🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 1 May 2009 05:27:06 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
<jacklinthicum@earthlink.net> wrote:

>On Apr 30, 6:12 pm, kangarooistan <kangarooist...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> There is no evidence that  the Turin Papyrus " gold mine " was  in
>> Egypt , not a single tiny piece of evidence exists to prove the  GOLD
>> mine described in the Turin Papyrus fragments A ,B ,C or D ,
>> describes  a mine in Egypt
>>
>> the fragments after that DO have heaps of evidence that clearly exists
>> and can be found in Egypt , but there is nothing that points to the
>> site at Bir Umm Fawakhir in the fragments A B C or D  , and NOTHING on
>> the ground in Egypt , or in any museum  anywhere that cab tie the
>> Turin Papyrus "gold mine '  to any where ,  except the site in south
>> Australia  where EVERY natural and every man made feature in the map
>> fits and can be seen with the naked eye  even without digging , after
>> 3160 years  even today without leaving your car seat  you can
>> recognize the features exactly as marked in the Turin map
>>
>> While EVERY  natural feature  and the remains of every man made
>> feature on the map , on the Turin Papyrus " gold mine " map  , can be
>> seen with the naked eye ,  in SOUTH AUSTRALIA , experts accept the
>> Egyptian site with NIL evidence at  Bir Umm Fawakkir
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> The map even describes the mine as being a very very very long way
>> from the bekhen-stone quarries in the Wadi Hammamat ,  in fragments E
>> onward of the Turin Papyrus clearly is in EGYPT and can be SEEN to be
>> so
>>
>> As the details in South Australia equally can CLEARLY be identified as
>> matching the Turin Papyrus CLEARLY
>>
>> SBS TV or Aljazeera  may like to cover the topic as news , and show
>> both site for all to see what I mean , I wont deal with other news
>>
>>   It appears somebody removed the number of Khat  to the gold
>> mine ,  , but it was repeated 3 times ,  indicating it was a very very
>> very long way ,  IMHO , and to hide this " problem"  somebody though
>> to remove the number of khet ,  so as  more easily to tie it into the
>> local area and perhaps ? , to  make it ' fit "  in with the the other
>> fragments presented as one scroll  ??
>>
>> note  17 in pro Harrell research  says
>> .-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 17          distance from the gold-working settlement to the mountain
>> of bekheny,…khet
>>
>> [this text is repeated three times, apparently for emphasis; the
>> distance in units of khet is missing]3,4http://www.eeescience.utoledo.edu/Faculty/Harrell/Egypt/Turin%20Papyr...
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> We dont know how many khat = 100 cubits the distance was  , but seems
>> it was very very very  many , ...

Jack, I've relocated your text to hear so that it follows the part of
the article upon which you are commenting:

>Very many? The ancient Egyptian units of measure are as follows: 1
>khet = 100 cubits; 1 cubit (the standardized distance from the elbow
>to the tip of the longest finger) = 7 palms (palm widths) = 28 fingers
>(finger widths); 1 cubit = 52.31 cm, 1 palm = 7.47 cm, 1 finger = 1.87
>cm.
>
>many many many khet is 520 cm, ie 5 meters times many many many ie
>about 1500 meters, ie roughly a mile ....

Something is confused here. Kangarooistan wrote about a 'khat' for
which you have substituted 'khet'. I don't know about 'khat' but
'khet' is not a measure of distance but a measure of area, being 100
cubits long and 1 cubit wide. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_weights_and_measures
In fact, the use of a distance of measurement based on 100 cubits
seems improbable if a large distance is being described. The Wiki site
above says "For longer distances the Egyptians used a minute of march
of 350 royal cubits and an atur (hour of march) or itrw (river
journey) of 21,000 royal cubits". Kangarooistan's interpretation of
the document is equivalent to someone giving the distance from Rome to
the sea in fathoms.

The word 'khat' is mystery to me. I am aware that by the time of
Eratosthenes the word khat was being used as a unit of measure, but
this a long time after the map was drawn. I am not aware of any
earlier use of the term as a unit of measure.


