Dave L Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, your general problem is that you are
> probably following a broadly flawed scholarship
> regarding Egypt, that was distorted by the
> tendency criticism of the 19th and early 20th
> century philologists, notably the German
> philologists, and US ones with links to the German
> schools (Chicago, Pennsylvania, Brown NY etc)

no, I am following modern scholarship.
>
> These were the ones that first established the
> 'tendency criticism' whereby the impact of Egypt
> was first assumed to be minimal (for wider modern
> social reasons), and then all of the evidence had
> to be interpreted within that paradigm. Obviously
> you can see the problems with that methodology
> when it is explained in those terms, and this is
> the reason you probably hold the views you do at
> the moment.

I would not say I believe the impact of Egypt minimal, but I believe that most here have overstated the importance of Egypt etc. I can see impact like Egypt's development of certain calendrics, but not super secret mathamatical messages in the pyramids. (I fail to see where I have even made comments concerning Egypt's contribution).

>
> If you have an anthropological background it will
> make you more susceptible to this.

that makes no sence, I have a background that involves scientific testing and long term studies? This seems to be just some pseudohistorical bashing of people with real scholarly backgrounds.


>
> As for Egypt's congruence with the Early Complex
> State development theories/model, well it fits
> pretty well, however you also need to realise that
> these theories are not reality, and are only
> approximate general models. I've just finished
> looking at Renfrew's Peer Polity Interaction model
> in some detail, which could also be applied in
> some ways to Egypt, which was not only a
> centralised state, it was a federation of
> disparate Nomes.

you read one of many many sources and set it up as a straw man. Congradulations. You overlook many important sources such as Trigger or Eisenstadt both of whom work well within the confines of current theory of ECS and also work well with the nature of Egyptian nomes. And yes, these may be models, but that is what science is.

>
> Finally, you may think me telling you you are
> wrong is insulting, but in fact I find it
> insulting when you assume to tell everyone on the
> site here that Egypt is nothing special, when in
> fact this erroneous statement is the result of
> your own lack of appreciation of the facts.
>

No I think comments such as

"I think its time you did some studying.

Did you not say you were at university already?

What do they teach you there? "

are in poor taste and show a lack of good judgment. And what facts am I somehow unaware of. Egypt was not the recipient of knowledge from some super culture or ETs. Egyptian pyramids were most likely tombs and not the means of passing on information. They fit well within models of early complex socieites and are clearly comparable to other forms of architecture found throughout such cultures.


> Let's just cherry pick one hard fact to show this,
> so you can see this is not opinion but reality:
>
> The Great Pyramid of Giza was the tallest building
> on earth for more than 3 millenia.

Yes, and Egyptians built them in the OK, then stopped building such place. While other societies arrose to build either more ornate structures or prolific amounts of structures.
Remember that while they built the highest man made structures on earth, they were also using stone tools to do most of their farming while the Mesopotamians were moving on to metal implements and they did not have the wheel until after the Hyksos. Lets not also forget that while their structures may have been taller than those of the Mesopotamians, they could never conquer any outsided culture, including the Mesopotamians, for a long sustained period to spite such tall man made structures.

The pyramids' hight does make them important and unique, but gives no reason to suspect the Egyptians possessed some gnosis that other ECS did not, and it still fits quite well within the anthropological models of ECS.

>
> No harm meant, I'm just keeping the record
> straight as usual.
No, you are setting up straw men arguments and cherry picking pointless facts. You site a single anthropologist, and overlook his own note, on the very first page that,

"it is possible to identify in a given region several autonomous political centers which, initially at least, are not brought within a single, unified jurisdiction. It is such autonomous territorial units, with their administrative centres which together constitute what is often termed a civilization." (Renfrew "Introduction: peer polity interaction and socio-political change" 1-2).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/13/2007 10:28AM by Thadd.