LexiLine : Messages : 1429-1460 of 2191

#1429

From: "Andis Kaulins" <AKaulins@...>
Date: Mon Mar 6, 2006 1:49 pm
Subject: Administrative: Members

Dear LexiLiners,

The LexiLine Newsletter/Group at Yahoo is approaching the 300-member mark and we wish to thank you all for sustaining the success of this group by your membership.

It is seldom that we welcome new members personally, but we would like to call your attention to the fact that Martin Gray has just joined our list and I hope he will stick around for a while. To use his own words:

"Martin Gray is an anthropologist and photographer specializing in the study of sacred sites around the world."

I have been familiar with Martin Gray's photographs for many years. His photos are not only breathtakingly beautiful, but sometimes I really think they are as good to perfect as a photo can be. Indeed, as he writes at his site, Sacred Sites :

"The National Geographic Society has just released a new book called Geography of Religion: Where God Lives, Where Pilgrims Walk. We're excited to announce that 40 of Martin's sacred art photographs appear in this new volume. It can be purchased from Amazon.com or ngs.org."

Martin also has a website at Magic Planet .

Please be aware that I do not mention the above matters to act as an advertiser for Martin, which he does not require. Rather, his work is exemplary of the beauty which can be found in the study of the History of Civilization generally, which is the subject of our group.

Enjoy,

Andis

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1430

From: "Andis Kaulins" <AKaulins@...>
Date: Mon Mar 6, 2006 2:42 pm
Subject: 14 LexiLine Newsletter 2006 Nebra Sky Disk Revisited Again

earlofeden12

Send Email

We posted previously on the Nebra Sky Disk Revisited . This posting is a more detailed presentation.

Decipherment of the Nebra Sky Disk
as Depicting a Solar Eclipse
at the Pleiades and the Vernal Equinox Point on April 16, 1699 BC

As a bit of background information, let us say that we have been active in the decipherment of ancient astronomical artefacts for over thirty years. We pointed out some years ago (see our alleged Nebra Sky Disk Decipherment) that the key to decipherment of the Nebra Sky Disk (first discovered by fortune hunters in Germany in 1999) is determined by the fact that the Sun on that disk is NOT in the solar boat depicted on that same disk.

According to the clear and incontrovertible evidence of the Latvian Dainas, which represent an archaic status of Indo-European astronomical knowledge in northern Europe, the Sun is in the solar boat by night only, and not by day. Hence, the Nebra Sky Disk can only represent the sky by day and thus the disk can only be the representation of a solar eclipse, since the Sun, Moon and Stars are all depicted together on the disk, something which occurs only during the rare phenomenon of a solar eclipse.

The decipherment of the Nebra Sky Disk that we proposed two years ago is as follows:

Nebra Sky Disk Deciphered

An Adventurous Calendric Theory about the Nebra Sky Disk

Nevertheless, in spite of the clear depiction of the Sun, Moon and Stars on the Nebra Sky Disk, all kinds of adventurous theories have been presented about the disk, mostly by people with little experience in astronomical decipherment.

Surprisingly, some of the most obscure theories derive from mainstream astronomers who have decided to "dabble" in ancient decipherment, even though their learning is confined generally to modern astronomy, which is a horse of an entirely different color than ancient astronomy. Indeed, the decipherment of ancient artefacts is an undertaking for which no degrees are granted and for which no discipline therefore has a right to claim non-existent expertise. Rather, experience in decipherment is the key. Yet, whenever something like the Nebra Sky Disk surfaces, many would-be decipherers suddenly surface, especially if their academic specialty bears some plausible relation to the subject at hand. It is for example plausible to think that modern astronomers are the experts to consult on ancient astronomy. But that fact is that most modern astronomers know next to nothing about astronomy prior to the ancient Greeks.

The Disk is Erroneously Alleged to be an Intercalary Object

One such newer and quite erroneous interpretation of the Nebra Sky Disk is now being propagated by the State Museum of Prehistory in Halle/Saale, Germany, where the Nebra Sky Disk is displayed. This interpretation has even been irresponsibly released to the world press as "the [alleged] decipherment" of the Nebra Sky Disk.

Nothing could be further from the truth for this inept decipherment attempt.

The Museum's current pet theory merely supplants a previously supported and equally faulty theory which claimed that the disk showed the Pleiades and the Moon as markers for the sowing and reaping seasons in the Spring and the Autumn (thereby making an inappropriate connection to Hesiod's Works and Days). The connection to Hesiod was erroneously made because he was a Greek and because the average modern astronomer's knowledge of astronomy does not go back beyond that period, so, Greek it had to be.

In the first interpretation supported by the Museum, now discarded, the Moon was erroneously alleged to be depicted on the disk TWICE, as both a Waxing Moon and a Full Moon - a dual portrayal never seen on ancient artefacts and never referred to in ancient literature anywhere.

The new alleged decipherment now supported by the Museum begins amateurishly simply by counting the number of stars found on the Nebra Sky Disk and then claiming that this number is significant for lunar calendration, based on a comparison to the MUL.APIN Babylonian texts, to which the Nebra Sky Disk has no demonstrable connection. These Babylonian texts are a shade older than the Greeks, but not much. Hence, if not Greek, then Babylonian, that seems to be the logic involved.

Look at our illustration above. Does that look like a calendar?? There is no precedent for this kind of confused calculation anywhere in ancient astronomical artefacts. No one has ever counted moons by stars in the sky. Rather, lunar mansions and moon stations in the stars (the so-called Sanskrit Vedic naksatras [cf. Latvian nakts sadalas "night divisions"]) were used to divide up the sky, but the stars themselves never "counted" the moons in this manner.

The disk has numerous stars in gold upon on it. Some of these stars were removed in the creation process of the disk (see the blank "holes" in the above illustration) and covered over by the gold horizon bow, so that determining a fixed original intended number of stars seems pointless. This fact is conveniently ignored in the current interpretation.

In addition, we find a cluster of seven stars depicting the Pleiades (see J. Black & A. Green, Art. "Seven Dots", in Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia - An Illustrated Dictionary, British Museum Press, London, 1992, p. 162.)

These stars depict the Pleiades. They are definitely NOT counters.

All of these stars, including the "seven dots of the Pleiades" are now suddenly "lumped" together in this flawed interpretation favored by the Museum to allegedly give the solar number 32, which in fact does have to do with the Moon, as I showed long ago for the Minoan Luni-Solar Calendar Stone , but this has nothing to do with the Nebra Sky Disk. That this can not be right in the instant case is shown by the fact that the creator of the sky disk then removed two of those stars to make room for the gold horizon bow leaving only 30 stars. Alleging that 32 is significant here is simply ridiculous. Moreover, it is then alleged that the entire Nebra Sky Disk represents the Sun (even though that same disk clearly also shows the Sun, Moon and Stars - on top of the Sun??) and at some point this "Sun" is also counted as "1" for purposes of further alleged calendric calculations to get the number 33 (as shown by me at the Minoan Luni-Solar Calendar Stone , 32 solar years of 365 days are equal to 33 lunar years, less two days). The Minoan Luni-Solar Calendar Stone is a calendar, no doubt about it. The Nebra Sky Disk is not.

Why were the Pleiades Important in Ancient Days?

The flawed interpretation supported by the Museum shows a complete misunderstanding of the reason for the importance of the Pleiades in ancient cultures. The Pleiades were important in ancient days not because they had any connection to the position of the Moon and the intercalation of months, but rather because the Pleiades began the moon stations at the Vernal Equinox in the era when the moon station system was created by ancient astronomers.

In this regard, Subhash Kak writes in Babylonian and Indian Astronomy: Early Connections as follows:

"There were several traditions within the Vedic system. For example, the month was reckoned in one with the new moon, in another with the full moon.... Naksatras stand for stars, asterisms or segments of the ecliptic. The moon is conjoined with the 27 naksatras on successive nights in its passage around the earth; the actual cycle is of 27 1/3 days. Because of this extra one-third day, there is drift in the conjunctions that get corrected in three circuits. Also, the fact that the lunar year is shorter than the solar year by 11+ days implies a further drift through the naksatras that is corrected by the use of intercalary months. The earliest lists of naksatras in the Vedic books begin with Krttikas, the Pleiades ... [emphasis supplied]"

That same usage both in Vedic and Babylonian astronomy could only have originated back in an era when the Pleiades marked the Vernal Equinox, thus dating the origin of the Babylonian MUL.APIN and Vedic usage back to ca. 2340 BC, contrary to the opinion of mainstream historians of astronomy who are one Sothic period in error (One Sothic Period = 1460 + 1 years).

A doubting but in argument unconvincing Michael Witzel of Harvard University in Autochthonous Aryans? The Evidence from Old Indian and Iranian Texts writes regarding the Sanskrit Vedic Shatapatha Brahmana (SB) [which can not have been written later than ca. 1900 BC when the Sarasvati River dried up, as the text refers to the migration away from that area]:

"Vedic astronomy has been discussed since Weber (1860), Thibaut (1885), Tilak (1893), Jacobi, Oldenberg and Whitney -- all of them writing well before the discovery of the Indus civilization, at a time when nothing of Indian prehistory was known before the supposedly firm date of the Buddha. [LawPundit adds: i.e. what they wrote on ancient astronomy and chronology is thus hopelessly wrong.] Some passages in the SB have been under discussion since then [LawPundit adds: because mainstream scholars are forced by the Indus Valley Civilization to see their "evidence" differently] that seem to refer to the equinoxes, and would indicate the date observation of these celestial phenomena. SB 2.1.2.3 seems to say that the spring equinox is in the asterism Krttika [Pleiades]... 'One should found one's fires under the (moon house of the) Krttikas [Pleiades]... These, they do not deviate from the eastern direction. All other moon houses, they deviate from the eastern direction....' This statement, if taken for a literal description of the 'immobile' position of the Pleiades, is possible only for the third millennium, at c. 2300 BCE (Kak even has 2950 BCE, cf. Elst 1999: 96) . Then, the Pleiades were at the equinox point, some 60 degrees off today's position due to precession (for details see Achar, EJVS 5.2, 1999). " [emphasis added]

Witzel is not prepared to take that statement at its clear face value and doubts (for what reason?) that the Vedas or MUL.APIN, which he also discusses, go back that far in time, and he is surely absolutely wrong in his assessment. See our discussion at LexiLine about the dating of MUL.APIN, referring to the work of Werner Papke in his book, Die Sterne von Babylon [The Stars of Babylon], who also sets a date of ca. 2340 BC for this system. See also our strong critique of the later and in our opinion erroneous chronology assigned to MUL.APIN by Hunger & Pingree.

In other words, the Pleiades were important to Sanskrit Vedic Culture and to the Babylonians and their predecessors, not because they were used together with the Moon for injecting an intercalary month, but because they marked the Vernal Equinox and the start of the year.

That is the historical reason why the Pleiades were and still are seen as being important by many cultures around the world, where no intercalation of months is in evidence. Hence, a solar eclipse at this location in the heavens was of course a monumental event in ancient days, and that is what the Nebra Sky Disk most likely commemorates. Intercalation, on the other hand, was a relatively frequent minor event.

Please note in this regard our view that the Pleiades at the "Winter Solstice" rather than at the "Vernal Equinox" must have also started the year in much more ancient prehistoric times, since, as Duncan Steel writes in Marking Time, Wiley & Sons, NY, 2000, p. 36:

"In many native tongues of South America the words for "year" and "Pleiades" are the same, impressing upon one the fact this was their sign of the annual cycle." Indeed, as we show in Stars Stones and Scholars, the bird on the pole in the Cave of the Deadman at Lascaux marks the Winter Solstice at the Pleiades in ca. 9273 B.C. The stars and the Pleiades have been with mankind for many millennia, long before the Vedas and the Babylonians.

Germanic Peoples Marked Time by the Sun

The interpretation favored by the Museum makes an abstruse and contrived connection to lunar intercalation in ancient Babylonia and gives the impression that the ancient Nordic and Germanic peoples calculated time by the Moon, for which there is no evidence anywhere, as Nordic cultures were all worshippers of the Sun. Indeed, the period of the Nebra Sky Disc is known for the solar worship of the Nordic Bronze Culture in Scandinavia and northern Germany.

This period also marks the neighboring Unetice Culture (Aunjetitzkultur), to which the Nebra Disk has been assigned, where "[a]rchaeological evidence suggests that the Unetice metal industry, though active and innovative, was concerned with producing weapons and ornaments mainly as status symbols for leading persons....", and such was surely the purpose of the Nebra Sky Disk shield and swords (for a map of these cultures see here). The Nebra Sky Disk was made for a prominent person.

Moreover, the alleged intercalary lunar importance of the position of the Moon with respect to the Pleiades is found nowhere in Germanic and Nordic artefacts - there is not even a hint of such calculations in ancient days in any of the evidence available, nor is there any mythology to this effect. This contrived connection is merely an artificial invention to support this completely faulty theory. There is no way that ancient northerly Germanic peoples used a lunar method of calendration which would be the same as that still used by the more southward culture of the Muslims today. Impossible.

In the north, the Sun has always predominated astronomy, but in the south, the Moon. This was the battle at the time of the Pharaonic "Sun King" Echnaton, who displaced the AMUN "MOON cult" with solar worship. That modernization was short and ill-fated.

Moreover, the flawed interpretation supported by the Museum is based on Babylonian lunar calendration found in the MUL.APIN tablets, tablets for which our site LexiLine was for some years the main and nearly only presence on the internet about these cuneiform texts, so that we have some familiarity with their content, having translated Werner Papke's interpretation of MUL.APIN from German to English. In recent years, of course, more websites on MUL.APIN have appeared. MUL.APIN relates principally to the rising and setting of stars based upon a civil calendar of 12 months of 30 days each (plus 5 days at year-end), a calendar previously long used in Pharaonic Egypt and first adjusted to the tropical year of 365.25 days in Egypt by Pharaoh Khasekhemwy.

Lunar intercalation of the type discussed in the interpretation supported by the Museum was a very late development according to the evidence thus far available, much later in time than the date assigned to the making of the Nebra Sky Disk.

In addition, this alleged decipherment of the Nebra Sky Disk as supported by the Museum thus pretends that the ancients went to all of this trouble to make a unique and incomparable gold-studded disk merely so that it could be held up in the air by "elite priests" (what else?) to see if the Moon was newly waxing at a certain location in the sky. This is something which any child could do at any time without such a disk as a memory device. The explanation is preposterous.

