I don't care that a King wrote it. It can't be taken as evidence if used in isolation.
If you do not accept it in isolation I can supply one more document of royal instructions.
In the case already mentioned, the king is instructing his successor to trust the products of the breeding grounds:
https://www.academia.edu/9608618/Open_letter_to_Egyptologists_1_Human_breeding_grounds_still_operating_during_the_Middle_Kingdom_period
In the other one the king is instructing against:
https://www.academia.edu/9927923/Open_letter_to_Egyptologists_3_The_four_sentences_Lichtheim_chose_not_to_translate
You cannot say that you do not care what an ancient king instructed his successor. That is first hand evidence of how the kingdom was run.
You need other evidence of what people were doing and saying at the time as well as archaeological evidence.
There is archaeological evidence, but what is the use? You (plural again) know everything without studying, so why provide the relevant information?
VA: do you have a maritime past too? I would never have guessed.
I can't tell who wrote this but I have always had an interest in all things maritime. My main historical interest is the history of the age of fighting sail both Georgian and Victorian. I have researched the construction and rigging of sailing ships, have worked on a couple of schooners, and build scale models, the latest is a 17th Century French ship-of the-line, 100 guns. It's taken a year to build. I am also an avid reader of nautical history and historical fiction, e.g. Patrick O'Brian. I knew DT's signal flags from my copy of "The Bluejacket's Manual", that predates World War II.
Cap't Jack
I did not quote Frazer’s words. I quoted some of the reports he had been quoting. I never agreed with his ideas. As regards Bible scholars, I am always referring only to the Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible. The Christian literature is of very little help in reconstructing the history of religion.
But you most certainly did, in post #42 of your response to Lausten I believe. It was on the topic of the naïveté of the New Atheists. You used Frazer to bolster your claim concerning virgins. Therefore, if you never agreed to his ideas then why quote him at all? Also, the Tanakh (mikra) is the very foundation of Christianity and the two are inseparable. Using only ancient texts to bolster your claim that religion may only be understood by using what scholars consider as primary sources is tantamount to saying that one may completely understand evolution by reading Darwin's books. It is the foundation, but much more evidence has come to light. The same with the ancient religious texts.
Let me quote the following from Chapter 1 of Mithen’s book entitled “The Birth of History":
Little of significance happened until 20,000 BC – people simply continued living as hunter-gatherers, just as their ancestors had been doing for millions of years
The book was published in 2011 and his author seems to ignore the fact that modern Eurasians were “created" 45,000 years ago as hybrids Homo sapiens sapiens (Hss)- Neanderthal and informs his readers that little of significance happened until 20,000 BC!!
The Hss who arrived in the Middle East from South Africa, approximately 50,000 years ago, carried no Neanderthal DNA in their genome. On leaving The Middle East none of them remained a pure-blood Hss as they all had been “contaminated" with the Neanderthal genetic material.
What happened in the Middle East? Why is it that there is no member of the white race with no Nenaderthal DNA in his genome?
Except that Mithin was referring to the rise of the domestication of grain and animals which led to the creation of villages that led to the founding of city-states in Mesopotamia so, in that light he was, and still is correct. Archeologists and anthropologists agree to his contention, thus far that is. Also, His statement did not address genetic changes in Homo Sapiens and the lack of Neanderthal genes in the Middle East and he doesn't address this in the book I recently read. Hmm, had no idea that there was ever a "white race".
Cap't Jack
VA: do you have a maritime past too? I would never have guessed.
I can't tell who wrote this but I have always had an interest in all things maritime. My main historical interest is the history of the age of fighting sail both Georgian and Victorian. I have researched the construction and rigging of sailing ships, have worked on a couple of schooners, and build scale models, the latest is a 17th Century French ship-of the-line, 100 guns. It's taken a year to build.
Cap't Jack
I have researched the construction and rigging of sailing ships, have worked on a couple of schooners, and build scale models, the latest is a 17th Century French ship-of the-line, 100 guns. It's taken a year to build
I am in love with Cutty Sark!
I’ve built a Catalan Ship model but I never managed to finish Cutty Sark because I used all my time in reading for my research.
I love sails and as a teenager I owned my own sailing boat. I cannot say, however, that I am fond of the profession of seaman.
But you most certainly did, in post #42 of your response to Lausten I believe. It was on the topic of the naïveté of the New Atheists. You used Frazer to bolster your claim concerning virgins. Therefore, if you never agreed to his ideas then why quote him at all?
I repeat that Frazer presents in his book the customs worldwide as they were reported by the imperialist eye witnesses. I quoted those reports, not the words and ideas of Frazer.
Also, the Tanakh (mikra) is the very foundation of Christianity and the two are inseparable.
The Tanakh is the scripture of Judaism. It has nothing to do with Christianity. The fact that the Christians used it without permission from the Jewish people does not make it a possession of the Christians and inseparable from the Christian literature.
The God described in the Tanakh has nothing to do with the tri-omni God of the Christians. That is why it is so wrong to blame the Tanakh (which the ignorant agnostics do and feel smart).
Using only ancient texts to bolster your claim that religion may only be understood by using what scholars consider as primary sources is tantamount to saying that one may completely understand evolution by reading Darwin's books. It is the foundation, but much more evidence has come to light. The same with the ancient religious texts.
The ancient texts tell the history of religion as it actually happened.
Darwin’s books tell the history of evolution as it is supposed by him to have happened.
The fact, however, is that none of those I’ve met in this board are interested in knowing something about ancient texts; yet they feel they have the right to have an opinion regarding the value of those texts.
Except that Mithin was referring to the rise of the domestication of grain and animals which led to the creation of villages that led to the founding of city-states in Mesopotamia so, in that light he was, and still is correct.
I regret it, but there is evidence that the old line of thinking (domestication of grain and animals which led to the creation of villages that led to the founding of temples) has been proved wrong and extremely naïve and simple minded.
I suggest that you read about Gobekli Tepe]
Also, His statement did not address genetic changes in Homo Sapiens and the lack of Neanderthal genes in the Middle East and he doesn't address this in the book I recently read.
For a researcher to omit this fact is unforgivable (not that he is forgiven for not having studied the texts).
Hmm, had no idea that there was ever a "white race".
Am I to understand that by denying the existence of races in the Homo species one is automatically made into an anti-racist?
If you wish to be an anti-racist, as I am, you have to consider Neanderthals, Denisovans and Floresiensies three more races of the human species and to be proud for whatever Neanderthal traits you may possess (provided you are an Eurasian). My palms are extremely large and I am very proud of them because they are an unmistakable Neanderthal trait (I am not kidding) and Neanderthals were not genocidal killers as most of the white people are.
As regards Africans, they reached the stage of the modern human close to 200,000 years before the Eurasians did it, and therefore they are the top human race and not the whites. How about that? :-)