Eyewitness to Napoleon's Army Shooting the Sphinx...
CIO
"Journey and Travels in Egypt and Assyria." He too, spoke of the
greatness of the Negroes. His hand drawing of the Sphinx of Giza
sketched in 1798, shows us the way the statue looked before it was
disfigured. According to eyewitness Baron V. Denon, Napoleon's soldiers
blew its nose and lips apart with cannon fodder during the French
invasion of Egypt.
References:
Return to Glory
by Joel A. Freeman, PhD
and Don B. Griffin
Black Man of the Nile and His Family
by Dr. Yosef A.A. ben-Jochannan
The African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality
Cheikh Anta Diop
UNUTTERABLE ONE
reac...@best.com
"The Ancient Egyptians were the Black people of Africa, known to the
Ancient Greeks as the 'burnt skinned, woolly haired' people." -
Unutterable One
P.S. For those interested in learning about Ancient Kemites (Egyptians),
do your own research and take not even my own writings for the literal
truth. Seek and ye shall find on your own exactly who the Ancient
Egyptians were. Especially study migrations and how they have affected
peoples throughout the ages.
There are those on this newsgroup who would love nothing better than for
you (who ever you may be reading this) to not know anything other than
the stories you see coming out of Hollywood, or the racist scholars and
historians who selected not to believe the obvious and make what stories
they felt suited their cause, hence Egyptology. There are (some) within
this camp who would love nothing better than to carry on this sharade of
denying who the Ancient Egyptians were without the influence of any
other people besides themselves, AFRICANS. Instead the Egyptologist
explain, Egypt is founded by many nationalities made up of many people
of many ethnic backgrounds coming from all over the place, i.e.
Mediterranean's, Asians, Europeans of course. This is a fabricated lie
and a story told way too long...so now Africans reclaiming their own
heritage that was truly founded by Africans themselves, we're branded as
racist as the racist truly are. That's un-acceptable and totally false
in my book and pointing out a foolish statement I made to one (1) select
individual does not make me a racist. I was giving that person exactly
what they were giving me - racism. It goes both ways and that's MY
choice and how I choose to do things...
During this past week, I (chose) to understand the psyche of my
opponents who screamed racism and Afrocentrism all in the same breath.
They claim all kinds of things against Afrocentrist (while not providing
any proof of course) and put most all of us in the same boat - could you
imagine if I held all white men accountable as Jeffrey Dahmar, the human
cannibal? That would be negligent and so is hearing one (1) side without
the other without true dialog on these issues. They will not go away...
If you don't agree with the information above concerning the shooting of
the Sphinx by Napoleon (by an eye-witness account mind you...) and his
army, don't flame me...flame the author!
Katherine Griffis
alt.history.ancient-egypt, wrote the following:
>Scholar Baron V. Denon confirmed Count de Volney's views in his book,
>"Journey and Travels in Egypt and Assyria." He too, spoke of the
>greatness of the Negroes. His hand drawing of the Sphinx of Giza
>sketched in 1798, shows us the way the statue looked before it was
>disfigured. According to eyewitness Baron V. Denon, Napoleon's soldiers
>blew its nose and lips apart with cannon fodder during the French
>invasion of Egypt.
>
>References:
>
>Return to Glory
>by Joel A. Freeman, PhD
>and Don B. Griffin
>
>Black Man of the Nile and His Family
>by Dr. Yosef A.A. ben-Jochannan
>
>The African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality
>Cheikh Anta Diop
>
>UNUTTERABLE ONE
>reac...@best.com
Again, a confusion of fantasy and fiction, as opposed to fact. There is
absolutely NO reference in Denon of such an incident. The myth of
Napoleon's troops marring the Sphinx is a 1920's tourist myth, and has
been often confused as fact by some Afrocentric authors, it seems, when
seen against with Denon's well-known 1798 engraving of the measuring of
the Sphinx by Napoleon's engineers. This false myth was recently
rehashed in a 1999 movie called 'Passion in the Desert." A review of
the movie is as follows:
"'Passion in the Desert’ (1999)
Like Egypt herself, the cinematic fascination with the land of the
Pharaohs virtually dies out, until the Napoleonic expedition to
investigate, measure, draw, paint and plan the remains of Egyptian
civilisation, before removing the choicest pieces to fill the museums of
the world.
Based on a short story by Honaire de Balzac, ‘Passion in the Desert’, is
the story of a career soldier with Napoleon’s expeditionary force,
assigned to shadow an artist and protect him from attack while he
records the monuments which hold little appeal for the soldier.
Separated from the main expedition, animosity turns to mutual respect as
they fight for their survival. The hardships are shown in stark detail,
with the artist forced to drink his toxic paints as the water runs out,
and ultimately sacrificing himself that his protector might survive.
The film is most interesting for its recreation of an etching by Vivant
Denon, where Clabert sits on the head of a sphinx, holding a plumb line,
so that the scholar may accurately measure and draw the sculpture. This
scene is recreated from the original picture published by Denon in his
Voyage dans la Basse et la Haute Egypte printed in Paris in 1802 (The
Rediscovery of Ancient Egypt by Peter A Clayton, p. 68 - 1990).
Confusing the myth of who exactly was responsible for shooting the nose
off the Great Sphinx of Giza, Clabert is forced to move sharpish as his
fellow soldiers train their artillery on the nose of the sphinx beneath
him."
Source:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/events/conferences/enco/Film/Amery.htm
Some years ago, when Ausar, Lord of the Perfect
Black/AmenophisX/Unutterable1/Stephen Jackson first posted this same
message about the Sphinx's nose, I asked him for a full quote from Denon
on this topic. He has yet to give me such a quote, but MY review of
Denon's _Voyage dans la Basse et la Haute Egypte_ (1802) does not make
any mention of the troops "shooting off the nose of the Sphinx" during
Denon's excursions into Egypt, but rather Denon's acknowledgement in
these works that the face had already been marred BEFORE Napoleon's
arrival in Egypt.
This, of course, corresponds to the actual history we DO know about the
Sphinx which is that in another thread on this newsgroup, Troy Sagrillo
gave both the answer and citations to this topic. He noted:
"...The *fact* remains that in AH 780 (1378 CE), the nose, ears, and
face (all mentioned specifically) were damaged by a sufi of the khanqah
of Sa`id al-Su`ada, nicknamed "Sa'im al-dahr" ('He Who Constantly
Fasts', something forbidden in Islam, btw). This is reported in
al-Maqrizi's "Khitat". See:
al-Maqrizi, Taqi al-Din Ahmad ibn `Ali ibn `Abd al-Qadir ibn Muhammad,
and Gaston Wiet. 1924. el-Mawa`iz wa'l-i`tibar fi dhikr el-khitat
wa'l-athar. Volume 4: Deuxieme partie, chapt. L-XCIV. Memoires publies
par les membres de l'Institut francais d'archeologie orientale du Caire
49. Cairo: Imprimerie de l'Institut francais d'archeologie orientale.
section 2:415.
al-Rashidi (who died in AH 803/1400-1 CE) wrote those who mutilate the
monuments of the pharaohs are NOT doing Islam a service. He specifically
mentioned how the sahabah (the Companions of the Prophet PBUH) did not
harm the Sphinx, and then launches into an attack on the iconoclasts of
Sa'im al-dahr's day for doing so. (source: Haarmann, Ulrich. 1980.
"Regional Sentiment in Medieval Islamic Egypt." Bulletin of the School
of Oriental and African Studies 43:64 citing ibn `Abd al-Salam, Fayd,
folio 52a-b)."
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 09:54:49 -0600
Subject: Re: The ORIGINAL Sphinx...
From: Troy Sagrillo <mesh...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.history.ancient-egypt
Message-ID: <B5515769.591E%mesh...@hotmail.com>
Selim Hassan noted similar information in his work, _The Sphinx: Its
History in Light of Recent Excavations_ (Government Press: Cairo, 1949)
81-83. Sa'im al-dahr is said to have pried off the nose with a crowbar
to deface the Sphinx's nose since, al-Maqrizi cites, as late as this
period, some Egyptians were still burning milk-thistle (shuka'a) and
safflower (badhaward) at the foot of the Sphinx and murning a verse 63
times in hope that their wishes would be fulfilled; the extremist sufi
took it upon himself to destroy the object of their idolatry.
Tom Holmberg, in writing his Napoleon FAQ on this topic, Sa'im al-Dahr's
fate is also known:
".... According to one account, Haarmann [1980: cited, supra] states,
the residents in the neighborhood of the Sphinx were so upset by the
destruction that they lynched him and buried him near the great monument
he ruined."
Tom Holmberg, in writing on this topic vis a vis the oft-repeated
folktale that Napoleon's troops had defaced the Sphinx, also noted:
"...European visitors to Egypt prior to Napoleon's expedition had
already discovered the vandalism to the Sphinx. In 1546, for example,
when Dr.Pierre Belon explored Egypt, he visited 'the great colossus.'
'The Sphinx,' writes Leslie Greener in _The Discovery Of Egypt_ (London,
Cassell, 1966), p.38, by this time 'no longer [had] the stamp of grace
and beauty so admired by Abdel Latif in 1200.' Greener goes on to say:
'this exonerates the artillerymen of Napoleon Bonaparte, who have the
popular reputation of having used the nose of the Sphinx as a target.'
The charge against Napoleon is particularly unjust because the French
general brought with him a large group of 'savants' to conduct the first
scientific study of Egypt and its antiquities."
Mr. Holmberg's full FAQ on this aspect of the Sphinx's damage can be
found at
http://www.historyserver.org/napoleon.series/
Go to FAQ ---> #11: Did Napoleon's troops shoot the nose off the
Sphinx?
There's an additional consideration: travel books of the 18th and
earlier centuries were often illustrated by jobbing artists who'd never
seen the original: the better illustrations resulted when the engraver
or lithographer was given a halfway decent sketch to work from (and even
then we're a long way short of photographic accuracy). Lehner includes
in his sequence the 1743 illustration (from Pococke), the 1755 one (from
Norden, far more realistic than hitherto, showing details of the
stratification evident on the face as well as the damaged nose) - and
then one from 1799, showing the nose intact again! Are we to suppose
that the nose was repaired? Or is this just an exception to the general
trend toward more realistic depiction? [My thanks to Martin Stower for
the above information].
>Instead the Egyptologist
>explain, Egypt is founded by many nationalities made up of many people
>of many ethnic backgrounds coming from all over the place, i.e.
>Mediterranean's, Asians, Europeans of course. This is a fabricated lie
>and a story told way too long...so now Africans reclaiming their own
>heritage that was truly founded by Africans themselves, we're branded as
>racist as the racist truly are. That's un-acceptable and totally false
>in my book and pointing out a foolish statement I made to one (1) select
>individual does not make me a racist. I was giving that person exactly
>what they were giving me - racism. It goes both ways and that's MY
>choice and how I choose to do things...
It's quite true that racism apparently "goes both ways," as you say.
However, if you wish to dispute the diversity of the ancient Egyptian
population, you will have to give better proof, IMO, than your statement
that it is "...a fabricated lie and a story told way too long..."
I have suggested many references from varied scholars who have shown,
genetically, anthropologically, and archaeologically that the population
was extremely diverse since ancient times, from about 8000 BCE onward.
And you have shown...?
<snip>
>If you don't agree with the information above concerning the shooting of
>the Sphinx by Napoleon (by an eye-witness account mind you...) and his
>army, don't flame me...flame the author!
Fine by me: give the Denon quote in full -- FROM DENON.
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
Member, American Research Center in Egypt
International Association of Egyptologists
University of Alabama at Birmingham
Special Studies
http://www.griffis-consulting.com
Reading mail from me in a Usenet group does not
grant you the right to send me unsolicited commercial e-mail.
All senders of unsolicited commercial e-mail will be
reported to their postmasters as Usenet abusers.
Katherine Griffis
<egy...@griffis-consulting.com> in alt.history.ancient-egypt, wrote
the following:
>Tom Holmberg, in writing his Napoleon FAQ on this topic, Sa'im al-Dahr's
>fate is also known:
>
> ".... According to one account, Haarmann [1980: cited, supra] states,
>the residents in the neighborhood of the Sphinx were so upset by the
>destruction that they lynched him and buried him near the great monument
>he ruined."
>
>Tom Holmberg, in writing on this topic vis a vis the oft-repeated
>folktale that Napoleon's troops had defaced the Sphinx, also noted:
>
>"...European visitors to Egypt prior to Napoleon's expedition had
>already discovered the vandalism to the Sphinx. In 1546, for example,
>when Dr.Pierre Belon explored Egypt, he visited 'the great colossus.'
>'The Sphinx,' writes Leslie Greener in _The Discovery Of Egypt_ (London,
>Cassell, 1966), p.38, by this time 'no longer [had] the stamp of grace
>and beauty so admired by Abdel Latif in 1200.' Greener goes on to say:
>'this exonerates the artillerymen of Napoleon Bonaparte, who have the
>popular reputation of having used the nose of the Sphinx as a target.'
>The charge against Napoleon is particularly unjust because the French
>general brought with him a large group of 'savants' to conduct the first
>scientific study of Egypt and its antiquities."
>
>Mr. Holmberg's full FAQ on this aspect of the Sphinx's damage can be
>found at
>
>http://www.historyserver.org/napoleon.series/
>Go to FAQ ---> #11: Did Napoleon's troops shoot the nose off the
>Sphinx?
Sorry: this website URL needs an update. This can now be found on
http://www.napoleonseries.org/faq/sphinx.cfm
FAQ #11: Did Napoleon's troops shoot the nose off the Sphinx?
(Current as of June 11, 2001).
All other information remains as written.
b...@antispam.net
says...
> Scholar Baron V. Denon confirmed Count de Volney's views in his book,
> "Journey and Travels in Egypt and Assyria." He too, spoke of the
> greatness of the Negroes. His hand drawing of the Sphinx of Giza
> sketched in 1798, shows us the way the statue looked before it was
> disfigured. According to eyewitness Baron V. Denon, Napoleon's soldiers
> blew its nose and lips apart with cannon fodder during the French
> invasion of Egypt.
> the Sphinx by Napoleon (by an eye-witness account mind you...) and his
> army, don't flame me...flame the author!
No flame, just observations:
1. If your source really said "blew its nose and lips apart
with cannon fodder" you best retire the source. Look up
"cannon fodder" and see.
2. Your eyewitness, Baron V. Denon, must have had very good
eyes, as, according to many sources, "It is often
erroneously assumed that the nose was shot off by
Napoleon's men, but 18th century drawings reveal that the
nose was missing long before Napoleon's arrival."
3. If your "eyewitness" is this unreliable a source, can
you believe anything he said.
Guus Besuijen
very unlikely. Napoleon was very much impressed by Egypt ancient culture and
esspecially by the pyramids and sphinx. Also, it's presumed that Napoleon
was involved in the french freemeasonry, which worshipped ancient Egypt.
Guus Besuijen
Public Astronomical Observatory "Philippus Lansbergen",
Middelburg, The Netherlands
<b...@antispam.net> schreef in bericht
news:MPG.158e9d8f7...@news.spwest1.tn.home.com...
LaFayette
"Katherine Griffis" <egy...@griffis-consulting.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:avg9it008oq94s93h...@4ax.com...
CIO
You say there is absolutely NO reference in Denon of such an incident, and
further below, quote from an entirely different book than what I'm
referencing here, once again, confusing an issue! Here is what you had to
say:
"He has yet to give me such a quote, but MY review of Denon's _Voyage dans la
Basse et la Haute Egypte_ (1802) does not make any mention of the troops
"shooting off the nose of the Sphinx." You also state this is a "1920's
tourist myth," yet provide us no source for your statement. Am I to believe
what you say just because your signature block includes being a member of a
Research Center in Egypt, International Association of Egyptologist - that I
should believe you? I don't.
So now I'm to understand that a movie rehashed (G - I wonder why they chose
to rehash a myth?) about Napoleon and his troops. I guess the movie producer
of 'Passion in the Desert' believes the Afrocentric authors too!
<snip>
> The film is most interesting for its recreation of an etching by Vivant
> Denon, where Clabert sits on the head of a sphinx, holding a plumb line,
> so that the scholar may accurately measure and draw the sculpture. This
> scene is recreated from the original picture published by Denon in his
> Voyage dans la Basse et la Haute Egypte printed in Paris in 1802 (The
> Rediscovery of Ancient Egypt by Peter A Clayton, p. 68 - 1990).
> Confusing the myth of who exactly was responsible for shooting the nose
> off the Great Sphinx of Giza, Clabert is forced to move sharpish as his
> fellow soldiers train their artillery on the nose of the sphinx beneath
> him."
>
> Source:
> http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/events/conferences/enco/Film/Amery.htm
Two things. First, I'm not interested in Hollywood's 1999 movie and its
portrayal of an event that took place back in 1798 in which none of the
actors, producers, directors were there. I'm sure they did a marvelous job
Katherine, but frankly, I don't give a crap. Second, your "Source/link" above
is invalid. How ironic.
> Some years ago, when Ausar, Lord of the Perfect
> Black/AmenophisX/Unutterable1/Stephen Jackson
These are all the names you could find? I've used plenty more than those...
I can use whatever name I choose on the Internet without having to explain it
to you children! Either call me by the name I use on the Internet, or I'll
refer to YOU as I please. It won't be nice.
> first posted this same
> message about the Sphinx's nose, I asked him for a full quote from Denon
> on this topic. He has yet to give me such a quote, but MY review of
> Denon's _Voyage dans la Basse et la Haute Egypte_ (1802) does not make
> any mention of the troops "shooting off the nose of the Sphinx" during
> Denon's excursions into Egypt, but rather Denon's acknowledgement in
> these works that the face had already been marred BEFORE Napoleon's
> arrival in Egypt.
The fact is, my quote above was taken from the book "Journey and Travels in
Egypt and Assyria," by Baron V. Denon. I could see it if you were talking
about the same book I've quoted from above, but here you come talking about
some other book. You state that "YOUR review doesn't make any mention of
Napoleon's troops shooting the nose and lips" while quoting from an entire
different book. I've quoted my information from the author of a published
book, and the book itself. Do you have any books published? You're very good
at dis-crediting authors and all, Lord only knows how nasty you were to
Richard Poe about his book that I often quoted from about a year or so ago,
"Black Spark, White Fire."
> This, of course, corresponds to the actual history we DO know about the
> Sphinx which is that in another thread on this newsgroup, Troy Sagrillo
> gave both the answer and citations to this topic. He noted:
>
> "...The *fact* remains that in AH 780 (1378 CE), the nose, ears, and
> face (all mentioned specifically) were damaged by a sufi of the khanqah
> of Sa`id al-Su`ada, nicknamed "Sa'im al-dahr" ('He Who Constantly
> Fasts', something forbidden in Islam, btw). This is reported in
> al-Maqrizi's "Khitat". See:
>
<snip>
> al-Maqrizi, Taqi al-Din Ahmad ibn `Ali ibn `Abd al-Qadir ibn Muhammad,
> Tom Holmberg, in writing his Napoleon FAQ on this topic, Sa'im al-Dahr's
> fate is also known:
>
> ".... According to one account, Haarmann [1980: cited, supra] states,
> the residents in the neighborhood of the Sphinx were so upset by the
> destruction that they lynched him and buried him near the great monument
> he ruined."
So according to your 1949 source, "Sa'im al-dahr is said to have pried off
the nose with a crowbar to deface the Sphinx's nose." He supposedly didn't
like how the Egyptians idolized the monument they built, so he vandalized it.
Your source completely left out and didn't mention anything pertaining to the
lips. And look, you have one account by Haarmann (cited in 1980!) about how
the residents in the neighborhood of the Sphinx were so upset by the
destruction that they lynched him and buried him near the great monument he
ruined." A crowbar? Now that's Eurocentricks!
So, we're all to believe the Ancient Egyptians were so advanced, yet didn't
notice an extremist on the nose of their monument with
a---------------->crowbar (hahahahheheheh)<---------------prying off the nose
and I guess he chipped away at the lips. Katherine's source doesn't mention
what happened to the lips...what happened to those lips???
> Tom Holmberg, in writing on this topic vis a vis the oft-repeated
> folktale that Napoleon's troops had defaced the Sphinx, also noted:
>
> "...European visitors to Egypt prior to Napoleon's expedition had
> already discovered the vandalism to the Sphinx. In 1546, for example,
> when Dr.Pierre Belon explored Egypt, he visited 'the great colossus.'
> 'The Sphinx,' writes Leslie Greener in _The Discovery Of Egypt_ (London,
> Cassell, 1966), p.38, by this time 'no longer [had] the stamp of grace
> and beauty so admired by Abdel Latif in 1200.' Greener goes on to say:
> 'this exonerates the artillerymen of Napoleon Bonaparte, who have the
> popular reputation of having used the nose of the Sphinx as a target.'
> The charge against Napoleon is particularly unjust because the French
> general brought with him a large group of 'savants' to conduct the first
> scientific study of Egypt and its antiquities."
Whether Napoleon and his troops disfigured the Great Sphinx or not really
isn't the main issue. The issue is: Whoever disfigured this monument, why did
they only disfigure the features, namely the nose and lips? I could only
imagine since the monument most likely resembled the people who built it,
they were destroyed too? Ah, yes...
Quoting the end of chapter "The Tell-Tale Sphinx" in Black Spark, White Fire
by Richard Poe:
"There are indeed very clear and objective reasons for thinking that the
Great Sphinx portrayed a black African. And if the Sphinx was black, then so
may have been the people who carved it."
I agree!
> Mr. Holmberg's full FAQ on this aspect of the Sphinx's damage can be
> found at
>
> http://www.historyserver.org/napoleon.series/
> Go to FAQ ---> #11: Did Napoleon's troops shoot the nose off the
> Sphinx?
>
> There's an additional consideration: travel books of the 18th and
> earlier centuries were often illustrated by jobbing artists who'd never
> seen the original: the better illustrations resulted when the engraver
> or lithographer was given a halfway decent sketch to work from (and even
> then we're a long way short of photographic accuracy). Lehner includes
> in his sequence the 1743 illustration (from Pococke), the 1755 one (from
> Norden, far more realistic than hitherto, showing details of the
> stratification evident on the face as well as the damaged nose) - and
> then one from 1799, showing the nose intact again! Are we to suppose
> that the nose was repaired? Or is this just an exception to the general
> trend toward more realistic depiction? [My thanks to Martin Stower for
> the above information].
