Representations and depictions of the deity

[tabibito]

And it should be noted that Wilson, like so many other pseudoscientists, could very well be misrepresenting some of them. Particularly the more recent ones (the older ones IIRC are cited particularly because they advanced proposals that the local population didn't build them)

Strangely, I can't recall any claim that the Egyptians did not build the pyramids prior to Von-Daniken's time (plus or minus a bit).

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

FWIU He is saying that the nutter Wilson listed other nutters who are archeologists and egyptianologists who agree with his work. That would be the list you are looking for. Or are you just doing your demanding stuff over and over trolling thing again?

Well it is lovely to see you coming along and supporting your pal [Tweb moderators remind me of the Jets in West Side Story "You got brothers around, you're a family man, You're never alone, you're never disconnected"].

However, the issue concerns what rogue06 initially claimed and his failure to substantiate that initial unequivocal comment.

His first statement included this, "Everything from the pyramids to the ruins of Great Zimbabwe have been credited to everyone but the indigenous people by European explorers and archeologists for generations -- and some on the fringe still do."

That remark specified archaeologists "for generations". I simply wanted to know who those archaeologists might be.

However, in his reply to my question rogue06 shifted his position from that initial definitive statement where "Everything" [my emphasis] including the pyramids had "been credited to everyone but the indigenous people by European explorers and archeologists for generations" to something less emphatic.

He suggested that I avail myself of Wilson's book where I could "find a list in From Atlantis to the Sphinx by Colin Wilson of archaeologists and Egyptianologists who he says provide support to his notions." [My emphasis].

Suddenly rogue06 moved from his original definite statement whereby "Everything" [my emphasis again] has been dismissed as the work of indigenous peoples "by European explorers and archeologists for generations " to referencing Wilson's work wherein Wilson "says" i.e. claims that "archaeologists and Egyptianologists" are listed who "provide support to his notions." [My emphasis]

Do you see the difference between those two remarks by rogue06?


Now rogue06 has shifted his position once again and at the same time managed to redefine the world list [i.e. a series of names or other items written or printed together].

He now writes that Wilson does not provide those names "in a neat list but he brings them up at different points.". [Aside: I think perhaps the word[s] rogue06 might have been seeking are that Wilson "cites" or "references" certain individuals.]

However, that remark by rogue06 indicates that he has access to this work by Wilson which leaves the question, why could he not simply have typed out some of those names in his reply to my request?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Not in a neat list but he brings them up at different points.

As you self-evidently have access to this work why did you not just type out some of those names in reply to my question?

And it should be noted that Wilson, like so many other pseudoscientists, could very well be misrepresenting some of them. Particularly the more recent ones (the older ones IIRC are cited particularly because they advanced proposals that the local population didn't build them)

Ah and now we are back-pedalling from our initial categorical assertion that:

"Everything from the pyramids to the ruins of Great Zimbabwe have been credited to everyone but the indigenous people by European explorers and archeologists for generations ." [My emphasis]

[rogue06]

Well it is lovely to see you coming along and supporting your pal [Tweb moderators remind me of the Jets in West Side Story "You got brothers around, you're a family man, You're never alone, you're never disconnected"].

However, the issue concerns what rogue06 initially claimed and his failure to substantiate that initial unequivocal comment.

His first statement included this, "Everything from the pyramids to the ruins of Great Zimbabwe have been credited to everyone but the indigenous people by European explorers and archeologists for generations -- and some on the fringe still do."

That remark specified archaeologists "for generations". I simply wanted to know who those archaeologists might be.

However, in his reply to my question rogue06 shifted his position from that initial definitive statement where "Everything" [my emphasis] including the pyramids had "been credited to everyone but the indigenous people by European explorers and archeologists for generations" to something less emphatic.

He suggested that I avail myself of Wilson's book where I could "find a list in From Atlantis to the Sphinx by Colin Wilson of archaeologists and Egyptianologists who he says provide support to his notions." [My emphasis].

