar, 5756, and it supposedly counts from the creation of the >universe. I assumed the rabbis would have counted the same way you >counted, so I don't understand why there is the discrepancy. Do you?) > >Liz Can't say that I do, Liz. Jesse S. Cook III E-Mail: jcook@awod.com Post Office Box 40984 or Charleston, SC 29485 USA 201-9573@mcimail.com "Our attitude toward others is not determined by who *they* are; it is determined by who *we* are." ------------------------------ From: mc2499@mclink.it (Ian Hutchesson) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1996 16:43:11 +0200 Subject: Pyramids and ziggurats: the movie Dear Avigdor, You've got to keep up with mass technology! Who reads anymore? We now receive our pureed information via TV. Elegance comes across better visually, and facts lose out just as badly. Besides, you can confuse people with numbers and statistics better when spoken -- written numbers usually just get ignored. >YOur's may be more historical, but mine is more elegant. So don't >disturb me with facts! They make terrible newsprint. So, when you make your TV show, David Meadows can review it. Cheers, Ian ------------------------------ From: Patrick Ryan Date: Sun, 07 Jul 1996 10:27:33 -0700 Subject: Re: Pyramids native to Egypt? - Of course. Ian Hutchesson wrote: > > Dear Pat, > > ... > abandoning the evolutionary theory for creationism. Pat Ryan wrote: I am not a Christian nor a Jew. I think the creationists are simply stupid people who substitute "faith" for knowledge. I never willingly opt for "faith" in anything! > > >1) I think everyone admits that the Great Pyramid (Khufu?) is very > >accurately aligned to the cardinal points; > It is worth noting that there is a progression of accuracy from Djoser's to that of Cheops: > > There will be limits to > the accuracy possible with the means that they had available. What words do I have to use to prompt a description of the "means". > Robert Moldauer answered this, saying the sun. Your response was simple > ridicule. I assumed his response was meant to be a joke. If it is not, will you or he please describe how, using only the sun, the pyramids could have been so accurately oriented? Generalities prove nothing. Let us get specific. > > b) with what tools were the Egyptians able to translate this into the > >siting of the Great Pyramid? > Again, although I don't have a definite answer. Ah, so here we have it! If you do not have a definite answer, how can you speculate on the Egyptians' ability to accomplish it? If you cannot tell me "how" (and "eyes" is a simplistic, naive answer unworthy of the logic I have seen you display in your postings), then you cannot say certainly that the Egyptians were CAPABLE of doing it! > The most likely process would be to deal with the > projections of the lines of the various stars involved based on their > setting and rising positions, then bisecting the angle formed > physically on the site. I think the eyes have it. > Ian, quite aside from this description of an impossible process, you have not told me HOW they could have done what you describe.And as far as sighting on the pole-star (whatever it was at the time), are you not aware that NO pole-star has ever been at TRUE NORTH? > >2) The sarcophagus(?) in the King's Chamber of the Great Pyramid is made > >of a very hard granite; > > > > a) with what tool did the Egyptians remove the material that creates > >the box? > > What has this got to do with the development of pyramid architecture? ... I shall rate that as another failure to answer the question unless a red herring counts as an answer. Ian, frankly, I expected better. Pat protol9@mail.idt.net ------------------------------ End of Ancient Near East Digest V4 #6 ************************************* Back issues are available by two means: anonymous FTP at oi.uchicago.edu in pub/ane/ OR on the World Wide Web (WWW) at ftp://oi.uchicago.edu/pub/ane/