The above information means nothing in light of this subject. Many
illustrators of Egyptian books TO-DAY paint Egyptians white as snow, are we
to believe they too were all white? I don't think so. Same with the
illustrator who drew the nose intact again, maybe that was their own
interpretation. I could do the same thing...
> >Instead the Egyptologist
> >explain, Egypt is founded by many nationalities made up of many people
> >of many ethnic backgrounds coming from all over the place, i.e.
> >Mediterranean's, Asians, Europeans of course. This is a fabricated lie
> >and a story told way too long...so now Africans reclaiming their own
> >heritage that was truly founded by Africans themselves, we're branded as
> >racist as the racist truly are. That's un-acceptable and totally false
> >in my book and pointing out a foolish statement I made to one (1) select
> >individual does not make me a racist. I was giving that person exactly
> >what they were giving me - racism. It goes both ways and that's MY
> >choice and how I choose to do things...
>
> It's quite true that racism apparently "goes both ways," as you say.
>
> However, if you wish to dispute the diversity of the ancient Egyptian
> population, you will have to give better proof, IMO, than your statement
> that it is "...a fabricated lie and a story told way too long..."
My opinion about an African origin to Egyptian civilization is based on
facts. Nothing leads us to believe that multi-national peoples all came
together and joined in Egypt and built a unified nation! That's
Eurosintricks! It's virtually impossible for Eurocentricks to EVER believe
that Black people had a civilization of their own?!? Lord knows, that could
have NEVER happened on the whole continent of Africa, including the African
country we call Egypt. NEVER!!! I beg to differ...
> I have suggested many references from varied scholars who have shown,
> genetically, anthropologically, and archaeologically that the population
> was extremely diverse since ancient times, from about 8000 BCE onward.
> And you have shown...?
No, more like you're running your mouth again about something you're claiming
you've done, but can't provide it now? Surely you know how to cut and paste,
you've proven that already! Secondly, your sinTRICKS of saying how you've
provided all these references and such, why don't you ever provide direct
quotes to counter my argument here? I've told you on numerous occasions that
I don't have time to read entire books to learn what you THINK you know.
Either counter my argument with direct quotes from the books and provide
exact reference, or simply quit with the hot air. You haven't provided not
one piece of evidence here to prove what you're saying, just running your
mouth...where are all these references?
<snip>
> >If you don't agree with the information above concerning the shooting of
> >the Sphinx by Napoleon (by an eye-witness account mind you...) and his
> >army, don't flame me...flame the author!
>
> Fine by me: give the Denon quote in full -- FROM DENON.
>
I've given you the author and book where I obtained the information, but
since you seem to have a comprehension problem, here it is one more time:
>Return to Glory
>by Joel A. Freeman, PhD
>and Don B. Griffin
>Pg. 24
If you want the quote in full from DENON, do your homework professor!
> Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
>
> Member, American Research Center in Egypt
> International Association of Egyptologists
UNUTTERABLE ONE
reac...@best.com
"The Ancient Egyptians were the Black people of Africa, known to the
Ancient Greeks as the 'burnt skinned, woolly haired' people..."
- Unutterable One
b...@antispam.net
says...
> > Some years ago, when Ausar, Lord of the Perfect
> > Black/AmenophisX/Unutterable1/Stephen Jackson
>
> These are all the names you could find? I've used plenty more than those...
> I can use whatever name I choose on the Internet without having to explain it
> to you children! Either call me by the name I use on the Internet, or I'll
> refer to YOU as I please. It won't be nice.
How typically teen-age arrogant, referring to his/her/its
readers as "children" and "call me by the name I use" or
else. Pride in your ancestors is nice and may serve a
function. But when it gets to the point that logic and
evidence are a poor second to feelings and need it is
pointless to try to reason or discuss. This one needs time
to grow up - *Plonk*
Martin Stower
[SNIP]
> The fact is, my quote above was taken from the book "Journey and Travels in
> Egypt and Assyria," by Baron V. Denon. I could see it if you were talking
> about the same book I've quoted from above, but here you come talking about
> some other book. [SNIP]
Denon wrote no such book.
No such title is listed in the catalogue of the British Library or of the
Library of Congress. These are libraries of record and one or other of them
should have a copy of any such work with an English title.
In case you don't know, Denon was French. His principle work was _Voyage dans
la Basse et la Haute Égypte_, as cited by Katherine. Translations into English
are entitled _Travels in Upper and Lower Egypt_.
The only match I can find for _Travels in Egypt and Assyria_ is at an
Afrocentric website. Probability approaches one that this is a garbled title
passed on as a rumour by people who've never consulted the original work.
As usual, your scholarship and the scholarship of your sources is junk.
As usual, when you're picked up on it, you rant at the person trying to help
you.
Martin
Katherine Griffis
alt.history.ancient-egypt, wrote the following:
>Katherine Griffis wrote:
>"He has yet to give me such a quote, but MY review of Denon's _Voyage dans la
>Basse et la Haute Egypte_ (1802) does not make any mention of the troops
>"shooting off the nose of the Sphinx." You also state this is a "1920's
>tourist myth," yet provide us no source for your statement. Am I to believe
>what you say just because your signature block includes being a member of a
>Research Center in Egypt, International Association of Egyptologist - that I
>should believe you? I don't.
>
>So now I'm to understand that a movie rehashed (G - I wonder why they chose
>to rehash a myth?) about Napoleon and his troops. I guess the movie producer
>of 'Passion in the Desert' believes the Afrocentric authors too!
No, it only goes to show how far myths, with NO factual basis, can play
havoc with our sense of what is 'the truth'. Rehashing myths may make
them "seem" real, but it doesn't undercut the underlying fact they never
really happened.
Even the movie reviewer knew the movie's premise was a myth, and
reported it as such, which was MY point. In the long run, it all
depends upon whether you want to know the truth or want to know what
appeals to some warped sense of self, I suppose.
><snip>
>
>> The film is most interesting for its recreation of an etching by Vivant
>> Denon, where Clabert sits on the head of a sphinx, holding a plumb line,
>> so that the scholar may accurately measure and draw the sculpture. This
>> scene is recreated from the original picture published by Denon in his
>> Voyage dans la Basse et la Haute Egypte printed in Paris in 1802 (The
>> Rediscovery of Ancient Egypt by Peter A Clayton, p. 68 - 1990).
>> Confusing the myth of who exactly was responsible for shooting the nose
>> off the Great Sphinx of Giza, Clabert is forced to move sharpish as his
>> fellow soldiers train their artillery on the nose of the sphinx beneath
>> him."
>>
>> Source:
>> http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/events/conferences/enco/Film/Amery.htm
>
>Two things. First, I'm not interested in Hollywood's 1999 movie and its
>portrayal of an event that took place back in 1798 in which none of the
>actors, producers, directors were there. I'm sure they did a marvelous job
>Katherine, but frankly, I don't give a crap. Second, your "Source/link" above
>is invalid. How ironic.
Funny: the link works for me...I suppose you can't be bothered to check
more than once? It _did_ say this AM it was "temporarily unavailable,"
but that should have given you a clue the link was valid. (This site is
valid as of June 15, 2001 at 1730 CST (US)/2330 GMT +100)
The point of the review is it is generally _known_ in the scholarly
communities (of which you occasionally claim membership, as I recall)
that the "Sphinx's nose shot off by Napoleon" is a _myth_. There are
the Arab sources which tell us this, there are numerous images which
show the nose missing _BEFORE_ Napoleon came to Egypt (all of which I
have cited, along with Martin Stower's resources as well), and still you
argue this tired old thing to death .
You also have never given *any* legitimate quote from your so-called
Denon source. And why is this?
Well...
when I said:
>> first posted this same
>> message about the Sphinx's nose, I asked him for a full quote from Denon
>> on this topic. He has yet to give me such a quote, but MY review of
>> Denon's _Voyage dans la Basse et la Haute Egypte_ (1802) does not make
>> any mention of the troops "shooting off the nose of the Sphinx" during
>> Denon's excursions into Egypt, but rather Denon's acknowledgement in
>> these works that the face had already been marred BEFORE Napoleon's
>> arrival in Egypt.
you said:
>The fact is, my quote above was taken from the book "Journey and Travels in
>Egypt and Assyria," by Baron V. Denon. I could see it if you were talking
>about the same book I've quoted from above, but here you come talking about
>some other book.
I haven't mentioned this source, because, as Martin Stower and others
have told you, your so-called source _doesn't exist_. Denon is recorded
as having written only ONE book on Egypt, which was _Voyage dans la
Basse et la Haute Egypte_ (1802). The book is very rare, but is listed
as follows in most antiquarian sources:
VOYAGE DANS LA BASSE ET LA HAUTE EGYPTE. Planche du Voyages Dans La
Basse et la Haute Egypte.
Description: First edition of the scarce Atlas Folio. Half calf,
skillfully rebacked, five raised bands, gilt, red morocco label. A
beautiful tall copy, the impressions mainly crisp & clear, occasional
foxing but generally free of blemish. 109 amazing plates including the
impressive fold out map: "Carte de la Basse Egypte, 27 1/4" x 25 ½",
fold out printed examples of manuscripts, landscapes, various ruins &
significant architectural views both ancient & contemporary, as well as
interesting portraiture. Baron Vivant Denon (1747-1825) French artist &
archaeologist, was invited by Napoleon to join the expedition to Egypt &
produced this wonder of travel & historical literature.
Published: Paris: np. nd. [Didot l'aine, c:1802]. $6,250.00
In English, it was published a year later (1803) as:
Denon, Vivant. TRAVELS IN UPPER AND LOWER EGYPT IN COMPANY WITH SEVERAL
DIVISION OF THE FRENCH ARMY, During the Campaign of General Bonaparte in
that Country; and published under his Immediate Command.
(London: Printed for T.N. Longman and O. Rees, 1803) 3 volumes. RARE.
First edition in English. With 60 very finely engraved views, artworks
and maps, mostly very large and folding. 8vo, lovely contemporary
bindings of full polished calf, border decorations rolled in blind, gilt
edges and blind tooled turn-ins on all covers. Spines very handsomely
designed and decorated in multi-lined and gilt rolled bands,
compartments with elaborate gilt tooled panel decorations, double black
morocco lettering pieces gilt lettered and numbered on each volume.
xx,392; 366; 312. A fine set of the scarce first edition. As a member of
the Institute of Cairo and an expert draftsman, Denon was invited to
join the group of artists and scientists that Napoleon brought with him
on his Egyptian campaigns. Under the protection of Napolean’s soldiers,
Denon and others were able to explore the archeological treasures of
Egypt and bring the news of their discoveries back to Europe. Denon’s
book with it’s beautiful detailed drawings, paintings and archeological
reproductions became an instant success in a Europe that knew very
little about Egyptian antiquities. The first English edition was
published the same year as the first publication of the book in French.
With fine provenance and an early baronial bookplates. Very scarce in
first edition format and one of the earliest books in English on the
exploration of the archeological remains of ancient Egypt. $3,250.00
Sources: www.bookfinder.com
(This site is valid as of June 15, 2001 at 1730 CST (US)/2330 GMT +100)
> You state that "YOUR review doesn't make any mention of
>Napoleon's troops shooting the nose and lips" while quoting from an entire
>different book. I've quoted my information from the author of a published
>book, and the book itself. Do you have any books published? You're very good
>at dis-crediting authors and all, Lord only knows how nasty you were to
>Richard Poe about his book that I often quoted from about a year or so ago,
>"Black Spark, White Fire."
Excuse me, you quoted an author who obviously did not have Denon's
original work, or he would not have made such an egregious error. Also,
the original work, as Stower pointed out, was in French. Now, whether
the edition was French or English, the point is there is NO such
reference to the Sphinx's nose being shot off by Napoleon's troops in
_Voyage dans la Basse et la Haute Egypte_ (1802) OR its English version,
and there is NO edition which is called _Journey and Travels in Egypt
and Assyria_, by Baron V. Denon.
So, where is the source of your so-called claim to be found? So far,
it's NOT to be found in Denon.
In reviewing Denon's life, before he became director of the Louvre, the
www.napoleon.org site records:
"...In 1802, Denon published his _Voyage dans la Basse et Haute-Egypte_
the fruits of his research during the Egyptian Expedition. On 24
November of the same year he was nominated director of the recently
reorganised Musée central de Arts. Shortly afterwards on 28 January
1803, he entered the Académie in the Beaux-Arts class, in the painting
section. He was now considerably powerful as the head of the museums of
the Louvre (soon to become the Musée Napoléon) and of Versailles, and
director and overseer of French monuments; he was head of the galleries
of the Palais du Gouvernement, the Monnaie des Médailles, director of
engraving and etching, and in charge of the acquisition and transport of
works of art; he was also director of the manufactories of Sèvres,
Gobelins and the Savonnerie. All he lacked was control over
architecture."
Source: www.napoleon.org/us/us_cd/bib/articles/textes/denon.html
(This site is valid as of June 15, 2001 at 1730 CST (US)/2330 GMT +100)
>
>> This, of course, corresponds to the actual history we DO know about the
>> Sphinx which is that in another thread on this newsgroup, Troy Sagrillo
>> gave both the answer and citations to this topic. He noted:
>>
>> "...The *fact* remains that in AH 780 (1378 CE), the nose, ears, and
>> face (all mentioned specifically) were damaged by a sufi of the khanqah
>> of Sa`id al-Su`ada, nicknamed "Sa'im al-dahr" ('He Who Constantly
>> Fasts', something forbidden in Islam, btw). This is reported in
>> al-Maqrizi's "Khitat". See:
>>
>
><snip>
>
>> al-Maqrizi, Taqi al-Din Ahmad ibn `Ali ibn `Abd al-Qadir ibn Muhammad,
>> Tom Holmberg, in writing his Napoleon FAQ on this topic, Sa'im al-Dahr's
>> fate is also known:
>>
>> ".... According to one account, Haarmann [1980: cited, supra] states,
>> the residents in the neighborhood of the Sphinx were so upset by the
>> destruction that they lynched him and buried him near the great monument
>> he ruined."
>
>So according to your 1949 source, "Sa'im al-dahr is said to have pried off
>the nose with a crowbar to deface the Sphinx's nose." He supposedly didn't
>like how the Egyptians idolized the monument they built, so he vandalized it.
>Your source completely left out and didn't mention anything pertaining to the
>lips. And look, you have one account by Haarmann (cited in 1980!) about how
>the residents in the neighborhood of the Sphinx were so upset by the
>destruction that they lynched him and buried him near the great monument he
>ruined." A crowbar? Now that's Eurocentricks!
Excuse me: you were quoted sources that dated back to the 14th century
CE -al-Maqrizi and al-Rashidi. Again, see how the citation was
presented, and _read the sources_:
"...The *fact* remains that in AH 780 (1378 CE), the nose, ears, and
face (all mentioned specifically) were damaged by a sufi of the khanqah
of Sa`id al-Su`ada, nicknamed "Sa'im al-dahr" ('He Who Constantly
Fasts', something forbidden in Islam, btw). This is reported in
al-Maqrizi's "Khitat". See:
al-Maqrizi, Taqi al-Din Ahmad ibn `Ali ibn `Abd al-Qadir ibn Muhammad,
and Gaston Wiet. 1924. el-Mawa`iz wa'l-i`tibar fi dhikr el-khitat
wa'l-athar. Volume 4: Deuxieme partie, chapt. L-XCIV. Memoires publies
par les membres de l'Institut francais d'archeologie orientale du Caire
49. Cairo: Imprimerie de l'Institut francais d'archeologie orientale.
al-Rashidi (who died in AH 803/1400-1 CE) wrote those who mutilate the
monuments of the pharaohs are NOT doing Islam a service. He specifically
mentioned how the sahabah (the Companions of the Prophet PBUH) did not
harm the Sphinx, and then launches into an attack on the iconoclasts of
Sa'im al-dahr's day for doing so. (source: Haarmann, Ulrich. 1980.
"Regional Sentiment in Medieval Islamic Egypt." Bulletin of the School
of Oriental and African Studies 43:64 citing ibn `Abd al-Salam, Fayd,
folio 52a-b)."
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 09:54:49 -0600
Subject: Re: The ORIGINAL Sphinx...
From: Troy Sagrillo <mesh...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.history.ancient-egypt
Message-ID: <B5515769.591E%mesh...@hotmail.com>
section 2:415.
>
>So, we're all to believe the Ancient Egyptians were so advanced, yet didn't
>notice an extremist on the nose of their monument with
>a---------------->crowbar (hahahahheheheh)<---------------prying off the nose
>and I guess he chipped away at the lips. Katherine's source doesn't mention
>what happened to the lips...what happened to those lips???
They are still there: have you seen the Sphinx lately? There is some
damage to the upper portion of the right philtrum, but in large, the
lips remain intact. Where do YOU have evidence to the contrary?
Also, read again: "... the*fact* remains that in AH 780 (1378 CE), the
_nose, ears, and face_ (all mentioned specifically) were damaged by a
sufi of the khanqah of Sa`id al-Su`ada, nicknamed 'Sa'im al-dahr'..."
(_ _ emphasis added).
BTW: even Denon's _own imagery_ of the Sphinx being measured _does not
show extensive damage to the lips_. See:
http://archserve.id.ucsb.edu/Anth3/Courseware/History/Egypt.html
for a rendering of Denon's drawing of the Sphinx's head.
The most extensive collection of modern views of the Sphinx's head can
be found at Guardians.net, owned by Dr. Andrew Bayuk. You can see
extreme close-ups of the damage to nose, including the crowbar pry
marks, as well as Bayuk's acknowledgement of later Mameluke [Turkish]
artillery damage. However, even Dr. Bayuk indicates the damage to the
Sphinx's nose was all done _prior_ to Napoleon's arrival in Egypt. This
site may be found at
http://guardians.net/egypt/sphinx/
Even today's view of the Sphinx does not show extensive damage to the
lips. See:
http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/trinity/projects/egypt/clipart/sphinx.jpg
http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/ufa10/game5.htm
http://cygnus.sas.upenn.edu/African_Studies/Egypt_GIFS/ES06_Sphinx_12477.gif
http://expert.cc.purdue.edu/~sharpa/skate/skateegypt.html
http://garfield.st-agnes.org/library/projects/sphinx.jpg (from the
1940's)
and even a video, on the 1999 renovations to the chest and paws of the
Sphinx at:
http://exn.ca/news/video/19990226-sphinxfacelift.ram
which shows the definite signs of the crowbar which pried off the nose
in the 14th century CE along the right cheek of the Sphinx. (all
mentioned in the accompanying narrative, BTW).
(All cited images and videos are current as of June 15, 2001 as of 1730
CST(US)/2330 GMT+100)
>> Tom Holmberg, in writing on this topic vis a vis the oft-repeated
>> folktale that Napoleon's troops had defaced the Sphinx, also noted:
>>
>> "...European visitors to Egypt prior to Napoleon's expedition had
>> already discovered the vandalism to the Sphinx. In 1546, for example,
>> when Dr.Pierre Belon explored Egypt, he visited 'the great colossus.'
>> 'The Sphinx,' writes Leslie Greener in _The Discovery Of Egypt_ (London,
>> Cassell, 1966), p.38, by this time 'no longer [had] the stamp of grace
>> and beauty so admired by Abdel Latif in 1200.' Greener goes on to say:
>> 'this exonerates the artillerymen of Napoleon Bonaparte, who have the
>> popular reputation of having used the nose of the Sphinx as a target.'
>> The charge against Napoleon is particularly unjust because the French
>> general brought with him a large group of 'savants' to conduct the first
>> scientific study of Egypt and its antiquities."
>
>Whether Napoleon and his troops disfigured the Great Sphinx or not really
>isn't the main issue. The issue is: Whoever disfigured this monument, why did
>they only disfigure the features, namely the nose and lips?
Asked and answered: "...Sa'im al-dahr is said to have pried off the nose
with a crowbar to deface the Sphinx's nose since, al-Maqrizi cites, as
late as this period, some Egyptians were still burning milk-thistle
(shuka'a) and safflower (badhaward) at the foot of the Sphinx and
murning a verse 63 times in hope that their wishes would be fulfilled;
the extremist sufi took it upon himself to destroy the object of their
idolatry." (Source: my previous post on the thread: Message-ID:
<avg9it008oq94s93h...@4ax.com>, with citations to Dr.
Selim Hassan's work, The Sphinx: Its History in Light of Recent
Excavations_ (Government Press: Cairo, 1949): 81-83. )
If you understand the precepts of Islam, you would understand that to
deface an 'idol' is a great insult and demeans the figure as an object
of worship. For this, Sa'im al-dahr paid for this act with his life,
and is recorded as buried at the foot of the Sphinx for his defilement
of the monument. Haarmann, citing al-Maqrizi [1980, cited previously).
<snip trivia>
>> >If you don't agree with the information above concerning the shooting of
>> >the Sphinx by Napoleon (by an eye-witness account mind you...) and his
>> >army, don't flame me...flame the author!
>>
>> Fine by me: give the Denon quote in full -- FROM DENON.
>
>I've given you the author and book where I obtained the information,
Ah, but not FROM DENON. Apparently, Freeman/Griffin haven't found out
that the book they 'quote' does not exist.
>>Return to Glory
>>by Joel A. Freeman, PhD
>>and Don B. Griffin
>>Pg. 24
>
>If you want the quote in full from DENON, do your homework professor!
Excuse me, but if _you_ have the quote from Denon, as you state, let's
see it. You claim there is such a statement: I challenge your claim
such a statement exists, and tell you the *only* known sources of Denon
quotes about Egypt, which I have reviewed, do _NOT_ have any such
statement.
So, if you are at all serious about this matter, go and look up this
so-called reference Freeman/Griffin cite, for it is surely NOT in
_Voyage dans la Basse et la Haute Egypte_ (1802) or _Travels in Upper
and Lower Egypt in Company with Several Divisions of the French Army_
(1803). However, I suspect you are wasting everyone's time on this
issue.
Remember, it is upon YOU to provide the quote and citations, as would
any real "scholar" when called to prove his point. You put it out there
as a "fact" : back up your statement quote your source material with a
valid citation. That is the way of scholarship, if you want to be taken
seriously. Period.
Would be helpful if you knew which book this 'quote' was from, however,
and not rely on unreliable "secondary sources," such as
Freeman/Griffin.