>> ... and the site  claimed by  the main
>> stream is  very close  , even though there is no evidence in the
>> scroll or on the ground that  says its in Egypt, and the highly
>> respected  eye witness author of the scroll ,and a well respected
>> learned man who made the map would have known every town and the
>> distance ,  he does not name a single thing that ties the map to
>> anything in his native Egypt in the said map
>>
>> Absence of evidence may not be evidence ,  but its very surprising ,
>> the scholarly maps maker  did not include a single thing that places
>> the " gold mine ' in shown in the beautiful Papyrus  in  Egypt
>>
>> In this case it may in fact be evidence  ,  that it may indeed be a
>> mine that is NOT in Egypt , as at the time Phonetician sailors and
>> traders sailed the globe in search of gold , and there are references
>> of Hapshepsuts " green gold of / from Emu " , from that era , and EMU
>> is a word of Arabic origins  meaning big bird   , STILL  according to
>> dictionaries  , and the map says they mine a mix of gold and silver
>> that is " green gold "
>>
>> Why do we doubt the " Green gold from Emu " was not a direct reference
>> to this mine , that was in that ear , mining green gold, = 25%to 50%
>> silver as per the Turin maphttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ag-Au-Cu-colours.png
>>
>> Arabic origin of the word Emu seem to add weighthttp://translate.reference.com/browse/emu?olang=all&
>>
>> The ancient tool that helped unlock the secret was found at the site
>> marked as a refinery of goldhttp://mail.google.com/mail/h/j34ur7rwpv3m/?view=att&th=120e0fd6c757d...
>>
>> This site covers the Turin papyrus very well and I can not  see any
>> reason to exclude the South Australian site
>>
>> OR to even consider the site presently thought to be the mine site in
>> Egypt , nothing said in this scholarly site actually claims any real
>> evidence atall for the site presently accepted ,NIL evidence to
>> support the present Egypt site exists ANYWHEREhttp://www.eeescience.utoledo.edu/Faculty/Harrell/Egypt/Turin%20Papyr...http://www.google.com.au/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen...
>>
>> kanga
>> =====
>> WHERE is the evidence from 3160 years ago ??
>>
>> No systematic archaeological survey or excavations had been carried
>> out at Bir Umm Fawakhir prior to 1992, but the site is mentioned in
>> quite a few travelers' accounts.
>>
>>  Most of them note the gold mines, wells, hundreds of "Roman" huts,
>> and parts of the site now lost, such as the Ptolemaic temple. One of
>> the early visitors was Arthur E. P. Weigall, who published an
>> excellent account in Travels in the Upper Egyptian Deserts (1909). He
>> left the most complete description of the Ptolemaic temple as well as
>> the only known copy of its inscriptions. Couyat (1910) called Bir Umm
>> Fawakhir "une véritable ville," but his most interesting contribution
>> was a report of a papyrus, now lost, and two statues found in the
>> quarries. Battered, headless, and almost armless, they are nonetheless
>> in a classical style and were identified by Couyat as a nude Apollo
>> and a semi-draped Venus
>>
>> . In the wake of renewed mining activity in 1940 and 1941, Guéraud
>> published sixty or so ostraca found in the mining debris along with
>> ancient grinding stones, pottery vessels, lamps, beads, and a few
>> coins. Paleographically dated to the late first and second centuries
>> A.D., seven ostraca have Latin writing and the rest Greek. Almost all
>> of them have to do with military personnel in the Eastern Desert, and
>> usually with provisions sent or desired. Zitterkopf and Sidebotham
>> (1989) in their detailed survey of the Coptos to Quseir route were the
>> first, however, to publish a Byzantine date for the sherds and ancient
>> settlement at Bir Umm Fawakhir.
>>
>> The published accounts of the site are fragmentary and sometimes
>> conflicting, and without good maps either of the region or of the site
>> itself it is difficult to resolve the problems. Some parts of the site
>> have been destroyed, such as the Ptolemaic temple, and others remain
>> unpublished, such as the artifacts found at the same time as the
>> ostraca. Perhaps most seriously, the main body of ruins was mistakenly
>> called Roman for at least 150 years.
>>
>> The misidentification may have been due partly to the difficulty of
>> visiting the site, and partly to the long-held belief that the
>> Byzantine presence in the desert was minimal or non-existent.
>> Alexandria indeed dominated Egypt politically, economically,
>> culturally, and religiously, but there are scattered references to
>> Clysma (Suez), Antinoopolis, and Myos Hormos (north of Bir Umm
>> Fawakhir), and the ancient port at Berenice to the south. In light of
>> new evidence from sites such as Abu Sha'ar, Wadi Nakheil, Bir Umm
>> Fawakhir, and what can be gleaned from old accounts concerning
>> Berenice, the idea of Byzantine neglect of the Eastern Desert needs to
>> be re-examined.
>>
>> As part of the initial work, the project carried out a brief study of
>> the local geology, which explains a great deal about the layout of Bir
>> Umm Fawakhir and about its reasons for existence. The only resources
>> are mineral; the site lies in the middle of a hyperarid desert where
>> nothing larger than camel thorn grows. The Fawakhir granite to the
>> east is the aquifer; the water is carried in fine cracks in the rock
>> until it meets the dense ultramafic rocks at the western end of the
>> area, and the wells are in fact dug near the contact zone. The pinkish
>> granite was quarried at one time, probably in the Roman period.
>> Extensively worked gold mines follow the quartz veins in the Fawakhir
>> granite. The main group of ruins lies in a narrow wadi eroded in the
>> granite; the steep sides serve as a boundary and almost as a town
>> wall. The site's southeastern end is defined by a high dike of tough
>> felsite rock with a natural gate in it.
>>
>> Pre-Byzantine remains at Bir Umm Fawakhir are limited.
>>
>>  From the pharaonic period we have, perhaps, a few sherds and above
>> all, the Turin Papyrus.
>>
>>  The latter may be read as a map drawn up in the Twentieth Dynasty to
>> show the bekhen-stone quarries in the Wadi Hammamat and the gold mines
>> a little farther to the east at Bir Umm Fawakhir.
>>
>>  Evidence for a Ptolemaic presence is limited to the now lost temple
>> Ptolemy III Euergetes, though we have many travelers' descriptions of
>> it. Our attempts to locate the site of the temple or any surviving
>> blocks have not yet succeeded.http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/pubs/ar/91-92/fawakhir.html
>>
>> Mal Fabian
>>
>> Mount Barker
>> South Australia
>> No interviews except by
>>  SBS or Aljazeera
>
>Very many? The ancient Egyptian units of measure are as follows: 1
>khet = 100 cubits; 1 cubit (the standardized distance from the elbow
>to the tip of the longest finger) = 7 palms (palm widths) = 28 fingers
>(finger widths); 1 cubit = 52.31 cm, 1 palm = 7.47 cm, 1 finger = 1.87
>cm.
>
>many many many khet is 520 cm, ie 5 meters times many many many ie
>about 1500 meters, ie roughly a mile.



Eric Stevens