Furthermore, if this intercalary practice had actually been followed regularly by the ancients in northern Europe, as alleged, then we would find many but simpler artefacts of this nature in northern Europe showing the development of this practice of calendration and sky-viewing in the eras prior to the Nebra Sky Disk. We would also see the continued use of this practice in the eras after the making of the Nebra Sky Disk. In fact, we find nothing in the available record. Rather, once the solar eclipse significance of the Nebra Sky Disk was lost to following generations, it was buried in the ground to protect the gold on it. It was not used for "Moon viewing".

The alleged intercalary decipherment favored by the Museum is nothing else but a fata morgana in the eyes of a few contemporary German scholars who want us to believe that not only did the ancient Germanic peoples use intercalary lunar months long before the Babylonians did, but that they used the same virtual identical method, one thousand years previous.

In fact, as we can read in the Encyclopaedia Britannica under "Calendar" (Macropedia, Volume 15, 15th edition), lunar intercalation in the Near East began in the 3rd millennium BC when it was still quite haphazard and was only standardized ca. 380 BC by intercalations in the years 3, 6, 8, 11, 14, 17 and 19. In ca. 432 BC the Greek Meton, known for the Metonic Cycle, calculated that one could simply insert an intercalary lunar month of 33 days every third year.

No need for a disk. No need at all, to make this calculation. Indeed, no one would make a gold disk like this for such an alleged everyday calendric intercalary purpose - a gold disk to be held up against the sky for comparison with the crescent of the moon.

In addition, the width of the Moon on the disk is far wider than it should be for the alleged purpose. Rather, this is quite a typical rendition of a crescent Moon and similar in size and shape to what any of us would draw if asked to draw the Moon. The creator of the Nebra Sky Disk was not trying to draw any particular crescent Moon. He was simply representing THE MOON next to THE SUN as found in THE STARS. Period.

Another problem with the alleged decipherment favored by the Museum is that it does not account for the presence of the Sun on the disk, nor for the solar boat. Decipherments must explain an artefact fully, and not just some part of it. The calendration theory is prima facie wrong already because of the presence of the Sun on the Nebra Sky Disk. A lunar intercalation would not require this depiction, nor would anyone depict a lunar intercalation in this manner - and, indeed, looking at all known archaeological artefacts and literature we can see that no one else has, ever.

As a matter of simple logic - and the simplest explanation is most likely to be the correct one for mankind and astronomy in the Neolithic era - it is quite clear that the unique and singular Nebra Sky Disk was specially made to commemorate an equally unique and special event, i.e. a solar eclipse at the Pleiades at the Vernal Equinox point in 1699 BC, a date which matches the estimated date of the making of the Nebra Sky Disk at ca. 1700 BC. The Nebra Sky Disk was definitely not made as a calendar functioning by a Moon count of stars on a disk in an era and for a region where there is no other evidence at all for this kind of usage.

As we have previously written concerning the previous faulty theory of the State Museum of Prehistory in Halle, "there is simply no evidence to support the hypothesis ... that the Pleiades were used in conjunction with the Moon for astronomical orientation... in the cultural region in which the Sky Disk of Nebra was found (Germany and northern Europe)."

Quite the contrary. Professor Dr. Rolf Mueller examined 59 megalithic sites in France (Brittany), Ireland, Scotland and northern Germany and found that the rising and the setting of the Pleiades played no discernible role in ancient times in Germany or in northern Europe. See Der Himmel Ueber dem Menschen der Steinzeit: Astronomie und Mathematik in den Bauten der Megalithkulturen [The Sky Above Neolithic Man: Astronomy and Mathematics in the Structure of Megalithic Cultures], Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 1970, where Mueller writes at Fig. 64:"As far as orientation of sites by the stars is concerned ... Capella and Deneb are worthy of mention, whereas I do not hold much of the theory that the Pleiades or Orion were used for such purposes." [our translation from the German]

Similarly, the late Gerald S. Hawkins, who studied Stonehenge by computer analysis in Stonehenge Decoded, Doubleday, NY, 1965, negated the idea that the Pleiades played any role at Stonehenge (p. 132). What we know today as "Stonehenge", although there were previous constructions, dates to the same general era as the Nebra Sky Disk (ca. 1700 BC).

Enjoy,

Andis

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1431

From: "Andis Kaulins" <AKaulins@...>
Date: Sat Mar 11, 2006 1:17 pm
Subject: 15 LexiLine Newsletter 2005 Egyptian Heaven and Earth - Judah Jews Israel

earlofeden12

Send Email

15 LexiLine Newsletter 2005 Egyptian Heaven and Earth - Judah Jews

Dear LexiLiners,

I just received the following question from a reader of one of my websites:

>According to Gerald Massey -

>" The land of Judea or Judah was named in Egyptian. It appears upon the monuments as Іuta or Ιutah. Іu is dual, ta is earth or >land, and Іuta is the double land or double earth of the Egyptian mythos localized in Judea. The dual kingdom of Judea was >derived by name from the dual deity Іu, whose followers in Egypt were the Ιus, Iews, or Jews, and given to Joseph in the persons of >his two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh."

>Just wondering if you have any idea what monuments Massey was writing about (in 1907)?

Here was the answer that I wrote:

I found Massey's text on the internet at

http://www.theosophical.ca/Book8Ancient%20Egypt.htm

Many monuments have hieroglyphs of the two lands (a bar-type hieroglyph with three dots below it, to which is added the dual hieroglyph, or the bar is shown doubled). The question here is one of the proper reading. If I had known Massey's reading, I would have included it at my LexiLine webiste, page http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi195.htm.

In my opinion, the "two lands" signify heaven and earth and a ruler is thus the ruler of the two lands as "ruler on earth, under heaven". Since the Egyptians followed the hermetic, gnostic tradition, there was an earthly comparable to the two lands, where KEMET = Latvian ZEMITE "earth" and THEBES = Latvian DEBESS "heaven", i.e. lower and upper Egypt respectively.

As far as the Jews are concerned. We have to keep JUDAH and JUDEA separate, otherwise we have confusion. The location of Judea is clear, since this was the name that the Romans gave to "the Jewish land" after EXODUS, which we today call Israel. However, JUDAH is simply not the same, since it is separate from Israel. Here is what I have written at the LexiLine website although the material below includes some amendments:

SHIHOR or SCHIHOR in Joshua 13,3 defines a water "flowing before Egypt".
Isaiah 23,3 mentions Shihor in connection with the Nile.

I Chronicles 13,5 states: the Kingdom of David (!) extended from the Shihor of Egypt to the road to Hamat (the land of the Hittites).

In Egyptian sources Shihor was the waters of the Nile Delta together with Lake Fajum (Fayyum) INTO WHICH the ancient channel of the Nile flowed (today this is the canal Bahr Yusuf = Biblical Beersheba,
i.e. Bahr yu-SUF, since Sivan says the yu is added) and Hellenistic sources say it WAS an arm of the Nile.

Scholars think that the Kingdom of David, i.e. Judah, ended at what is modern (non-biblical) Beersheba in current Israel.

This is the greatest historical geographic error ever committed. Judah included FAY-YUM. (David is thus Pharaoh Sethos, Ramses II is King Solomon and Ramses III is Shishak - whence the Syrian migdol built at Luxor during his reign).

In Exodus this is Hebrew JAM SUF "the sea of reeds" which can ONLY be Fayyum (the only sea of reeds in Egypt) and SUF is the place where Moses repeated "the law" to the children of Israel.

Judah and were only 2 of the 12 tribes of the Hebrews and the other 10 tribes rebelled (this is Israel, as Latvian Izrauji means rebels and is first found on the stela of Merenptah in this meaning) at the time of Rehoboam (Merenptah, same as Siptah) and Jerobeam (Priam).

When we speak in modern times about Israel and the Jews, we have completely FORGOTTEN about Judah
which in fact is the more important of the two historically.

Judah was in fact Idj-taui (=Ju-dah). This was the Nile Delta, Per-Ramses, the home of the Hebrews in what we "today" call EGYPT, where the first temple of Solomon was located and recently found (1999) - in my opinon - by Archaeologist Edgar Pusch of the Roemer and Pelizaeus Museum in Hildesheim, Germany).

JUDAH in hieroglyphic writing is symbolized by the raised cobra hieroglyph, DJD.

Judah's geographical boundaries extended from Hebron (city of the unification of Judah and Israel)
to the "Brook of Egypt" = The Nile arm at Fayyum and to Beer Es Sebua = Bahr Yusuf - the ancient channel of the Nile into Fayyum.

As we see from Massey's analysis at the start of this posting, we have a near match of interpretations.

Enjoy,

Andis

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1432

From: "Andis Kaulins" <AKaulins@...>
Date: Sat Mar 11, 2006 4:59 pm
Subject: 16 LexiLine Newsletter 2006 Our Websites to be Replaced by Newer Technology

earlofeden12

Send Email

16 LexiLine Newsletter 2006 Our Websites to be Replaced by Newer Technology

Dear LexiLiners,

Megaliths at Blogger has been created to supplant our former websites megaliths.co.uk, megaliths.net and megaliths.org, which shut down at the end of April, 2006. The enormous expense involved in maintaining these sites was not compensated for by any kind of monetary returns on our part.

Quite the contrary, we saw tremendous amounts of money being invested by society in archaeological nonsense and far lesser works than ours. See LexiLine for our discussion of a typical example, the Decipherment of the Nebra Sky Disk.

Moreover, we see evidence in scattered reports online that Google - at G-Drive - may soon be opening up the possibility of unlimited free online storage for materials such as ours.

In the interim, we will post our ideas via the free world of blogs and to such sites as Writely, a part of Google which we think will be a blockbuster application, and which thus far offers in the Beta version the possibility of posting materials for free to their site.

We already have some examples posted rightly to Writely regarding the Sumerian Temple Hymns:
The Sumerian Temple Hymns - Corrected Transcription and Reading by Andis Kaulins (still in process, and you can see there how far along I am)
Sumerian Temple Hymn - New Transcription of the Composite Text by Andis Kaulins (still in process)
Sumerian Temple Hymn Original Transcription Oxford

One great thing about Writely is that one can also open documents to collaborative work (one can choose the collaborators) and I may be trying this as I get some of the megalithic materials online. This would permit website pages to obtain an existence of their own, not dependent on any particular author, much like the Wikipedia, so that there could be ongoing correction and change of materials to suit the existing state of knowledge.

In other words, we are just changing forums, but the message will stay the same.

Enjoy,

Andis

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1433

From: "Joan Griffith" <despinn@...>
Date: Sun Mar 12, 2006 3:09 am
Subject: RE: Digest Number 602

despinne

Send Email

In constructing King Solomon as Rameses II, you are mistaken. The Bible
states that for all of his reign, Solomon had peace. In addition, he had
trade ventures with Egypt, which indicates a time of peace. (Frankly, I
would suggest that the daughter of Pharaoh whom Solomon married could have
been the former wife of Tutankamen,Anchesenamun, which certainly would solve
her disappearance.)
The time of Akhenaton was in the time of King Saul, as indicated by records
of subject nations calling on Egypt for resources to fight Israel, which
were ignored by Ahkenaten.

The facts are that Rameses II was a noted conqueror. Solomon's predecessors
cleaned up all the enemies that he might have warred with; in his own time,
he was successful in trade such that the Bible states "silver was like rocks
in the street" -- a good reason for a lack of rebellion. As soon as  Solomon
died, however, 10 families of Israel seceded into the country of Israel
after being refused tax breaks.

Joan
Surely, God on high has not refused to give us enough wisdom to find ways to
bring us an improvement in relations between the two great nations on
earth.--Mikhail Gorbachev

Reply | Messages in this Topic (3)

#1434

From: "Andis Kaulins" <AKaulins@...>
Date: Sun Mar 12, 2006 9:04 pm
Subject: 17 LexiLine Newsletter 2005 History of Civilization to Fall at Harvard?

earlofeden12

Send Email

17 LexiLine Newsletter 2005 History of Civilization to Fall at Harvard?

Dear LexiLiners,

N.S. Gill at Ancient History at About.com presents some materials and links to the possibility that Harvard "may be eliminating the requirement that undergraduates take courses in ancient history and western civilization".

Can you imagine that?

Your average profeessor, not to speak of your average college graduate, is already a virtual historical illiterate, without a clue, and the specialists in history are not far behind.

The world may be entering a disastrous period where the ignorant rule, even at universities.

This means that the world will have substantial problems to face in the future as stupidity only breeds more stupidity, even at Harvard.

Enjoy,

Andis

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1435

From: "Joan Griffith" <despinn@...>
Date: Mon Mar 13, 2006 6:31 pm
Subject: RE: Digest Number 603

despinne

Send Email

Recently I've heard of some alleged goings-on and statements emanating from
Harvard such that I would say, ignorance rules, "especially at Harvard."
However, I think Princeton is even worse...


Joan
Surely, God on high has not refused to give us enough wisdom to find ways to
bring us an improvement in relations between the two great nations on
earth.--Mikhail Gorbachev

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1436

From: "Andis Kaulins" <AKaulins@...>
Date: Sun Mar 19, 2006 2:28 am
Subject: Re: Digest Number 602 -. Ramses II as King Solomon

earlofeden12

Send Email

Hi Joan,

Thank you for your comment. It will serve as an instigator for me to publish some materials that have been sitting on my hard disk for a number of years now . See e.g. the next posting on Nofretete (or Nefertiti) - both of those transcriptions are wrong.

To reply to your posting, I am not infallible and I can make mistakes on details, especially when I am in a hurry. However I am very seldom mistaken on the big picture of things. Indeed, very few equivalences in ancient times are so certain as the equivalence of Ramses II with King Solomon.

Indeed, as you well know, no mainstream scholar has been able to present even the most minimal requisite evidence necessary to rebut my challenge to current chronology as posted (thanks to you) at
https://listhost.uchicago.edu/pipermail/ane/2003-July/009941.html
Egyptologists, Oriental and Biblical scholars do not like to be confronted with facts - rather, they continue to build their nice little houses of cards as if facts contrary to their ill-conceived theories and chronologies simply did not exist.

The arguments you now raise on behalf of the mainstream "beg the question", i.e. they assume the truth of the very thing to be proven. In my arguments below, I do not criticize you - you are one of the open-minded ones - but my comments are levelled straight at the closed-minded majority of Egyptologists who seem to have a limited capacity for critical thinking.

Just how long did Ramses reign? They assume it is 67 years of sole regency, but the evidence is against them.

It is quite clear that Ramses did not rule alone for 67 years but like Solomon only ruled 40 years as a sole regent.