Since it appears the book likely does not exist, I suspect you will have
some very great difficulties in producing evidence for your claim about
Denon's "eyewitness" to the event. In most academic circles of which I
am aware, citing a source which does not exist is called _academic
fraud_, due to "fabrication" of sources. If shown to have been done
without due care, or with actual intent to misrepresent a finding or
data, it is a terminable offense in most academic institutions. Just so
you know, in case you want to go about any future scholarly activities.
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
Member, American Research Center in Egypt
International Association of Egyptologists
University of Alabama at Birmingham
b...@antispam.net
egy...@griffis-consulting.com says...
> >> Source:
> >> http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/events/conferences/enco/Film/Amery.htm
> >Second, your "Source/link" above
> >is invalid. How ironic.
>
> Funny: the link works for me...I suppose you can't be bothered to check
> more than once? It _did_ say this AM it was "temporarily unavailable,"
> but that should have given you a clue the link was valid.
Sorry to do this, but I get:
Not Found
The requested URL
/archaeology/events/conferences/enco/Film/Amery.htm was not
found on this server.
Apache/1.3.14 Server at www.ucl.ac.uk Port 80
Katherine Griffis
alt.history.ancient-egypt, wrote the following:
>In article <iktkitcb9l6b0lkkq...@4ax.com>,
<sigh> I get the same: I am beginning to think UCL may "shut down"
part of its site occasionally, especially on weekends. You will note
that I noted not only date, but time when I last accessed it today*. I
suggest trying again, perhaps on Monday, <b...@antispam.net>
* (This site is valid as of June 15, 2001 at 1730 CST (US)/2330 GMT
+100)
Regards --
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
University of Alabama at Birmingham
UAB Options/Special Studies
Martin Stower
[snip]
> Excuse me, you quoted an author who obviously did not have Denon's
> original work, or he would not have made such an egregious error. Also,
> the original work, as Stower pointed out, was in French. Now, whether
> the edition was French or English, the point is there is NO such
> reference to the Sphinx's nose being shot off by Napoleon's troops in
> _Voyage dans la Basse et la Haute Egypte_ (1802) OR its English version,
> and there is NO edition which is called _Journey and Travels in Egypt
> and Assyria_, by Baron V. Denon.
[snip]
I find that the English translation of _Volney's_ work is sometimes cited as
_Travels in Egypt and Syria_, although it's listed in the BL and Library of
Congress catalogues as _Travels through Egypt and Syria_.
Speculative reconstruction: somewhere along the line, a reference to Denon's
journal and Volney's _Travels_ has been garbled to give the single title and
attribution above.
Martin
Katherine Griffis
<mst...@netcomuk.co.uk> in alt.history.ancient-egypt, wrote the
following:
>Katherine Griffis wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> Excuse me, you quoted an author who obviously did not have Denon's
>> original work, or he would not have made such an egregious error. Also,
>> the original work, as Stower pointed out, was in French. Now, whether
>> the edition was French or English, the point is there is NO such
>> reference to the Sphinx's nose being shot off by Napoleon's troops in
>> _Voyage dans la Basse et la Haute Egypte_ (1802) OR its English version,
>> and there is NO edition which is called _Journey and Travels in Egypt
>> and Assyria_, by Baron V. Denon.
>
>[snip]
>
>I find that the English translation of _Volney's_ work is sometimes cited as
>_Travels in Egypt and Syria_, although it's listed in the BL and Library of
>Congress catalogues as _Travels through Egypt and Syria_.
Correct. Volney first published HIS work in 1787, however, some 12
years BEFORE Napoleon entered Egypt, and in fact, his work was the main
reference Napoleon used when traveling through Egypt. As such, Volney,
as I recall, does NOT have the added panache for being an "eyewitness"
to any event as the shooting off the nose of the Sphinx. Napoleon, of
course, did not conduct his French campaign in Egypt until 1798-1801.
From the Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001.
"Volney, Constantin François de Chasseboeuf, comte de, 1757-1820, French
scholar....He traveled in Egypt and Syria in the 1780s and wrote an
account of his journey, Voyage en Syrie et en Égypte (1787); notable for
its exact descriptions, it was useful to Napoleon during his Egyptian
campaign. Volney served as deputy (1789) to the States-General, as
secretary (1790) of the National Assembly, and later, after spending
some time in the United States, as senator under Napoleon, who made him
a count in 1808; he was also a member of the chamber of peers under
Louis XVIII."
Source: http://www.bartleby.com/65/vo/Volney-C.html
Essentially, the same information can be gleaned from
http://www.encyclopedia.com/articlesnew/48968.html
http://www.encyclopedia.com/printablenew/48968.html
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0851124.html
(ALL Current as of June 17, 2001 at 0848 CDST (US)/1448 GMT+100)
Volney was particularly known by this work for exposing the disasters
brought on by the Ottoman Empire in the region. His work on the
decaying rule of the Ottoman Empire in the Middle Eastern countries made
them ripe for political change, he argued. Napoleon used Volney’s
arguments to justify his brief, ill-fated expedition to Egypt in 1798,
though Volney himself was an opponent of French involvement there For
more information this topic, see:
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/i/idinopulos-miracles.html
Weathered by Miracles
A History of Palestine From Bonaparte and Muhammad Ali to Ben-Gurion and
the Mufti
By THOMAS A. IDINOPULOS
Ivan R. Dee
(Current as of June 17, 2001 at 0848 CDST (US)/1448 GMT+100)
>Speculative reconstruction: somewhere along the line, a reference to Denon's
>journal and Volney's _Travels_ has been garbled to give the single title and
>attribution above.
No doubt.
Regards --
CIO
Dominique-Vivant Denon accompanied Napoleon’s General Desaix on his campaign into
Upper Egypt and was totaling overwhelmed by the monuments of this classic African
civilization. Denon saw it as the most fabulous sight human eyes had even seen.
Nothing in Greece or Italy compared to what the savant saw in Upper Egypt. Of all
the savants, Denon himself acquired an outstanding reputation as artist and
scholar.
In 1803 he published his book “Description de l’Egypt.” Denon illustrated his work
with meticulous drawings and the European world that had basked in the glories of
Greece and Rome realized that there was a far older and grander civilization of
which they knew little. The brilliant colour and detail of Denon’s work electrified
Europe, and heralded a craze for the Egyptian style. Pottery, sculpture, furniture,
paintings and even architecture of the following decade were heavily encrusted with
sphinxes, pyramids and temple facades.
Robert Southey, the English poet wrote, ‘Everything must now be Egyptian; the
ladies wear crocodile ornaments, and one must sit on sphinxes in a room hung with
mummies and the long-nosed black hieroglyphical men who are enough to make children
afraid to go to bed.’ It is easy to understand this social and racial pressure on
the scholars and writers of Europe.
------>The title “Journey and Travels in Egypt and Assyria” that you cannot find
listed in the catalogue of the British Library or of the Library of Congress was
most certainly referenced in the book that I provided as a source. After further
investigating the issue, however, I learned the title was translated as “Travels in
Upper and Lower Egypt.”
In addition, the title “Journey and Travels in Egypt and Assyria” was used by an
African scholar, Dr. Yosef A.A. ben-Jochannan in his book BLACK MAN OF THE NILE AND
HIS FAMILY and I'm certain he was referring to the same book, “Travels in Upper and
Lower Egypt.” It became quite clear to me that the two are one and the same. Memory
serves me quite well and I remember seeing an old map of Africa in which Assyria
was the portion of Africa considered North Africa, in particularly the geographical
location of Egypt. Therefore, “Travels in Egypt and Assyria,” however that title
came to be, is likely the same ‘Travels in Upper and Lower Egypt.’
To say that my scholarship and the scholarship of my sources is junk IS YOUR
OPINION and a ‘little white lie’…and I’m not going to rant at your so-called “HELP”
that you claim people try to offer. More like complete insults which necessitates a
comeback. People like you simply say those stupid things because you don’t like my
opposing view, which is fine by me but if you think I'm stopping there...
Overall, I’d rather students fascinated with learning more about EGYPT take into
consideration the points I’ve raised and research it for themselves. Not simply
take your word, Katherine’s word, or anyone in particular.
Reference:
BLACK MAN OF THE NILE AND HIS FAMILY
By Dr. Yosef A.A. ben-Jochannan
Pg. 14; 109
KEMET, AFROCENTRICITY, AND KNOWLEDGE
By Molefi Kete Asanta
Pg. 59-60
THE WORLD OF THE PHARAOHS:
A Complete Guide To Ancient Egypt
By Christine Hobson
Pg. 30-31
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
alt.history.ancient-egypt, wrote the following:
>Dominique-Vivant Denon accompanied Napoleon’s General Desaix on his campaign into
>Upper Egypt and was totaling overwhelmed by the monuments of this classic African
>civilization. Denon saw it as the most fabulous sight human eyes had even seen.
>Nothing in Greece or Italy compared to what the savant saw in Upper Egypt. Of all
>the savants, Denon himself acquired an outstanding reputation as artist and
>scholar.
Yet, there is _no mention_ of this Sphinx incident in the only book
Denon ever wrote about Egypt, as has been pointed out again and again.
It is also NOT in _Description de l'Egypte_ which is a collection of
drawings from Egyptian monuments, with no descriptive _texts_. Denon,
among many other artists, made such drawings during the 1798-1799
excusion into Egypt. The fact remains you have yet to produce a support
statement to your claim that Denon stated he saw the damage done by
Napoleon or his troops.
From a discussion of the Napoleonic expedition, it is clear Vivant Denon
was one of many illustrators in Napoleon's expedition. His work was not
considered as good, as were his 1787 observations, which is why Napoelon
asked him to attend the expedition.
However, his 1798-1799 contribtions to _Description de l'Egypte_
(corrected spelling) is the sum total of his Napoleonic foray. He was
in Egypt, at Napoleon's request for make some addtional drawings, for
only 9 months from 1798-1799, returning to France in July 1799. He then
went to the United States fro a period before being named director of
the museums in 1802.
SEE;
Gillespie,G. and Dewachter, M. (ed.) _The Monuments of Egypt: the
Napoleonic Edition_. 1987 (Old Saybrook: Konecky and Konecky). See in
particular the excursis about Denon on p. 13.
_Description de l'Egypte: Publiée par les ordres de Napoléon Bonaparte_.
1802/rept 1994 (Koln: Taschen)
_Description de l'Egypte_ (1802) was not a work BY Denon, but by
Napeoleon's order, and was what is referred to in archaeology as an
"archaeological field memoir."
<snip>
>------>The title “Journey and Travels in Egypt and Assyria” that you cannot find
>listed in the catalogue of the British Library or of the Library of Congress was
>most certainly referenced in the book that I provided as a source. After further
>investigating the issue, however, I learned the title was translated as “Travels in
>Upper and Lower Egypt.”
We agree, then, that there is no book by Denon under the title you gave.
Fine. However, it still doesn't assist in your assertion that Denon
made this statement in the book he did write which was VOYAGE DANS LA
BASSE ET LA HAUTE EGYPTE. Planche du Voyages Dans La
Basse et la Haute Egypte (1787 and later editions) and the English
version, TRAVELS IN UPPER AND LOWER EGYPT IN COMPANY WITH SEVERAL
DIVISION OF THE FRENCH ARMY, During the Campaign of General Bonaparte in
that Country; and published under his Immediate Command. (1803)
<snip remainder>
Secondary sources do not count as "evidence," after all.
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
Member, American Research Center in Egypt
International Association of Egyptologists
University of Alabama at Birmingham
CIO
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2001 06:44:40 -0700, CIO <reac...@best.com> in
> alt.history.ancient-egypt, wrote the following:
>
> >Dominique-Vivant Denon accompanied Napoleon’s General Desaix on his campaign into
> >Upper Egypt and was totaling overwhelmed by the monuments of this classic African
> >civilization. Denon saw it as the most fabulous sight human eyes had even seen.
> >Nothing in Greece or Italy compared to what the savant saw in Upper Egypt. Of all
> >the savants, Denon himself acquired an outstanding reputation as artist and
> >scholar.
>
> Yet, there is _no mention_ of this Sphinx incident in the only book
> Denon ever wrote about Egypt, as has been pointed out again and again.
>
> It is also NOT in _Description de l'Egypte_ which is a collection of
> drawings from Egyptian monuments, with no descriptive _texts_. Denon,
> among many other artists, made such drawings during the 1798-1799
> excusion into Egypt. The fact remains you have yet to produce a support [excursion -
> corrected spelling]
> statement to your claim that Denon stated he saw the damage done by
> Napoleon or his troops.
[Katherine, DENON (drew) what he saw – what statements do I need to prove what he drew
with his own two hands? When I wrote “an eye witness,” how else could Denon have done
the extensive paintings and drawings in Egypt if he didn’t see it with his own two eyes,
and we both know that he was with Napoleon on his excursion…]
> From a discussion of the Napoleonic expedition, it is clear Vivant Denon
> was one of many illustrators in Napoleon's expedition. His work was not
> considered as good, as were his 1787 observations, which is why Napoelon [Napoleon -
> corrected spelling]
> asked him to attend the expedition.
[How interesting you state that Denon’s work was not considered as good as were his 1787
observations, yet Napoleon asked him to attend the expedition? In my other post I’ve
mentioned of all the savants, Denon himself acquired an outstanding reputation as artist
and scholar. I’ve seen some of his drawings and was quite impressed. Therefore, IMO, I
would have to believe my source about the impact and quality of Denon’s work being that
Denon was actually on the expedition…]
> However, his 1798-1799 contribtions to _Description de l'Egypte_ [contributions -
> corrected spelling]
> (corrected spelling) is the sum total of his Napoleonic foray. He was
> in Egypt, at Napoleon's request for make some addtional drawings, for [additional -
> corrected spelling]
> only 9 months from 1798-1799, returning to France in July 1799. He then
> went to the United States fro a period before being named director of the museums in
> 1802. [for - corrected spelling]
>
> SEE;
>
> Gillespie,G. and Dewachter, M. (ed.) _The Monuments of Egypt: the
> Napoleonic Edition_. 1987 (Old Saybrook: Konecky and Konecky). See in
> particular the excursis about Denon on p. 13.
>
> _Description de l'Egypte: Publiée par les ordres de Napoléon Bonaparte_.
> 1802/rept 1994 (Koln: Taschen)
>
> _Description de l'Egypte_ (1802) was not a work BY Denon, but by
> Napeoleon's order, and was what is referred to in archaeology as an
> "archaeological field memoir."
>
> <snip>
>
> >------>The title “Journey and Travels in Egypt and Assyria” that you cannot find
> >listed in the catalogue of the British Library or of the Library of Congress was
> >most certainly referenced in the book that I provided as a source. After further
> >investigating the issue, however, I learned the title was translated as “Travels in
> >Upper and Lower Egypt.”
>
> We agree, then, that there is no book by Denon under the title you gave.
> Fine. However, it still doesn't assist in your assertion that Denon
> made this statement in the book he did write which was VOYAGE DANS LA
> BASSE ET LA HAUTE EGYPTE. Planche du Voyages Dans La
> Basse et la Haute Egypte (1787 and later editions) and the English
> version, TRAVELS IN UPPER AND LOWER EGYPT IN COMPANY WITH SEVERAL
> DIVISION OF THE FRENCH ARMY, During the Campaign of General Bonaparte in
> that Country; and published under his Immediate Command. (1803)
[Katherine, I’ve noticed you seem to be focused on me providing a “statement” by Denon
when DENON’s brilliant paintings and drawings are proof enough. What more proof do you
need? Are you going to answer this or skip it like you’ve done so many of my other
questions? Like, what ever happened to your source about Napoleon shooting off the nose
as some “1920’s myth” often being confused by Afrocentric scholars? What evidence do you
have for such a ridiculous statement, other than being your own opinion?
In addition, why would Hollywood “rehash” a myth in ‘Passion in the Desert’ about
Napoleon shooting off the nose of the Sphinx when the evidence you assert as correct a
sufi (Saim-el-Dahr) using a “crowbar” to dis-figure the nose…why would Hollywood use the
myth for their story instead of your assertion? Got any clues…]
> <snip remainder>
>
> Secondary sources do not count as "evidence," after all.
[Katherine, you wrote in another post the following:
> Tom Holmberg, in writing on this topic vis a vis the oft-repeated
> folktale that Napoleon's troops had defaced the Sphinx, also noted:
>
> "...European visitors to Egypt prior to Napoleon's expedition had
> already discovered the vandalism to the Sphinx. In 1546, for example,
> when Dr.Pierre Belon explored Egypt, he visited 'the great colossus.'
> 'The Sphinx,' writes Leslie Greener in _The Discovery Of Egypt_ (London,
> Cassell, 1966), p.38, by this time 'no longer [had] the stamp of grace
> and beauty so admired by Abdel Latif in 1200.' Greener goes on to say:
> 'this exonerates the artillerymen of Napoleon Bonaparte, who have the
> popular reputation of having used the nose of the Sphinx as a target.'
> The charge against Napoleon is particularly unjust because the French
> general brought with him a large group of 'savants' to conduct the first
> scientific study of Egypt and its antiquities."
Who is Tom Holmberg and what book are you citing him from or does he fit the “secondary
source” claim you mention that does not count as evidence?]
> Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
>
> Member, American Research Center in Egypt
> International Association of Egyptologists
[Last but not least, Leslie Greener who you cited in her 1966 book “The Discovery of
Egypt” is questionable when much older sources cite differently. Here is what my source
had to say:
As far as the statement from El Makrizi – nowhere in his statement does he mention what
portion of the face was disfigured or the EXTENT of the damage. While it is evident that
there was partial damage to the nose of Her-em-akhet (The Sphinx) by the year 1755, we
can say with certainty that the greatest destruction occurred during the three years
that Napoleon’s troops were in Egypt. Until there is reason to believe otherwise,
Napoleon must bare some responsibility for the damage done to the Sphinx.]
Reference:
Nile Valley Contributions to Civilization
By Anthony T. Browder
Kemet, Afrocentricity and Knowledge
By Molefi Kete Asante
The World of the Pharaohs:
A Complete Guide to Ancient Egypt
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
alt.history.ancient-egypt, wrote the following:
I had said:
>> It is also NOT in _Description de l'Egypte_ which is a collection of
>> drawings from Egyptian monuments, with no descriptive _texts_. Denon,
>> among many other artists, made such drawings during the 1798-1799
>> excusion into Egypt. The fact remains you have yet to produce a support [excursion -
>> corrected spelling]
>> statement to your claim that Denon stated he saw the damage done by
>> Napoleon or his troops.
>
>[Katherine, DENON (drew) what he saw – what statements do I need to prove what he drew
>with his own two hands? When I wrote “an eye witness,” how else could Denon have done
>the extensive paintings and drawings in Egypt if he didn’t see it with his own two eyes,
>and we both know that he was with Napoleon on his excursion…]
Stephen/Unutterable1, whatever: Let's see how you put this...you said,
in this thread, and I quote:
"...His hand drawing of the Sphinx of Giza sketched in 1798, shows us
the way the statue looked before it was disfigured. According to
eyewitness Baron V. Denon, Napoleon's soldiers blew its nose and lips
apart with cannon fodder during the French invasion of Egypt."
From: CIO <reac...@best.com>
Newsgroups: alt.history.ancient-egypt
Subject: Eyewitness to Napoleon's Army Shooting the Sphinx...
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 01:14:19 -0700
Message-ID: <3B247DDB...@best.com>
If you may recall, I noted the Denon image was up online at
http://archserve.id.ucsb.edu/Anth3/Courseware/History/Egypt.html
Now, IF Denon's Napoleonic image is "...the way the statue looked before
it was disfigured..." state, then why, O why, does this drawing show it
damaged?
Further, you make the claim that Denon _stated_ "... Napoleon's soldiers
blew its nose and lips apart with cannon fodder during the French
invasion of Egypt..." I have asked repeatedly for the Denon
'statement,' which you have yet to produce. It's not in Denon's work
_VOYAGE DANS LA BASSE ET LA HAUTE EGYPTE. Planche du Voyages Dans La
Basse et la Haute Egypte (1787 and later editions) or the English
version, TRAVELS IN UPPER AND LOWER EGYPT IN COMPANY WITH SEVERAL
DIVISION OF THE FRENCH ARMY, During the Campaign of General Bonaparte in
that Country; and published under his Immediate Command. (1803).
Pictures can only show how Denon saw the Great Sphinx when he sketched
it: in the sketch [referenced by URL, above], for which he is most
well-known, he shows engineers standing along the head of the monument,
measuring the Sphinx with a plumb line.
The image is apparently shown from the left side here, and the damage to
the right philtrum is not shown in the drawing.The nose is evidently
damaged, and one can see Denon's rendering of the light striations near
the nose. All of this is consistent with the 14th century CE reports by
Makrizi, BTW.
Most importantly, however, is that _nowhere_ in this picture does it say
or show _how_ the damage to the Sphinx's face occurred. As such, I fail
to see how the image can be Denon's statement that "...Napoleon's
soldiers blew its nose and lips apart with cannon fodder during the
French invasion of Egypt..."
Where does it say this? In this picture? Anywhere, BY DENON?
You have claimed before there was *no* damage to the Sphinx's nose
before Napoleon hit Egypt's shores. In fact, you said, when I informed
you of the 14th century CE damage by Sai'm al-Dahr, as reported in
Makrizi:
"...Then you make mention to a 1402 'report' by al-Makrizi, which is not
considered as FACT. You must also remember that just because it was
mentioned in a report the missing of a nose on the sphinx, does not mean
the Great Sphinx, or the largest one of Egypt. There are many sphinx
that exist in Egypt, even today.
HOW did Ann Macy Roth in her newsletter DEMONSTRATE the shooting of the
Sphinx happened in the 14th century??? A fanatical sufi...hogwash!!! I
disagree with you, and I don't believe your source. Islamic historians?
Who else?"
From: ameno...@my-deja.com (ameno...@my-deja.com)
Subject: Re: ERASING the Memory of Black Egypt...
Newsgroups: soc.culture.egyptian
View complete thread (10 articles)
Date: 1999/06/28
and again, once I showed you that it was, in fact, the Great Sphinx
which was reported in Makrizi, by specific reference:
"...**OK fine, an arab shot off the nose and lips! WHY?!? Don't give me
this ridiculous(!) sad sorry excuse that he did it for religious
reasons. What an insult to the study of Egyptology to reason with this
'folklore.' "
From: ameno...@my-deja.com (ameno...@my-deja.com)
Subject: Re: ERASING the Memory of Black Egypt...