Suddenly rogue06 moved from his original definite statement whereby "Everything" [my emphasis again] has been dismissed as the work of indigenous peoples "by European explorers and archeologists for generations " to referencing Wilson's work wherein Wilson "says" i.e. claims that "archaeologists and Egyptianologists" are listed who "provide support to his notions." [My emphasis]

Do you see the difference between those two remarks by rogue06?


Now rogue06 has shifted his position once again and at the same time managed to redefine the world list [i.e. a series of names or other items written or printed together].

He now writes that Wilson does not provide those names "in a neat list but he brings them up at different points.". [Aside: I think perhaps the word[s] rogue06 might have been seeking are that Wilson "cites" or "references" certain individuals.]

However, that remark by rogue06 indicates that he has access to this work by Wilson which leaves the question, why could he not simply have typed out some of those names in his reply to my request?

You really have some serious problems don't you? The type that medication just isn't helping.

[rogue06]

As you self-evidently have access to this work why did you not just type out some of those names in reply to my question?

Ah and now we are back-pedalling from our initial categorical assertion that:

"Everything from the pyramids to the ruins of Great Zimbabwe have been credited to everyone but the indigenous people by European explorers and archeologists for generations ." [My emphasis]

The ruins of Great Zimbabwe were attributed to Romans, Phoenicians, Arabs etc. Virtually anyone and everyone that someone could dream up -- except the indigenous people. That was still going on when I was in school.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You really have some serious problems don't you? The type that medication just isn't helping.

You made an emphatic claim and then desperately back-pedalled. Very amusing to watch.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The ruins of Great Zimbabwe were attributed to Romans, Phoenicians, Arabs etc. Virtually anyone and everyone that someone could dream up -- except the indigenous people. That was still going on when I was in school.

And who are the accredited archaeologists who have made those claims?

Your citation of a work that includes the likes of Graham Hancock in its bibliography does not inspire confidence.

[rogue06]

You made an emphatic claim and then desperately back-pedalled. Very amusing to watch.

No back-pedaling. Just clarification after your wild "interpretation" of what I wrote.

[tabibito]

As you self-evidently have access to this work why did you not just type out some of those names in reply to my question?

Ah and now we are back-pedalling from our initial categorical assertion that:

"Everything from the pyramids to the ruins of Great Zimbabwe have been credited to everyone but the indigenous people by European explorers and archeologists for generations ." [My emphasis]

There seems to be at least some support for Rogue's assertion.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2...ins-plundering
Karl Mauch: “I do not think that I am far wrong if I suppose that the ruin on the hill is a copy of Solomon’s Temple on Mount Moriah,” Mauch declared, “and the building in the plain a copy of the palace where the Queen of Sheba lived during her visit to Solomon.” He further stated that only a “civilised nation must once have lived there” – his racist implication unmistakeable.

Other European writers, also believing that Africans did not have the capacity to build anything of the significance of Great Zimbabwe, suggested it was built by Portuguese travellers, Arabs, Chinese or Persians. Another theory was that the site could have been the work of a southern African tribe of ancient Jewish heritage, the Lemba.

In 1905, however, the British archaeologist David Randall-MacIver concluded the ruins were medieval, and built by one or more of the local African Bantu peoples. His findings were confirmed by another British archaeologist, Gertrude Caton-Thompson, in 1929, and this remains the consensus today.

“How a powerful African empire built a kingdom that covered vast swaths of southern Africa is a source of pride for Zimbabweans – and something that colonial governments tried for a long time to undermine by linking this wondrous kingdom to the Phoenicians.”

[rogue06]

And who are the accredited archaeologists who have made those claims?

Your citation of a work that includes the likes of Graham Hancock in its bibliography does not inspire confidence.

And your repeated insistence that I referred to Wilson as an explorer or archaeologist confirms you have comprehension difficulties.

[rogue06]

There seems to be at least some support for Rogue's assertion.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2...ins-plundering
Karl Mauch: “I do not think that I am far wrong if I suppose that the ruin on the hill is a copy of Solomon’s Temple on Mount Moriah,” Mauch declared, “and the building in the plain a copy of the palace where the Queen of Sheba lived during her visit to Solomon.” He further stated that only a “civilised nation must once have lived there” – his racist implication unmistakeable.