36 of these 40 years were peacefully ruled after his reaching the age 30 (when the 30-year ceremony was held). After the success of the battle (and peace) of Kadesh (which led to peace in the ancient Near East), Solomon could build the Temple in celebration, indeed 480 years after the Exodus from THEBES (= EGYPT, eTHEBETE) which in ancient times was "Egypt", whereas the Delta-region was "Judah" and so also was always marked on the ancient hieroglyphs, i.e. as SUTah (from Gardiner: su-plant phon: sw log: sut-rush (swt), king (nsw), see in this regard http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/people/gardiner/m.htm ).

It is a hieroglyph which the helpless Egyptologists now write totally incorrectly with a preceding N, even though the hieroglyphs place the N at the end - how foolish on the part of the scholars. The original Indo-European-based Pharaonic term is similar to the Baltic term SUTENIS which means "hot humid area, marshy region" i.e. the Nile Delta, and which is a homophonic term also for SUTNIS "envoy, ambassador", which the king of the Delta was in ancient days to this region. The N which the Egyptologists now artificially set in front of these hieroglyphs - in the totally faulty reading "nesubait" - is sheer idiocy, misunderstanding the placement of the Indo-European prefix no- as identical to Baltic no- ("from, off, out of, with, of, out of, etc.") in front of Pharaonic viz. similar Baltic words sach as SUT- "to send", whence SUTNIS "envoy, ambassador" and NOSUTIT "to send off" but also SVET- "holy" and whence NOSVET- "holy of, to celebrate something holy" and ZIB "to shine" whence NOZIBET "to flash, twinkle", with the latter accounting for the NESUBAIT of "star names" of the Pharaohs. What the Egyptologists have made of this simple grammatical Indo-European construction is an Alice in Wonderland creation wondrous to be behold for its lack of relation to actual reality.

But to return to the matter at hand. There is in fact substantial evidence - acknowledged but ignored by the mainstreamers - that the early years of rule of Ramses II were a coregency with Sethos (King David), whose daughter he married (as Solomon also married the daughter of the pharaoh). Is it not remarkable that a Jewish king is marrying into the royal "Egyptian" Pharaonic family, which allegedly was not Jewish - come on, what nonsense is that, the scholars are clueless!

It was during the rule of Sethos (Seti, Setoy, i.e. King David) that the war and conquering took place. Ramses did not rule for 67 years ALONE but rather ruled 27 in coregency with King David and then ruled 40 years alone. Indeed, Clayton in Chronicle of the Pharaohs writes that Ramses took sole regency at age 25. These ca. 40 years of sole regency by Ramses II (i.e. King Solomon) were also peaceful (except for the battle of Kadesh) and marked the greatest period of building by any pharaoh since the days of the pyramids - this was the reign of Solomon (Ramses II, i.e RA-Messias "born of the Sun") and such an era of construction could only have occurred in a time of peace.

One should also point out in this connection that Ramses had already married two of his wives ten years before he became the sole Pharaoh, which, presuming that he became sole regent at the age of 27, would have meant that he was 17 at the time of first marriage, which makes sense, given the initial ancient ages at which it made biological sense for a man to take a woman for a wife.

As written at
http://www.touregypt.net/magazine/ancientegyptianpeople.htm:

"Ramesses II probably married the first two principal wives at least ten years prior to the death of his father, Seti I, before Ramesses II actually ascended the throne."

Ramses as Solomon thus ruled only 40 years ALONE (36 years of peace) plus 27 as coregent, during the war period.

As for the ladies of the Pharaohs, I get into that in the next posting. I think my comments will interest yoou particularly, Joan. I do not expect that the establishment will pay much attention to my ideas, for that, these people are too stupid and closed-minded.

Enjoy

Andis

--- In LexiLine@yahoogroups.com, "Joan Griffith" <despinn@...> wrote:
>
>
> In constructing King Solomon as Rameses II, you are mistaken. The Bible
> states that for all of his reign, Solomon had peace. In addition, he had
> trade ventures with Egypt, which indicates a time of peace. (Frankly, I
> would suggest that the daughter of Pharaoh whom Solomon married could have
> been the former wife of Tutankamen,Anchesenamun, which certainly would solve
> her disappearance.)
> The time of Akhenaton was in the time of King Saul, as indicated by records
> of subject nations calling on Egypt for resources to fight Israel, which
> were ignored by Ahkenaten.
>
> The facts are that Rameses II was a noted conqueror. Solomon's predecessors
> cleaned up all the enemies that he might have warred with; in his own time,
> he was successful in trade such that the Bible states "silver was like rocks
> in the street" -- a good reason for a lack of rebellion. As soon as Solomon
> died, however, 10 families of Israel seceded into the country of Israel
> after being refused tax breaks.
>
> Joan
> Surely, God on high has not refused to give us enough wisdom to find ways to
> bring us an improvement in relations between the two great nations on
> earth.--Mikhail Gorbachev
>

Reply | Messages in this Topic (3)

#1437

From: "Andis Kaulins" <AKaulins@...>
Date: Sun Mar 19, 2006 2:52 am
Subject: 18 LexiLine Newsletter 2006 Who Was Nefertiti? - The Tomb KV35 Controversy REso

earlofeden12

Send Email

18 LexiLine Newsletter 2006 Who Was Nefertiti? - The Tomb KV35 Controversy

Dear LexiLiners,

We are all familiar with the famous bust of Nofretete (Nefertiti in neo-Egyptological garble).
Who was this woman? Who was she?

Mark Rose in "Where's Nefertiti?", a book review of Joann Fletcher's The Search for Nefertiti: The True Story of an Amazing Discovery, William Morrow & Co., comments on the alleged find of Nefertiti's mummy in tomb KV35, where Joann Fletcher has allegdly identified the "Younger Woman" in that tomb as Nefertiti.

Priority to this identification is disputed by a certain Marianne Luban, who is thus equally in error in falsely identifying this mummy as Nefertiti, since the mummy is a male according to DNA evidence (En Route to the Truth by Mark Rose).

Truly, most of these accounts of Nefertiti's life, identity and mummy are more or less empty speculations, as also Joyce Tyldesley's book, Nefertiti: Egypt's Sun Queen, and quite typical for Egyptology, where rampant speculation is the rule, rather than the exception.

Mark Rose writes:

"The mummy in question was found in 1898 in a sidechamber in the tomb of Amenhotep II, which is designated KV35 in the numbering system for the Valley of the Kings. With the "Younger Woman" (as it is known) were two other mummies (a male youth and the "Elder Woman). All three had been partially dismantled by looters. In another sideroom were nine royal mummies that had been taken from their original tombs and been rewrapped and moved to KV35 by 20th Dynasty priests. Two other mummies, that of Amenhotep II and a unidentified male, and two skulls complete KV35's human inventory."

Who are the mummies found in Tomb KV35 and why do the Egyptologists have so much difficulty in identifying who they were?

To answer that question we first have to correct the Egyptologist's false transcription of Nefertiti's name, originally rendered as Nofretete and now given in "neo-Egyptology" as Nefertiti. Both versions are hopelessly wrong.The correct transcription of the hieroglyphic name of Nefertiti, as we have discovered, is in fact Chetite, i.e. the name means the Hittite Queen, a name which makes sense since at this time there is a flurry of letter exchanges to and from this region, the so-called "Amarna Letters". (Explanation: the hieroglypgh NFR as in NEFERtiti means "breath in the throat", so it is not meant to write NFR out as part of the name, but rather to render it as a "rasping throaty breath" sound.)

We know that Echnaton (=Akhenaten, who is King Saul) obtained a Queen of the Amazons from around the Black Sea as his wife (this was Nefertiti). She was the HITTITE QUEEN. Indeed, when Saul died, it was Nefertiti, under the name Ankhesenamun (= Ahinoam, A(nkh)-he-noam) who asked for a Hittite son to be King of Egypt:

"According to Hittite history, it was during the seige of Carchemish that Suppiluliumas received a message from widowed Queen Ankhesenamun, asking him for one of his sons to be king of Egypt."

Nefertiti was the wife of Echnaton (neo-Egyptological Akhenaten), both wrongly transcribed. Echnaton is actually King Saul of the Bible. Echnaton is Ish-Naton "father Nathan" and his (i.e. Saul's) son Jonathan is "young Nathan", Jo-Naton, so that these were Nathan Sr. and Nathan Jr. One could also view the names as being old (n)Aton and young Aton. Nathan in Hebrew means "gift of God" and compares to Adonis or Adonija.

The name "Saul" was applied biblically to the "Sun King" because Saul is an Indo-European term for "sun", as in the Latvian term Saule meaning "sun". King Saul viz. Echnaton viz. Akhenaten was a sun worshipper and became known to us as the first monotheistic king for this solar worship, which was presumably imported by his Hittite wife.

Nefertiti (correctly "Chetite") is rendered in the Bible as Ahinoam ("daughter of Ahi"), and Ahi was the Egyptian vizier, a Hittite, now transcribed as Ay:

"Nefertiti's origins are confusing. It has been suggested ... that Tiy was also her mother. Another suggestion is that Nefertiti was Akhenaten's cousin. Her wet nurse was the wife of the vizier Ay, who could have been Tiy's brother. Ay sometimes called himself "the God's father," suggesting that he might have been Akhenaten's father-in-law. "

As we have discovered, Ay is equivalent to the Biblical priest Ahimaaz, who was the father of Ahinoam (Biblical scholars err in thinking there are two different personages: Ahimaaz, the father of Ahinoam, and also Ahimaaz (Achimas) the son of Zadok - both are the same):

"Ahimaaz: 1. The father Ahinoam, the wife of Saul (1 Sam. 14:50).... 2. The son and successor of Zadok in the office of highpriest (1 Chr. 6:8, 53). On the occasion of the revolt of Absalom he remained faithful to David, and was of service to him in conveying to him tidings of the proceedings of Absalom in Jerusalem (2 Sam. 15:24-37; 17:15-21). He was swift of foot, and was the first to carry to David tidings of the defeat of Absalom, although he refrained, from delicacy of feeling, from telling him of his death (2 Sam. 18:19-33)."

Noam in Hebrew means "pleasant, gentle, sweet, kind, and tender" and noam is actually the "male" version of no'omi, i.e. Naomi, so that a later Biblical gender change has occurred in this name. Nefertiti is translated similarly by the Egyptologists as "the beautiful one". Ahinoam is translated as "brother of pleasantness" which of course can not be right since this is a female. Accordingly, the name of the Hittite Queen was NAOMI "the pleasant one".

Biblical scholars also err in thinking that there are two Ahinoams, i.e. Naomis, one Ahinoam as the wife of Saul and Ahinoam of Jezreel (Israel) as the wife of David. Obviously, these are one and the same person, as David took the wife of Saul (Nefertiti) into his court upon Saul's death.

Hence, it is quite clear from the above analysis that the "Elder Woman" [Mummy 61070, as cataloged by the Egyptian Museum in Cairo] from tomb KV35 is Nefertiti, as correctly suggested by Susan E. James in her 2003 KMT article (Susan E. James, In a "Secret Chamber" in the Valley of the Kings: Dueling "Nefertitis"!, KMT, a Modern Journal of Ancient Egypt, 2003, Vol 14(3), pp. 22-29). That mummy is not, as generally and erroneously believed to be, Queen Tiye, the wife of Amenhotep III. Rather the Elder Woman in KV35 is Naomi, the Hittite Queen, known to us as Nofretete or Nefertiti.

We also make here an aside on the only female Pharaoh: We agree with Donald P. Ryan that the reddish-blonde haired mummy of a woman found on the floor of Tomb 60 is Hatshepshut, together with her half-sister Neferura, the other female mummy found there. According to our research Hatshepshut is the Biblical Deborah who is called the woman of Lapidoth, a term erroneously assumed by some to be her husband, but elsewhere the term Lapidoth is correctly interpreted as "woman of fiery spirit", and is thus a reference to her red hair. Ramses II was also red-haired. The Pharaohs of Egypt definitely did not originally come from Egypt.

Enjoy,

Andis
.

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1438

From: Michael Nave <jmichaelnave@...>
Date: Sun Mar 19, 2006 3:58 am
Subject: Re: Re: Digest Number 602 -. Ramses II as King Solomon

jmichaelnave

Send Email

Very well done Andis. There's an American comedian
popular at the moment who is quite bright and one of
his comedic lines is applicable to many academics:
"you can't fix stupid".

There is a poiint at which attempts at being
diplomatic about the deficencies of many academics
fail and one simply has to admit that many of them
cannot be very bright.

--- Andis Kaulins <AKaulins@...> wrote:

