Thadd Wrote:
Dave L Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dave L Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> 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

I realize modern scholarship comes from shomwhere and is not homogeneious, but the truth is that looking at only what is based in archaeological material and textual evidence is scientific methodology as best as it can be applied to these situations.

Yes, well part of the problem with the 'Anthropological' model approach is that it has based many of its models on the 'established' tendency critiques, and not the actual archaeological surveys and the conclusions of the excavators. You will not have come across this in the scholarship you are being exposed to however

> 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"
>
The issue here is that they can only show us they built pyramids. There is no reason to assume that this means knowledge of irrational numbers or that they were using some mathamatical plan to carry out the design of the Giza plateau. The pyramids could have been built without either of these.

You've brought up this issue of irrational numbers twice now, It is really a strawman and not helpful at all

As you will note this thread does not concern theories about what math they possesed, but the focus on the pyramids for secret ideas such as the OCT etc.

Well, these are special structures. They are not just a heap of stones by any means

Yes the pyramids show mathamatical capabilities, but one need not assume that these included something like an understanding of much later theories that would not have been necessary in the construction of such pyramids.

Yes, but this is a meaningless statement

> >
> > 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


I am not comming on here to boast, I am here asking a question of why, with many theories explaining the pyramids and presenting ECS as being expecting such objects, do we see a focus that brings up the OTC and such.

Well this is ridiculous. The ECS does not exclude the possibility of the OCT at all, and the OCT was never proposed as an alternative to the ECS. The two have nothing on common beyond the fact they are TLAs (Three Letter Abbreviations) and could quite happily co-exist

BTW I am aware of the history etc of anthropology, but that's like saying scientists are all open to being fooled because there have been scientific hoaxes and the basis of science is tied to things like alchemy.

Your logic here has escaped me. Be aware that my logic is important to me

>
> >
> > 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?
I would suggest for this area would be
Eisenstadt, S. N., Michel Abitbol and Naomi Chazan
1988 The Origins of the State Reconsidered, IN S.N. Eisenstadt,, Michel Abitbol and Naomi Chazan, eds., The Early State in African Perspective. Leiden: EJ Brill
Trigger, Bruce
1993 Early Civilizations: Ancient Egypt in Context. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press

I would also suggest
Marcus, Joyce
1998 The Peaks and Valley of Ancient States: An Extension of the Dynamic Model, IN Gary M. Feinman and Joyce Marcus eds., Archaic States. Santa Fe: School of American Research.

Though her model is contrary and would disagree with your outlook on the nomes (which I would not disagree with). And is problematic in many ways. It offers a contrary view to Trigger's work, which I think you might follow more, as it looks at differences between ECS and does not seek to lump them as all being the same in terms of territorial states vs city states. (I would say that I think Trigger and Eisenstadts non-lumping methogology is much preferable).

Thanks. I will read these and get back to this

>
> >
> > 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
I fail to see how I have been arogant. I simply state that Egypt fits within a system of models which tells us to expect somthing like the pyramids and that I cannot understand why there should be theories about OTC and such.

Well, not only did you bring up your qualifications and then proceed to announce to everyone on the site that Egypt was not special, you then portrayed me critcised you for criticising me as "pseudohistorical bashing of people with real scholarly backgrounds". So that was specifically what required me to pull you up as slipping into arrogance somewhat. As for the OCT, until you have read the Pyramid Texts and understood the astronomical ceilings you will not have any basis for evaluating what is correct and what is not. It is a very complex issue, and even top Egyptologists have problems establishing what is correct and what is not, and there are several Top Egyptologists who post to this site.

>
>
> 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, have 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'
There are many more, and much more ornate, examples of complex and large scale stone architecture in Mesoamerica than in Gixa, and the ornateness of Mesoamerican building ornamentation or eccentrics as well as Chinese jades is at least on par with Tutankhen's mask.

Much Much later for the pyramids. As for the mask, I did say there were comparible metalworking skils elsewhere albeit on a smaller scale

>
> 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.
I said farming implements. The use of metal in Egypt was largely controlled and restricted by the upper class/government. Whereas in Mesopotamia many people owned metalic implements and weapons.

Well. You need to give specific facts here - I am not sure what/when you are talking about.

>
> 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
They exersized a level of control over the Levant for a comparatively brief period. And while they resisted the sea people, they were conquered under foreign rule at points. Ie the Hyksos and eventually Persians and Greeks.

Yes, at points, and they also dominated for long periods as well. If they had never lost we would still be under Pharaonic rule!

> 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, I mean the sort of thing associated with the OTC.

Yes, but you need to start being more specific, and not lumping a whole bunch of concepts under one 'tendency critique'. We know that's a flawed method

> No, I am pointing out glaring faults in your
> arguments one could fly a 747 through without
> touching the sides
Still looking for glaring faults.

Being aware of ones own weaknesses is an important part of being strong

> 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
Ok, missread your point on Renfrew. But Renfrew is a part of how ECS are today analyzed. The fact that they are based early small polities that possessed varying levels of control over Egypt's history does not mean Egypt does not fit a model with other ECS.

I think you seem to believe I am bombastic or egotistic. But this was not a thread about me. It was an honest question.

I've asked you for ECS details as you evidently know the subject. Previously I was just giving my opinion on it WRT Renfrew's PPI models that I had previously noted had parallels for OK Egyptian Nomes

Why believe that Egypt needed some special help (from older super cultures etc) or that their monuments need secret meanings (ie OTC) or that they are in any way special (not that they are not a unique culture, all cultures are unique) and outside of the current models of ECS (these models evolve and change, but one of the two cultures that have always been used on which to base these models, and on which they are defined in part is Egypt. Saying Egypt is outside of these models is like saying a model T is outside the model of a car for some reason, even though it helped to define car).

Well, you are mixing some ideas here, however, there are aspects of culture that are not addressed by the ECS etc, which is what I am studying at the moment. Semiotics and Phenomenology and Post Colonial Theory address some of the issues

I can agree Egyptians were not some race of savages, that is an outdated and useless ideal. I can agree that they had some maths, and that they used math in designing pyramids (a long with lots of trial and error development). But I do not see reason to believe that have a square with a diagonal necessitates the knowledge of radical two or that having a 3-4-5 pyramid necessitates knowledge of the pythagorean theorem. It can simply be a unit triangle arrived at through processes as simple as trial and error with sticks. Since there is no written evidence for such theories I do not thing it proper scientific methodology to attribute them back onto the Egyptians.

Well we know for sure they could calculate volumes of Pyramids and Cylinders etc already, so these things you note above are already superfluous. There are many other things they could do exquisitely, such as sculture and arch building etc that you will come to be aware of

I also thing three things in a line does not necessarily represent Orion.

well....one day soon we may know for sure...

Dave L