Newsgroups: soc.culture.egyptian
Date: 1999/06/28
Yet, it is you who cannot produce a claimed statement by Denon that he
"eyewitnessed" the shooting off of the Sphinx's nose, I might note. Of
the two of us, I would say it is not I who is relying upon "folklore,"
BTW.
It would seem to me that a) a contemporaneous document (such as
Makrizi's, written in the 14th century CE after the Sa'im al-Dahr
incident), and b) which did not show the Egyptian sufi in a very good
light by an Egyptian historian would surely be a far more _reliable_
source of actual history* than a "claimed statement" by Denon by
Afrocentric authors, who have yet to produce Denon's 'claimed
statement,' and/or make some wild assumptions based upon the fact Denon
at one time _drew_ a picture of the Sphinx showing the 14th century CE
damage.
* ['History' being defined here as "...telling of events involving or
affecting human beings (not necessarily, though usually, in narrative
form), which took place prior to the time of the composition, the chief
aim of which is to explain those events for the benefit, predilection
and satisfaction of contemporaries [of the event], and not for the
enhancement of the writer's personal reputation. The form will be
without artifice or metaphor, that is it will not be drama, epic poetry,
cult prescription or the like." [defined by Donald Redford, _Pharaonic
King-Lists, Annals and Day-Books: A Contribution to the Study of the
Egyptian Sense of History_,Donald B. Redford, (Benben
Publications/Mississauga, 1986),p. iv (Introduction) ]
However, as Martin Stower noted before, Lehner reproduces some of the
18th century (pre-Napoleon) damage in "The Complete Pyramids". As Stower
noted in an earlier post, there's an additional consideration: travel
books of the 18th and earlier centuries were often illustrated by
jobbing artists who'd never seen the original: the better illustrations
resulted when the engraver or lithographer was given a halfway decent
sketch to work from (and even then we're a long way short of
photographic accuracy). Lehner includes in his sequence the 1743
illustration (from Pococke), the 1755 one (from Norden, far more
realistic than hitherto, showing details of the stratification evident
on the face as well as the damaged nose) - and then one from 1799,
showing the nose intact again! As Stower wryly noted: 'Are we to
suppose that the nose was repaired?'
If this is all you can say about Denon and the damage to the Sphinx, I
can only suggest you are indulging in some bizarre form of Jesuit logic,
for there is NO specific evidence Denon, in this drawing, is saying the
damage was done to the Sphinx at the time of his drawing, by napoleon
and/or his troops. I truly challenge you to show me any _textual_
statement by Denon (which you claim exists), but imagery alone sure
doesn't cut it.
>> From a discussion of the Napoleonic expedition, it is clear Vivant Denon
>> was one of many illustrators in Napoleon's expedition. His work was not
>> considered as good, as were his 1787 observations, which is why Napoelon [Napoleon -
>> corrected spelling]
>> asked him to attend the expedition.
>
>[How interesting you state that Denon’s work was not considered as good as were his 1787
>observations, yet Napoleon asked him to attend the expedition? In my other post I’ve
>mentioned of all the savants, Denon himself acquired an outstanding reputation as artist
>and scholar. I’ve seen some of his drawings and was quite impressed. Therefore, IMO, I
>would have to believe my source about the impact and quality of Denon’s work being that
>Denon was actually on the expedition…]
Denon was known primarily for his book, VOYAGE DANS LA BASSE ET LA HAUTE
EGYPTE. Planche du Voyages Dans La Basse et la Haute Egypte (1787) .
His later Napoleonic work as an artist was not considered "as good" as
other outstanding artists on Napoleon's expedition, and that is a
judgment of history and artists, not mine (the characterization is often
repeated in several analysis of _Description de l'Egypte_, most recently
in 1987 (citation given previously)). You must know, if you have access
to _Description_, there was a huge array of artists who worked over a
3-4 year period in Egypt on these drawings. Denon, as noted before, was
there only for 9 months in 1798-1799, and did not produce as much in the
way of drawings for the book.
>> made this statement in the book he did write which was VOYAGE DANS LA
>> BASSE ET LA HAUTE EGYPTE. Planche du Voyages Dans La
>> Basse et la Haute Egypte (1787 and later editions) and the English
>> version, TRAVELS IN UPPER AND LOWER EGYPT IN COMPANY WITH SEVERAL
>> DIVISION OF THE FRENCH ARMY, During the Campaign of General Bonaparte in
>> that Country; and published under his Immediate Command. (1803)
>
>[Katherine, I’ve noticed you seem to be focused on me providing a “statement” by Denon
>when DENON’s brilliant paintings and drawings are proof enough. What more proof do you
>need?
Oh, goodness me: you claim a 'statement' by Denon, and now his picture
of the engineers on the head of the Sphinx is a "statement"? Please
give me and most readers to this newsgroup better credit for our
intelligence than this. You stated that "..According to eyewitness
Baron V. Denon, Napoleon's soldiers blew its nose and lips apart with
cannon fodder during the French invasion of Egypt." THAT is a statement
which has to be _written_ to make such a conclusion: as I noted, the
image Denon supplied to the Napoleonic expedition says nothing
(textually) of the sort. Tell me, who is drawing deceptive conclusions
here?
>Are you going to answer this or skip it like you’ve done so many of my other
>questions? Like, what ever happened to your source about Napoleon shooting off the nose
>as some “1920’s myth” often being confused by Afrocentric scholars? What evidence do you
>have for such a ridiculous statement, other than being your own opinion?
Oh, sorry, I have given this to you so many times, thought you had it
down by now. Tom Holmberg had traced the "shooting the nose of the
Sphinx" story as follows:
"...One traveler to Egypt around the time of World War One wrote the
following: 'To take our photos sitting in front of the Sphinx on a camel
was the aim of another. ...And so, repulsing the hordes of robbers on
all sides, we came to the wonderful, inscrutable,
worth-millions-of-pounds-to-authors Sphinx. The great riddle of the
mysterious East. How many reams of rubbish have been written about this
misshapen block of stone. Napoleon, a practical man, fired a few cannon
balls at its face. High explosive shells were not invented in those
days.' [From: Sommers, Cecil. Temporary Crusaders. (London: John Lane,
1919) Chapter VI. "19th April."] Another book from about the same time
(In the Footsteps of Napoleon (1915) by James Morgan, p 85) states
'There is a tradition among the Arabs of the Pyramids that all the scars
of time and the wounds of a hundred wars, which the Sphinx carries, were
inflicted by Napoleon's soldiers, who used its mystifying and majestic
countenance as a target. That, however, is only a legend for the
tourist. Long before the discovery of gunpowder, the Arabs had laid
iconoclastic hands on the beard of this god of the desert...' Though the
Arab guides may have spread this tale, this myth has been perpetuated
over the years by countless teachers the world over who have passed this
bit of 'history' on to their students."
Source: http://www.napoleonseries.org/faq/sphinx.cfm
FAQ #11: Did Napoleon's troops shoot the nose off the Sphinx?
Tom Holmberg
(Current as of 0655 CDST(US)/1255 GMT+100 June 21, 2001)
>In addition, why would Hollywood “rehash” a myth in ‘Passion in the Desert’ about
>Napoleon shooting off the nose of the Sphinx when the evidence you assert as correct a
>sufi (Saim-el-Dahr) using a “crowbar” to dis-figure the nose…why would Hollywood use the
>myth for their story instead of your assertion? Got any clues…]
Yep, ever consider people prefer to make movies out of myths rather than
from facts? It sells quite well, as stories such as "Brother Where Art
Thou?" (a retelling of the Odyssey), all "Star Wars" films and the like,
show. It's called 'artistic license,' and I suggest you look into it.
>> <snip remainder>
>>
>> Secondary sources do not count as "evidence," after all.
>
>[Katherine, you wrote in another post the following:
>
>> Tom Holmberg, in writing on this topic vis a vis the oft-repeated
>> folktale that Napoleon's troops had defaced the Sphinx, also noted:
>>
>> "...European visitors to Egypt prior to Napoleon's expedition had
>> already discovered the vandalism to the Sphinx. In 1546, for example,
>> when Dr.Pierre Belon explored Egypt, he visited 'the great colossus.'
>> 'The Sphinx,' writes Leslie Greener in _The Discovery Of Egypt_ (London,
>> Cassell, 1966), p.38, by this time 'no longer [had] the stamp of grace
>> and beauty so admired by Abdel Latif in 1200.' Greener goes on to say:
>> 'this exonerates the artillerymen of Napoleon Bonaparte, who have the
>> popular reputation of having used the nose of the Sphinx as a target.'
>> The charge against Napoleon is particularly unjust because the French
>> general brought with him a large group of 'savants' to conduct the first
>> scientific study of Egypt and its antiquities."
>
>Who is Tom Holmberg and what book are you citing him from or does he fit the “secondary
>source” claim you mention that does not count as evidence?]
I did not cite Holmberg's FAQ or Greener as 'primary evidence.' As you
recall, I noted the Makrizi and Hassan information (concerning the Latif
information) as primary evidence first, and then supplied Holmberg (and
the Greener quotations) as supportive statements, as they had _cited_
information of where pre-1798 observations noted the damage to the nose.
Tom Holmberg, FWIW, is the Owner and Reviews editor of the
www.napoleonseries.org website. It is a website created to assist
educators and students about the Napoleonic Period. Best as I can
determine from his numerous mentions on educational websites (in both
French and English sources), he is considered a careful researcher into
all things Napoleon. One of the main reasons he is so considered is
that he carefully cites as many _primary_ sources for his documents,
which I don't see many of your cited authors doing.
<snip>
>[Last but not least, Leslie Greener who you cited in her 1966 book “The Discovery of
>Egypt” is questionable when much older sources cite differently. Here is what my source
>had to say:
>
>As far as the statement from El Makrizi – nowhere in his statement does he mention what
>portion of the face was disfigured or the EXTENT of the damage. While it is evident that
>there was partial damage to the nose of Her-em-akhet (The Sphinx) by the year 1755, we
>can say with certainty that the greatest destruction occurred during the three years
>that Napoleon’s troops were in Egypt. Until there is reason to believe otherwise,
>Napoleon must bare some responsibility for the damage done to the Sphinx.]
And the citation for the above statement, I gather, is from Browder?
You aren't clear who said this, BTW. Please tell me _where_ "... much
older sources cite differently.." that assign the "major damage" to
Napoleon? Surely Browder or whomever would have noted who these "older
sources" were.
Again, I suggest you this statement by <whomever>, without more than
this, is also not true: as reported before, with citations to Makrizi:
"...The *fact* remains that in AH 780 (1378 CE), the nose, ears, and
face (_all mentioned specifically_) were damaged by a sufi of the
khanqah of Sa`id al-Su`ada, nicknamed "Sa'im al-dahr" ('He Who
Constantly Fasts', something forbidden in Islam, btw). _This is reported
in al-Maqrizi's "Khitat"_. [emphasis _ _ added: KGG]
See:
al-Maqrizi, Taqi al-Din Ahmad ibn `Ali ibn `Abd al-Qadir ibn Muhammad,
and Gaston Wiet. 1924. el-Mawa`iz wa'l-i`tibar fi dhikr el-khitat
wa'l-athar. Volume 4: Deuxieme partie, chapt. L-XCIV. Memoires publies
par les membres de l'Institut francais d'archeologie orientale du Caire
49. Cairo: Imprimerie de l'Institut francais d'archeologie orientale.
section 2:415."
Quoted from
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 09:54:49 -0600
Subject: Re: The ORIGINAL Sphinx...
From: Troy Sagrillo <mesh...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.history.ancient-egypt
Message-ID: <B5515769.591E%mesh...@hotmail.com>
Makrizi is the primary source, and unless your sources can show
otherwise, I suppose Makrizi's own words will have to do.
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
Member, American Research Center in Egypt
International Association of Egyptologists
University of Alabama at Birmingham
CIO
Date: 2001-06-21 06:39:13 PST
On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 20:09:08 -0700, CIO <reac...@best.com> in
alt.history.ancient-egypt, wrote the following:
I had said:
>> It is also NOT in _Description de l'Egypte_ which is a collection of
>> drawings from Egyptian monuments, with no descriptive _texts_. Denon,
>> among many other artists, made such drawings during the 1798-1799
>> excusion into Egypt. The fact remains you have yet to produce a support
[excursion -
>> corrected spelling]
>> statement to your claim that Denon stated he saw the damage done by
>> Napoleon or his troops.
>
>[Katherine, DENON (drew) what he saw – what statements do I need to prove what
he drew
>with his own two hands? When I wrote “an eye witness,” how else could Denon have
done
>the extensive paintings and drawings in Egypt if he didn’t see it with his own
two eyes,
>and we both know that he was with Napoleon on his excursion…]
Stephen/Unutterable1, whatever: Let's see how you put this...you said,
in this thread, and I quote:
"...His hand drawing of the Sphinx of Giza sketched in 1798, shows us
the way the statue looked before it was disfigured. According to
eyewitness Baron V. Denon, Napoleon's soldiers blew its nose and lips
apart with cannon fodder during the French invasion of Egypt."
[Katherine Griffis, Greenberg, whatever: I’ll cut and paste what I told you
before:
> >If you don't agree with the information above concerning the shooting of
> >the Sphinx by Napoleon (by an eye-witness account mind you...) and his
> >army, don't flame me...flame the author!
But I’ll even do better than that. Denon’s drawing of the Sphinx is interesting
in that it clearly shows an upper and lower lip where there is protrusion, and a
small shape for the nose. Interesting enough, when you scroll down to the drawing
by John Gardiner Wilkinson, you see the Sphinx with very thin lips (take a look
for yourself) and no nose at all. My question is when did the change occur?
Overall, I didn’t write the above quote - I simply cited it and had I mis-quoted
or edited the quote, you would have tried to make an issue of that. You can’t
have it your way, Kat. You disagree with me and that’s fine.]
<snip>
Further, you make the claim that Denon _stated_ "... Napoleon's soldiers
blew its nose and lips apart with cannon fodder during the French
invasion of Egypt..." I have asked repeatedly for the Denon
'statement,' which you have yet to produce.
[Kat Griffis, Greenberg, whatever – why didn’t you ‘cut and paste’ where I said
Denon “stated” that? Instead of wasting bandwidth (hot air), why don’t you
provide the proof for me to answer to?]
[snip – yes I’ve seen the sketch without you having to explain it to me.]
<snip>
The image is apparently shown from the left side here, and the damage to
the right philtrum is not shown in the drawing. The nose is evidently
damaged, and one can see Denon's rendering of the light striations near
the nose. All of this is consistent with the 14th century CE reports by
Makrizi, BTW.
[You’ve already cited Makrizi and I’ll repeat what I said then:
As far as the statement from El Makrizi – nowhere in his statement does he
mention what portion of the face was disfigured or the EXTENT of the damage. He
simply mentioned the nose, ear, and face. The description is quite vague.
As far as Denon’s rendering where the nose is evidently damaged – I’m not arguing
it wasn’t Kat. My point and question is to ‘what extent of damage’ the drawing
shows which is more than what is evident today. IF you can’t see that with your
own two eyes, maybe bifocals will do.]
Most importantly, however, is that _nowhere_ in this picture does it say
or show _how_ the damage to the Sphinx's face occurred. As such, I fail
to see how the image can be Denon's statement that "...Napoleon's
soldiers blew its nose and lips apart with cannon fodder during the
French invasion of Egypt..."
Where does it say this? In this picture? Anywhere, BY DENON?
[Nowhere in the picture does it say “when” or to what extent of damage was done
to the nose and lips in earlier references, before the sketches were provided.]
<snip>
You have claimed before there was *no* damage to the Sphinx's nose
before Napoleon hit Egypt's shores.
[Kat, I wish you would use your cut-and-paste skills at times like this when you
accuse me of saying something like this. Prove it.]
In fact, you said, when I informed
you of the 14th century CE damage by Sai'm al-Dahr, as reported in
Makrizi:
"...Then you make mention to a 1402 'report' by al-Makrizi, which is not
considered as FACT. You must also remember that just because it was
mentioned in a report the missing of a nose on the sphinx, does not mean
the Great Sphinx, or the largest one of Egypt. There are many sphinx
that exist in Egypt, even today.
[When did this discussion take place, back in 1998? Why do you bring up OLD
issues when I’ve learned much more from then – to TODAY. If you ask me my opinion
now I would say that Makrizi wrote what he saw (which is suspect that Eurocentric
Egyptologist want to believe who they choose, like Makrizi over say Herodotus?)
but that’s just a side note. Makrizi mentions damage to the nose, ear, and
“face,” but what part of the face is he referring to and to what extent of damage
is he discussing?
I see your cut-and-paste skills work at your own convenience!]
Yet, it is you who cannot produce a claimed statement by Denon that he
"eyewitnessed" the shooting off of the Sphinx's nose, I might note. Of
the two of us, I would say it is not I who is relying upon "folklore,"
BTW.
[You are so obsessed with me providing proof of a “statement” by Denon when I’ve
already explained this to you. I seriously believe you have a comprehension
problem and don’t blame me for your backward presumptions. DENON drew his
depiction of the Great Sphinx and you can quote me on that, Kat.]
It would seem to me that a) a contemporaneous document (such as
Makrizi's, written in the 14th century CE after the Sa'im al-Dahr
incident), and b) which did not show the Egyptian sufi in a very good
light by an Egyptian historian would surely be a far more _reliable_
source of actual history* than a "claimed statement" by Denon by
Afrocentric authors, who have yet to produce Denon's 'claimed
statement,' and/or make some wild assumptions based upon the fact Denon
at one time _drew_ a picture of the Sphinx showing the 14th century CE
damage.
[You do have a comprehension problem. You keep throwing this “statement clause”
into your whole argument and its weak. Move on. You’ve yet to provide any proof
to the extent of damage that Makrizi doesn’t provide either…nor the time the
drawing of the Sphinx became depicted (i.e. when they first arrived in Egypt OR
when DENON was leaving – you claim to be nine months later)].
<snip>
However, as Martin Stower noted before, Lehner reproduces some of the
18th century (pre-Napoleon) damage in "The Complete Pyramids". As Stower
noted in an earlier post, there's an additional consideration: travel
books of the 18th and earlier centuries were often illustrated by
jobbing artists
[Jobbing artists? Kat, try to convince someone else of how important these
so-called “travel books” of the 18th century mean to the academic community? Kat,
some of your statements are scary…and you question me about your intelligence?]
who'd never seen the original: the better illustrations
resulted when the engraver or lithographer was given a halfway decent
sketch to work from (and even then we're a long way short of
photographic accuracy).
[As a reminder: >> Secondary sources do not count as "evidence," after all.]
Lehner includes in his sequence the 1743
illustration (from Pococke), the 1755 one (from Norden, far more
realistic than hitherto, showing details of the stratification evident
on the face as well as the damaged nose) - and then one from 1799,
showing the nose intact again! As Stower wryly noted: 'Are we to
suppose that the nose was repaired?'
[I covered this issue already, I suggest you refer to my previous post for the
answer. Use your cut-and-paste skills…]
If this is all you can say about Denon and the damage to the Sphinx, I
can only suggest you are indulging in some bizarre form of Jesuit logic,
for there is NO specific evidence Denon, in this drawing, is saying the
damage was done to the Sphinx at the time of his drawing, by napoleon
and/or his troops. I truly challenge you to show me any _textual_
statement by Denon (which you claim exists), but imagery alone sure
doesn't cut it.
[Kat, Denon drew the Sphinx with protruding lips if you refer to the link you
provided. Yet, one doesn’t see the same protruding lips today, do we? Yet, John
Gardiner Wilkinson drew the Sphinx with barely any lips at all and no nose like
that drawn by DENON. Gee Kat, I wonder what happened to the nose and lips during
this time and, BTW, is your camp going to start discrediting DENON now?]
<snip>
>[Katherine, I’ve noticed you seem to be focused on me providing a “statement” by
Denon
>when DENON’s brilliant paintings and drawings are proof enough. What more proof
do you
>need?
Oh, goodness me: you claim a 'statement' by Denon, and now his picture
of the engineers on the head of the Sphinx is a "statement"? Please
give me and most readers to this newsgroup better credit for our
intelligence than this.
[Kat, (YOUR) credibility is questionable and the same for your intelligence.
First off, I didn’t “claim” a statement. I claimed, “an eye-witnessed account”
which you have taken on a new meaning all by yourself. You have insisted, er
rather demanded a “statement.”
You’ve also argued with me about things I’ve stated over a year or two ago (I can
also use that measure) and conveniently cut-and-paste what fits your agenda today
– then you ask me to give you better credit for your intelligence! HA – you got
your people’s mixed up!
Secondly, on the Internet, you can only speak for yourself! To ask me to give
most readers to this newsgroup better credit for their intelligence reminds me of
people like Smelly aka Shithead, PKG, and the likes. These are people who have
displayed their intelligence very well and asking me to give someone credit
without saying who specifically, would be reckless and highly unlikely on my
part. That’s something you can feel free to do…]
>> <snip remainder>
>>
>> Secondary sources do not count as "evidence," after all.
>
>[Katherine, you wrote in another post the following:
>
>> Tom Holmberg, in writing on this topic vis a vis the oft-repeated
>> folktale that Napoleon's troops had defaced the Sphinx, also noted:
>>
>> "...European visitors to Egypt prior to Napoleon's expedition had
>> already discovered the vandalism to the Sphinx. In 1546, for example,
>> when Dr.Pierre Belon explored Egypt, he visited 'the great colossus.'
>> 'The Sphinx,' writes Leslie Greener in _The Discovery Of Egypt_ (London,
>> Cassell, 1966), p.38, by this time 'no longer [had] the stamp of grace
>> and beauty so admired by Abdel Latif in 1200.' Greener goes on to say:
>> 'this exonerates the artillerymen of Napoleon Bonaparte, who have the
>> popular reputation of having used the nose of the Sphinx as a target.'
>> The charge against Napoleon is particularly unjust because the French
>> general brought with him a large group of 'savants' to conduct the first
>> scientific study of Egypt and its antiquities."
>
>Who is Tom Holmberg and what book are you citing him from or does he fit the
“secondary
>source” claim you mention that does not count as evidence?]
I did not cite Holmberg's FAQ or Greener as 'primary evidence.'
[I didn’t mention one way or another how you cited them Kat, only the fact that
you did cite them. My question to you REMAINS: does he fit the “secondary
source” clause you mentioned that does not count as evidence?]
As you
recall, I noted the Makrizi and Hassan information (concerning the Latif
information) as primary evidence first, and then supplied Holmberg (and
the Greener quotations) as supportive statements, as they had _cited_
information of where pre-1798 observations noted the damage to the nose.