> Hi Joan,
>
> Thank you for your comment. It will serve as an
> instigator for me to
> publish some materials that have been sitting on my
> hard disk for a
> number of years now . See e.g. the next posting on
> Nofretete (or
> Nefertiti) - both  of those transcriptions are
> wrong.
>
> To reply to your posting, I am not infallible and I
> can make mistakes on
> details, especially when I am in a hurry. However I
> am very seldom
> mistaken on the big picture of things. Indeed, very
> few equivalences in
> ancient times are so certain as the equivalence of
> Ramses II with King
> Solomon.
>
> Indeed, as you well know, no mainstream scholar has
> been able to present
> even the most minimal requisite evidence necessary
> to rebut my challenge
> to current chronology as posted (thanks to you) at
>
https://listhost.uchicago.edu/pipermail/ane/2003-July/009941.html
>
<https://listhost.uchicago.edu/pipermail/ane/2003-July/009941.html>
> Egyptologists, Oriental and Biblical scholars do not
> like to be
> confronted with facts - rather, they continue to
> build their nice little
> houses of cards as if facts contrary to their
> ill-conceived theories and
> chronologies simply did not exist.
>
> The arguments you now raise on behalf of the
> mainstream "beg the
> question", i.e. they assume the truth of the very
> thing to be proven. In
> my arguments below, I do not criticize you - you are
> one of the
> open-minded ones - but my comments are levelled
> straight at the
> closed-minded majority of Egyptologists who seem to
> have a limited
> capacity for critical thinking.
>
> Just how long did Ramses reign? They assume it is 67
> years of sole
> regency, but the evidence is against them.
>
> It is quite clear that Ramses did not rule alone for
> 67 years but like
> Solomon only ruled 40 years as a sole regent.
>
> 36 of these 40 years were peacefully ruled after his
> reaching the age 30
> (when the 30-year ceremony was held). After the
> success of the battle
> (and peace) of Kadesh (which led to peace in the
> ancient Near East),
> Solomon could build the Temple in celebration,
> indeed 480 years after
> the Exodus from THEBES (= EGYPT, eTHEBETE) which in
> ancient times was
> "Egypt", whereas the Delta-region was "Judah" and so
> also was always
> marked on the ancient hieroglyphs, i.e. as SUTah
> (from Gardiner:
> su-plant phon: sw log: sut-rush (swt), king (nsw),
> see in this regard
>
http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/people/gardiner/m.htm
>
<http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/people/gardiner/m.htm>
>  ).
>
> It is a hieroglyph which the helpless Egyptologists
> now write totally
> incorrectly with a preceding N, even though the
> hieroglyphs place the N
> at the end - how foolish on the part of the
> scholars. The original
> Indo-European-based Pharaonic term is similar to the
> Baltic term SUTENIS
> which means "hot humid area, marshy region" i.e. the
> Nile Delta, and
> which is a homophonic term also for SUTNIS  "envoy,
> ambassador", which
> the king of the Delta was in ancient days to this
> region. The  N which
> the Egyptologists now artificially set  in front of
> these hieroglyphs -
> in the totally faulty reading "nesubait" - is sheer
> idiocy,
> misunderstanding the placement of the Indo-European
> prefix no- as
> identical to Baltic no- ("from, off, out of, with,
> of, out of, etc.") in
> front of Pharaonic viz. similar Baltic words sach as
> SUT- "to send",
> whence SUTNIS "envoy, ambassador" and NOSUTIT "to
> send off" but also
> SVET- "holy" and whence NOSVET- "holy of, to
> celebrate something holy"
> and ZIB "to shine" whence NOZIBET "to flash,
> twinkle", with the latter
> accounting for the NESUBAIT of  "star names" of the
> Pharaohs. What the
> Egyptologists have made of this simple grammatical
> Indo-European
> construction is an Alice in Wonderland creation
> wondrous to be behold
> for its lack of relation to actual reality.
>
> But to return to the matter at hand. There is in
> fact substantial
> evidence  - acknowledged but ignored by the
> mainstreamers - that the
> early years of rule of Ramses II were a coregency
> with Sethos (King
> David), whose daughter he married (as Solomon also
> married the daughter
> of the pharaoh). Is it not remarkable that a Jewish
> king is marrying
> into the royal "Egyptian" Pharaonic family, which
> allegedly was not
> Jewish - come on, what nonsense is that, the
> scholars are clueless!
>
> It was during the rule of Sethos (Seti, Setoy, i.e.
> King David) that the
> war and conquering took place. Ramses did not rule
> for 67 years ALONE
> but rather ruled 27 in coregency with King David and
> then ruled 40 years
> alone. Indeed, Clayton in Chronicle of the Pharaohs
> writes that Ramses
> took sole regency at age 25. These ca. 40 years of
> sole regency by
> Ramses II (i.e. King Solomon) were also peaceful
> (except for the battle
> of Kadesh) and marked the greatest period of
> building by any pharaoh
> since the days of the pyramids - this was the reign
> of Solomon (Ramses
> II, i.e RA-Messias "born of the Sun")  and such an
> era of construction
> could only have occurred in a time of peace.
>
> One should also point out in this connection that
> Ramses had already
> married two of his wives ten years before he became
> the sole Pharaoh,
> which, presuming that he became sole regent at the
> age of 27, would have
> meant that he was 17 at the time of first marriage,
> which makes sense,
> given the initial ancient ages at which it made
> biological sense  for a
> man to take a woman for a wife.
>
> As written at
>
http://www.touregypt.net/magazine/ancientegyptianpeople.htm
>
<http://www.touregypt.net/magazine/ancientegyptianpeople.htm>
> :
>
> "Ramesses II probably married the first two
> principal wives at least ten
> years prior to the death of his father, Seti I,
> before Ramesses II
> actually ascended the throne."
>
> Ramses as Solomon thus ruled only 40 years ALONE (36
> years of peace)
> plus 27 as coregent, during the war period.
>
> As for the ladies of the Pharaohs, I get into that
> in the next posting.
> I think my comments will interest yoou particularly,
> Joan. I do not
> expect that the establishment will pay much
> attention to my ideas, for
> that, these people are too stupid and closed-minded.
>
> Enjoy
>
> Andis
>
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Reply | Messages in this Topic (3)

#1439

From: "Andis Kaulins" <AKaulins@...>
Date: Sun Mar 19, 2006 5:36 pm
Subject: 19 LexiLine Newsletter 2006 More Evidence on Ramses II as King Solomon

earlofeden12

Send Email

19 LexiLine Newsletter 2006 More Evidence on Ramses II as King Solomon

Dear LexiLiners,

Here is more Evidence on the Age and Reign of Ramses II (who was King Solomon)

The Abydos Stela of Ramses IV refers to Ramses II as "living" 67 years

The Abydos stela of Ramses IV reads, according to this website as follows:
"those things which King Ramses II, the Great God, did for thee in his sixty-seven years".
This is the main source for the idea that Ramses II reigned for 67 years, but
it is quite clear from the context that these 67 years apply to the length of his life.

Anniversary Feasts celebrated by Ramses II point to a reign of 40 years

According to the table of important dates of Ramses' life in Clayton, Chronicle of the Pharaohs, the FIRST anniversary feast (for the celebration of Ramses II sole ascension to the throne) took place 25 years AFTER the oldest date given, which can only be his birth, and NOT, as Clayton writes, the begin of his sole reign. He celebrated 13 such anniversaries during his reign, each of which - not understood by the Egyptologists - took place every 3 years = 39 years, and there was no 14th anniversary celebrated, so that Ramses ruled ca. 40 years, as did Solomon.

The term Egypt in ancient sources referred to THEBES and not to the Nile Delta region.

I repeat again for the naysayers that in the ancient texts EGYPT was THEBES but did not include the NILE DELTA which was GATH, JUDAH, SUT viz. GOSHEN, from which the GIZA plateau takes its name. That knowledge is necessary to mesh the hieroglyphic and Biblical accounts together as one. As I have written here at the LexiLine website (with some new corrections to the text):

WHERE WAS JUDAH?

An analysis of the the ancient terms Shihor, Yamsuf (Jamsuf), Idj-Taui and Fayyum (Fay-yum) gives us a clear answer.

SHIHOR (Nile waters of the Nile Delta plus Fayyum)

SHIHOR or SCHIHOR in Joshua 13,3 defines a water "flowing before Egypt" and Isaiah 23,3 mentions Shihor in connection with the Nile.

I Chronicles 13,5 states that the Kingdom of David (!) extended from the Shihor of Egypt to the road to Hamat (the land of the Hittites).

Fayyum (Lake Fayyum, viz. Fayoum) and Bahr Yusuf (the correct Biblical Beersheba)

In Egyptian sources Shihor referred to the waters of the Nile Delta together with Lake Fajum (Fayyum) INTO WHICH the ancient channel of the Nile flowed (today this is the canal Bahr Yusuf = Biblical Beersheba, i.e. Bahr (yu)SUF, since Sivan in his work on North Semitic dialects says that the yu syllable was added in later Semitic and was not a part of the word originally). Hellenistic sources say it WAS an arm of the Nile.

Scholars think that the Kingdom of David, i.e. Judah, ended at what is modern (non-biblical) Beersheba in current Israel.
That unproven assumption is the greatest historical geographic error ever committed and runs directly contrary to the actual written sources available. Judah included Fayyum.

Jam Suf (the Sea of Reeds)

In Biblical Exodus, Fayyum is Hebrew JAM SUF "the sea of reeds" which can ONLY be Fayyum (the only sea of reeds in Egypt) and SUF is the place where Moses repeated "the law" to the children of Israel.

THE SOUTHERN TRIBES

Judah and Benjamin (the southern tribes which united as Judah) were only 2 of the 12 tribes of the Hebrews and the other 10 tribes rebelled at the time of Rehoboam (Merentptah),Jerobeam (Priam, King of Lydia (Troy)) and Ramses III (Shishak). The invasion of the sea peoples during the reign of Ramses III was part of the Trojan War. The name Israel derives from an Indo-European term similar e.g. to the example of Latvian Izrauji "rebels".

When we speak in modern times about Israel and the Jews, we have completely FORGOTTEN about Judah which in fact is the more important of the two historically because it existed prior to the name "Israel" ever appearing on any monument. The first appearance of the name "Israel" on any monument occurred on the Merenptah Stela of defeated enemies.

Idj-Taui

Judah was Idj-taui (=Ju-dah)
IDJ-TAUI was the Nile Delta, including Per-Ramses (Pi-Ramesse), historically the home of the Hebrews in what we "today" call "Egypt", but which was actually the Nile Delta region called Judah (SUT viz. SHUT) in ancient days.

JUDAH in hieroglyphic writing is symbolized by the raised cobra hieroglyph, DJD.

Judah's geographical boundaries extended from Hebron (city of the unification of Judah and Israel)
to the "Brook of Egypt", i.e. the Nile arm at Fayyum
and to Beer Es Sebua = Bahr Yusuf - the ancient channel of the Nile into Fayyum.

It was at Fayyum that the last pyramids were built, two of them alone for Amenemhet III (one at Dashur and other at Hawara), with the end of this overdone pyramid-building period marked by the sudden abandonment of the worker-city Kahun. Our explanation is that the workers had had enough of Amenemhet III and that was the end of the pyramid-building age. No more pyramids were ever built. Amenemhet was thus the Pharaoh of Exodus.

The era of Moses (who is found in the hieroglyphs erroneously transcribed by the Egyptologists as Sobekhotep II) and his short-term allies, the Hyksos (Palestinians, Midians) had dawned. See the next posting.

Enjoy,

Andis

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1440

From: "Andis Kaulins" <AKaulins@...>
Date: Sun Mar 19, 2006 9:27 pm
Subject: 20 LexiLine Newsletter 2006 The Tomb of Moses

earlofeden12

Send Email

20 LexiLine Newsletter 2006 The Tomb of Moses

Dear LexiLiners,

Although not recognized as such by the Egyptologists, the Tomb of Moses was discovered by the team of Austrian archaeologist Manfred Bietak in the ancient Israelite city of Avaris (Tell el Dab'a) , which is found stratigraphically under the later Per Ramses, home of the Hebrews (Pi-Ramesse, which is the ancient land of Gath or Goshen, today called Giza).

Because of collosal errors in mainsteam chronology, this tomb is erroneously regarded by some scholars to be the tomb of Biblical Joseph, which is amusing, as the error in chronology is merely about 500 years. In Avaris they found an extensive palace with an equally extensive garden in which they discovered a tomb which had been completely emptied in ancient days, which is a rarity, since graverobbers usually just take valuables, but leave the bodies untouched. Here the bodies had also been been removed.

What is unusual is that this particular graverobbery is documented in ancient Pharaonic records. This tomb at Avaris is none other than a tomb mentioned at the time of widespread grave plunderings during the reign of Ramses IX, a reign which marked the last death knells of Pharaonic civilization, when not even the ancient graves of kings were safe. It is in our opinion the tomb of Moses.

The robbing of the Tomb of Moses has come down to us in a papyrus which protocols the trial of certain "Amun-pnufer", who on the 22nd day of the winter month and in the 16th year of reign of Ramses IX confessed to robbing the grave of the king known erroneously to the Egyptologists as "Sobekemsaf II" and his wife "Nubchas". As written at gizapyramids.org :

"[T]]he 'Leopold-Amherst Papyrus' records the testimony of the thieves who plundered the tomb of King Sekhemre Shedtawy Sobekem-saf II and Queen Nubkhas of the Seventeenth Dynasty.... The thieves confessed that they had broken into this tomb and had: 'found the noble mummy of the sacred king... [and] numerous golden amulets and ornaments were on his breast and a golden mask was over his face. The noble mummy of the king was entirely bedecked with gold and his coffins were embellished with gold and silver, both inside and out, and inlaid with precious stones. We collected the gold, together with the amulets and jewels that were about him and the metal that was on his coffins. We found the queen in the same state and retrieved all that we found upon her. Then we set fire to their coffins. We took the furnishings that were found with them, comprising objects of gold, silver and bronze, and divided the spoils amongst us.' " [emphasis added]

Compare the royal pectoral found in the above cited article by Peter Lacovara, "An Ancient Egyptian Royal Pectoral" in the Journal of Fine Arts, Boston, Vol. 2, 1990, (dated to c. 1784-1570 B.C.) to the one found in the Tomb of Tuthankhamun. They are virtually identical.

As I have explained at the LexiLine website , Moses was the Pharaoh today transcribed by the Egyptologists as Sobek-emsaf II (also written Sebekemsaf). The statue of this king, which is the "Statue" of Moses - in black diorite - is in the Museum of Art History in Vienna but the base and feet are in the National Museum of Ireland in Dublin.

It is the statue of a man whose hieroglyphic name is transcribed - erroneously - by Egyptologists as Sobek-em-s-af, whereas the hieroglyphs "em-s" actually clearly read MOSHE (Moses).
This is the same as Sechemre Schedtaui - also erroneously transcribed , the 1st King of Thebes of the 17th Dynasty, a reign dated by current chronology to ca. 1650-1600 B.C.

MOSES and the tale of ARTAPANUS
(See David Rohl's book, A Test of Time, Random House, London, 1995)

MOSES WAS BORN - writes Artapanus - in the reign of Chaneferre (Khenephres), known as Sobekhotep IV, who, even by current chronology, ruled ca. 1700 B.C. The current date assigned to the life of Moses by mainstream scholarship is supported by nothing, no evidence whatsover, and is typical for the kind of sloppy scholarship in this field which is rampant at the universities of the world.

Clemens' Stromata summarizes the writings of Artapanus, a Jewish historian who wrote Peri Iodaion (About the Jews).
Artapanus is named by Eusebius in his Evangelicae Preparationis and his detailed account of the life of Moses is reported in his Pamphilis, Book 9, Ch. 27, 1-37.

That life story of MOSES agrees with the Egyptian "SINUHE Story" - which originated in the Pharaonic 12th Dynasty (!) at the time of A-MEN-EM-HET III, who we have identified as the Pharaoh of Exodus.

The story of Sinuhe is about a young man who flees Egypt (as does Moses), goes to Palestine (as does Moses), where Sinuhe finds the support of Prince Retenju just as Moses finds the help of the similarly named "Raguel" in Artapanus, and the help of of "Reguel" viz. "Jitro" in the Biblical Exodus (2,18; 3,1;4,18; 18,1). The stories are the same and date to ca. 1700 BC.

The Pharaoh who first "enslaved" the Hebrews, says Artapanus, was called PAL-MEN-O-THES and had a city and temple built
at "Kessan" (as Rohl correctly notes, "Kes" in the eastern Delta) called "Kessan" in the Septuagint and "Goshen" in the Masora,
which is generally equated with On, Heliopolis or Egyptian Iunu.

