Brilliant Ancient Egyptian stuff

originally posted by: undo

originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: peter vlar

Good comments, a lot of the earlier posts had other false claims in them too. It would seem that the new age and fantasy version of ancient Egyptian culture and history reigns supreme in that dark land known as Phringee.

which things are fringe besides the light bulb and battery?

A few of the medical terms and claims I cannot address as I have no knowledge of them:

Here are few things that need to be looked at - a few I commented on as being bogus or debunked:

grind optical lenses?

precession of the equinoxes?

pineal gland was the seat of consciousness - is it?

Paper – well no, papyri’s yes

Copper to disinfect – age of such tools might reflect the availability of that metal instead

Egyptians used hypnosis, as well as harmonic frequencies?

Electroplating?

their use of whole body healing, instead of just physical, they also addressed the emotional and spiritual.
(added) they believed in the use of magic to cure people

mummies with coca and tobacco. This would mean they had trade with the Americas (debunked years ago)

cataract surgery – my understanding of that is no, but they did remove the lense to allow poor but unrestricted vision

Electric eels – no electric eels in the Nile, there is a African knifefish which resembles an electric eel and has a much weaker electrical effect

a reply to: Hanslune

It is still cataract surgery, as the cataract was removed from the field of vision.

Sanskrit manuscripts from the 5th century B.C. describe the earliest type of cataract surgery known as couching. In this procedure, the cataractous lens was displaced away from the pupil to lie in the vitreous cavity in the back of the eye. The displacement of the lens enabled the patient to see better. Vision, however, was still blurred due to the unavailability of corrective lenses.

Foundation of the American Academy of Opthamalogy

a reply to: Hanslune

Thanks, I appreciate that. Its difficult sometimes to temper an eagerness for out of the ball park approaches and way of viewing things with those boring cold facts. Speculation and imagination is great but if you can't support supposition you might as well just drop acid and stare at a late period Pollock painting. You'll get the same results.

Don't get me wrong, when I was younger, I was all about the phringee. An old book from the 60's was what pulled me towards Archie/anthro in the first place and who wouldnt love for some of the more out there ideas to be true because lets face it, more people would likely be interested in ancient history, archaeology and anthropology and with more interest comes more funding and that is never a bad thing. However, especially in instances like this where the Baghdad battery and Dendra lights have been beaten to death, you just have to go with what can be supported by facts and take a real hard look at the reality of it. Te reality is that the fringe viewpoint isn't based in reality and the boring logical explanations are far closer to truth than the fantastical wishes of people like Von Dainiken.

On a side not, 23 days until I leave for Tulum so be prepared for a mass of photos to be uploaded just before Christmas. You just can't beat hanging out in the only Mayan city to have been walled in let alone the gorgeous beach down below the city.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Hanslune

It is still cataract surgery, as the cataract was removed from the field of vision.

Sanskrit manuscripts from the 5th century B.C. describe the earliest type of cataract surgery known as couching. In this procedure, the cataractous lens was displaced away from the pupil to lie in the vitreous cavity in the back of the eye. The displacement of the lens enabled the patient to see better. Vision, however, was still blurred due to the unavailability of corrective lenses.

Foundation of the American Academy of Opthamalogy

Cataract surgery implies a corrective measure - needling seems to remove the lenses - removing the cataract but leaving the person blind - so it not (in my opinion) cataract surgery in the corrective sense. Perhaps the term ''The ancient Egyptians could remove cataracts' might be better suited?

The link also comes years after the end of the 'ancient' period of the AE.

For all I know, I might have read it on ATS that there is a theory that the Chinese visited south America long ago, and traded with the ancient Egyption's, which is where the cocoa and tobacco came from, and another theory is that the mummies were contaminated by the people examining the mummies.

originally posted by: pikestaff
For all I know, I might have read it on ATS that there is a theory that the Chinese visited south America long ago, and traded with the ancient Egyption's, which is where the cocoa and tobacco came from, and another theory is that the mummies were contaminated by the people examining the mummies.

There was a long "flap' about it some years ago. There is a fairly good and short article on wiki about it.

Scroll down to the coc aine mummy part

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Hanslune

It is still cataract surgery, as the cataract was removed from the field of vision.

Sanskrit manuscripts from the 5th century B.C. describe the earliest type of cataract surgery known as couching. In this procedure, the cataractous lens was displaced away from the pupil to lie in the vitreous cavity in the back of the eye. The displacement of the lens enabled the patient to see better. Vision, however, was still blurred due to the unavailability of corrective lenses.

Foundation of the American Academy of Opthamalogy

Cataract surgery implies a corrective measure - needling seems to remove the lenses - removing the cataract but leaving the person blind - so it not (in my opinion) cataract surgery in the corrective sense. Perhaps the term ''The ancient Egyptians could remove cataracts' might be better suited?

The link also comes years after the end of the 'ancient' period of the AE.

The link mentions this:

The displacement of the lens enabled the patient to see better.

Sounds like something less than blind... which is what a person with advanced cataracts is, for practical purposes. Why would they do the procedure if there was less vision afterwards?
The link refers to Egyptian surgical instruments being found.
Then this:

By analysis of ancient surgical instruments it is possible to define the history of medical specialties, and acquaint the evolution of specific surgical techniques and operations through the centurie s (Aruta et al., 2009). Scientists have often discussed whether cataract was firstly operat ed in Ancient Egypt (Bernscherer, 2001). This hypothesis seems plausible (Ascaso et al., 2009) . Thus, a wall painting in the tomb of the master builder Ipwy at Thebes (about 1200 B. C.) reveals an oculist treating the eye of a craftsman. Because of the length of the instru ment, the scene might also be interpreted as a cataract surgery by couching of the lens into the vitreous cavity (Figure 2).

