Troy Sagrillio wrote in Message ID <6egep0$8n$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
dated March 15, 1998: ((responding to someone whose statements are prefixed by an '>')"
In article <3509383D.1744103A@com1.med.usf.edu> on the newsgroup sci.archaeology, in 1998,
Department, of, Psychiatry wrote:
>The other day I came across this URL:>
> [
www.ozemail.com.au];
[Doug - see [
members.ozemail.com.au] for the full horror]
> regarding Egyptian hieroglyphs found in New South Wales….>
> text from the site:[small snip]
> "The hieroglyphs were extremely ancient, in the archaic style of the
> early dynasties. This archaic style is very little known and
> untranslatable by most Egyptologists who are all trained to read Middle
> Egyptian upward.
Old Egyptian is perfectly understandable to any Egyptologist who knows
Middle Egyptian.
> The classic Egyptian dictionaries only handle Middle> Egyptian,
Not true. The Worterbuch der Aegyptischen Sprache (the standard
dictionary) includes vocab. in Old Egyptian.
> and there are few people in the world who can read and
> translate the early formative style. Because the old style contains
> early forms of glyphs that correlate with archaic Phoenician and Sumerian sources
Huh???????
> one can see how the
> university researchers who saw them could so easily have thought them to
> be bizarre and ill-conceived forgeries.I would think so!
> The aging Egyptologist Ray Johnson,
Last time I heard, Ray Johnson was in his "early middle years" and
working at the Oriental Institute.
> who had translated extremely ancient texts
Not just the "ancient texts", but the "extremely ancient texts" too?
> for the Museum of Antiquities in Cairo
I'm in Cairo now and have never heard of this musuem. Is it anywhere
near the Egyptian Museum? They have antiquities there too.
> eventually was successful in documenting and
> translating the two facing walls of Egyptian characters. … which stemmed
> from the Third Dynasty."
Funny, the "texts" have the names of Khufu and Djed-ef-Re, two Forth
Dynasty kings. Time travel?
> This site also contains pictures of the glyphs. I just wanted to get
> some feedback from the experts. Is this a hoax or an authentic finding?
> Any info would be greatly appreciated.
Well, seeing as there are serious problems with the supposed Dyn. III
date mentioned above, a general lack of grammar in the "texts", and
hieroglyphic forms that are most likely derived from the Theinhard
hieroglyphic type face (used in E. A. Wallis Budge's books and German
publications) rather than from actual Egyptian texts, and no apparent
weathering visible for such "ancient" texts, I would have to conclude
it is a hoax. There is a similar "Egyptian-Phoenician" "tomb" outside
of Barcelona, Spain that looks simiar to this.
Fun though!
Regards,
Troy Sagrillo
and in Message-ID: <6f5906$du9$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Troy wrote (again responding to the same person whose statements are prefixed by an '>')
D. they're in Australia...... (oh! clue!)
E. the drawing indicates an Aten disk with arms. Not known in the Old Kingdom.
F. The "ankh" held by the "Anubis" is totally wrong -- an ankh is NOT a
circle with a cross hanging off the bottom.
G. the name "Djed-ef-Re" is written in *hieratic* (look at the /f/, not to
mention the Djed) -- stone-cut hieratic is totally unknown in the OK, and not
even common until Dyn. 22
H. the use of "square" cartouches
I. Overlapping hieroglyphs such as the H + r (Photo 6) and H + a (drawing)
are extremely rare in the OK, but this text *just so happens* to have 2!
J. the use of nzw zA ra over the "name" of "Lord Djes-eb" (quoting the
article) doesn't exist as a title and makes no sense. It certainly doesn't
mean "Prince" (nzw zA [no ra needed]) or "Lord" as the article claims.
Moreover, the use of zA ra ("Son of Re) doesn't start being used with any
regularity until Dyn 5.
K. The article says this name is of "Lord Djes-eb" How in the heck the author
managed to get that is beyond me. And what it really says is "nfr dsb": this
is not a name, and doesn't mean a thing in Egyptian. Moreover, private
individuals (including Princes) in the OK did not put their names in
"cartouches", square or otherwise.
L. the flat-bottomed /f/ glpyh in the drawing is found only in the Theinhardt
font (the one used in Budge's books). Same goes for the /m/ owl with only the
eye-brows and beak -- typically Theinhard. The "sekhem" sign off to the right
is also a Theinhardt glyph and a very late version of the normal "sekhem"
sign. The mummy on the bier is also from a type face as well, not real glyphs.
> These are not in any way difficult to understand. Go to
> [
www.ozemail.com.au]
>
> The first picture evidently shows the location
>
> The second picture is a bit odd since it shows a stick figure
> in full frontage and the Egyptians usually use figures in profile
Not to mention the fact that there isn't one glyph from the OK that even
remotely resembles this.
> next to it is Gardiner E 23 with the verticle tick meaning the
> thing itself, (a lion) and to the right of that D 36; below that is N14
>
> The next Photo Is N 1 over N14
>
> The next Photo is [D23](3/4) then [tk]
>
> The next photo is a verticle fish (a common Summerian glyph)
> and G1 (somewhat amateurishly drawn)
Look at the drawing: the "scribe" apparently wanted to write "nTr aA Hrw":
the Great God Horus. Not Sumerian.
> Then comes O10 enclosing [F35sdb](house of)(nfrsdb)outside that
> and above it are the glyphs [sw sa ra] to the right sw D33(hni)
> to the left V23 (h) combined with R23, d, A28 holding Aa8
> (rejoice to be complete)
See above.
> Then Ra (day) M32 (grow) then N25 (foreign land) 4 N18 (island)
> Khephera (make, create) Z11, r, P5 (wind, sail)
And this means what? there is no grammar in any of this -- it just is not a
sentence.
> Then A55(spend all night)
>
> The Final photo is Annubis
>
> > Visitors from Alpha Centauri would be more likely than Egyptians in
> >Australia in Old Kingdom times.
personally I think some of the glyphs look just like flying saucers...
> Apparently that view is no longer going to go uncontested.
>
> The glyphs on the web page are clearly Egyptian and they are
> old enough to be well patinaed. The only real question is are
> the photographs taken of a rock in Australia.
I'll grant that these are "old", may be all of 100 years. The certainly don't
predate the cutting of the Theinhardt font (late 1800s I believe; that is
1800s *AD*, by the way).
Oh, one other point: the translation given says "We gave egg-yolk from the
medicine-chest and prayed to AMEN, the Hidden One". Amen was just about
totally unknown before the New Kingdom. I think there are a few Pyramid Text
refs., but he certainly wasn't a major part of the OK Solar cult.
What I would like to know is how the heck the "author" of this magazine
article managed to "read" all this stuff that he has in his translation. Just
made it up I guess. Certainly isn't the sort of things Egyptians wrote.
Cheers,
Troy
Doug Weller
Director The Hall of Ma'at
Doug's Skeptical Archaeology site::
[
www.ramtops.co.uk]