The statue of Moses (Sebekemsaf) was found at Armant, (Ar-Mant is related to Iunu-Month) which was greatly developed in the 12th dynasty.

Pharaoh PAL-MEN-O-THIS is surely the same as A-MEN-E(M)-HET(is) III out of that very same 12th dynasty. The first syllable has simply been mistranscribed by Egyptologists or Greeks.

It was during the 12th dynasty that territorial expansion against Kush and Nubia reached its peak, and the story of Moses tells us that he also campaigned against Nubia and Ethiopia in his youth.

In the chapters 71 to 78 of the apocryphal Book of Jasher , which gives a detailed account of the life of Moses, we find the mention of several pharaohs. Their equivalence (our discovery) to hieroglyphically documented personages is as follows:

- King of Africa (Egypt, Thebes) ANGEAS = the king today transcribed by Egyptologists as ANTEF
- King of Africa (Egypt, Thebes) AZDRUBAL (son of Angeas) = the king today transcribed by Egyptologists as MENTUHOTEP
As far as we can tell, there was only one ANTEF and one MENTUHOTEP, with the varied cartouched hieroglpyhs (no cartouches for the three known name variants of Mentuhotep) referring to the birth, ascension and death of each pharaoh. That is why the Antefs have only one tomb location - at Dira Abu 'n-Naga - and why only the tomb of Mentuhotep I has been found, because there are were no other kings named Menuhotep, only this one.
- King of Africa (Egypt, Thebes) ANIBAL (son of Angeas) = the king today transcribed by Egyptologists as AMENEMHET I.
It was Amenemhet who first called the Delta Region "Itj-taui". The Egyptologists think that the word applies to a specific place there, which they have thus far been unable to find, whereas, of course, it applies to the entire region.

The Pharaoh of Exodus was Amenemhet III (transcribed Pal-men-othis according to Artapanus, i.e. rather than A-men-othis) during whose reign two pyramids of mud brick were built, and these are the last pyramids ever built in Egypt, because the Hebrews left and sojourned to Per-Ramses.

Please note that "Africa" or "Egypt" in those days applied to THEBES but NOT to the Nile Delta region, which was called Judah (Itj-taui) , Sut/Shut, Gath or Goshen, whence its name today, Giza.

We have written as follows about the chronology of Moses as related to other events, e.g. the Solar Eclipse of April 16, 1699 BC during the reign of Sobekhotep IV Chaneferre:

"[This was a] Solar Eclipse at the Pleiades and the crossing of the ecliptic and the celestial equator underneath the gate to Heaven between Auriga and Perseus. The heiroglyphs mark this as a partial sun followed by the swallowing windpipe symbol. According to Artapanus (writing about 300 BC), Chaneferre - i.e. the Pharaoh just noted above - was the Pharaoh during whose reign Moses was born. No contrary evidence gives us cause to doubt this historical record. Since Chaneferre apparently ruled only about 10 years, this puts the birth of Moses between maximally 10 years either side of 1699 BC, and we put it at 1707 BC due to the 80-year correlation to Exodus which we place as congruent with the explosion of Santorin ca. August 4, 1627 BC, based on astronomical considerations. Moses is later the first king of the 17th Dynasty of Thebes as Sobek-EMSAf II a name actually written in the hieroglpyhs as "MO-SHE" (also known as Sobekhotep VIII or Sechem-re Schedtaui). Since we know that Moses flew from Thebes when he was around 40, this puts him in the Eastern Delta Region of Egypt ca. 1667 BC, where Moses's Biblical Midianites are none other than the Hyksos, i.e. the Palestinians (nomadic desert dwellers), of whose king Moses takes one daughter as a wife. The 16th Dynasty King known as Anather is then Gideon (so also clearly readable according to the hieroglyphs as Hand-D-N i.e. GI-DI-N)."

Enjoy,

Andis

Reply | Messages in this Topic (2)

#1441

From: "Andis Kaulins" <AKaulins@...>
Date: Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:26 pm
Subject: 21 LexiLine Newsletter 2006 Ancient Eclipses Over Egypt - Time and Location

earlofeden12

Send Email

21 LexiLine Newsletter 2006 Eclipses Over Egypt

Dear LexiLiners,

Amir Bey, who I cite in several of my articles, website pages and postings, now has his own website at http://www.amirbey.com/ , where you can find his article "Eclipses Over Egypt", showing where and when ancient eclipses in Egypt occurred. I use his data in reconstructing ancient chronology based on those eclipses at LexiLine.com. I use his data because it corresponds to what I have found to be true for ancient eclipses as verified by megalithic and ancient monuments and by eclipses predicted by Starry Night Pro 3.0 (the eclipses shown by Starry Night Pro are NOT as accurate in later editions of this software because the programmers foolishly changed their Delta-T value - which is nevertheless better than such programs as RedShift, where the Delta-T value used is useless and gives totally incorrect eclipse data).

Enjoy,

Andis

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1442

From: "Andis Kaulins" <AKaulins@...>
Date: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:46 pm
Subject: Administrative: Rules for Posting - Ancient World Chronology etc.

earlofeden12

Send Email

Administrative: Rules for Posting - Chronology, etc.

Dear LexiLiners,

LexiLine is not an opinion chat forum. Rather, LexiLine is primarily a newsletter which also allows postings to be made which are moderated according to strict standards of proof. Moderated postings to LexiLine will only be accepted if statements made are backed up by evidence or if postings raise legitimate questions which can be discussed by examining the known evidence.

I have recently removed a member who wrote to me along the lines that "everybody knows that Ramses II and King Solomon lived in different eras...." Let me be clear that what "everybody knows" or "thinks to know" is irrelevant for our discussions because such statements have no probative value. The masses have many things they believe to be true which are nothing more than superstitions and illusions, and that also applies to the mass of academics.

As an example of correct posting, let me take the recent example of Joan Griffith, who raised the legitimate issue of war and peace during the reigns of Ramses II and King Solomon. This is a legitimate inquiry because documented events during the reigns of Ramses II and King Solomon must be subject to comparable interpretation if my equation of Ramses II as King Solomon is correct.

Hence, to reply to Joan's question, I pointed out that the reigns of Ramses II and King Solomon are indeed comparable in many respects if Ramses alleged 67-year reign actually fell into 27 years of co-regency with Sethos (King David) and 40 years of mostly peaceful sole reign, for Solomon also ruled ca. 40 years according to the Biblical record, most of which was a time of peace. Indeed, the evidence found in the hieroglyphic record is quite amenable to my interpretation.

Accordingly, regardless of whether Joan agrees with my views or not, we are not just swapping "opinions", which are a dime a dozen in the field of ancient chronology, but we are discussing serious issues germane to the question at hand.

I also have a selfish reason for strictly moderating postings. I will turn 60 this year and I simply no longer have the patience or tolerance for people who waste my valuable time with postings that simply express somebody's unfounded opinion. There are thousands of forums online for this kind time-wasting and we suggest you go to those forums if that is what you want.

Anyone who wants to post to LexiLine about the chronology of the ancient world, on the other hand, must start out with a good knowledge of the work of Flinders Petrie, whose research I discuss here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LexiLine/message/974
and here
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LexiLine/message/1019

I have commented Petrie's work as follows and go into great detail in showing how Petrie's chronology is flawed:

"Tell El Hesy (Lachish) by W.M. Flinders Petrie, reprinted 1989 by Histories & Mysteries of Man Ltd., London, England, 1989, ISBN 1 85417 052 X, is the foundation for modern chronology of the fertile crescent. I have read the book in detail, confirming my initial suspicion that Petrie made capital chronological errors in his dating of Tell el Hasy [Hesy, Hesi, Hasi] and Lachish - errors which mainstream chronology has blindly followed ever since, leading to a completely erroneous history of the Middle East."

These academic flaws are not just matters of academic inerest. They have had a catastrophic impact on the political and military events of our world, a catastrophic impact which continues down to the news you watch on television every day.

In pointing out Petrie's chronological flaws, I issued a challenge to mainstream scholars to contradict my statements. Nothing was forthcoming except for one e-mail which indeed confirmed as totally false Petrie's idea that the large layer of ash at Tell El Hesy came from alkali burners (a theory easily disproven by modern methods of examination).

Accordingly, as I predicted in my analysis, this large layer of ash could only have come from an incendiary conflagration, e.g. as I suggested, from the ash of the explosion of the volcano Santorin on the island of Thera ca. 1628 B.C., a full 300 years earlier than the ca. 1300 B.C. date assigned to this ash by Petrie.

In addition to making that crucial error - and to confirm his own erroneous Biblical theories - Petrie then completely misinterpreted ("fudged") the chronological pottery evidence (as I describe in detail here ) - and yet, it is this pottery evidence which is at the base of all modern chronology of the Ancient Near East. Indeed, most ancient sites are still dated today by the pottery found there - and - since Petrie's pottery chronology is hopelessly wrong, so also is the chronology attached to virtually every known archaeological site in the ancient world.

The result of all of this is a veritable chaos in Ancient Near East chronology, where "fudgery" is the rule rather than the exception. Chronology of the Ancient Near East is not science, it is a piece of chocolate guesswork.

Read our next posting for one example of these problems, and also for our solution of these problems.

Enjoy,

Andis

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1443

From: "Andis Kaulins" <AKaulins@...>
Date: Thu Mar 23, 2006 1:51 pm
Subject: 22 LexiLine Newsletter 2006 Predynastic Egypt Wood Statues Gold Jewels Found

earlofeden12

Send Email

The Khaleej Times Online (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) carries a March 23, 2006 story out of Cairo about a spectacular find by Polish archaeologists in the northern Nile Delta region of Daqahliya of two wooden statues of men with precious stones around their eyes together with remnants of gold-coated "wrapping" papyrus, allegedly dating to the predynastic period. We are quite sceptical about a predynastic date for that kind of technology and it will have to be seen if that alleged date holds up.

Enjoy,

Andis

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1444

From: "Andis Kaulins" <AKaulins@...>
Date: Thu Mar 23, 2006 2:02 pm
Subject: 23 LexiLine Newsletter 2006 The Two "Geniuses" at Work

earlofeden12

Send Email

23 LexiLine Newsletter 2006 The Two "Geniuses "at Work

Dear Lexiliners,

Just to keep in touch, I think it is important for you all to see that there is a real, actual person behind all of this text at LexiLine.

Take a look at my posting at

http://lawpundit.blogspot.com/2006/03/two-geniuses-at-work.html

for a glimpse.

I hope it is realized that our wives mean "Geniuses" partially in earnest, but partially also tongue in cheek.
They know us too well.

Enjoy,

Andis

Reply | Messages in this Topic (2)

#1445

From: "Andis Kaulins" <AKaulins@...>
Date: Thu Mar 23, 2006 6:15 pm
Subject: 24 LexiLine Newsletter 2006 Ancient Solar Eclipses and Delta-T

earlofeden12

Send Email

24 LexiLine Newsletter 2006 Ancient Solar Eclipses and Delta-T

Dear Lexiliners,

One of the critical parameters for the chronological dating of ancient civilizations is an assessment of ancient solar eclipses. Unfortunately, alleging a solar eclipse to have occurred anywhere on earth at a given date prior to about 700 BC is fraught with difficulty, since the location of solar eclipses depends very much on Delta-T, the change in the rate of spin of the Earth over time.

Fred Espenak at the NASA Eclipse Home Page

http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhelp/deltaT2.html

has a nice, short article on "Historical Values of Delta T" which is a definite "must read" for anyone interested in the confluence of Astronomy and the History of Civilization.

Espenak's page also has four links to Delta T pages online as follows:

Delta T - NASA Eclipse Home Page
Delta T - Felix Verbelen (Belgium)
Delta-T - Robert van Gent (The Netherlands)
Delta T - IERS Rapid Service/Prediction Center

There is good agreement between Espenak's data and the ancient eclipses of Egypt featured on Amir Bey's site (click "Eclipses" at that site), referred to several postings ago on LexiLine.

Enjoy,

Andis

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1446

From: "M.S.Reddy," <msreddyhyd@...>
Date: Thu Mar 23, 2006 9:38 pm
Subject: Re: 23 LexiLine Newsletter 2006 The Two "Geniuses" at Work

msreddyhyd

Send Email

Dear Andis Kaulins and Gert Meier ,

What a dedicated team . Both of you are doing really wonderful work

We wish both of you and your families a very long life and great service to the humanity .

You are wonderful and your dedication is enriching all the readers with lot of knowledge about our past .

May both of you continue this enterprise for a long time .

Sincerely

M.S.Reddy

New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC for low, low rates.

Reply | Messages in this Topic (2)

#1448

From: "Andis Kaulins" <AKaulins@...>
Date: Tue Apr 11, 2006 9:05 pm
Subject: 25 LexiLine Newsletter 2006 Hatshepsut (Biblical Deborah) Lost and Found

earlofeden12

Send Email

25 LexiLine Newsletter 2006 Hatshepsut (Biblical Deborah) Lost and Found

Dear LexiLiners,

Hatshepsut, who I have identified for years as the biblical Deborah, has now been claimed to have been "lost and found" as a mummy on the third floor of the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. The Egypt State Information Service writes:

"The true mummy of ancient Egyptian queenHatshepsut was discovered in the third floor of the Egyptian Museum inCairo, Secretary General of Supreme Council for Antiquities Zahi Hawwasrevealed on Thursday.

The mummy was missing among thousands of artifacts lying in the museum,he said during his lecture at the New York-based Metropolitan Museum ofArts.

He said for decades archaeologists believed that a mummy found in Luxorwas that of the Egyptian queen. It was a streak of luck, he said, tofind this mummy.

The Metropolitan is hosting a Hatshepsut exhibition that displays 270 artifacts on the life history of the queen.

The American museum honoured Hawwas and his accompanying delegation inappreciation of their effort to unravel the mysteries of the EgyptianPharaohnic age."

Is Hawass right? We think so.

First, let us be clear that in my analysis,
Deborah = Hatshepsut
and
Barak = Thutmosis I (Thutmose I).

Hatshepsut was the only "Queen" of Egypt and Deborah was the only "Female Judge" of pre-monarchic Israel. They are one and the same person.

According to current scholarship, the name Deborah allegedly meant "bee" but in fact her name is given in hieroglyphs by the symbols of the bread loaf (TE or DE), the vase pot (PO or BO incorrectly read by the Egyptologists as H because they have confused a reading for "fluid", i.e. the content of the pot), and the lion symbol (L or R, as Egyptologists should have known from the use of the lion for that sound in later eras). Actually the original name is something like BTL or PTL which I think is Hebrew hlwtb (bethula) meaning "virgin" or "Virgo", as her assigned place in the heavens. The term la-pi-do-th (Lapidoth), affiliated with Deborah as her alleged partner, just comes from a different reading of that same hieroglyph, moving the order of letters around, and was probably intentional. We explain this later below.