[Right Kat, but to what extent of damage to each part “noted” is the damaging
part of your citation…]
<snip>
Makrizi is the primary source, and unless your sources can show
otherwise, I suppose Makrizi's own words will have to do.
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
[Overall Katherine Griffis, Greenberg – whatever: if Makrizi’s own words will
have to do, then I’d say you have no more argument. If it doesn’t fit, you must
quit!
UNUTTERABLE ONE
reac...@best.com
"The Ancient Egyptians were the Black people of Africa, known to the
Ancient Greeks as the 'burnt skinned, woolly haired' people..."
- Unutterable One
“If to the race to which we belong to mankind can ascribe any glory, the
achievements upon which it is founded stretch far away into the past. It is
pleasant to know that in color, form, and features, we are related to the first
successful tillers of the soil; to the people who taught the world agriculture;
that the civilization which made Greece, Rome, and Western Europe illustrious,
and even now makes our own land glorious, sprung forth from the bosom of Africa.
For, while this vast continent was yet undiscovered by civilized men; while the
Briton and the Gallic races wandered like beasts of prey in the forests, the
people of Egypt and Ethiopia rejoiced in well cultivated fields and in abundance
of corn. I follow only the father of history when I say that the ancient
Egyptians were black and their hair woolly. However this may be disputed now,
there is no denying that these people more nearly resembled the African type than
Caucasian.”
-Frederick Douglass]
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
alt.history.ancient-egypt, wrote the following:
>>
>>[Katherine, DENON (drew) what he saw – what statements do I need to prove what
>he drew with his own two hands? When I wrote “an eye witness,” how else could Denon have
>done the extensive paintings and drawings in Egypt if he didn’t see it with his own
>two eyes, and we both know that he was with Napoleon on his excursion…]
<clip of the most unbelievable twaddle and waffle of all time>
Simply put, you said this in your _original _ post:
"...His [Denon's] hand drawing of the Sphinx of Giza
sketched in 1798, shows us the way the statue looked before it was
disfigured. According to eyewitness Baron V. Denon, Napoleon's soldiers
blew its nose and lips apart with cannon fodder during the French
invasion of Egypt."
Now, what I have shown is that _neither_ of these statements are
correct.
For one, Denon's drawings _do not_ "...shows us the way the statue
looked before it was disfigured." Denon shows the nose missing in his
well-known drawing of the engineers measuring the Sphinx in 1798.
From second, there is NO statement by Denon which states "...Napoleon's
soldiers blew its nose and lips apart with cannon fodder during the
French invasion of Egypt."
These are YOUR words: I have asked again and s=again for a cited
passage, page number and or publication which _states_ "...Napoleon's
soldiers blew its nose and lips apart with cannon fodder during the
French invasion of Egypt..." BY DENON.
You have yet to supply such a quote and not waffle about that the
_image_ Denon drew was a "statement." A 'statement' is defined as
"Something stated; a declaration." Produce it, but an image as Denon
has drawn does not say *anything* but what he saw, not how it was
_done_. Period.
I said:
>Most importantly, however, is that _nowhere_ in this picture does it say
>or show _how_ the damage to the Sphinx's face occurred. As such, I fail
>to see how the image can be Denon's statement that "...Napoleon's
>soldiers blew its nose and lips apart with cannon fodder during the
>French invasion of Egypt..."
>
>Where does it say this? In this picture? Anywhere, BY DENON?
You replied:
>[Nowhere in the picture does it say “when” or to what extent of damage was done
>to the nose and lips in earlier references, before the sketches were provided.]
Yes, Stephen, there is the Makrizi document (already cited), and the
images from the 1743 illustration (from Pococke), the 1755 one (from
Norden, far more realistic than hitherto, showing details of the
stratification evident on the face as well as the damaged nose), and the
Belon statement of 1546. All cited images show the nose and lip damage.
Further damage was done by the Mamelukes as well.
All of this evidence comes BEFORE Napoleon came to Egypt. However,
you're so geared to blame it _all_ on Napoleon, you wish to conveniently
forget this.
One last thing: You said
>[... Kat, try to convince someone else of how important these
>so-called “travel books” of the 18th century mean to the academic community?
>Kat, some of your statements are scary…and you question me about your intelligence?]
Stephen, you really need to read with more comprehension, yourself.
Denon's own book, _VOYAGE DANS LA BASSE ET LA HAUTE EGYPTE. Planche du
Voyages Dans La Basse et la Haute Egypte._ (1787) _IS_ a "travel book."
It so impressed Napoleon, it was one of the incentives which drove him
to Egypt, and to also invite Denon to join him.
See;
Gillespie,G. and Dewachter, M. (ed.) _The Monuments of Egypt: the
Napoleonic Edition_. 1987 (Old Saybrook: Konecky and Konecky). See in
particular the excursus about Denon on p. 13.
We shall, as it is said, have to agree to disagree. I just want you to
recall that you do NOT have any evidence of damage to the Sphinx by
Napoleon, except in what you _think_ you see in Denon's drawings.
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
Member, American Research Center in Egypt
International Association of Egyptologists
University of Alabama at Birmingham
CIO
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2001 21:01:40 -0700, CIO <reac...@best.com> in
> alt.history.ancient-egypt, wrote the following:
>
> >>
> >>[Katherine, DENON (drew) what he saw – what statements do I need to prove what
> >he drew with his own two hands? When I wrote “an eye witness,” how else could Denon have
> >done the extensive paintings and drawings in Egypt if he didn’t see it with his own
> >two eyes, and we both know that he was with Napoleon on his excursion…]
>
> <clip of the most unbelievable twaddle and waffle of all time>
[snip]
Is that it, Katrini???
It's obvious you have no argument. Don't think for one minute that I owe you the respect to
finish reading your post or answer to it. NOT!!!
If you think you can pass over all my questions by evading the issues with stupid statements
like the one you made above, you're dead wrong!
You're pathetic...yes I'm referring to YOU, Katrini.
UNUTTERABLE ONE
reac...@best.com
"The Ancient Egyptians were the Black people of Africa, known to the
Ancient Greeks as the 'burnt skinned, woolly haired' people..."
- Unutterable One
“If to the race to which we belong to mankind can ascribe any glory, the achievements upon
which it is founded stretch far away into the past. It is pleasant to know that in color,
form, and features, we are related to the first successful tillers of the soil; to the people
who taught the world agriculture; that the civilization which made Greece, Rome, and Western
Europe illustrious,
and even now makes our own land glorious, sprung forth from the bosom of Africa. For, while
this vast continent was yet undiscovered by civilized men; while the Briton and the Gallic
races wandered like beasts of prey in the forests, the
people of Egypt and Ethiopia rejoiced in well cultivated fields and in abundance of corn. I
follow only the father of history when I say that the ancient Egyptians were black and their
hair woolly. However this may be disputed now, there is no denying that these people more
nearly resembled the African type than Caucasian.” - Frederick Douglass
“It is curious withal, that the earliest known civilization was, we have the strongest reason
to believe, a negro civilization. The original Egyptians inferred, from the evidence of their
sculptures, to have been a Negro race: it was from Negroes, therefore, that the Greeks learnt
their first civilization; and to the records and traditions of these Negroes did the Greek
philosophers to the very end of their career resort (I d not say with much fruit) as a
treasury of mysterious wisdom.” – John Stuart Mill
Steve Marcus
>
> Katherine Griffis-Greenberg wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 26 Jun 2001 21:01:40 -0700, CIO <reac...@best.com> in
> > alt.history.ancient-egypt, wrote the following:
> >
> > >>
> > >>[Katherine, DENON (drew) what he saw – what statements do I need to prove what
> > >he drew with his own two hands? When I wrote “an eye witness,” how else could Denon have
> > >done the extensive paintings and drawings in Egypt if he didn’t see it with his own
> > >two eyes, and we both know that he was with Napoleon on his excursion…]
> >
> > <clip of the most unbelievable twaddle and waffle of all time>
>
> [snip]
>
> Is that it, Katrini???
>
> It's obvious you have no argument. Don't think for one minute that I owe you the respect to
> finish reading your post or answer to it. NOT!!!
>
> If you think you can pass over all my questions by evading the issues with stupid statements
> like the one you made above, you're dead wrong!
Hmmmm.....
In an earlier post addressed to "CIO", Katherine
Griffis-Greenberg wrote, among other telling points:
"You have yet to supply such a quote and not waffle about that
the _image_ Denon drew was a "statement." A 'statement' is
defined as "Something stated; a declaration." Produce it, but an
image as Denon has drawn does not say *anything* but what he saw,
not how it was _done_. Period."
It now appears that you have no answer to her request that you
support your argument with a citation of fact, but instead have
simply ducked your head into the sand and ignored her position in
favor of resorting to the usual ad hominems. There is no
conclusion possible but that you cannot answer Ms.
Griffis-Greenberg on the merits, which then leads to the
conclusion that your position is simply wrong.
>
> You're pathetic...yes I'm referring to YOU, Katrini.
Pot, kettle, dare I say it?
>
> UNUTTERABLE ONE
> reac...@best.com
It becomes clearer all the time why you have to hide behind a
screen name.
Steve
--
The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice,
because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and
should not be construed as either. This posting does not
represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal
view.
PJKG
news:3B247DDB...@best.com...
> Scholar Baron V. Denon confirmed Count de Volney's views in his book,
> "Journey and Travels in Egypt and Assyria." He too, spoke of the
> greatness of the Negroes. His hand drawing of the Sphinx of Giza
> sketched in 1798, shows us the way the statue looked before it was
> disfigured. According to eyewitness Baron V. Denon, Napoleon's soldiers
> blew its nose and lips apart with cannon fodder during the French
> invasion of Egypt.
>
you mentor Luis Farrakhan? Hey Steven Jackson, are you still using college
PC's/Internet to spread your racist twaddle? Oh, and can you post a link to
your website so we can have another good laugh at your depiction of
Nefertiti. If nobody has seen it, it is hilarious.
--
Philip Gould
Moderator - Am...@yahoogroups.com
Subscribe amun-su...@yahoogroups.com
URL http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun
Amun - The Egyptology Information Exchange.
CIO
>
> Katherine Griffis-Greenberg wrote:
>
> > alt.history.ancient-egypt, wrote the following:
> >
> > >>
> > >>[Katherine, DENON (drew) what he saw – what statements do I need to prove what
> > >he drew with his own two hands? When I wrote “an eye witness,” how else could Denon have
> > >done the extensive paintings and drawings in Egypt if he didn’t see it with his own
> > >two eyes, and we both know that he was with Napoleon on his excursion…]
> >
> > <clip of the most unbelievable twaddle and waffle of all time>
>
> [snip]
>
> Is that it, Katrini???
>
> It's obvious you have no argument. Don't think for one minute that I owe you the respect to
> finish reading your post or answer to it. NOT!!!
>
> If you think you can pass over all my questions by evading the issues with stupid
statements
> like the one you made above, you're dead wrong!
Hmmmm.....
In an earlier post addressed to "CIO", Katherine
Griffis-Greenberg wrote, among other telling points:
"You have yet to supply such a quote and not waffle about that
the _image_ Denon drew was a "statement." A 'statement' is
defined as "Something stated; a declaration." Produce it, but an
image as Denon has drawn does not say *anything* but what he saw,
not how it was _done_. Period."
It now appears that you have no answer to her request that you
support your argument with a citation of fact, but instead have
simply ducked your head into the sand and ignored her position in
favor of resorting to the usual ad hominems. There is no
conclusion possible but that you cannot answer Ms.
Griffis-Greenberg on the merits, which then leads to the
conclusion that your position is simply wrong.
[I wrote in my very first post that if you didn't like what was cited, don't flame me, flame
the author. I'm the messenger.
The issue of whether Napoleon and his troops shot off the nose and lips, is quite minuscule
in the scheme of things pertaining to ancient Egypt. We have an intellectual warfare going on
so to focus on this issue alone would be stupid. My position is that I'm tired of debating
with Kathy in particular who evades or ignores my questions while expecting me to answer her
requests. It's not happening. Therefore, your position to side with her is fine with me, same
with your conclusion. Doesn't change my position.
Kathy's definition of "statement" is what she wants it to be or like she tells me, what she
"thinks" it to be...]
> You're pathetic...yes I'm referring to YOU, Katrini.
Pot, kettle, dare I say it?
[I don't give a rat's ass what you dare say...]
>
> UNUTTERABLE ONE
> reac...@best.com
It becomes clearer all the time why you have to hide behind a
screen name.
Steve
[Screen names are like assholes - everyone has one! The internet is recreational, so my use
of a screen name that threatens your existence...yippy!!!
UNUTTERABLE ONE
reac...@best.com
"As between the Egyptians and the Ethiopians, I should not like to say which learned from the
other." - Herodotus
CIO
Subject: Re: Eyewitness to Napoleon's Army Shooting the Sphinx...
Newsgroups: alt.history.ancient-egypt
Date: 2001-06-27 09:18:13 PST
"CIO" <reac...@best.com> wrote in message
news:3B247DDB...@best.com...
> Scholar Baron V. Denon confirmed Count de Volney's views in his book,
> "Journey and Travels in Egypt and Assyria." He too, spoke of the
> greatness of the Negroes. His hand drawing of the Sphinx of Giza
> sketched in 1798, shows us the way the statue looked before it was
> disfigured. According to eyewitness Baron V. Denon, Napoleon's soldiers
> blew its nose and lips apart with cannon fodder during the French
> invasion of Egypt.
>
You don't half talk a lot of racist Farrakhanian crap Steven Jackson. How is
you mentor Luis Farrakhan? Hey Steven Jackson, are you still using college
PC's/Internet to spread your racist twaddle? Oh, and can you post a link to
your website so we can have another good laugh at your depiction of
Nefertiti. If nobody has seen it, it is hilarious.
--
Philip Gould
Moderator - Am...@yahoogroups.com
Subscribe amun-su...@yahoogroups.com
[Hey Philis, I thought you crawled under the rock you live under. You remind me of a tiny
piece of lint, insignificant. And as usual, you're up to the same old name-calling and racist
baiting. But like I said, insignificant...
Your comments about Nefertiti and my web site - insignificant.
You are, insignificant. From what I remember and what you display, you're as ignorant as they
come.
UNUTTERABLE ONE
reac...@best.com
"The Ancient Egyptians were the Black people of Africa, known to the Ancient Greeks as the
'burnt skinned, woolly haired' people..." - Unutterable One
“It is curious withal, that the earliest known civilization was, we have the strongest reason
PJKG
Ah, Steven (the racist) Jackson, why don't you post your website address so
that the entire group can have a good laugh. You made Nefertiti look like
the woman (Tom's owner) out of the old Tom and Jerry cartoons so, with this,
you are doing black people a great disservice with your rampant Afrocentric
revisionist racism. Go on, post the link, I (an I am sure other's of this
NG) could do with a really good laugh. If I can find the link, I will post
it myself.
Now after this, why don't you go back to your Farrakhanian masters. FWIW, I
consider any form of racism, whether it by White Supremacy or Black
Afrocentric Revisionism, deplorable and you are a devoted disciple.
BTW, I will be checking the headers of your messages to see if you are
misappropriating college IT recourses, and if so, will forward them all to
your college for their consideration.
Once again, just for the record, the Ancient Egyptian were neither Black or
White or Asiatic, they were, and still are, a mixture of ethnic backgrounds.
--
Philip Gould
Moderator - Am...@yahoogroups.com
Subscribe amun-su...@yahoogroups.com
Steve Marcus
Translation: "CIO" is spouting stuff that is wrong, but "CIO"
heard/read about this wrong stuff from someone else, so don't
blame "CIO" if it's wrong.
>
> The issue of whether Napoleon and his troops shot off the nose and lips, is quite minuscule
> in the scheme of things pertaining to ancient Egypt.
Translation: "CIO" has alleged something which is simply wrong.
It was important when "CIO" first alleged it, but now that it has
been shown to be unsupportable twaddle, it has become
unimportant.
We have an intellectual warfare going on
> so to focus on this issue alone would be stupid.
Translation: "CIO" will do/say anything during this
"intellectual warfare", but when called on to back up allegations
on an issue that "CIO" originally focused on, "CIO" is unable to
do so, and so will suddenly declare that the arguing the issue
very issue that "CIO" first raised is stupid.
My position is that I'm tired of debating
> with Kathy in particular who evades or ignores my questions while expecting me to answer her
> requests.
With respect to to first clause of the above (all prior to
"while"), I've followed this discussion. Ms. Griffis-Greenberg
has not ignored or evaded any question or issue. If you
disagree, cite the specific question or issue, together with
header information.
The translation of the second clause of the above: "CIO" has
made some claims, but cannot be expected to support them with
evidence. In the face of evidence showing the claims to be
nonsense, "CIO" will simply refuse to discuss the claims anymore,
preferring to advance them to a group who is not so knowledgeable
as to be able to show the claims to be nonsense.
It's not happening. Therefore, your position to side with her is
fine with me, same
> with your conclusion. Doesn't change my position.
Translation: "CIO" has an agenda, and anything that doesn't
agree with or advance that agenda is to be ignored, no matter how
clearly supportable with inarguable fact. In other words, a
classic case of the closed mind.
>
> Kathy's definition of "statement" is what she wants it to be or like she tells me, what she
> "thinks" it to be...]
Translation: Notwithstanding that the word "statement" is in the
dictionary, and what CIO has been posting re Denon cannot be
supported by a "statement" meeting any dictionary definition,
"CIO" prefers to allege that the inability of CIO to back up
"CIO's" claim is somehow Ms. Griffis-Greenberg's fault.
>
> > You're pathetic...yes I'm referring to YOU, Katrini.
>
> Pot, kettle, dare I say it?
>
> [I don't give a rat's ass what you dare say...]
Naturally not, since your mind is closed, you don't care what
anyone who can debate you with facts cares to say.
>
> >
> > UNUTTERABLE ONE
> > reac...@best.com
>
> It becomes clearer all the time why you have to hide behind a
> screen name.
>
> Steve
>
> [Screen names are like assholes - everyone has one! The internet is recreational, so my use
> of a screen name that threatens your existence...yippy!!!
Hmmmm..... Ms. Griffis-Greenberg doesn't have a screen name. I
don't. She is willing to stand behind what she posts. So am I.
You on the other hand seem to enjoy hiding behind a screen name;
at least you seem to be unwilling to put your own name behind
your claims.
>
> UNUTTERABLE ONE
> reac...@best.com
>
> "As between the Egyptians and the Ethiopians, I should not like to say which learned from the
> other." - Herodotus
>
> "The Ancient Egyptians were the Black people of Africa, known to the Ancient Greeks as the
> 'burnt skinned, woolly haired' people..." - Unutterable One
>
> “If to the race to which we belong to mankind can ascribe any glory, the achievements upon
> which it is founded stretch far away into the past. It is pleasant to know that in color,
> form, and features, we are related to the first successful tillers of the soil; to the people
> who taught the world agriculture; that the civilization which made Greece, Rome, and Western
> Europe illustrious,
> and even now makes our own land glorious, sprung forth from the bosom of Africa. For, while
> this vast continent was yet undiscovered by civilized men; while the Briton and the Gallic
> races wandered like beasts of prey in the forests, the people of Egypt and Ethiopia rejoiced
> in well cultivated fields and in abundance of corn. I follow only the father of history when
> I say that the ancient Egyptians were black and their hair woolly. However this may be
> disputed now, there is no denying that these people more nearly resembled the African type
> than Caucasian.” -Frederick Douglass]
Steve
UNUTTERABLE ONE
Ah, Philis (the White Supremacist) Gould, insignificant. I don't give
a rat's ass what you tell my college or otherwise, it goes to show
what type of human you are, right down to the soul. As you are,
insignificant. Do what you gotta do...and my website was your
nightmare. I don't care how funny you thought it was...you can't do
half the job I can. Period. As you are, insignificant.
You made Nefertiti look like
> the woman (Tom's owner) out of the old Tom and Jerry cartoons so, with this,
> you are doing black people a great disservice with your rampant Afrocentric
> revisionist racism. Go on, post the link, I (an I am sure other's of this
> NG) could do with a really good laugh. If I can find the link, I will post
> it myself.
>
> Now after this, why don't you go back to your Farrakhanian masters. FWIW, I
> consider any form of racism, whether it by White Supremacy or Black
> Afrocentric Revisionism, deplorable and you are a devoted disciple.
>
> BTW, I will be checking the headers of your messages to see if you are
> misappropriating college IT recourses, and if so, will forward them all to
> your college for their consideration.
>
> Once again, just for the record, the Ancient Egyptian were neither Black or
> White or Asiatic, they were, and still are, a mixture of ethnic backgrounds.
EXACTLY my point about tremendous stupidity. Insignificant, Philis.
UNUTTERABLE ONE
reac...@best.com
"The Ancient Egyptians were the Black people of Africa, known to the
Ancient Greeks as the 'burnt skinned, woolly haired' people..."
- Unutterable One
P.S. Go censor yourself...
PJKG
> Ah, Philis (the White Supremacist) Gould, insignificant. I don't give
> a rat's ass what you tell my college or otherwise, it goes to show
> what type of human you are, right down to the soul. As you are,
> insignificant. Do what you gotta do...and my website was your
> nightmare. I don't care how funny you thought it was...you can't do
> half the job I can. Period. As you are, insignificant.
>
Ah, Mr Steven (Black, KKK equivalent) Jackson,
Me a White Supremacist, hah! what a load of racist rubbish you talk Mr
Steven (Farrakhan) Jackson. Sorry to disappoint you but not only do I have
black folk working for me I also have Back folk as friends too, which is
pretty much more than you will ever say.
As for your website being my nightmare, no I found it extremely funny the
way you mutilated the bust of Nefertiti to suit your own racist agenda. No,
when I find it, I will have an exceptionally good laugh and will naturally
post the URL so the rest of this NG can see what a laughing stock you have
made yourself. Because Steven, basically you are a laughing stock with your
reddiculous ideas and agenda.
As for the headers, naturally I will send the tripe that you are posting out
of your rear end to Usenet to your college for their consideration. Now why
don't you crawl back into the dung hill whence you came from, racist scum!
--
Philip Gould
Moderator - Am...@yahoogroups.com
Subscribe amun-su...@yahoogroups.com
PJKG
> > remind me of a tiny
> > > piece of lint, insignificant. And as usual, you're up to the same old
> > name-calling and racist
> > > baiting. But like I said, insignificant...
