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.
You see what you don't realise is that a: Modern scholarship is not homogenious, and b: some of the modern scholarship is still distorted by late 19th and early 20th century scholarship. Unless you are aware of this you can't hope to differentiate what is correct and what is distorted
>
> 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).
Super-secret are your words. Professor Miroslav Verner, author of "The Pyramids, their Archaeology and History", writes however: the ancient Egyptians' constructions are the best evidence of their mathematical capabilities"
>
> 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.
It makes no sense to you at the moment because you do not yet appreciate the historiographical background to your subjects. Also, I assure you, my background is real and scholarly, I just don't go around boasting about it
>
> 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.
Science is fact as well as models. You sound like you could teach me some detail on this regarding Egypt. Can you list a few of the key papers where the models are applied to Egypt?
>
> 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.
I always react to arrogance in that way
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.
Well, you are apparently unaware of many aspects of the sites. Forget the ET strawman and look at the real archaeology and surveys of Giza. Start with Perie's which is online
> 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.
No society in antiquity came anywhere near Giza in terms of sheer volume. As for ornate, Karnak, Tutankhen's Mask, etc cannot be beaten for 'ornatedness'
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.
Nonsense. The pyramids were build with hundreds of tons of bronze saws manufactured and repaired for the purpose. Their metal work really was second to none, although yes the mesopotamians had comparable metal craftsmanship albeit on a smaller scale in the 3rd millenium B.C.
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.
They owned the Levant for many centuries, and fought to the north, south east and west. Really, for you to criticise the Egyptian armies is misplaced. Look at the sea peoples for example. Egypt was the only state to resist them
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.
Height has always been symbolic, and their height is both symbolic and physically and technologically relevant. 'gnosis' is not a term used in science usually, however, if you mean technological skill base and complex knowledge, they certainly had that
>
> 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.
No, I am pointing out glaring faults in your arguments one could fly a 747 through without touching the sides
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).
I fail to see your point here? You seem to be agreeing with my point that this is applicable to the Egyptian Nomes during certain period where control was less than centralised
Dave L
Edited 1 times. Last edit at 05/13/07 03:28PM by Thadd.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 05/13/2007 02:02PM by Dave L.