The astronomical conclusion that Deborah was Virgo is also verified by the picture and hieroglyphs found on one of the stone slabs marking the entrance to tomb KV20, where Deborah (Hatshepsut) is shown sitting on the back of a long downward and then upward curving giant serpent (clearly Hydra) at the exact position marking Virgo (p. 94 of the German version of The Complete Valley of the Kings by Reeves and Wilkinson). This marks the seventh hour of the so-called amduat , the hidden chambers of the hours of night, which of course are astronomical regions of the stars and can be followed quite easily - my discovery - from the Spring Equinox point to the Taurus to Osiris (Orion) and onward toward Hydra and the deepest underworld, for in about 1500 BC the lowest point of the celestial equator in its 26000-year circuit is in Hydra and Deborah's staff in the picture on the stone slab referred to above marks that lowest point at the bottom of the neck of Hydra.

Let me also point out that Barak in Hebrew means "lightning" which is of course then related to Latvian PERK-onis "thunder". In Latvian there is however another homophonic word and that is PEREKlis (origin of the Greek name Pericles) =BARAK and that word means "roost of a bird", and that is why the name hieroglyph of Thutmosis, who is BARAK, is a bird on a roost PEREKlis, a word also found in Akkadian by the way. Hence, there is little doubt that tomb KV38 in its astronomically intentional high roost in the Valley of Kings was in fact the original tomb of Barak (Thutmosis I) and that John Romers' dating of KV38 after KV20 is simply wrong. KV 20 indeed represents the amduat in its shape and that is why it was dug so deeply underground. It had an astronomical significance. All of these observations are my discoveries. The Egyptologists are asleep.

As for the area of the heavens which was intended as BARAK's roost, note that parqenoj ("parthenos" - virgin), i.e. PARQ = BARAK, also means virgin, so we have a match with Deborah and Barak in terms of where their realms were placed in the heavens. Deborah's realm would be Virgo and Barak's Bootes above it. As noted by Richard Hinckley Allen in Star Names (p. 101), Al Biruni refers to Arcturus as "the second calf of the lion" and Spica (in Virgo) is "the first calf of the lion", which "first calf" of the lion we see in Deborah's hieroglyphic name. Ideler showed that Arabic Bootes was also BAKKAR, the Herdsman (Allen p. 97), obviously an Arabic name confusion with BARAK.

But of course, that is not all. Let us turn to the tombs in the Valley of Kings at THEBES (recall that Latvian DEBESS means "heaven" and THEBES = DEBESS). The Valley of Kings at Thebes was the "heaven" to which the deceased pharaohs were sent.

Relying on the Thames and Hudson book, The Complete Valley of the Kings, which I have in my library in the German version as Das Tal der Koenige, by Nicholas Reeves and Richard H. Wilkinson, Econ, 1997 and various similar sources we discover that:

Deborah's (Hatshepsut's) tomb was first planned to be a cliff tomb at Wadi Sikket Taquet el-Zaid [German Wadi Sikket Taqa el-Zeide], discovered by Howard Carter in 1916, but this "rock tomb " was never finished and never used.

Rather, after Barak, Deborah's father passed away, she became the regent and decided to make her own tomb KV20, bringing her beloved father down from tomb KV38 to join her at some point. Note here that it is generally thought Deborah's "partner" was Lapidoth, a term also meaning"red-haired", but she had no partner. Lapidoth was Deborah.

When the mummies were moved to save them from the grave robbers in the era of Ramses IX, it is clear that Deborah's (Hatshepsut's) mummy was saved to the nearest smaller and thus less endangered tomb, that of her wet nurse in Tomb KV60,with the mummy for protection probably then placed in that coffin in the stead of her nurse. There were thus in fact two mummies found in KV60. One of them is still there and the other of these mummies, the blondish red-haired one is the one that was taken to the Egyptian Museum in Cairo and which is now being hailed as the mummy of Deborah (Hatshepsut).

And here is my conclusion.

There is no doubt that the mummy with goldish-blonde red hair is Deborah (Hatshepsut), for Deborah was in fact famed for her red hair as Lapidoth, which is just another reading of the hieroglyphs of her name.

Other people pooh-bah Zahi Hawass as a showman, which he definitely is, and a good one, but I think he has an excellent nose for the truth, because he is sincerely interested in how actual history took place, and that is often more important than anything. In the instant case, we support Hawass in his conclusion. The blondish red-haired mummy is clearly Deborah (Hatshepsut).

The exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum is titled "Hatshepsut: From Queen to Pharaoh". Imagine how many people would come to that exhibition if they knew that Hatshepsut was the biblical Deborah. New York City would have to worry about sinking because of the weight of the visitors.

I should note in closing that I was of course at the Hatschepsut exhibition when it was held here in Germany in Speyer in the year 2002 and it was terrific, and I can only recommend to all of you to go to New York and see this wonderful exhibition. I also recommend a publication I bought in German which is perhaps by now available in English. It is: Alfred Grimm and Sylvia Schoske, Hatschepsut: KoenigIN Aegyptens, Muenchen 1999, Heft 8 der Schriften der Aegyptischen Sammlung (SAS).

Enjoy,

Andis

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1449

From: "polestar101" <wispr2m@...>
Date: Wed Apr 12, 2006 1:49 am
Subject: Ancient Dentistry

polestar101

Send Email

Hi Andy -

I enjoy your excellent work. Here is something more to chew on:

It was long believed that up until a few hundred years ago the only
solution for a bad tooth was to pull it. Not until modern dentistry
did we get any relief � at least that's what we were taught.

With the recent discover of precision-drilled molars dating back 9000
years (CBS, NBC, Yahoo, etc.) there is one more bit of evidence to
show the ancients were a lot smarter than heretofore assumed. Recent
articles describe the amazing discovery and tell us "The holes were
so perfect, so nice." But then in disbelief we are told: the ancients
must have drilled the teeth with tiny flints and bows and without
anesthesia.  Never mind the fact that some of the patients sat still
enough to have several teeth neatly drilled or the fact that a bow
could not actually fit deep enough in the mouth to drill these molars.

You would think that after the discovery of the Babylon battery, the
Antikythera geared device and a number of other "anomalous"
discoveries that we would start to see a pattern - maybe the ancients
weren't so primitive after all. But until we have a concrete reason
for the subsequent decline of civilization around the globe it is
hard to adopt a new paradigm of history.

The ancients, through myth and folklore and astronomically aligned
structures, have hinted that history moves in a cycle, the "Great
Year" as Plato called. Could there really have been a long lost
Golden Age? And if so, what is its cause? I try to answer these
questions in my book "Lost Star of Myth and Time".
www.LostStarBook.com

Our knowledge of ancient cultures is slowly changing. Hopefully, our
understanding and biases will change too. Then maybe we can truly
begin to understand our ancient ancestors.

Walter Cruttenden

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1450

From: "Andis Kaulins" <AKaulins@...>
Date: Thu Apr 13, 2006 1:20 am
Subject: 26 LexiLine Newsletter 2006 Thornborough Henges as Astronomy

earlofeden12

Send Email

26 LexiLine Newsletter 2006 Thornborough Henges as Astronomy

Dear LexiLiners,

The idea that the Thornborough Henges (also called Thornborough Circles) represented stars of the heavens was first presented by me in my book Stars Stones and Scholars which was published in the year 2003. It is thus rather strange now in the year 2006, to find a scholar promoting a report to be published in 2007 and - coincidentally? funded by English Heritage in 2003 coincident with my book publication - and claiming to be the first innovative one to see a specific star-oriented stellar connection at Thornoborough. That is incorrect. The innovation is mine, not anyone else's.

I have nothing against the archaeologists finally seeing that these ancient Neolithic structures are astronomical and mark the stars, but I do think that they should give credit where credit is due and honor the work of previous pioneer researchers such as myself, rather than claiming priority where none is present.

Here is a statement that I just sent to the BBC in the UK:

Your story at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north_yorkshire/4713820.stm
relates to the following news release
http://www.friendsofthornborough.org.uk/press_release_14_feb_2006.htm
which contains numerous inaccuracies, and thus, so does your story.

The innovation of relating the Thornborough Henges to specific stars in the sky belongs not to Dr Jan Harding in the year 2006, but rather to Andis Kaulins (J.D. Stanford University Law School, USA, 1971) and his book Stars Stones and Scholars: The Decipherment of the Megaliths (published by Trafford Publishing in the year 2003, ISBN 141201344-5), in which Kaulins writes at p. 161:

"The Thornborough Circles of Yorkshire north of Ripon calculate the position of the South Pole along the celestial meridian of the Equinoxes to the North Pole in ca. 3117 BC, i.e. a line running from the star alpha in Hydrus to the star alpha in the Southern Triangle to Antares or Dschubba in Scorpio and from there to kappa-Serpentis, the head of Serpens Caput and from there to the North Polar Star, dividing the meridian into four equal segments. The Cursus marks the edge of the Milky Way and the Mound Hill marks the Southern Pole Star. Tucana, Octans, Apus and Ara are also marked."

In addition to this book, Kaulins has numerous websites online, including http://www.megaliths.co.uk where this material is presented and of which researchers such as Harding can certainly not claim to have any knowledge, if they have done any research of any kind. Yet credit is not given where credit is due. The innovation of relating the Thornborough Circles to the specific stars is mine and not Mr Harding's. Mr Harding can disagree with my conclusions but he can not ignore my work and claim to be first where he is at best second. I expect this to be corrected in your news publications forthwith. Please send me a copy of your correction when made. Thank you.

The Orion solution suggested by Harding, also considered by Kaulins when writing his book, by the way, does not stand up to close inspection and will not survive scrutiny. The Thornborough Henges do not, as claimed by Harding, have any relation to Orion and the stars of Orion's Belt whatsoever. Rather, all Neolithic sites in Ancient Britain are part of an interlocking hermetic astronomical system. The penchant of the non-astronomically inclined archaeologists to select isolated sites for scrutiny has a long history and is simply wrong.

The news release referred to is reproduced below.

Sincerely yours,

Andis Kaulins
___________________________________________

"THE FRIENDS OF THORNBOROUGH HENGES

Protecting, Preserving and Enhancing Our Cultural Landscape
NEWS RELEASE
14 February, 2006

New research on Neolithic Astronomy released:
Importance of Thornborough Henges confirmed

Few aspects of archaeology are as controversial as the debate over whether the Neolithic peoples of the British Isles, living between 4000 BC and 2000 BC, were astronomers. The famous site of Stonehenge has long been seen to demonstrate that celestial bodies like the sun were integral to the period's religious beliefs and practices, but it has always proved difficult to say whether Stonehenge was unique or actually part of a broader pattern of people observing the sky.

Now a new study recently completed by Dr Jan Harding, Senior Lecturer in Archaeology at Newcastle University, provides important new information, suggesting that the sky was fundamental to the Neolithic way of life. This innovative research focuses upon the spectacular monument complex of Thornborough, in North Yorkshire, described by English Heritage's Chief Archaeological Advisor, as 'the most important prehistoric site between Stonehenge and the Orkneys'.

The study used cutting-edge technology to consider whether the Neolithic monuments at Thornborough were aligned upon the sun, moon and stars. A three-dimensional virtual reality model was built by Glyn Goodrick of the Museum of Antiquities at Newcastle University. Over this was draped images, generated by the computer programme SkyMap Pro v6, of the sky as it would have appeared in Neolithic times. The result is a virtual world in which you can position yourself to consider the reconstructed view of both the monuments and the sky.

'This study', reports Dr Harding, 'provides detailed insights into Neolithic religion and the values placed on favoured celestial phenomena. The same objects in the sky are being picked out as important for a period of around 1500 years ~ a length of time equivalent to that between the end of Roman Britain and the present day. This tells us that religion was complex long before the arrival of beliefs like Christianity and Islam'.

One of the earliest monuments, a giant elongated enclosure or cursus, about half of which has been destroyed by quarrying, was most likely built between 3500 BC and 3000 BC. This appears to have been deliberately orientated towards the midsummer solstice sunrise, to the east, and towards the setting of the three stars which make up the well known constellation of Orion's Belt, to the west. This early monument was replaced after 3000 BC by three giant circular earthwork enclosures or henges, each around 240 metres in diameter. All three henges are interrupted by a pair of entrances, all on a shared axis and aligned on the midwinter solstice sunrise. The entrances also frame the rising of Sirius, the sky's brightest star, and again, the associated constellation of Orion's Belt.

The study argues that these results make sense if considered alongside the possible roles of the Thornborough monument complex. As Jan Harding explains, 'Thornborough was a sacred landscape, a place of religious worship, and we should try to interpret these astronomical orientations within that context. People congregating within the henges would have been segregated from the outside world by the monument's imposing banks. These huge earthworks mask any view of the surrounding landscape, channelling people's attention to the sky above. This astronomical association was emphasised by the banks being coated in gypsum, a locally available substance whose whiteness added an unnatural brilliance. The drama of this scenario must have been intense. People surely felt they were at the centre of the very cosmos as they worshipped the heavens above.'

The Thornborough monument complex is also sited on what is thought to have been an important routeway linking Cumbria, the central Pennines and eastern Yorkshire. 'It is known that polished stone axes from Langdale and flints from the Yorkshire Wolds were transported along this routeway on a regular basis. Accordingly, it may be appropriate to see Thornborough as a pilgrimage centre ~ a place where people sought spiritual salvation. Importantly, the movement across the heavens of celestial bodies like the sun and Orion's Belt could be used to determine the most propitious times for seasonal festivals or celebrations. In such a way, the skyscape and people's life cycles would be in harmony.' This recently completed research, which was funded by Newcastle University, will be included in a major new report to be published on the Thornborough monument complex in 2007.

Much of this sacred landscape has already been lost to open-cast gravel mining and Tarmac now owns the land upon which two of the henges were constructed by our ancestors. Indeed, on 21 February, North Yorkshire County Council is due to decide whether to permit Tarmac to extend its quarrying operations on to Ladybridge Farm, where the remains of a Neolithic settlement used by the henge builders and users is located.