> > >
> > > Your comments about Nefertiti and my web site - insignificant.
> > >
> > > You are, insignificant. From what I remember and what you display,
you're
> > as ignorant as they
> > > come.
> > >
> > > UNUTTERABLE ONE
> > > reac...@best.com
> > >
> >
Jackson, you, your agenda, ideas, your ludicrous website, guess what, all
insignificant and of course, laughable to the extreme. Go crawl back to your
Afocentric dunghill and report to your Farrakhanian masters, you racist
idiot.
--
--
Philip Gould
Moderator - Am...@yahoogroups.com
Subscribe amun-su...@yahoogroups.com
PJKG
> remind me of a tiny
> piece of lint, insignificant. And as usual, you're up to the same old
> name-calling and racist
> baiting. But like I said, insignificant...
>
> Your comments about Nefertiti and my web site - insignificant.
>
> You are, insignificant. From what I remember and what you display, you're
> as ignorant as they
> come.
>
> UNUTTERABLE ONE
> reac...@best.com
>
Ah, Steve (Farrakhan) Jackson,
Censor this http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ta_Seti/message/296 and some of
the replies!
--
Philip Gould
Moderator - Am...@yahoogroups.com
Subscribe amun-su...@yahoogroups.com
CIO
(?)
Anyway, the fact that Kathy started squawking about some "statement" from Denon would require me to
get the man himself. Furthermore, I never said that Denon made the "statement" other than saying
his statement was his drawings - in fact if you read the post and (exactly) what I wrote, it says
that Denon was an "eye-witness account" and Kathy started on her tirade. And you are her
cheerleader.
The reason I said this issue is minuscule, is because it is when one starts asking the right
questions, like about the so-called "evidence" that Kathy uses from Makrizi about the damage of the
nose, ear, and face WITHOUT DESCRIBING TO WHAT EXTENT OF DAMAGE is not really evidence at all. A
statement of fact that its damaged, fine, but no real evidence of any sort. OK, the Sphinx was
damaged before Napoleon but the point Afrocentrist want to know is WHO damaged it more than what
various illustrations show and the stories many people have heard no matter how much you claim it
to be a myth, the story has been told and like Kathi mentioned, it's been rehashed in a 1999 movie,
this myth. I've already pointed this out.
As far as the illustrations, its not what I think they show, but what the evidence of the
illustrations show from both Denon and from Wilkinson...so translate that into something
intelligent. Instead, you and the likes of Kathy would rather squawk about some "statement" and how
I didn't provide you "proof" of a statement when I said originally that Denon was an "eye witness
account". It doesn't matter. What matters is the questions are still present about the damage and
WHO damaged it and why did they focus only on the features of the Sphinx? Translation: The Sphinx
resembled African people. Translation: BLACK people. Translate that...
> <snip>
>
> My position is that I'm tired of debating
> > with Kathy in particular who evades or ignores my questions while expecting me to answer her
> > requests.
>
> With respect to to first clause of the above (all prior to
> "while"), I've followed this discussion. Ms. Griffis-Greenberg
> has not ignored or evaded any question or issue. If you
> disagree, cite the specific question or issue, together with
> header information.
The questions above for starters and don't ask me for headers and shit, I'm not your puppet. You
know how to sort, surely. I also asked about her "1920's tourist myth" about Napoleon shooting the
Sphinx with a canon that became so well known and taught at one time by historians/Egyptologist(?),
and now proclaim it to be a myth. I was always taught, where there's smoke there's usually fire and
this fire starts with Napoleon. Sure, he didn't damage it completely, but its very likely that he
did when you review the various illustrations.
> The translation of the second clause of the above: "CIO" has
> made some claims, but cannot be expected to support them with
> evidence. In the face of evidence showing the claims to be
> nonsense, "CIO" will simply refuse to discuss the claims anymore,
> preferring to advance them to a group who is not so knowledgeable
> as to be able to show the claims to be nonsense.
You got your people's mixed up just like Kathy. You wish to know me...but ya never will. I'm simply
refusing to discuss these issues with people like yourself who instead of focusing on the issues,
attack the messenger. I don't care though, and you and some of your croonies don't understand
this...translate that into something intelligent.
> It's not happening. Therefore, your position to side with her is
> fine with me, same
> > with your conclusion. Doesn't change my position.
>
> Translation: "CIO" has an agenda, and anything that doesn't
> agree with or advance that agenda is to be ignored, no matter how
> clearly supportable with inarguable fact. In other words, a
> classic case of the closed mind.
Translation: I'm ignoring people like you who have nothing better than to discuss me and some
agenda, instead of the issues. Closed mind? ...[words cannot describe but you make me want to
spit.]
As far as the rest of what you had to say...yawn!
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
alt.history.ancient-egypt, wrote the following:
>Anyway, the fact that Kathy started squawking about some "statement" from Denon would require me to
>get the man himself. Furthermore, I never said that Denon made the "statement" other than saying
>his statement was his drawings - in fact if you read the post and (exactly) what I wrote, it says
>that Denon was an "eye-witness account" and Kathy started on her tirade. And you are her
>cheerleader.
It seems Marcus can apparently read a dictionary as well as anyone.
And before you "waffle" yourself into a further well, recall please that
your EXACT QUOTE is as follows:
"... His hand drawing of the Sphinx of Giza sketched in 1798, shows us
the way the statue looked before it was disfigured. According to
eyewitness Baron V. Denon, Napoleon's soldiers blew its nose and lips
apart with cannon fodder during the French invasion of Egypt."
From: CIO <reac...@best.com>
Newsgroups: alt.history.ancient-egypt
Subject: Eyewitness to Napoleon's Army Shooting the Sphinx...
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 01:14:19 -0700
Message-ID: <3B247DDB...@best.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: dynamic25.pm15.san-jose.best.com
I noted and will continue to note that
a) Denon's 1798 sketch does not show "...the way the statue looked
before it was disfigured." Denon's own drawing clearly shows the nose
is missing and since it is shown from the _left side of the face_, the
drawing cannot show what damage, if any, was done to the _right side_ of
the lips. Therefore, we know two things from Denon's drawing that
proves your statement false:
1) That Denon's drawing shows damage to the Sphinx's nose, and
2) that there is nothing in Denon's drawing (if we even assumed your
claim it was some sort of "statement,"* which it is not) which shows
any damage to the lips (as it was never drawn).
b) There is nothing, in any of Denon's works -- drawings OR texts --
which "state" (see normal definitions for this word, below) that
"...Napoleon's soldiers blew its nose and lips apart with cannon fodder
during the French invasion of Egypt."
* ( I use "statement" in the normal English Dictionary use of the word,
BTW; my quoted definition in my previous post was in fact from the
American Heritage English Dictionary [AHED]. FWIW, the Oxford English
Dictionary [OED] agrees: "statement: 1. stating or being stated;
expression in words.")
Oh, and BTW, "CIO"/Stephen: perhaps again you should carefully check
your sources' usage of terms before making such statements (I am
assuming you are quoting Freeman/Griffin, ben-Jochannan, or Diop here,
BTW). If you ever decide to do some _real research_ on the matter, you
will find that "cannon fodder" is defined in ALL English dictionaries as
cannon-fodder n. soldiers regarded as expendable. Soldiers, sailors, or
other military personnel regarded as likely to be killed or wounded in
combat. [OED, AHED]
By your sources' (or _your_) statement, apparently Napoleon is claimed
to have shot _soldiers_ at the Sphinx <??>.
I really do want to see this statement from Denon now, and I await your
careful research to submit it to the newsgroup for any reader to this
forum to read, not just me. If Denon saw soldiers being "fired at" the
Sphinx, that's an image I certainly wouldn't soon forget, I think. I
also feel _sure_ Denon would want to commit that image not only to text
but to a drawing as well, wouldn't you think? So, let's see that image
as well.
>The reason I said this issue is minuscule, is because it is when one starts asking the right
>questions, like about the so-called "evidence" that Kathy uses from Makrizi about the damage of the
>nose, ear, and face WITHOUT DESCRIBING TO WHAT EXTENT OF DAMAGE is not really evidence at all. A
>statement of fact that its damaged, fine, but no real evidence of any sort. OK, the Sphinx was
>damaged before Napoleon but the point Afrocentrist want to know is WHO damaged it
And this information, with citations so you can read the contemporary
documents from the period itself, has been given to you. el-Makrizi
described _who_ did the deed (Sai'm el Dahr), _why_ it was done
(el-Makrizi cites, as late as the 14th century, some Egyptians were
still burning milk-thistle (shuka'a) and safflower (badhaward) at the
foot of the Sphinx and murning a verse 63 times in hope that their
wishes would be fulfilled; the extremist sufi took it upon himself to
destroy the object of their idolatry), and _to what extent_ Sa'im al
Dahr damaged the Sphinx (el-Makrizi specifically notes damage to the
nose, ears, and face).
Again, if you are the "scholar" you claim, do get yourself a copy of
el-Makrizi's work in
al-Maqrizi, Taqi al-Din Ahmad ibn `Ali ibn `Abd al-Qadir ibn Muhammad,
and Gaston Wiet. 1924. el-Mawa`iz wa'l-i`tibar fi dhikr el-khitat
wa'l-athar. Volume 4: Deuxieme partie, chapt. L-XCIV. Memoires publies
par les membres de l'Institut francais d'archeologie orientale du Caire
49. Cairo: Imprimerie de l'Institut francais d'archeologie orientale.
section 2:415.
Whatever you might fuss and fume about this, this is information which
is far more certifiable and valid evidence than your so-called Denon
"evidence" of Napoleon's "shooting off the nose of the Sphinx," which
appears to be *no evidence at all*, except what YOU seem to see in a
flat drawing with no textual assertion of such a claim.
Last I checked, this does not constitute "proof" in any known form of
valid scholarship of which I am aware.
>As far as the illustrations, its not what I think they show, but what the evidence of the
>illustrations show from both Denon and from Wilkinson...so translate that into something
>intelligent. Instead, you and the likes of Kathy would rather squawk about some "statement" and how
>I didn't provide you "proof" of a statement when I said originally that Denon was an "eye witness
>account". It doesn't matter. What matters is the questions are still present about the damage and
>WHO damaged it and why did they focus only on the features of the Sphinx?
Asked and answered ad nauseam in this thread alone: Sa'im Al Dahr in
1378 CE, in Egypt, the _specific_ reasons for the mutilation of the
Sphinx's nose was to destroy/insult an "idol" which offended Al-Dahr's
extreme Muslim views, because he saw offerings were being made to it by
local Egyptians of the 14th century. All noted and documented by
el-Makrizi in his "el-Khitat." (cited above)
>Translation: The Sphinx
>resembled African people. Translation: BLACK people. Translate that...
My translation: "I have to waffle and confuse issues as much as
possible because I have a subjective political agenda, not because I
have any objective, verifiable, or documented evidence for any of my
statements so this (or just about anything I have stated so far on these
newsgroups)."
>You got your people's mixed up just like Kathy. You wish to know me...but ya never will. I'm simply
>refusing to discuss these issues with people like yourself who instead of focusing on the issues,
>attack the messenger. I don't care though, and you and some of your croonies don't understand
>this...translate that into something intelligent.
Best as anyone can tell so far, it is YOU who "attacks the messenger,"
when asked for evidence and support of your assertions. You put it out
there as fact, and when just about everyone (including Martin Stower,
b...@antispam.net, and Guus Besuijen, as well as myself, on this thread
alone) has asked for your "documented evidence," you have gone
ballistic. Rather than give appropriate citations when asked, you have
a) cited works which don't exist,
b) belittled the sources which are contemporaneous with the actual event
of damaging of the Sphinx's nose (that is, the el-Makrizi citations from
the 14th century CE, almost 400 years *before* Napoleon entered Egypt),
for no other reason than these sources contradicted with contemporaneous
evidence your "facts" on the issue;
c) claimed a drawing of a damaged Sphinx being measured by two engineers
in 1798 is somehow a "statement" by Denon (which boggles the imagination
of anyone who understands what a 'statement' is, BTW); and
d) become insulting to any and all who disagree with your so-called
"evidence" or your methods of presentation.
Oh, and about that 1920's tourist myth origin of the Napoleon damage:
you may recall, from my earlier post, it was James Morgan who noted it
was a legend among the "Arabs" (as he called the local Egyptian
populace) said even _he_ knew this information was false when he heard
it, and he was aware of the damage from the 14th century.*
So, the "myth" was not believed by many in its time, and to date, I have
never known of *any* modern Egyptian to tell me the Sphinx's nose was
"blown off by Napoleon," either. Seems tourist myths are often created
to "please" the tourist in Egypt, and if one knows their European
history (as the Egyptians do), one would know the Egyptians knew the
French and the British rarely got along. What better way to stoke up
animosity to the French in the early 20th century than by telling your
British and American tourists (who were enamored with Egypt at the time,
and the British held Egypt in a protectorate between 1914 - 1922, BTW)
the _French_ were responsible for the deed?
In all, this doesn't mean this story was any truer _then_ when it was
told in the early 20th century than it is now, as we have the
_contemporaneous_ 14th century CE documents of el-Makrizi to describe
WHO, HOW and WHY the damage was done, and how the event was 400 years
*before* Napoleon arrived in Egypt.
* (_In the Footsteps of Napoleon_ (1915) by James Morgan, p. 85) states
'There is a tradition among the Arabs of the Pyramids that all the scars
of time and the wounds of a hundred wars, which the Sphinx carries, were
inflicted by Napoleon's soldiers, who used its mystifying and majestic
countenance as a target. That, however, is only a legend for the
tourist. Long before the discovery of gunpowder, the Arabs had laid
iconoclastic hands on the beard of this god of the desert...'
(quoted earlier by myself in review of the Sphinx FAQ by Tom Holmberg in
From: Katherine Griffis-Greenberg <egy...@griffis-consulting.com>
Newsgroups: alt.history.ancient-egypt
Subject: Re: Eyewitness to Napoleon's Army Shooting the Sphinx...
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 08:39:33 -0500
Message-ID: <tgm3jt8h4sv6gspm8...@4ax.com> )
"CIO" said:
> The issue of whether Napoleon and his troops shot off the nose and lips, is quite minuscule
> in the scheme of things pertaining to ancient Egypt.
Rather interesting comment since, on June 11, 2001, when you posted the
first post to this thread (partially quoted above), it was a _very
important_ part of your evidence of the perfidy of the "Europeans" in
deny Egypt's "black" history. It's quoted ad nauseam in just about
every Afrocentric work I have read as "evidence" of how the "Europeans"
denied the "African" nature of Egypt. In fact, it is the _primary_
evidence give for such intentions in almost all such works. However, it
_did not happen_, and when pressed for verifiable evidence of its
occurrence, you waffle and insult.
Your opinion, it seems, is all _you_ need to go by, as you have not
produced the Denon evidence you claim exists, which supposedly "prove"
your above assertion. Fine, I believe if you get a mirror, you will
have yourself your very own captive audience, BTW However, pardon us if
the rest of the newsgroup doesn't seem too impressed with your
'evidence' thus far. I doubt many readers to this newsgroup actually
care much anymore, since you have spent the better part of two days
insulting everyone who has pointed out to you your 'evidence' is
nonexistent, when you could have just as easily produced the "statement"
you claim Denon made in that period of time.
Oh, BTW: so glad you can find as many ways as you can to find variants
of my name (Kathy, Katrini, etc): I gather you found yourself a name
book or something to use for "research." It's not a problem for me, you
see, as I post under my own name and know most variants of my name,
anyway.
End of discussion.
AWayman29
>Date: 6/27/01 1:01 AM Atlantic Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3B395AA4...@best.com>
I nose was shot off during the Islamic invasion. The goverment did'nt want
people to worship the Sphinx as a god. For some of the Islamic faith were.
Steve Marcus
Seems pretty straightforward to me. You wrote "don't flame me,
flame the author. I'm the messenger." What else does that mean
except that anything I've posted I know nothing about except that
someone else told me or wrote it down for me? In short, you
think it's okay to post drivel and then to disavow responsibility
for the drivel because you are merely repeating it.
>
> Anyway, the fact that Kathy started squawking about some "statement" from Denon would require me to
> get the man himself.
Nope. All you need is to cite anything that Denon wrote down.
You seem to have no trouble reproducing Frederick Douglass'
statement in your signature line below. Did you "get the man
himself", or can you cite a source for it? Somehow, I suspect
it's the latter; so let's not try to hide behind the fact that
Denon is long dead so you can't ask him to confirm what you have
claimed that he said.
Furthermore, I never said that Denon made the "statement" other
than saying
> his statement was his drawings - in fact if you read the post and (exactly) what I wrote, it says
> that Denon was an "eye-witness account" and Kathy started on her tirade. And you are her
> cheerleader.
Denon's drawings are of a damaged Sphinx. They drawings do not
constitute a statement as to who damaged it, when it was damaged,
why it was damaged, etc.
>
> The reason I said this issue is minuscule, is because it is when one starts asking the right
> questions, like about the so-called "evidence" that Kathy uses from Makrizi about the damage of the
> nose, ear, and face WITHOUT DESCRIBING TO WHAT EXTENT OF DAMAGE is not really evidence at all. A
> statement of fact that its damaged, fine, but no real evidence of any sort.
So you concede that the Sphinx was damaged prior to Napoleon's
visit to Egypt? Now please understand that the evidence cited by
Ms. Griffis-Greenberg is real; it is in a written reference that
has not been demonstrated to be erroneous, and now you have just
agreed that the reference in fact states that the Sphinx was
damaged.
Don't you realize that this constitutes infinitely more evidence
than you have adduced for your position, since you have produced
zero evidence that Napoleon's troops damaged the Sphinx, and zero
evidence as to why they allegedly damaged it?
OK, the Sphinx was
> damaged before Napoleon but the point Afrocentrist want to know is WHO damaged it more than what
> various illustrations show and the stories many people have heard no matter how much you claim it
> to be a myth, the story has been told and like Kathi mentioned, it's been rehashed in a 1999 movie,
> this myth. I've already pointed this out.
What historians want to know, (other than Afrocentrists, I
guess), is whether Napoleon's troops damaged the Sphinx at all.
So far, you've produced zero evidence to support your claim that
they did. Therefore, there is no issue of "who damaged it more";
the sole verifiable evidence being that posted by Ms.
Griffis-Greenberg.
>
> As far as the illustrations, its not what I think they show, but what the evidence of the
> illustrations show from both Denon and from Wilkinson...so translate that into something
> intelligent.
The illustrations show damage. They do not tell you who caused
it, when it was caused, or why it was caused. Now you do
something intelligent why explaining why the preceding sentence
is wrong.
Instead, you and the likes of Kathy would rather squawk about
some "statement" and how
> I didn't provide you "proof" of a statement when I said originally that Denon was an "eye witness
> account". It doesn't matter.
It does not matter only to folks like you, who obviously don't
care about real history, but only care to prattle on about some
"history" that fits their preconceived agenda, which "history"
they cannot support with any evidence.
What matters is the questions are still present about the damage
and
> WHO damaged it and why did they focus only on the features of the Sphinx?
Oh. So now the issues of the (extent of) the damage and who
damaged it are "questions"? I thought that you said that
Napoleon's troops did the deed, producing the damage that we see
today, in order to hide the fact that the facial features of the
Sphinx were distinctively "black". It's nice to see you finally
admit that you are merely raising questions, rather than actually
advancing anything factual, even though I suspect that you are so
unthinking at this point that you don't even realize that you
just did.
Translation: The Sphinx
> resembled African people. Translation: BLACK people. Translate that...
I just have, in the above post and in particular in the above
paragraph. It is sure speculation, for which you have zero
evidence, as you have just admitted. Your turn to "translate
that".
>
> > <snip>
> >
> > My position is that I'm tired of debating
> > > with Kathy in particular who evades or ignores my questions while expecting me to answer her
> > > requests.
> >
> > With respect to to first clause of the above (all prior to
> > "while"), I've followed this discussion. Ms. Griffis-Greenberg
> > has not ignored or evaded any question or issue. If you
> > disagree, cite the specific question or issue, together with
> > header information.
>
> The questions above for starters and don't ask me for headers and shit, I'm not your puppet. You
> know how to sort, surely.
Indeed I do. That's why I know that she responded to each and
every point you raised, citing authority for her replies. You
may, if you wish, quarrel with her authorities, but certainly not
with Ms. Griffis-Greenberg's presentation of them. It's indeed
amazing that she had the patience to produce such complete and
supported information in reply to your antagonistic, unsupported
speculations; I suspect that she does that for the benefit of
others following the thread because it's certain that you are
bound and determined not to let any information contradicting
your preconceived agenda penetrate your mind.
I also asked about her "1920's tourist myth" about Napoleon
shooting the
> Sphinx with a canon that became so well known and taught at one time by historians/Egyptologist(?),
> and now proclaim it to be a myth. I was always taught, where there's smoke there's usually fire and
> this fire starts with Napoleon. Sure, he didn't damage it completely, but its very likely that he
> did when you review the various illustrations.
If there is fire where there is smoke, why do you disregard the
references to the fact that the Sphinx was defaced hundreds of
years before Napoleon?
>
> > The translation of the second clause of the above: "CIO" has
> > made some claims, but cannot be expected to support them with
> > evidence. In the face of evidence showing the claims to be
> > nonsense, "CIO" will simply refuse to discuss the claims anymore,
> > preferring to advance them to a group who is not so knowledgeable
> > as to be able to show the claims to be nonsense.
>
> You got your people's mixed up just like Kathy. You wish to know me...but ya never will.
That's about the wrongest thing that you have ever posted. I
have no wish to know you at all. I'm willing to listen to your
point of view, but after about the third post which presents no
support for your point of view and dismisses truckloads of
evidence tending to contradict your point of view, I'm afraid
that your point of view no longer interests me either.
I'm simply
> refusing to discuss these issues with people like yourself who instead of focusing on the issues,
> attack the messenger.
Once again, you disclaim responsibility for posting information
that simply isn't accurate. Wouldn't it be better for you to
establish the accuracy of what you post prior to posting it?
I don't care though, and you and some of your croonies don't
understand
> this...translate that into something intelligent.
I well understand that you don't care. Not so long as you
continue to pursue your agenda. If you can confuse one mind into
buying in, that's all that you are interested in. That you are
selling twaddle bothers you not at all.
>
> > It's not happening. Therefore, your position to side with her is
> > fine with me, same
> > > with your conclusion. Doesn't change my position.
