"but if the specific details call into question the overall assumption...."

It doesn't - it's your assumption that it does - and for me to go through all the evidence in detail again doesn't help anyone and obscures the reality

"I think you need to explain to everyone here how the details obscure the reality"

OK.

The details of whether individual stars were included in the asterism as perceived by the Ancient Egyptians is in all probability not a question that can be answered definitively. Attempting to define something that was never fixed in concrete relies on an incorrect assumption that it would need to have been, or was, fixed in concrete if it was perceived at all. This non-sequitur is what leads one to assume that if it is not possible to define exactly a way in which it was perceived then it was therefore not perceived at all!

So you can see how an initial demand to define details of individual stars as evidence can lead to an assumption that it was never perceived at all!

That's how flawed premises undermine our understanding of Ancient Egypt

The assumption that individual stars needed to be defined is probably more down to modern astronomical usual practice than anything the ancients saw (before Hipparchus who first listed the stars accurately). They seem to have known the belt, and some of the main 'gate' stars, but the idea of complete lists of stars that remained fixed through the dynastic period, or even in different places by different Egyptians, is unrealistic to say the least

"IOW's how the evidence obscures the conclusion???? "

Detail and evidence is not necessarily the same thing, as seen above. This is the reason context is so much more important than endless detail

Dave L



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/12/2007 06:04AM by Dave L.