Other European writers, also believing that Africans did not have the capacity to build anything of the significance of Great Zimbabwe, suggested it was built by Portuguese travellers, Arabs, Chinese or Persians. Another theory was that the site could have been the work of a southern African tribe of ancient Jewish heritage, the Lemba.

In 1905, however, the British archaeologist David Randall-MacIver concluded the ruins were medieval, and built by one or more of the local African Bantu peoples. His findings were confirmed by another British archaeologist, Gertrude Caton-Thompson, in 1929, and this remains the consensus today.

“How a powerful African empire built a kingdom that covered vast swaths of southern Africa is a source of pride for Zimbabweans – and something that colonial governments tried for a long time to undermine by linking this wondrous kingdom to the Phoenicians.”

That consensus pretty much was reached by the 1950s but there were still advocates claiming that the native people were incapable of having built it. Many for racist reasons (the Rhodesian government was accused of pressuring archaeologists to deny it was built by indigenous people). That's what the state of affairs was back when I was still in school a decade or so later.

Interestingly, the first Europeans to see it, Portuguese explorers in the 16th cent., appear to have taken it for granted that it was a native construction. That changed when the German explorer Karl Munch came across it in the 19th cent and who opened the flood gates to the speculation that someone, anyone, other than the native people must have built it.

Hmm. 1870s to 1950s. Sounds like generations to me.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

And your repeated insistence that I referred to Wilson as an explorer or archaeologist confirms you have comprehension difficulties.

I asked for the names of archaeologists and Egyptologists in support of what you initially alleged ""Everything from the pyramids to the ruins of Great Zimbabwe have been credited to everyone but the indigenous people by European explorers and archeologists for generations ." [My emphasis]

You gave me a work by Wilson who was neither. I simply pointed out that what you had provided was not what I requested.

[tabibito]

I asked for the names of archaeologists and Egyptologists in support of what you initially alleged ""Everything from the pyramids to the ruins of Great Zimbabwe have been credited to everyone but the indigenous people by European explorers and archeologists for generations ." [My emphasis]

Everything: Just another sweeping generalisation that is commonly used and generally accepted as not being intended to mean literally everything.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

There seems to be at least some support for Rogue's assertion.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2...ins-plundering
Karl Mauch: “I do not think that I am far wrong if I suppose that the ruin on the hill is a copy of Solomon’s Temple on Mount Moriah,” Mauch declared, “and the building in the plain a copy of the palace where the Queen of Sheba lived during her visit to Solomon.” He further stated that only a “civilised nation must once have lived there” – his racist implication unmistakeable.

Other European writers, also believing that Africans did not have the capacity to build anything of the significance of Great Zimbabwe, suggested it was built by Portuguese travellers, Arabs, Chinese or Persians. Another theory was that the site could have been the work of a southern African tribe of ancient Jewish heritage, the Lemba.

In 1905, however, the British archaeologist David Randall-MacIver concluded the ruins were medieval, and built by one or more of the local African Bantu peoples. His findings were confirmed by another British archaeologist, Gertrude Caton-Thompson, in 1929, and this remains the consensus today.

“How a powerful African empire built a kingdom that covered vast swaths of southern Africa is a source of pride for Zimbabweans – and something that colonial governments tried for a long time to undermine by linking this wondrous kingdom to the Phoenicians.”

There is no support for Rogue's assertion because he alleged that "Everything from the pyramids to the ruins of Great Zimbabwe have been credited to everyone but the indigenous people by European explorers and archeologists for generations" [My emphasis].

This "Everything" has now been narrowed down to one site built between the eleventh and fourteenth centuries CE. Nor, given its dates, can we entirely eradicate influences from external civilisations in the construction of this city complex as we have no written records from this culture. Furthermore, the idea for building large cities in stone does not appear to have been copied by other indigenous African societies.

That does not diminish the complexity and organisation of the society that built this huge city but it is not of the same "vintage" as the pyramids or the temple at Luxor.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Everything: Just another sweeping generalisation that is commonly used and generally accepted as not being intended to mean literally everything.

It is erroneous and is an excuse for slovenly writing and thinking.