> >
> > Translation: "CIO" has an agenda, and anything that doesn't
> > agree with or advance that agenda is to be ignored, no matter how
> > clearly supportable with inarguable fact. In other words, a
> > classic case of the closed mind.
>
> Translation: I'm ignoring people like you who have nothing better than to discuss me and some
> agenda, instead of the issues. Closed mind? ...[words cannot describe but you make me want to
> spit.]
>
> As far as the rest of what you had to say...yawn!
I wonder whether you will keep "ignoring me" by posting ever
increasing legnthening posts of ever decreasing substance. Have
a nice day.
>
> UNUTTERABLE ONE
> reac...@best.com
>
> "As between the Egyptians and the Ethiopians, I should not like to say which learned from the
> other." - Herodotus
>
> "The Ancient Egyptians were the Black people of Africa, known to the Ancient Greeks as the
> 'burnt skinned, woolly haired' people..." - Unutterable One
>
> “If to the race to which we belong to mankind can ascribe any glory, the achievements upon
> which it is founded stretch far away into the past. It is pleasant to know that in color,
> form, and features, we are related to the first successful tillers of the soil; to the people
> who taught the world agriculture; that the civilization which made Greece, Rome, and Western
> Europe illustrious, and even now makes our own land glorious, sprung forth from the bosom of
> Africa.
> For, while this vast continent was yet undiscovered by civilized men; while the Briton and the
> Gallic
> races wandered like beasts of prey in the forests, the people of Egypt and Ethiopia rejoiced
> in well cultivated fields and in abundance of corn. I follow only the father of history when
> I say that the ancient Egyptians were black and their hair woolly. However this may be
> disputed now, there is no denying that these people more nearly resembled the African type
> than Caucasian.” -Frederick Douglass]
Steve
CIO
[For the umpteenth time – I DO NOT HAVE A STATEMENT BY DENON. I quoted the source I provided and you’ve
shown quite well the problems with that quote, however and nor by any means, was it entirely wrong. I
know EXACTLY what cannon-fodder means and it doesn’t make sense, but that is what the author quoted and
I quoted EXACTLY what was said. I do not care if you don’t like it.
You keep citing el-Makrizi who you say described who “did the deed” which is Sai’m el Dahr and why it
was done – yet – you never answer to what extent of damage that was done to the nose, ear, and face.
The drawings used to compare the great Sphinx and its transformations that I am speaking of are based on
the drawings found in “NILE VALLEY CONTRIBUTIONS TO CIVILIZATION” by Anthony Browder.
Mr. Browder made some interesting points that I’ll repeat as follows:
In response to a direct inquiry regarding Napoleon’s involvement with the destruction of Her-em-akhet
(Sphinx), the museum official stated that, “The head of the Sphinx was damaged long before Napoleon
reached Egypt.” I was then provided with copies of prints to support that assertion. One of the
documents sent to me was a copy of page 36 from the April, 1991 issue of National Geographic. This copy
referenced an article written by the American archaeologist Mark Lehner, who is directing the
reconstruction of the Sphinx. Lehner commented:
I sought clues from history and archaeology for the computer reconstruction of the Sphinx. An early 15th
Century Arab historian reported that the face had been disfigured in that time. Yet to this day the
damage is wrongly attributed to Napoleon’s troops. Scholars accompanying the French invasion of 1798
recorded the monolith and the antiquities, opening Egypt to European scholarship.
Mark Lehner’s statement concerning the early 15th century Arab historian who reported the face had been
disfigured in that time references the writings of El Makrizi who died in 1436 A.C.E. and reads:
“In our time there was a man whose name was Saim-el-Dahr, one of the Sufis. This man wished to remedy
religious matters, and he went to the pyramids and disfigured the face of Abul-Hol (the Arabic name of
Her-em-akhet), which has remained in this state from that time to the present. From the time of
disfigurement the sand has invaded the cultivated lands of Giza and the people attribute this to the
disfigurement of Abul-Hol.”
Nowhere in this statement does El Makrizi mention what portion of the face was disfigured or the extent
of damage. It seems reasonable, had the nose been broken or missing, it would have been mentioned. Ms.
Griffis contends that Makrizi specifically notes damage to the nose, ears, and face.” (see below) And I
conclude, that isn’t substantial evidence to any “extent of damage” to those areas mentioned. Surely you
can look-up EXTENT in the dictionary…since you’re so good at that.
Further, Browder summarizes the illustrations used for this comparison including that of Denon and I’ll
repeat them here:
I have assembled a collection of portraits of Her-em-akhet that were drawn over a period of 100 years,
from 1698 to 1798. These illustrations are the only evidence currently available showing the
deterioration of the statue over the years. Careful observation reveals that the greatest destruction
took place during Napoleon’s occupation of Egypt.
ILLUSTRATION 1 – is dated 1698, and it shows a poorly proportioned, almost European-looking face. The
nose and lips are intact.
ILLUSTRATION 2 – is dated 1743, and it is similar in appearance to Illustration 1. Both drawings 1 and 2
show the nose and lips intact. This physical evidence contradicts Mark Lehner’s statement concerning the
“early 15th Century Arab historian” who “reported that the face had been disfigured in his time.”
ILLUSTRATION 3 – is dated 1755, and shows the first evidence of damage. We can, therefore, assume that
the nose was “partially damaged” sometime between 1743 and 1755. We can also see in this picture that
the bridge of the nose and the lips are still in place.
ILLUSTRATION 4 – was drawn by the famous artist Vivant Denon who, along with Napoleon, was elected to
the American Academy of Arts for his research in Egypt. Denon’s drawing is one of the most beautiful and
popular portraits of Her-em-akhet in existence. This profile clearly shows the prognathism and generous
lips of the statue, which are further indication of its Africanness. The men standing on its head are
the savants who are taking its measurements. This illustration shows the same amount of facial damage as
Illustration 3. Illustrations 4 through 6 were drawn by artists who accompanied Napoleon to Egypt
between 1798 and 1801. These renderings are far superior to those that preceded them; they are more
accurate and they provide greater detail.
ILLUSTRATION 5 – indicates more extensive damage to the bridge of the nose than drawings 3 or 4.
ILLUSTRATION 6 – is the piece de resistance. This rendering clearly shows much more extensive damage to
the face than in any of the previous drawings. The nose has been totally gouged from the bridge down. In
drawings 3 thru 5 one can still see the nostrils, but in this illustration not only are the nostrils
gone, so is the upper lip which was so pronounced in drawing 4 (Denon’s).
We know for certain that the last three drawings were made between the time the savants arrived in Egypt
on July 1, 1798, and the time they left Egypt in September of 1801.
On June 3, 2000 Martin Stower wrote: “Browder’s argument is asinine.” He goes on saying there’s addition
consideration – “travel books from the 18th century and earlier centuries” and let’s not forget those
“jobbing artists who have never seen the original.”
Martin then cites illustrations from POCOCKE and NORDEN and ASKS how in 1799 the nose is shown intact
again. Well Martin, not once have (I) cited any such thing so I guess your source is, questionable.
Last but not least of Martin asserts that Mr. Browder is comfortable with accepting a depiction of a
Sphinx with African features than with European features. While this makes common sense, I’d say I would
find trouble accepting a Sphinx with a flat nose and thin lips too when its OBVIOUS it wasn’t like that
in the first place. Proof? Look at the Sphinx.]
> >statement of fact that its damaged, fine, but no real evidence of any sort. OK, the Sphinx was
> >damaged before Napoleon but the point Afrocentrist want to know is WHO damaged it
>
> And this information, with citations so you can read the contemporary
> documents from the period itself, has been given to you. el-Makrizi
> described _who_ did the deed (Sai'm el Dahr), _why_ it was done
> (el-Makrizi cites, as late as the 14th century, some Egyptians were
> still burning milk-thistle (shuka'a) and safflower (badhaward) at the
> foot of the Sphinx and murning a verse 63 times in hope that their
> wishes would be fulfilled; the extremist sufi took it upon himself to
> destroy the object of their idolatry), and _to what extent_ Sa'im al
> Dahr damaged the Sphinx (el-Makrizi specifically notes damage to the
> nose, ears, and face).
>
> <snip>
>
> Best as anyone can tell so far, it is YOU who "attacks the messenger,"
> when asked for evidence and support of your assertions. You put it out
> there as fact, and when just about everyone (including Martin Stower,
> b...@antispam.net, and Guus Besuijen, as well as myself, on this thread
> alone) has asked for your "documented evidence," you have gone
> ballistic. Rather than give appropriate citations when asked, you have
>
> a) cited works which don't exist,
[I provided my evidence above. All else is your opinion - THAT doesn't count.]
> b) belittled the sources which are contemporaneous with the actual event
> of damaging of the Sphinx's nose (that is, the el-Makrizi citations from
> the 14th century CE, almost 400 years *before* Napoleon entered Egypt),
> for no other reason than these sources contradicted with contemporaneous
> evidence your "facts" on the issue;
[I have questioned you on El-Makrizi statements. You have yet to prove where he cites any extent of
damage to the nose, lips, or face as you've quoted him. How is it that I have belittled him (source) by
asking such a question?
> d) become insulting to any and all who disagree with your so-called
> "evidence" or your methods of presentation.
[It's called, likeness of mannerism...]
> Oh, and about that 1920's tourist myth origin of the Napoleon damage:
> you may recall, from my earlier post, it was James Morgan who noted it
> was a legend among the "Arabs" (as he called the local Egyptian
> populace) said even _he_ knew this information was false when he heard
> it, and he was aware of the damage from the 14th century.*
[Oh, so James Morgan called the local Egyptian populace "Arabs" which I find interesting. That too, is
further proof that the modern Egyptians are hardly the same lineage and heritage as the ancient
Egyptians. (My emphasis).
> <snip>
>
> In all, this doesn't mean this story was any truer _then_ when it was
> told in the early 20th century than it is now, as we have the
> _contemporaneous_ 14th century CE documents of el-Makrizi to describe
> WHO, HOW and WHY the damage was done, and how the event was 400 years
> *before* Napoleon arrived in Egypt.
[And yet, the "contemporaneous" 14th century CE documents of el-Makrizi doesn't state any extent of
damage in comparison to the illustrations provided by artists who eye witnessed the monument.
Furthermore, your source below who speaks of the "Arabs had laid iconoclastic hands on the beard of this
god of the desert...' which is speaks of the BEARD alone. Often, that is the problem with your sources
is they are left so un-clear to specifics...
> * (_In the Footsteps of Napoleon_ (1915) by James Morgan, p. 85) states
> 'There is a tradition among the Arabs of the Pyramids that all the scars
> of time and the wounds of a hundred wars, which the Sphinx carries, were
> inflicted by Napoleon's soldiers, who used its mystifying and majestic
> countenance as a target. That, however, is only a legend for the
> tourist. Long before the discovery of gunpowder, the Arabs had laid
> iconoclastic hands on the beard of this god of the desert...'
>
> <snip>
>
> End of discussion.
[Sure it is - if you can't answer to any of the questions in this post.]
> Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
>
> Member, American Research Center in Egypt
> International Association of Egyptologists
[I’d like to commend Katherine on her diligent research on the Internet and how she has chosen citations
(quotes, etc.) from other peoples writings in the past like Doug Weller, etc. After doing research of my
own, I realized how often she used other peoples points for her arguments and I thought SHE was the
consultant? I often found where she copied Doug Weller's points almost word-4-word in some instances…
On May 23, 2000 (The ORIGINAL Sphinx) Doug Weller uses an argument from The Encyclopedia Americana under
“Sphinx” where he cites “Over the centuries the Great Sphinx has suffered severely from weathering…Man
has been responsible for additional mutilation. In 1380 A.D. the Sphinx fell victim to the iconoclastic
ardor of a fanatical Muslim ruler, who caused deplorable injuries to the head. Then the figure was used
as a target for the guns of the Mamlukes.”
I find it that much more interesting that we hear repeatedly about HISstory concerning the head of the
Sphinx used as a “target” by invaders.
Doug Weller’s response above is not conclusive evidence to the extensive damage to the Nose, Lips and
Ear of the Sphinx. He quoted the Sphinx suffered “severely from weathering” but that doesn’t speak to
any particular portion of the Sphinx nor to the extent. Then he cites how “man responsible for
additional mutilation” without again going into specifics. Last but not least – he speaks of a Muslim
ruler who caused “deplorable injuries to the head” without again – citing anything specifically. This is
not substantial evidence.
UNUTTERABLE ONE
reac...@best.com
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
>[I’d like to commend Katherine on her diligent research on the Internet and how she has chosen citations
>(quotes, etc.) from other peoples writings in the past like Doug Weller, etc. After doing research of my
>own, I realized how often she used other peoples points for her arguments and I thought SHE was the
>consultant? I often found where she copied Doug Weller's points almost word-4-word in some instances…
Your point? If the matter has already been discussed by any number of
the scholars I have cited to you, then there's no need to recreate the
wheel about it. Much of consultancy, as you obviously are unaware, has
to do with researching matters in a variety of ways. Use of primary
resources is the best in most cases, but researched and cited
second-hand reports will have to do where (as in the case of Makrizi's
original work, which was in Arabic), one cannot always read the
language. The best-known translation of Makrizi's el Khittat,
accessible to most scholars is in French, as follows:
al-Maqrizi, Taqi al-Din Ahmad ibn `Ali ibn `Abd al-Qadir ibn Muhammad,
and Gaston Wiet. 1924. el-Mawa`iz wa'l-i`tibar fi dhikr el-khitat
wa'l-athar. Volume 4: Deuxieme partie, chapt. L-XCIV. Memoires publies
par les membres de l'Institut francais d'archeologie orientale du Caire
49. Cairo: Imprimerie de l'Institut francais d'archeologie orientale.
section 2:415.
I also dispute your claim that I quoted Weller in my comments on this
matter (I tend to cite who I have quoted, where I can), which says
something about YOUR research skills. See below.
>
>On May 23, 2000 (The ORIGINAL Sphinx) Doug Weller uses an argument from The Encyclopedia Americana under
>“Sphinx” where he cites “Over the centuries the Great Sphinx has suffered severely from weathering…Man
>has been responsible for additional mutilation. In 1380 A.D. the Sphinx fell victim to the iconoclastic
>ardor of a fanatical Muslim ruler, who caused deplorable injuries to the head. Then the figure was used
>as a target for the guns of the Mamlukes.”
Er, no. Weller quoted from this website:
http://www.napoleonseries.org/index7.html
Now updated to
http://www.napoleonseries.org/faq/sphinx.cfm
(current as of July 2, 2001)
and quoted part of Holmberg's article, which referenced a small citation
from the Encyclopedia Americana. As you wll know, there was far more
information carefully cited than this in Holmberg's article on the
topic.
Weller's full quote in his post from the Holmberg FAQ was:
"This error has persisted in spite of the fact that the truth can be
readily found in such common reference sources as the Encyclopedia
Americana (Danbury, CT: Grolier, 1995). vol.25, p.492-3 under "Sphinx",
which states: "Over the centuries the Great Sphinx has suffered
severely from weathering...Man has been responsible for additional
mutilation. In 1380 A.D. the Sphinx fell victim to the iconoclastic
ardor of a fanatical Muslim ruler, who caused deplorable injuries to
the head. Then the figure was used as a target for the guns of the
Mamluks." In the book The Egyptian Pyramids: A Comprehensive Illustrated
Reference (Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 1990), p.301, the author, J.P.
Lepre, adds the fact that, in addition to the 14th century damage, "The
face was further disfigured by the eighteenth century A.D. ruler of
Egypt, the Marmalukes [Mamluks]."
European visitors to Egypt prior to Napoleon's expedition had already
discovered the vandalism to the Sphinx. In 1546, for example, when
Dr.Pierre Belon explored Egypt, he visited "the great colossus." "The
Sphinx," writes Leslie Greener in The Discovery Of Egypt (London :
Cassell, 1966), p.38, by this time "no longer [had] the stamp of grace
and beauty so admired by Abdel Latif in 1200." Greener goes on to say:
"this exonerates the artillerymen of Napoleon Bonaparte, who have the
popular reputation of having used the nose of the Sphinx as a target."
The charge against Napoleon is particularly unjust because the French
general brought with him a large group of "savants" to conduct the first
scientific study of Egypt and its antiquities.
Finally, an article by Ulrich Haarmann, "Regional Sentiment in Medieval
Islamic Egypt," published in the University of London's Bulletin Of The
School Of Oriental And African Studies (BSOAS), vol.43 (1980) p.55-66,
states that according to Makrizi, Rashidi and other medieval Arab
scholars, the face of the Sphinx was vandalized in 1378 A.D. by Mohammed
Sa'im al-Dahr, a "fanatical sufi of the oldest and most highly
respected sufi convent of Cairo." The nose and ears are mentioned
specifically as having been damaged at this time. According
to one account, Haarmann states, the residents in the neighborhood of
the Sphinx were so upset by the destruction that they lynched him and
buried him near the great monument he ruined. (Thanks to Ann Macy Roth's
article in the online Ancient Near East Digest (University of Chicago,
Oriental Institute) for the information on Haarmann's article)."
From: Doug Weller (dwe...@ramtops.co.uk)
Subject: Re: The ORIGINAL Sphinx...
Newsgroups: alt.history.ancient-egypt
Date: 2000/05/23
Mesage ID: <MPG.1394d8053...@news.cableinet.co.uk>
I, OTOH, first noted Holmberg's FAQ about the Sphinx's nose almost a
year earlier than this (to YOU, in fact), as follows:
From: Katherine Griffis (gri...@mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: The Egyptian Civilisers
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology, sci.archaeology, soc.culture.india
Date: 1999/07/08
Message ID: <3784f2c4...@news.mindspring.com>
So, FWIW, I am not quoting Weller: he found the website of Tom
Holmberg's Napoleon Series, likely independant of any of MY postings,
which goes to show that relevant information can be acessed by anyone
who is willing to learn.
>I find it that much more interesting that we hear repeatedly about HISstory concerning the head of the
>Sphinx used as a “target” by invaders.
Then try reading possibly a history of the Mamelukes, then, because the
nose, ears and face _were_ listed as damaged in Makrizi's original
Arabic version of the Khittat in the 14th century CE, and Sa'im al Dahr
was not an 'invader.' The Mamelukes were, however. The Mameluke
artillery damage to the Sphinx has been speculated for some years, but
as to _when/if_ it occurred, no one is quite sure. FWIW, the Mamelukes
ruled Egypt from 1250 - 1516 CE, who then capitulated rule to the
Ottomans, who ruled Egypt until the mid 19th century CE. The Mamelukes
continued to be a strong presence in Egypt until that period of time.
>Doug Weller’s response above is not conclusive evidence to the extensive damage to the Nose, Lips and
>Ear of the Sphinx. He quoted the Sphinx suffered “severely from weathering” but that doesn’t speak to
>any particular portion of the Sphinx nor to the extent. Then he cites how “man responsible for
>additional mutilation” without again going into specifics. Last but not least – he speaks of a Muslim
>ruler who caused “deplorable injuries to the head” without again – citing anything specifically. This is
>not substantial evidence.
<sigh> If you would ever bother to read anything on the topic,
Stephen/CIO/Unutterable, etc., you would find that when one considered
the _entire Sphinx_ over its very long history, there has been damage to
the monument due to
a) weathering,
b) erosion by wind, and
c) damage by man (Sa'm al Dahr's removal of the nose being just one
example; the beard was removed by god-knows-who, for example, and then
there is the report of the Mameluke artillery damage.)
However, no one knows _when/if_ the Mameluke damage occurred, but the
al-Dahr damage _was recorded_ by an Arab historian _contemporaneously
with the event_, in the 14th century CE. OTOH, there is not _one_
verifiable citation ever given to the "Napoleon shot off the nose of the
Sphinx" claim. Period.
You also said:
>I quoted the source I provided and you’ve shown quite well the problems with that quote, however and nor by any means, was it entirely wrong. I
>know EXACTLY what cannon-fodder means and it doesn’t make sense, but that is what the author quoted and
>I quoted EXACTLY what was said. I do not care if you don’t like it.
Hey, I didn't care I didn't like it: it's just another example of the
poor scholarship many of your quotes seem to have. Carry on, by all
means: it often provides a great deal of humor to many.
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
Member, American Research Center in Egypt
International Association of Egyptologists
University of Alabama at Birmingham
Doug Weller
[SNIP]
> [I’d like to commend Katherine on her diligent research on the Internet and how she has chosen citations
> (quotes, etc.) from other peoples writings in the past like Doug Weller, etc. After doing research of my
> own, I realized how often she used other peoples points for her arguments and I thought SHE was the
> consultant? I often found where she copied Doug Weller's points almost word-4-word in some instances…
Flattering, but you have this completely topsy-turvy. It would be very unusual
for Katherine to quote something I wrote, as I have no pretensions to any great
learning in this area, and the quote you mention is simply from an encyclopedia
as you point out.
I, on the other hand, have frequently been fortunate enough to draw on
Katherine's knowledge and to quote things she has written herself, which I
greatly appreciate. I can assure you that Katherine's knowledge, although I'm
sure at times drawing on the resources available on the Internet, is not
Internet based. I've been privileged to see her house and her library, and it
is extremely extensive.
As with quite a lot else, you're wrong about this.
You mention Browder and his collection of Sphinx illustrations. Lehner
reproduces several of these and three other earlier ones. What is obvious is
that most of these are by people who must at best have been working from
descriptions as they are so unlike the Sphinx. Some make it clearly female,
even with breasts. Thevet's 1556 one has curly hair (in no way does it look
like the Sphinx). Pococke's 1743 one has a head with almost no body and shows
people beside it at an impossible scale. Virtually all have a huge head and a
tiny body (except Thevet's, which appears to have no body at all). This is
probably due to its burial in sand.
Doug
--
Doug Weller member of moderation panel sci.archaeology.moderated
Submissions to: sci-archaeol...@medieval.org
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
CIO
> <snip of old ground, to get to>:
No Katherine, that simply doesn't cut it and has NOTHING to do with scholarship! You cannot evade important questions pertaining directly to your
sources. It's typical however, of you to skip the important parts of a discussion only to save your be-hind, or save face. But as you have
conveniently pointed out to me...that's not scholarship!