END

For further information, contact:

Mike Sanders, Press Officer, The Friends of Thornborough Henges (01609-777480)
Dr Jan Harding, School of Historical Studies, University Of Newcastle (0191-222-7966)"

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1451

From: "Andis Kaulins" <AKaulins@...>
Date: Sat Apr 15, 2006 1:25 am
Subject: Administrative: Astronomy, Mainstream Science and Discovery

earlofeden12

Send Email

Dear LexiLiners,

There is an old saw about the acceptance of new ideas and mainstream science.
It goes like this:

first ideas are ridiculed,
then, if they will not go away, those ideas are strongly opposed,
if all that fails, and if the evidence is overwhelming (as it is in the things that I write about)
with time, however, such ideas are accepted as if they were something everyone knew all along,
indeed and especially, known by those very same mainstream scientists
who had opposed these same ideas the entire time beforehand,
and lastly
those who did not develop those ideas at all in fact then claim those ideas as their own.

I have been deciphering ancient documents and ancient sites - without remuneration - for about 30 years now and my astronomical decipherment of the Etruscan Bronze Liver of Piacenza e.g. was published 26 years ago in 1980 as The Etruscan Bronze Liver of Piacenza: An Ancient Starfinder and Calendar (a monograph found in libraries throughout the world, including the British Public Library , mentioned in a Harvard/Smithsonian/NASA catalogue entry, etc. )

My recent book, Stars Stones and Scholars: Decipherment of the Megaliths as an Ancient Survey of the Earth by Astronomy, sent to English Heritage for review in 2003, did not just materialize out of thin air, but was the product of years and years of research in this field. Moreover, I was not funded by hundreds of thousands of pounds from the English Heritage , but in fact have always funded my own research. My thanks in the world of mainstream science has thus far consisted of stupid comments by ignorant stuffed-shirt academics who are lucky to walk and chew gum at the same time.

The 2003 Thornborough Project is described here , with no mention of the astronomical significane of the Thornborough Circles. The appreciation of their possible astronomical significance by mainstream archaeologists in the UK has happened only recently, after the publication of my book, and after the sending of that book to places such as English Heritage.

I trust it is then understandable that I am somewhat displeased if new researchers, heavily funded by English Heritage, suddenly begin popping out of the woodwork to claim that they are the innovators in matching ancient Neolithic sites with stars in the sky, which is simply not true. They are followers, not innovators.

My effort in this field can not be ignored and any mainstream scientists or organizations doing that are going to hear about it.

Andis

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1452

From: "Andis Kaulins" <AKaulins@...>
Date: Sat Apr 15, 2006 1:44 am
Subject: Administrative: Website Change Megaliths.net for Megaliths.co.uk

earlofeden12

Send Email

Dear LexiLiners,

In ten days time, I am giving up the site Megaliths.co.uk
and am moving all of my megalithic materials to Megaliths.net , which I also own.

Although my decipherment of the megaliths started in the UK,
my research in recent years has expanded to cover the globe,
so that there is no need to host this site in the UK,
where the name registration fee is almost 3 times more expensive per month
than the name registration of Megaliths.net here in Germany.

Except for LawPundit.com and AndisKaulins.com, which I am also keeping,
all other websites that I currently have are being consolidated
so that they will all appear on the pages of LexiLine.com, which I am keeping.

This will make it easier for me to update website materials, reduce red tape and make reading easier for users.

Enjoy,

Andis

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1454

From: "Anne Beidler" <anb2@...>
Date: Sat Apr 15, 2006 7:58 pm
Subject: RE: Happy Easter to All LexiLine Members

anb2@...

Send Email

Thank you, dear Andis, for all the splendid work you do and for sharing it
with us.

Anne





-----Original Message-----
From: LexiLine@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LexiLine@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Andis Kaulins
Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2006 1:30 PM
To: LexiLine@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [LexiLine] Happy Easter to All LexiLine Members

Dear LexiLiners,

Happy Easter to all of you.

Thank you to all of you who are stalwart members of this newsletter/group,
which has existed since 1999.

We will continue on with our work in the coming months and years, regardless
of what happens in other quarters.

At LexiLine, we are at the forefront of developments and everyone else in
the fileds that we write about is lagging far behind.

We do hope that they catch up one day, and we hope they catch up honorably.

And so, enough said on that topic. On with our work.

May the Easter Bunny be good to you.

Andis





Community email addresses:
   Post message: LexiLine@onelist.com
   Subscribe:    LexiLine-subscribe@onelist.com
   Unsubscribe:  LexiLine-unsubscribe@onelist.com
   List owner:   LexiLine-owner@onelist.com

Shortcut URL to this page:
   http://www.onelist.com/community/LexiLine
Yahoo! Groups Links

Reply | Messages in this Topic (2)

#1455

From: "Andis Kaulins" <AKaulins@...>
Date: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:29 pm
Subject: Happy Easter to All LexiLine Members

earlofeden12

Send Email

Dear LexiLiners, [reposted due to a typo]

Happy Easter to all of you.

Thank you to all of you who are stalwart members of this
newsletter/group, which has existed since 1999.

We will continue on with our work in the coming months and years,
regardless of what happens in other quarters.

At LexiLine, we are at the forefront of developments and everyone else
in the fields that we write about is lagging far behind.

We do hope that they catch up one day, and we hope they catch up
honorably.

And so, enough said on that topic. On with our work.

May the Easter Bunny be good to you.

Andis

Reply | Messages in this Topic (2)

#1456

From: "Andis Kaulins" <AKaulins@...>
Date: Mon Apr 24, 2006 3:09 pm
Subject: 27 LexiLine Newsletter 2006 New Nazca Figure Found - Lupus? the Centaur?

earlofeden12

Send Email

27 LexiLine Newsletter 2006 New Nazca Figure Found - Lupus? the Centaur?

Dear LexiLiners,

My decipherment of the Nazca lines and figures as astronomy can be found at:
http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi246.htm

Now a new unknown figure with two "horns"
(actually, it looks like a hare to me)
has been found at the South end of Nazca
http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/national/news/p20060420p2a00m0na016000c.html
which would fit to the position I assigned to the Centuar (horned Bull) 0r to Lupus (the Wolf). I do not have the exact location of the new figure yet, so let me know if someone finds one online.

In any case, this is another in a continuing stream of new discoveries, all of which confirm my astronomical hypotheses.

Enjoy,

Andis

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1457

From: "Andis Kaulins" <AKaulins@...>
Date: Wed Apr 26, 2006 8:26 pm
Subject: 28 LexiLine Newsletter 2006 Maya Chronology and Halley's Comet Revisited

earlofeden12

Send Email

28 LexiLine Newsletter 2006 Maya Chronology and Halley's Comet Revisited

Dear LexiLiners,

I had a question from a reader about my work on Maya Chronology on whether they were based on some Codex.
See http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi75.htm

Here is the answer that I wrote:

My calculations are not based on any Codex.
The mainstreamers can read the raw data as such and need no help with that.

However, their astronomical interpretations of the numbers are faulty since their cardinal dates are wrong.

What I am saying is the entire Maya chronology is off by ca. 819 days in terms of the start of the calendar. As I write on my website LexiLine:

"Often in Maya dating of the so-called Supplementary Series, the so-called IS (Initial Series date) is preceded by a notation of 819 days. This notation of 819 days is thought by Maya scholars to be merely a magical multiple of 13, 9 and 7, which equals 819. But as shown here for the first time, these 819 days are the intercalation for the tropical year. This intercalation was apparently made at Tikal, Guatemala on January 25, 293 (Julian date 1828100) and used in the Supplementary Series of dates."

Hence, 4 Ahau 8 Cumku is not some meaningless August date in 3114 B.C. but rather December 25, 3117 B.C (Julian date 583297). when a Solar Eclipse took place at the Winter Solstice - and this is the reason that the calendar started then. The interpretation that 4 Ahau 8 Cumku is in August in 3114 B.C. as Julian day number 584,283 can be traced back to E. (Error-prone) Thompsen (misspelling of name is intentional - his name should be blotted from the history books) who was an idiot, not only in failing to recognize and in fact, as Coe has written, actively hindering Knorosow's correct Maya decipherment work, but also having no clue about calendration. That Mayanologists follow this cretin's ideas is one of the great mysteries of scholarship. That such a total loss as a human being was knighted shows what little value attaches to such ephemeral human bestowments.

A proper appreciation of IS 819 also proves clearly that Merida is not November 14, 1539 A.D. but rather correctly Julian date 2283535 as the expected Solstice date of December 25, 1539 AD.

It is then similarly clear as I have written at LexiLine concerning Halley's Comet and its observation by the Maya:

"The current Maya chronology includes a spectacular event called the Entrada of 378, for the arrival at Tikal of a lord called Siayaj K'ak' (meaning and translated "Fire Born" by the Mayanologists), dated to January 31, 378 by the Mayanologists.

At the same time, the "king" Chak Tok Ich'aak allegedly passed away on January 15, 378 (8.17.1.4.12) - whose name means "Great Burning Claw". This Entrada (Entrance) of Siyaj K'ak' took place on January 31, 378 according to mainstream Mayanology - indeed, the appearance of this mysterious "fire born" is documented 8 days earlier and his "route" is even traced in Maya records.

Now - if this were a HEAVENLY BODY it would be a fiery comet - AND it is a comet, Halley's Comet, which came very close to earth in what the serious astronomers today estimate to be 374 A.D. According to MY chronology, the Maya date January 31, 378 is correctly May 4, 375 A.D. and this is the Maya record of the sighting of this very near passage of Halley's Comet, one of the closest to Earth on record.

We find Halley returns at ca. 76-year multiples in the names of Maya "rulers".... though all the mainstream dates are off by the error of 2+years in mainstream chronology which I have discussed above.

Halley is the Accession of K'an Chitam in 458 A.D. - actually, this was 2+ years earlier. Ruler "Bird Claw?" - also known as "Animal Skull I" - this is Halley again - is dated by Mayanologists to between ca. 527 and 537 A.D.

Ca. 76- years we then have Halley again as Animal Skull II.

Halley appears again as the illustrious king Yich'aak K'ak' (Fiery Claw) whose "flint and shield" are brought down by Jasaw Chan K'awiil I on (sic) August 5, 695 A.D. - but of course this is 2+ years earlier in fact.

So, Halley has been clearly identified, and mainstream Maya chronology is off by the period of time I have previously described in great detail in other LexiLine postings."

Why has this not been recognized in Mayan Studies? Because most scholars - and thus includes Maya scholars - are subservient Indians following their chosen Chiefs, and when their chosen Chiefs are incompetents such as Thompsen, nothing good can come of it, and nothing has.

Note that this has nothing to do with studying things like the Dresden Codex. The dates I use are standard and come from Simon Martin's and Nikolai Grube's "Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens".

It has to do with setting your cardinal dates correctly, and that the Maya scholars have screwed up royally, thanks to the influence of clueless people like Thompsen.

Enjoy,

Andis

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1458

From: "Andis Kaulins" <AKaulins@...>
Date: Thu Apr 27, 2006 3:15 am
Subject: 29 LexiLine Newsletter 2006 Buena Vista Peru Astronomical Alignments Discovered

earlofeden12

Send Email

29 LexiLine Newsletter 2006 Buena Vista Peru Astronomical Alignments Discovered

Dear LexiLiners,

Stephen Guthrie has sent our group the following April 24, 2006 General Science link from Physorg.com
http://www.physorg.com/news65114355.html
and an article titled
Researchers Unearths Earliest Western Sculptures and Astronomical Alignments in Peru
which is summarized there as follows:

" In one of the most significant archaeological and anthropological finds in recent history, Robert Benfer, professor emeritus of anthropology at the University of Missouri-Columbia, has discovered the earliest astronomical alignments and sculptures in the round, which is a sculpture designed to be viewed from many directions and angles, in the New World in Buena Vista, Peru."

For our purposes, the most significant findings are these:

"While excavating the temple and sculptures, Benfer discovered several astronomical alignments at the Buena Vista site that suggest Andeans used astronomical signs and constellations to guide their agricultural activities. The lines incorporate points at the temple entrance, at the offering chamber, on sculptures, and on surrounding ridges that align with the rising and setting sun on days of astronomical significance, such as the equinox and solstices. For example, from west to east, the offering chamber aligns with a modified rock on an eastern ridge, forming a 114-degree azimuth and pointing toward the rising sun on December 21, which is the southern hemisphere's summer solstice. This date begins the season where flood waters rise, El Ni�o weather patterns are predicted and plants should be planted. On March 21, when flood waters recede, this same line points to the rising Andean constellation of the Fox. In addition, among the ancient statues Benfer excavated in Buena Vista is a personified disk that frowns at the sunset on June 21, the day marking the beginning of the harvest.

Benfer has been working at this site in Peru for the past four years but only discovered the Temple of the Fox in June 2004; the frowning disk was unearthed in June 2005. He said no one could have predicted to find something so old, but he added that other Andean temple sites he has studied contain perfect 114-degree alignments and similar astronomical features, which act as additional evidence to support his findings. "

These findings are discussed in more detail in the NSF Proposal (December 2004), Development of a Coastal-Valley Dual Economic System in Preceramic Peru: Project Description, by Robert A. Benfer, Jr. and ElizabethJ. Reitz at
http://rcp.missouri.edu/bobbenfer/pdfs/BenferReitzNSF04.pdf where it is written

"We obtained this alignment of the temple between the middle of the original, unaltered western entrance with a "false door" at the rear of the ofrendaria as 114 degrees west of north. Benfer found that lifting the barrel of the transit up from a line looking east established by the door and false door, caused the cross hairs to center on a rock to the east that had earlier been noted by the field crew supervisor, Duncan. The next day, Benfer turned the transit to the east and found it centered on a flat area between two rock spires, which he had noted on the ridge of the western horizon. Benfer e-mailed the 114-degree
value to an astronomer (Adkins) who reported back that the alignment would have signaled the Austral summer solstice at sunset on December 22, 4,200 B.C. The actual alignment of these events at 2,200 B.C., would have been 114.5 degrees; Benfer measured 114 degrees west of north with a transit that he only read to the nearest degree, unaware of the appropriate 114.5-degree alignment at that time. Figure 3 shows that the temple was set in the larger structure at a slight angle, an angle that was necessary to obtain the solar azimuth orientation.

