<HTML>Hopefully this, together with Krupp's previous messages, will put to rest once and for all, for those who are not tunnel-visioned, the ridiculous claim that the New Kingdom Egyptians recognised Leo.
---------------
Dear Mike,
Thank you for your e-mail message dated 25 July 2002.
There is a long tradition of attempts to identify-with inadequate evidence-unknown constellations in other astronomical systems. These attempts are frequently reported at meetings, and occasionally they appear in print. Interpreters typically begin with the premise that constellations we know have counterparts in other systems. In some cases, this is so. Certain asterisms-the Pleiades, Orion's Belt, the Big Dipper (Plough), and a few others-are almost always singled out by everybody. After that, the picture is very muddy. Those who have studied constellations with discipline and a desire to discern genuine fact have understood that "tentative identities" based on loosely-defined configurational relationships have little value. The paper by Donald Etz, published by the _Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt_ in 1997, is one of those exercises in "if
that, then this." It certainly doesn't prove anything, and it really doesn't even argue a strong case.
Etz, for example, says putting the Big Dipper at upper culmination (that business about omicron Ursae Majoris being the tip of the Bull's Tail is overkill) offers "several interesting similarities
with the Senmut displays." This is nothing more than a subjective response. Obviously, Etz believes the arrangment, which doesn't really even depend on upper culmination but just uses that position of the Big Dipper to clarify what piece of sky is under
consideration, offers "several interesting similarities," but these similarities are nothing more than the identifications Etz decides to discuss. He arbitrarily selects, but does not confirm, matches like the
Crouching Lion with Leo and the Man with Upraised Arm with Gemini.
Etz identifies all of his identifications as "tentative," but even that is generous. They involve a series of unverifiable assumptions, not the least of which is the notion that the Egyptian constellations displayed on the Senmut ceiling cover the celestial territory more-or-less circumscribed by Ursa Major, Leo, Gemini, and Auriga. Nothing in Egyptian
texts or other sources of celestial iconography confirms this, or any other
detailed mapping. We simply have no compelling data. In fact, we have no
data. Fundamentally, Etz forwards the argument, "It kind of looks this way
to me so maybe it's right." This is a very shaky basis of support for the kind of conclusion Bauval reaches, especially if Bauval fails to deal effectively with my challenges to his interpretation.
There are scholars, Kurt Locher among them, who have devoted serious
time and energy to the identification of Egyptian constellations. Their method involves thoughtful and detailed analysis of texts for information that can demonstrate the validity of the delineation, star-by star. This is not the approach taken in Etz's study.
Invoking arbitrary judgment about the disposition of constellation figures in New Kingdom tombs and the way they might match the real sky, Etz defines and maps a portion of the sky to conclude, "Thus
there is reason to believe that the Senmut display lion, the Ramesside star clock lion, and the constellation Leo are essentially the same...." On the other hand, I have contrasted the familiar
iconography of the Northern Group in New Kingdom royal tombs with the
depiction on the Ptolemaic Dendera Circular Zodiac to show it is unlikely
the Crouching Lion in New Kingdom tombs is Leo. My analysis relies on no
assumptions, no unproved mapping of archaic Egyptian constellations onto
the stars we know, and no singular and arbitrary applications of spherical
astronomy to the Egyptian sky. Unlike other commentaries, my analysis
accommodates the likelihood the depictions of the entire Northern Group of constellations are not detailed maps of this region of the sky but symbolic
groupings of northern constellations configured with modest concern for
their exact placement with respect to each other.
Apart from validity or error of Etz's identifications, however, it is useful to explore the implications of these identifications in the context of Bauval's use of them. Bauval enlists support from Etz to identify the Crouching Lion in the tombs of Senmut and Sethos I as Leo. Etz's Leo is, however, embedded with a "family" of other constellations he has
identified, and Bauval must accept all of them. If he does not, the basis for the identification of Leo, already compromised by unwarranted
assumptions and subjective, untestable data, is completely unjustified.
Leo's identification by Etz relies on the rest of his identifications, and Etz identifies the Hippopotamus at least partly comprising Auriga. Bauval's interpretation of the Hippopotamus/Bull/Crouching Lion arrangement, however, requires the
Hippopotamus to be Draco, which is very far from Auriga. In fact, the arc Bauval draws from Cygnus through the north ecliptic pole (in Draco's coils), through the north celestial pole (in the vicinity of Draco's tail in the New Kingdom era), through the stars Megrez and Alioth, to Leo has absolutely nothing to do with Auriga and falls nowhere near Auriga.
This is probably a good time to remember why all of this concerns Bauval. His "Orion Mystery" and "Message of the Sphinx" mapping of Giza equates Leo the Lion with the Sphinx. Of course, we don't see any depictions of a sphinx in these celestial maps, just lions. I'm thinking the celestial lions here are victimized on the altar of the Sphinx.
Bauval has, then, accepted one of Etz's identifications (Leo) and contradicted another (Auriga), but Etz's identifications are mutually contingent. This obvious contradiction suggests Bauval selects data that favor his conclusion and ignores data that refute it.
Learning nothing new,
Ed</HTML>