The History of Cataract Surgery

a reply to: butcherguy

Okay you convinced me! They were doing something by poking a poor devil's eye with a pointy copper tool!

originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: butcherguy

Okay you convinced me! They were doing something by poking a poor devil's eye with a pointy copper tool!

I am not certain of it by any means, but it does seem like a likely thing, given some evidence.
Did you know that surgeons in India removed bladder stones around 600 BC?

The earliest literary quotations to stone disease, describing symptoms and prescribing treatments to dissolve the stone, are observed within the medical texts of Asutu in Mesopotamia between 3200 and 1200 BC [1]. And the first descriptions of “cutting for the stone” are found in Hindu and Greek writings. Sushruta (around 600 BC) was a surgeon who lived in ancient India and is the author of the book Sushruta Samhita, in which he describes over 300 surgical procedures, including perineal lithotomy

ncbi
I read a book that had a description of the procedure. It was not for the faint of heart... or stomach.

originally posted by: Silcone Synapse
Electroplating!



ancientskyscraper.com...

Bogus.

No electroplated items have ever been found from ancient times.

Ancients did know how to plate a metal item though. Just not with electricity.

Harte

a reply to: butcherguy

Yeah that is interesting, it also solved (think serendipity) a puzzling reference I had been trying to understand in a 19th century journal for some time - thanks.

a reply to: peter vlar

Absolutely I think it was a UFO book or maybe something about mysteries that got me into the fringe but the first book of 'science' was actually a bit fringy too, Heyerdahl's Aku Aku I decided then (10th grade) to make archaeology my first but second career.

Enjoy Tulum and I remember one restaurant I can recommend that is on the water in Cancun, Lorenzillo or some such, seafood - recommended.

If you have time before read Stephen's book on his discoveries there in Incidents of Travel in Yucatan.

a reply to: stormcell

Nefertari and Seti play that in The Ten Commandments (1956).

I'm interested to know what evidence there is that the ancient Egyptians as we know them, built the pyramids at Giza.
It has long been a source of argument and controversy.

The only evidence I've seen is that they are in Egypt. That's not conclusive.

There are no ancient historical writings, pictures or descriptions of them.
There are no hieroglyphs there.
I've seen many different estimates from many respected sources giving many different dates as to when exactly they were built. With current technology in mind, you'd think we'd have a relatively accurate and agreeable estimate by now.
The evidence to suggest that they were built for burial purposes is that they found sarcophagus (More accurately, stone boxes with no markings) there. But they never found bodies/bones/treasures as is the case in the valley of Kings and elsewhere.

There are many more Pyramids in Egypt (Over 100). Some were built using clay and brick, some were misshapen and many just failed because the techniques used to build the Giza pyramids could not be replicated.

I don't know who built them but I do know enough that I would never say with 100% certainty that it was the ancient Egyptians.

a reply to: Silvertrowel

The builders of the famous Giza pyramids in Egypt feasted on food from a massive catering-type operation, the remains of which scientists have discovered at a workers' town near the pyramids. The workers' town is located about 1,300 feet (400 meters) south of the Sphinx, and was used to house workers building the pyramid of pharaoh Menkaure, the third and last pyramid on the Giza plateau. The site is also known by its Arabic name, Heit el-Ghurab, and is sometimes called "the Lost City of the Pyramid Builders." So far, researchers have discovered a nearby cemetery with bodies of pyramid builders; a corral with possible slaughter areas on the southern edge of workers' town; and piles of animal bones.

Material from this town that housed the workers has been 14C dated to the time period attributed to the time the associated pyramid is thought to have been built, Menkaure's to be specific. Within Menkaure's pyramid an anthropoid sarcophagus was found bearing inscriptions with his name and indeed containing human remains though they turned out to be female and were possibly those of his wife, Khamerernebty II. Menkaure's name and an inscription detailing the date of his death was also written in the entranceway. If you care to do the research you will find there is quite a bit of evidence that the AE's built the pyramids.

To add in don't look at the pyramids as being separate from the larger AE culture.

Note that they are built in an existing necropolis, note too the importance of the Pharaoh, death and reincarnation in AE life.

Note the two series of 14C testing of ruins from that time. Note too the builders markers and other indicators of AE workmanship.

a reply to: Hanslune

solid points. sometimes I end up skipping over the big picture when focusing on the minutiae

ETA in regard to your earlier reply, I had a good laugh that you brought up Stephens book as I was very recently eyeing a first edition of it but just couldn't bring myself to drop 750 on a book that one of my kids would all too likely end up getting ahold of somehow and using as a drink coaster. Its happened before and it was just a first edition Louis Leakey book from the 70's but it had some sentimental value but no actual market value.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Hanslune

solid points. sometimes I end up skipping over the big picture when focusing on the minutiae

The Fringe spends a great deal of time and effort trying to tear the pyramids away from the AE. Then they make up something else to fill that void. It always fails because whatever they come up with, aliens, Atlantis or Vegan mentats is always evidence lame.

a reply to: Hanslune

Exactly. That's why I used Menkaure's in my example as there is a lot more documented evidence that can't just be whispered away by aliens or nephilim or whatever the flavor of the day is. It's pretty incontrovertible and when you put it in context with the rest of the Giza plateau its a more cohesive argument as they always want to focus on the largest of the 3.

a reply to: peter vlar

Just regurgitating what I see on youtube-like the rest of you.