🚀 go-pugleaf

On May 1, 12:27 pm, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> On Fri, 1 May 2009 05:27:06 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
>
>
>
> <jacklinthi...@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. Seehttp://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......
>
> >> 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
>
> ...
>
> read more »

I think everything is a mystery to you. Roo cited note 17 from a cite
of mine which is below

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]3,4
http://www.eeescience.utoledo.edu/Faculty/Harrell/Egypt/Turin%20Papyr...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Just like English there is a khet distance and a khet area.

and

Khet:
100 cubits (ca. 52 m) a rod or 'rod of cord' or rope
Minute of March:
150 royal cubits
Schoenus:
12,000 royal cubits
Atur:
15,000 royal cubits
River Measure:
20,000 cubits (ca. 10.5 km).  [This unit is presumed to reflect one
day's travel towing a boat up the Nile]


http://freepages.history.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~rgrosser/amarna/neywetaten/measures.htm