Hi Graham,
> > I am not claiming this or that, but wouldn't
> you
> > find it surprising if a culture so keen
> watching
> > the stars and their regular movement hadn't
> > noticed the shift occurring every 72 years?
>
> But how did they go about it?
> Did they record the events of the night sky? Did
> they track the brightest stars against the two
> horizons, the zenith, an obelisk and how
> continuous was it before before they could state
> change, for example precession? How many
> multiples of 72 would be needed before the obvious
> was made known (one degree)?
Well, from the Asyut coffins and their decan tables it is clear that the AEs already then knew how the stars behaved i.e. the periods of invisibility, the heliacal risings etc. These events designed the same kind of an image every year and this image is presented in the decan system seen on the coffins. How long it took to notice this regularity? I have no idea.
Now, seen that the sun's daily and yearly journey was as important as the stellar events, I'd be surprised if they didn't notice the equinoxe sun's position slightly slipping. How long it took to notice? Again I don't know. But then, I don't think that me not knowing how long it took for them to record (which they obviously did) and notice the difference is proof of them not knowing about the precession.
>
> All of the above are questions we might ask and
> they are probably the wrong questions
Very probably.
>
> What was their approach? If they didn't record it
> perhaps they chanted it or passed it down orally
> or consulted the soothsayer who knew of such
> things. Then again we may be asking too much of
> them.
Why are you so sure they didn't record it? Ever try reading the PTs and the CTs with precession in mind? Hmmm?
>
>
> >They
> > did base their whole belief system on the
> events
> > in the sky! I'd personally think that they
> noticed
> > when the divinities didn't act as
> predicted....
>
> Did they?
Did they what? Base their beliefs on the events in the sky? Yes.
> What about things more closer to home. Nature can
> be observed up reasonably close, even touched if
> the need be.
Yes? I don't understand what you are getting at.
Ritva