Although the sunset would be very close to a platform visible to the west in the 114-degree line at any time in the archaeological past, this is not true for other features of the visible sky. Today, the Milky Way presents a different nighttime pattern than would have been visible from this latitude 4,200 years ago due to precession, the slow (26,000 year
period) rotation of the earth about an axis normal to the orbital plane. Because of precession, Earth's diurnal (daily rotation) axis points towards different parts of the celestial sphere during different epochs. Over time, this gradual shift has the effect of a slow but continuous change in the night sky's appearance as seen by an observer at a given latitude. So it was surprising to learn further from Adkins that the fox, toad, and llama constellations would have appeared on March 22, 2200 B.C., before sunrise just over the eastern mountain ridge, along a line defined by the rock, which inspection showed was modified. Three
platforms in native stone are nearby. March 22 would be the last possible time for planting in years in which floods destroyed previous plantings since rainfall would diminish dramatically after that date. The foxes would have been producing their kits around the end of December; their calls are used today to prognosticate fertility in the Andes (Howard-Malverde 1984). The appearance of the fox constellation in the eastern horizon after sunset March 22 would have signaled the end of the opportunity for planting."

Now of course, the archaeologists have not fully understood the significance of the azimuth of ca. 114.5 degrees which is a number similar to one I have been working with at the Sternhof site of Oesterholz in Germany and upon which I will be giving a speech on 27 May 2006 in Horn-Bad Meinberg to the annual conference of the Walther Machalett Study Group on Prehistory.

114.5 degrees (114.6 is actually closer), as I have discovered for ancient archaeoastronomy at Oesterholz, is the diameter of the firmament (114.6 x pi = 360 degrees), i.e. it is the diameter of the sky in the stars, where the starry sky is seen as a large circle or bowl above the Earth. The ancients knew this and thus measured the heavens using this angle.

Enjoy,

Andis

Reply | Messages in this Topic (3)

#1459

From: jmh150 <jmh150@...>
Date: Fri Apr 28, 2006 12:09 am
Subject: Re: 29 LexiLine Newsletter 2006 Buena Vista Peru Astronomical Alignments Discovered

jmh150

Send Email

Andis

Given that the term Pi is only the ratio of the circumference to the diameter and given that one takes the measurement of the circumference to be 360 "somethings"(--in the case given degrees) 114.59(and change) then we get Pi. However, I am curious about your use of 114.59 as a diameter. Are you suggesting that the visible portion of the sky at any point in time is only 114.59 degrees? Not that I am arguing the point just am curious. If we live in flat Kansas USA --I might disagree--if we are talking Peru and mountanous country --seems reasonable.. I don't know.

Regards

Joe

Andis Kaulins <AKaulins@...> wrote:

29 LexiLine Newsletter 2006 Buena Vista Peru Astronomical Alignments Discovered

Dear LexiLiners,

Stephen Guthrie has sent our group the following April 24, 2006 General Science link from Physorg.com
http://www.physorg.com/news65114355.html
and an article titled
Researchers Unearths Earliest Western Sculptures and Astronomical Alignments in Peru
which is summarized there as follows:

" In one of the most significant archaeological and anthropological finds in recent history, Robert Benfer, professor emeritus of anthropology at the University of Missouri-Columbia, has discovered the earliest astronomical alignments and sculptures in the round, which is a sculpture designed to be viewed from many directions and angles, in the New World in Buena Vista, Peru."

For our purposes, the most significant findings are these:

"While excavating the temple and sculptures, Benfer discovered several astronomical alignments at the Buena Vista site that suggest Andeans used astronomical signs and constellations to guide their agricultural activities. The lines incorporate points at the temple entrance, at the offering chamber, on sculptures, and on surrounding ridges that align with the rising and setting sun on days of astronomical significance, such as the equinox and solstices. For example, from west to east, the offering chamber aligns with a modified rock on an eastern ridge, forming a 114-degree azimuth and pointing toward the rising sun on December 21, which is the southern hemisphere's summer solstice. This date begins the season where flood waters rise, El Ni�o weather patterns are predicted and plants should be planted. On March 21, when flood waters recede, this same line points to the rising Andean constellation of the Fox. In addition, among the ancient statues Benfer excavated in Buena Vista is a personified disk that frowns at the sunset on June 21, the day marking the beginning of the harvest.

Benfer has been working at this site in Peru for the past four years but only discovered the Temple of the Fox in June 2004; the frowning disk was unearthed in June 2005. He said no one could have predicted to find something so old, but he added that other Andean temple sites he has studied contain perfect 114-degree alignments and similar astronomical features, which act as additional evidence to support his findings. "

These findings are discussed in more detail in the NSF Proposal (December 2004), Development of a Coastal-Valley Dual Economic System in Preceramic Peru: Project Description, by Robert A. Benfer, Jr. and ElizabethJ. Reitz at
http://rcp.missouri.edu/bobbenfer/pdfs/BenferReitzNSF04.pdf where it is written

"We obtained this alignment of the temple between the middle of the original, unaltered western entrance with a "false door" at the rear of the ofrendaria as 114 degrees west of north. Benfer found that lifting the barrel of the transit up from a line looking east established by the door and false door, caused the cross hairs to center on a rock to the east that had earlier been noted by the field crew supervisor, Duncan. The next day, Benfer turned the transit to the east and found it centered on a flat area between two rock spires, which he had noted on the ridge of the western horizon. Benfer e-mailed the 114-degree
value to an astronomer (Adkins) who reported back that the alignment would have signaled the Austral summer solstice at sunset on December 22, 4,200 B.C. The actual alignment of these events at 2,200 B.C., would have been 114.5 degrees; Benfer measured 114 degrees west of north with a transit that he only read to the nearest degree, unaware of the appropriate 114.5-degree alignment at that time. Figure 3 shows that the temple was set in the larger structure at a slight angle, an angle that was necessary to obtain the solar azimuth orientation.

Although the sunset would be very close to a platform visible to the west in the 114-degree line at any time in the archaeological past, this is not true for other features of the visible sky. Today, the Milky Way presents a different nighttime pattern than would have been visible from this latitude 4,200 years ago due to precession, the slow (26,000 year
period) rotation of the earth about an axis normal to the orbital plane. Because of precession, Earth's diurnal (daily rotation) axis points towards different parts of the celestial sphere during different epochs. Over time, this gradual shift has the effect of a slow but continuous change in the night sky's appearance as seen by an observer at a given latitude. So it was surprising to learn further from Adkins that the fox, toad, and llama constellations would have appeared on March 22, 2200 B.C., before sunrise just over the eastern mountain ridge, along a line defined by the rock, which inspection showed was modified. Three
platforms in native stone are nearby. March 22 would be the last possible time for planting in years in which floods destroyed previous plantings since rainfall would diminish dramatically after that date. The foxes would have been producing their kits around the end of December; their calls are used today to prognosticate fertility in the Andes (Howard-Malverde 1984). The appearance of the fox constellation in the eastern horizon after sunset March 22 would have signaled the end of the opportunity for planting."

Now of course, the archaeologists have not fully understood the significance of the azimuth of ca. 114.5 degrees which is a number similar to one I have been working with at the Sternhof site of Oesterholz in Germany and upon which I will be giving a speech on 27 May 2006 in Horn-Bad Meinberg to the annual conference of the Walther Machalett Study Group on Prehistory.

114.5 degrees (114.6 is actually closer), as I have discovered for ancient archaeoastronomy at Oesterholz, is the diameter of the firmament (114.6 x pi = 360 degrees), i.e. it is the diameter of the sky in the stars, where the starry sky is seen as a large circle or bowl above the Earth. The ancients knew this and thus measured the heavens using this angle.

Enjoy,

Andis

Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2�/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.

Reply | Messages in this Topic (3)

#1460

From: "Andis Kaulins" <AKaulins@...>
Date: Sat Apr 29, 2006 3:37 pm
Subject: Re: 29 LexiLine Newsletter 2006 Buena Vista Peru Astronomical Alignments Discove

earlofeden12

Send Email

Joe,

Take a look at Astro 102 Labs 2003 at Vanderbilt University where they write:

"The horizon is ... defined as the circle of points on the celestial sphere at a 90� angle from the zenith with respect to the observer. Theoretically, the observer's visible sky is determined by his or her horizon. Thus, each observer should be able to see one half of the celestial sphere at any given time during the night. However, trees, buildings, and other obstructions usually limit significantly the portion of the sky that can be seen. "

So, to answer your question, theoretically, one could see 180� of the heavens from any location with no obstructions on the horizons. In practice, this would be rare. Knowing the diameter viz. radius of the heavenly sphere would perhaps be much more useful for both astronomical and geodetic measurements. I will have some forthcoming posts about this.

Enjoy,

Andis

--- In LexiLine@yahoogroups.com, jmh150 <jmh150@...> wrote:
>
> Andis
> Given that the term Pi is only the ratio of the circumference to the diameter and given that one takes the measurement of the circumference to be 360 "somethings"(--in the case given degrees) 114.59(and change) then we get Pi. However, I am curious about your use of 114.59 as a diameter. Are you suggesting that the visible portion of the sky at any point in time is only 114.59 degrees? Not that I am arguing the point just am curious. If we live in flat Kansas USA --I might disagree--if we are talking Peru and mountanous country --seems reasonable.. I don't know.
> Regards
> Joe
>
> Andis Kaulins AKaulins@... wrote:
> 29 LexiLine Newsletter 2006 Buena Vista Peru Astronomical Alignments Discovered
>
> Dear LexiLiners,
>
> Stephen Guthrie has sent our group the following April 24, 2006 General Science link from Physorg.com
> http://www.physorg.com/news65114355.html
> and an article titled
> Researchers Unearths Earliest Western Sculptures and Astronomical Alignments in Peru
> which is summarized there as follows:
>
> " In one of the most significant archaeological and anthropological finds in recent history, Robert Benfer, professor emeritus of anthropology at the University of Missouri-Columbia, has discovered the earliest astronomical alignments and sculptures in the round, which is a sculpture designed to be viewed from many directions and angles, in the New World in Buena Vista, Peru."
>
> For our purposes, the most significant findings are these:
>
> "While excavating the temple and sculptures, Benfer discovered several astronomical alignments at the Buena Vista site that suggest Andeans used astronomical signs and constellations to guide their agricultural activities. The lines incorporate points at the temple entrance, at the offering chamber, on sculptures, and on surrounding ridges that align with the rising and setting sun on days of astronomical significance, such as the equinox and solstices. For example, from west to east, the offering chamber aligns with a modified rock on an eastern ridge, forming a 114-degree azimuth and pointing toward the rising sun on December 21, which is the southern hemisphere's summer solstice. This date begins the season where flood waters rise, El Ni�o weather patterns are predicted and plants should be planted. On March 21, when flood waters recede, this same line points to the rising Andean constellation of the Fox. In addition, among the ancient statues Benfer excavated in Buena
> Vista is a personified disk that frowns at the sunset on June 21, the day marking the beginning of the harvest.
>
> Benfer has been working at this site in Peru for the past four years but only discovered the Temple of the Fox in June 2004; the frowning disk was unearthed in June 2005. He said no one could have predicted to find something so old, but he added that other Andean temple sites he has studied contain perfect 114-degree alignments and similar astronomical features, which act as additional evidence to support his findings. "
>
> These findings are discussed in more detail in the NSF Proposal (December 2004), Development of a Coastal-Valley Dual Economic System in Preceramic Peru: Project Description, by Robert A. Benfer, Jr. and ElizabethJ. Reitz at
> http://rcp.missouri.edu/bobbenfer/pdfs/BenferReitzNSF04.pdf where it is written
>
> "We obtained this alignment of the temple between the middle of the original, unaltered western entrance with a "false door" at the rear of the ofrendaria as 114 degrees west of north. Benfer found that lifting the barrel of the transit up from a line looking east established by the door and false door, caused the cross hairs to center on a rock to the east that had earlier been noted by the field crew supervisor, Duncan. The next day, Benfer turned the transit to the east and found it centered on a flat area between two rock spires, which he had noted on the ridge of the western horizon. Benfer e-mailed the 114-degree
> value to an astronomer (Adkins) who reported back that the alignment would have signaled the Austral summer solstice at sunset on December 22, 4,200 B.C. The actual alignment of these events at 2,200 B.C., would have been 114.5 degrees; Benfer measured 114 degrees west of north with a transit that he only read to the nearest degree, unaware of the appropriate 114.5-degree alignment at that time. Figure 3 shows that the temple was set in the larger structure at a slight angle, an angle that was necessary to obtain the solar azimuth orientation.
>
> Although the sunset would be very close to a platform visible to the west in the 114-degree line at any time in the archaeological past, this is not true for other features of the visible sky. Today, the Milky Way presents a different nighttime pattern than would have been visible from this latitude 4,200 years ago due to precession, the slow (26,000 year
> period) rotation of the earth about an axis normal to the orbital plane. Because of precession, Earth's diurnal (daily rotation) axis points towards different parts of the celestial sphere during different epochs. Over time, this gradual shift has the effect of a slow but continuous change in the night sky's appearance as seen by an observer at a given latitude. So it was surprising to learn further from Adkins that the fox, toad, and llama constellations would have appeared on March 22, 2200 B.C., before sunrise just over the eastern mountain ridge, along a line defined by the rock, which inspection showed was modified. Three
> platforms in native stone are nearby. March 22 would be the last possible time for planting in years in which floods destroyed previous plantings since rainfall would diminish dramatically after that date. The foxes would have been producing their kits around the end of December; their calls are used today to prognosticate fertility in the Andes (Howard-Malverde 1984). The appearance of the fox constellation in the eastern horizon after sunset March 22 would have signaled the end of the opportunity for planting."
>
> Now of course, the archaeologists have not fully understood the significance of the azimuth of ca. 114.5 degrees which is a number similar to one I have been working with at the Sternhof site of Oesterholz in Germany and upon which I will be giving a speech on 27 May 2006 in Horn-Bad Meinberg to the annual conference of the Walther Machalett Study Group on Prehistory.
>
> 114.5 degrees (114.6 is actually closer), as I have discovered for ancient archaeoastronomy at Oesterholz, is the diameter of the firmament (114.6 x pi = 360 degrees), i.e. it is the diameter of the sky in the stars, where the starry sky is seen as a large circle or bowl above the Earth. The ancients knew this and thus measured the heavens using this angle.
>
> Enjoy,
>
> Andis
>
> Community email addresses:
> Post message: LexiLine@onelist.com
> Subscribe: LexiLine-subscribe@onelist.com
> Unsubscribe: LexiLine-unsubscribe@onelist.com
> List owner: LexiLine-owner@onelist.com
>
> Shortcut URL to this page:
> http://www.onelist.com/community/LexiLine
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> Inverness scotland Astronomy Clava
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "LexiLine" on the web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> LexiLine-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2�/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
>

Reply | Messages in this Topic (3)

Yahoo! Groups

Breaking News Visit Yahoo! News for the latest.

The Yahoo! Groups Product Blog

Check it out!

Group Information

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...

Messages