In the book “NILE VALLEY CONTRIBUTIONS TO CIVILIZATION” by Anthony Browder, one can find the illustrations on page 225 for reference. As stated, the
illustrations provide us with details during the years 1698 to 1798 recording the condition of the Great Sphinx. One can see the variations of the
damage to the nose and lips accordingly. And based on the illustrations and dates they were drawn – while it is evident that there was partial
damage to the nose of Her-em-akhet (Sphinx) by the year 1755, we can say with certainty that the greatest disfiguration occurred during the three
years that Napoleon’s troops were in Egypt.
Katherine, surely weather didn’t gouge the nose of the Sphinx as it appears today nor was it taken off entirely with a crowbar as you have already
cited. Sounds good, but unlikely.
My concern about your 14th century contemporaneous source Makrizi is he never states the extent of damage to any particular area of the face and
that’s not circumstantial by any means. The fact that he stated it was damaged back then – anybody who had seen the Sphinx could have said that! The
fact remains, Makrizi doesn't state specifically to the extent of damage and if so, please provide us with further details. The quote you provided
us of his citing the nose, lips and face just doesn’t tell us much. And based on the illustrations we have to go on, I’d say his statements back
then were meant for back then.
Again Katherine, these questions and concerns are not going away simply because you snip them away…]
> >[I’d like to commend Katherine on her diligent research on the Internet and how she has chosen citations
> >(quotes, etc.) from other peoples writings in the past like Doug Weller, etc. After doing research of my
> >own, I realized how often she used other peoples points for her arguments and I thought SHE was the
> >consultant? I often found where she copied Doug Weller's points almost word-4-word in some instances…
>
> Your point? If the matter has already been discussed by any number of
> the scholars I have cited to you, then there's no need to recreate the
> wheel about it. Much of consultancy, as you obviously are unaware, has
> to do with researching matters in a variety of ways. Use of primary
> resources is the best in most cases, but researched and cited
> second-hand reports will have to do where (as in the case of Makrizi's
> original work, which was in Arabic), one cannot always read the
> language. The best-known translation of Makrizi's el Khittat,
> accessible to most scholars is in French, as follows:
[I don’t need your lesson in linguistics. Why must you reach so far to get off a topic of discussion to reach for language barriers? Then you go
into explaining how “second-hand reports will have to do” when in another post you said “Secondary sources do not count as "evidence," after all.
Which one is it Katherine or is this just another one of your semantic games? Your credibility has a spotlight being shined on it – how will you
reply?]
<snip>
> al-Maqrizi, Taqi al-Din Ahmad ibn `Ali ibn `Abd al-Qadir ibn Muhammad,
> and Gaston Wiet. 1924. el-Mawa`iz wa'l-i`tibar fi dhikr el-khitat
> wa'l-athar. Volume 4: Deuxieme partie, chapt. L-XCIV. Memoires publies
> par les membres de l'Institut francais d'archeologie orientale du Caire
> 49. Cairo: Imprimerie de l'Institut francais d'archeologie orientale.
> section 2:415.
>
> I also dispute your claim that I quoted Weller in my comments on this
> matter (I tend to cite who I have quoted, where I can), which says
> something about YOUR research skills. See below.
> >
> >On May 23, 2000 (The ORIGINAL Sphinx) Doug Weller uses an argument from The Encyclopedia Americana under
> >“Sphinx” where he cites “Over the centuries the Great Sphinx has suffered severely from weathering…Man
> >has been responsible for additional mutilation. In 1380 A.D. the Sphinx fell victim to the iconoclastic
> >ardor of a fanatical Muslim ruler, who caused deplorable injuries to the head. Then the figure was used
> >as a target for the guns of the Mamlukes.”
>
> Er, no. Weller quoted from this website:
>
> http://www.napoleonseries.org/index7.html
>
> Now updated to
>
> http://www.napoleonseries.org/faq/sphinx.cfm
> (current as of July 2, 2001)
>
> and quoted part of Holmberg's article, which referenced a small citation
> from the Encyclopedia Americana. As you wll know, there was far more
> information carefully cited than this in Holmberg's article on the
> topic.
>
> Weller's full quote in his post from the Holmberg FAQ was:
[Katherine, I don’t care where WELLER quoted the information from - the fact is he quoted it. I’ve already pointed out my concerns about each part
of the quote and you didn’t bother answering to any parts of them. Figures. But you can surely tell me where Weller got his information from…and
your point? How about telling us why you can’t answer to Makrizi and his citation and why he is lacking any description to the extent of damage to
the “nose, lips, and face?”]
> European visitors to Egypt prior to Napoleon's expedition had already
> discovered the vandalism to the Sphinx.
[I had to point out the fact that this quote also confirms: “European visitors to Egypt prior to Napoleon’s expedition…” simply implies there were
NO EUROPEANS as natives at any time before the visits - for those individuals (and you know who YOU are) who like to assert a “diverse population”
in Egypt since the beginning of time...]
> In 1546, for example, when
> Dr.Pierre Belon explored Egypt, he visited "the great colossus." "The
> Sphinx," writes Leslie Greener in The Discovery Of Egypt (London :
> Cassell, 1966), p.38, by this time "no longer [had] the stamp of grace
> and beauty so admired by Abdel Latif in 1200." Greener goes on to say:
> "this exonerates the artillerymen of Napoleon Bonaparte, who have the
> popular reputation of having used the nose of the Sphinx as a target."
> The charge against Napoleon is particularly unjust because the French
> general brought with him a large group of "savants" to conduct the first
> scientific study of Egypt and its antiquities.
[And I’m sorry Katherine but a quote from Leslie Greener stating that “this exonerates the artillerymen of Napoleon Bonaparte,” does not cut it!
That is a fine statement, but when faced with the evidence of illustrations drawn of the Sphinx during that time and that includes drawings from
“jobbing artists,” one must at least take them into consideration, FWIW.]
<snip>
[Katherine, the above headers you posted prove absolutely NOTHING with the content to show what was said. What is your point to citing these
headers? Are we to take them as some type of “evidence” of any sort? And must you keep back peddling to prove how credible your sources are.
> >I find it that much more interesting that we hear repeatedly about HISstory concerning the head of the
> >Sphinx used as a “target” by invaders.
>
> Then try reading possibly a history of the Mamelukes, then, because the
> nose, ears and face _were_ listed as damaged in Makrizi's original
> Arabic version of the Khittat in the 14th century CE, and Sa'im al Dahr
> was not an 'invader.' The Mamelukes were, however. The Mameluke
> artillery damage to the Sphinx has been speculated for some years, but
> as to _when/if_ it occurred, no one is quite sure.
[TRANSLATION: I choose to believe it was the Mameluke artillery that damaged the Sphinx rather than believe Napoleon had anything to do with it, no
matter how popular the story.
In other words, Katherine, why are you telling me this information unless you actually believe the Mamelukes did it? After all, you’ve already
admitted no one is quite sure when/if it occurred - why have you quoted as much?]
> FWIW, the Mamelukes
> ruled Egypt from 1250 - 1516 CE, who then capitulated rule to the
> Ottomans, who ruled Egypt until the mid 19th century CE. The Mamelukes
> continued to be a strong presence in Egypt until that period of time.
>
> >Doug Weller’s response above is not conclusive evidence to the extensive damage to the Nose, Lips and
> >Ear of the Sphinx. He quoted the Sphinx suffered “severely from weathering” but that doesn’t speak to
> >any particular portion of the Sphinx nor to the extent. Then he cites how “man responsible for
> >additional mutilation” without again going into specifics. Last but not least – he speaks of a Muslim
> >ruler who caused “deplorable injuries to the head” without again – citing anything specifically. This is
> >not substantial evidence.
>
> <sigh> If you would ever bother to read anything on the topic,
> Stephen/CIO/Unutterable, etc., you would find that when one considered
> the _entire Sphinx_ over its very long history, there has been damage to
> the monument due to
>
> a) weathering,
> b) erosion by wind, and
> c) damage by man (Sa'm al Dahr's removal of the nose being just one
> example; the beard was removed by god-knows-who, for example, and then
> there is the report of the Mameluke artillery damage.)
[<sigh>And then there is the report on Napoleon and his troops who is said to have used the Sphinx as target practice during the expedition between
1798 and 1801…don’t forget the “popular story” by any means – do not forget that story! <sigh>]
> However, no one knows _when/if_ the Mameluke damage occurred, but the
> al-Dahr damage _was recorded_ by an Arab historian _contemporaneously
> with the event_, in the 14th century CE. OTOH, there is not _one_
> verifiable citation ever given to the "Napoleon shot off the nose of the
> Sphinx" claim. Period.
[Good grief Katherine, your back peddling fast! You also skip over the points I mentioned regarding the point you raise about your source being –
contemporaneously with the event – in the 14th century CE. I’m glad you recognized that its “contemporaneously with the event in the 14th century
CE.” In other words, your source has no idea of the damage done after the 14th century event. Can I make this explanation any easier for you,
Katherine?]
> You also said:
>
> >I quoted the source I provided and you’ve shown quite well the problems with that quote, however and nor by any means, was it entirely wrong. I
> >know EXACTLY what cannon-fodder means and it doesn’t make sense, but that is what the author quoted and
> >I quoted EXACTLY what was said. I do not care if you don’t like it.
>
> Hey, I didn't care I didn't like it:
[Huh? WHAT-----exactly------are you saying here? Then you eat your own shoe by telling me: ]
> it's just another example of the
> poor scholarship many of your quotes seem to have. Carry on, by all
> means: it often provides a great deal of humor to many.
>
> Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
>
> Member, American Research Center in Egypt
> International Association of Egyptologists
[I’d have to say the same of your “poor grammar, spelling, and scholarship too.” You too, provide a great deal of humor around here. I won’t even
delve into your so-called “consulting” shenanigans. In any event, do you think as a consultant and professional (?) you can answer any of my
questions this time?
UNUTTERABLE ONE
reac...@best.com
"As between the Egyptians and the Ethiopians, I should not like to say which learned from the other." - Herodotus
"The Ancient Egyptians were the Black people of Africa, known to the Ancient Greeks as the 'burnt skinned, woolly haired' people..." - Unutterable
One
"There are indeed very clear and objective reasons for thinking that the Great Sphinx portrayed a black African. And if the Sphinx was black, then
so may have been the people who carved it." – Richard Poe “Black Spark White Fire”]
Neville Lindsay
> Katherine Griffis-Greenberg wrote:
>
> > <snip of old ground, to get to>:
> [I'd have to say the same of your "poor grammar, spelling, and scholarship
too." You too, provide a great deal of humor around here. I won't even
> delve into your so-called "consulting" shenanigans. In any event, do you
think as a consultant and professional (?) you can answer any of my
> questions this time?
>
> UNUTTERABLE ONE
> reac...@best.com
This afro-centrist clown will accept no evidence contrary to his deviant
revisionism, not stop at any lengths to press his unsustainable and often
silly arguments. I suppose we are fortunate that to date he hasn't yet
descended to the abuse and obscenities which usually characterise his
responses when opposed with unassailable evidence, but it is still
unproductive trying to bring some sanity back into these discussions. I
suppose the sole benefit is to expose the silly lies and distortions he
peddles for what they are to the silent viewers on the NG.
NL
CIO
> "CIO" <reac...@best.com> wrote in message
> news:3B416149...@best.com...
> > Katherine Griffis-Greenberg wrote:
> >
> > > <snip of old ground, to get to>:
>
> > [I'd have to say the same of your "poor grammar, spelling, and scholarship
> too." You too, provide a great deal of humor around here. I won't even
> > delve into your so-called "consulting" shenanigans. In any event, do you
> think as a consultant and professional (?) you can answer any of my
> > questions this time?
> >
> > UNUTTERABLE ONE
> > reac...@best.com
>
> <snip>
> I suppose the sole benefit is to expose the silly lies and distortions he
> peddles for what they are to the silent viewers on the NG.
>
> NL
I noticed YOU couldn't expose any of the "silly lies and distortions" - WHY?
Tom Shaw
question.
TSnews:3B41E82F...@best.com...
>
Neville Lindsay
> Neville Lindsay wrote:
>
> > "CIO" <reac...@best.com> wrote in message
> > news:3B416149...@best.com...
> > > Katherine Griffis-Greenberg wrote:
> > >
> > > > <snip of old ground, to get to>:
> >
> > > [I'd have to say the same of your "poor grammar, spelling, and
scholarship
> > too." You too, provide a great deal of humor around here. I won't even
> > > delve into your so-called "consulting" shenanigans. In any event, do
you
> > think as a consultant and professional (?) you can answer any of my
> > > questions this time?
> > >
> > > UNUTTERABLE ONE
> > > reac...@best.com
> >
> > <snip>
>
> > I suppose the sole benefit is to expose the silly lies and distortions
he
> > peddles for what they are to the silent viewers on the NG.
> >
> > NL
>
> I noticed YOU couldn't expose any of the "silly lies and distortions" -
WHY?
>
> UNUTTERABLE ONE
> reac...@best.com
Very simply because Katherine has done such a balanced, restrained,
competent and scholarly demolition job on your deviant claims that it was
entirely unnecessary for me to get in the way.
NL
CIO
Translation: I can't!
UNUTTERABLE ONE
reac...@best.com
"As between the Egyptians and the Ethiopians, I should not like to say which
learned from the other." - Herodotus
"The Ancient Egyptians were the Black people of Africa, known to the Ancient
Greeks as the 'burnt skinned, woolly haired' people..." – Unutterable One
Steve Marcus
What part of he didn't have to, because it had already been done
professionally and skillfully, didn't you understand?
As for "can't", that would be you trying to answer the merits of
Ms. Griffis-Greenberg's dismantling of your nonsense re
Napoleon's soldiers and the Sphinx.
>
> UNUTTERABLE ONE
> reac...@best.com
>
> "As between the Egyptians and the Ethiopians, I should not like to say which
> learned from the other." - Herodotus
>
> "The Ancient Egyptians were the Black people of Africa, known to the Ancient
> Greeks as the 'burnt skinned, woolly haired' people..." – Unutterable One
Steve
UNUTTERABLE ONE
Since the statement "it had already been done professionally and
skillfully" is NOT TRUE - I don't understand any of it! If you hadn't
noticed, Katherine Griff-Greenberg hasn't answered to any of the
important questions neither professionally nor skillfully since
Monday, 7/2. Where are her "professional and skillful" answers???
> As for "can't", that would be you trying to answer the merits of
> Ms. Griffis-Greenberg's dismantling of your nonsense re
> Napoleon's soldiers and the Sphinx.
I'll repeat: If you hadn't noticed, Katherine Griffis-Greenberg hasn't
answered to any of the important questions neither professionally nor
skillfully since Monday, 7/2 regarding her sources or citations. You
cheerleaders always cite that Katherine answers to her questions -
WHERE ARE HER ANSWERS???
>
> Steve
I noticed you couldn't expose any of the so-called "silly lies and
distortions"?
UNUTTERABLE ONE
reac...@best.com
"As between the Egyptians and the Ethiopians, I should not like to say
which learned from the other." - Herodotus
"The Ancient Egyptians were the Black people of Africa, known to the
Ancient Greeks as the 'burnt skinned, woolly haired' people..." -
Unutterable One
"There are indeed very clear and objective reasons for thinking that
the Great Sphinx portrayed a black African. And if the Sphinx was
black, then so may have been the people who carved it." - Richard Poe
"Black Spark White Fire"
Neville Lindsay
"UNUTTERABLE ONE" <reac...@best.com> wrote in message
news:d073ecd6.01070...@posting.google.com...
Well, this goes round the circle, so I just repeat what I said two posts
ago, as it is even more apposite in view of your claims that you haven't
been answered, when we have all seen that they have been, very
comprehensively and destructively:
"This afro-centrist clown will accept no evidence contrary to his deviant
revisionism, nor stop at any lengths to press his unsustainable and often
silly arguments."
NL
Steve Marcus
And if you hand't notice, Ms. Griffis-Greenberg's last post in
this thread specifically "signed off". She had posted her
sources, had thoroughly rebutted your inventions with voluminous
documentation, and evidently had tired of going over the same old
ground with you. We are all still waiting for you to show any
source which clearly states that Napoleon's troops caused ANY of
the damage visible on today's Sphinx, let alone a relatively
contemporary source. You haven't, and you won't, because there
is no such source.
>
> > As for "can't", that would be you trying to answer the merits of
> > Ms. Griffis-Greenberg's dismantling of your nonsense re
> > Napoleon's soldiers and the Sphinx.
>
> I'll repeat: If you hadn't noticed, Katherine Griffis-Greenberg hasn't
> answered to any of the important questions neither professionally nor
> skillfully since Monday, 7/2 regarding her sources or citations. You
> cheerleaders always cite that Katherine answers to her questions -
> WHERE ARE HER ANSWERS???
And I'll repeat... She has made her case. You have yet to
produce any credible evidence to make yours. This isn't a test
of who posts last, or over the longer time.
Again, if you had even a single credible source, I'm sure we
would have seen you cite it my now. BTW, I'll not be replying to
any further posts by you for at least several days. That won't
make you any less wrong, any less disingenuous, or any less
pathetic.
>
> >
> > Steve
>
> I noticed you couldn't expose any of the so-called "silly lies and
> distortions"?
Unfortunately, Ms. Griffis-Greenberg had the honor of exposing
all of your nonsense. There's little for anyone else to do
except to shake their head sadly at you and your pathetic
blindness.
>
> UNUTTERABLE ONE
> reac...@best.com
>
> "As between the Egyptians and the Ethiopians, I should not like to say
> which learned from the other." - Herodotus
>
> "The Ancient Egyptians were the Black people of Africa, known to the
> Ancient Greeks as the 'burnt skinned, woolly haired' people..." -
> Unutterable One
>
> "There are indeed very clear and objective reasons for thinking that
> the Great Sphinx portrayed a black African. And if the Sphinx was
> black, then so may have been the people who carved it." - Richard Poe
> "Black Spark White Fire"
Steve
Doug Weller
@best.com says...
> I'll repeat: If you hadn't noticed, Katherine Griffis-Greenberg hasn't
> answered to any of the important questions neither professionally nor
> skillfully since Monday, 7/2 regarding her sources or citations. You
> cheerleaders always cite that Katherine answers to her questions -
> WHERE ARE HER ANSWERS???
>
From your comments which mentioned me I doubt very much you are capable of
judging when someone is being professional or skillful.
UNUTTERABLE ONE
Hand't? I couldn't find it in the dictionary? Non-the-less, WHY are
you answering for Katherine and she didn't say anything about "signing
off."
> She had posted her
> sources, had thoroughly rebutted your inventions with voluminous
> documentation, and evidently had tired of going over the same old
> ground with you.
And she has cheerleaders like you giving a "raw-raw" about her
providing voluminous documentation that was shown to be outdated. She
nor you have been able to answer to my questions pertaining to her
source either. I understand quite well why you find it necessary to
attack the messenger and completely disregard the message. TYPICAL.
> We are all still waiting for you to show any
> source which clearly states that Napoleon's troops caused ANY of
> the damage visible on today's Sphinx, let alone a relatively
> contemporary source. You haven't, and you won't, because there
> is no such source.
Steve Marcus, are you really THAT stupid? I've PROclaimed many posts
ago that I don't have a "statement." That's a fact. Get over it.
Moving on...I've shown quite well the problems with Katherine's source
and "we are all still waiting for her to show where el-Makrizi cites
the extent of damage done to the areas he mentioned, specifically the
nose, lips, and face."
In addition Marcus, I've provided the illustrations that were drawn
from 1698 to 1798 of the Sphinx and the damage of each illustration.
According to the "jobbing artists," DENON included - show how the
statement that Katherine constantly quotes is inaccurate TODAY.
Makrizi states there was damage done to the nose, lips, and face - but
leaves us NO DESCRIPTION of the extent of damage which makes his
statement rather ilusive. Now Steve Marcus, where the hell is the
evidence you say she has shown that proves my question wrong??? There
isn't any. Then you come out trying to call me out by making snide
statements to me to "bait" me into what - curse you? I've grown up so
lets stay focused on the issue.
> > > As for "can't", that would be you trying to answer the merits of
> > > Ms. Griffis-Greenberg's dismantling of your nonsense re
> > > Napoleon's soldiers and the Sphinx.
> >
> > I'll repeat: If you hadn't noticed, Katherine Griffis-Greenberg hasn't
> > answered to any of the important questions neither professionally nor
> > skillfully since Monday, 7/2 regarding her sources or citations. You
> > cheerleaders always cite that Katherine answers to her questions -
> > WHERE ARE HER ANSWERS???
>
> And I'll repeat... She has made her case. You have yet to
> produce any credible evidence to make yours. This isn't a test
> of who posts last, or over the longer time.
>
> Again, if you had even a single credible source, I'm sure we
> would have seen you cite it my now. BTW, I'll not be replying to
> any further posts by you for at least several days. That won't
> make you any less wrong, any less disingenuous, or any less
> pathetic.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Steve
WHATEVER. I can see you're up to your old tricks - attack the
messenger. Won't work! Then you say you're not replying for at least
several days like I give a damn! YOU are the one who is pathetic...
> > I noticed you couldn't expose any of the so-called "silly lies and
> > distortions"?
>
> Unfortunately, Ms. Griffis-Greenberg had the honor of exposing
> all of your nonsense. There's little for anyone else to do
> except to shake their head sadly at you and your pathetic
> blindness.
More like - I've exposed Katherine Griffis-Greenberg and in the
process made her cheerleaders LIKE YOU look like complete idiots! And
I'm shaking my head sadly at your comments...BTW.
> >
> > UNUTTERABLE ONE
> > reac...@best.com
> >
> > "As between the Egyptians and the Ethiopians, I should not like to say
> > which learned from the other." - Herodotus
> >
> > "The Ancient Egyptians were the Black people of Africa, known to the
> > Ancient Greeks as the 'burnt skinned, woolly haired' people..." -
> > Unutterable One
> >
> > "There are indeed very clear and objective reasons for thinking that
> > the Great Sphinx portrayed a black African. And if the Sphinx was
> > black, then so may have been the people who carved it." - Richard Poe
> > "Black Spark White Fire"
>
> Steve
Steve Marcus, Doug Weller, Martin Stower, Smelly (thestinker), PK&G
(Philis), and all the rest of you cheerleaders...prove me wrong. Your
snide comments do nothing for me, only your answers that can prove my
"silly lies and distortions" wrong. If you can't do that - sit down
and shut up.
The SMOKESCREENS are obvious but the answers and evidence that proves
me wrong - are simply non-existent.
UNUTTERABLE ONE
Actually, this is what you wrote:
From: Neville Lindsay (nev...@bigpond.net.au)
Subject: Re: OBSERVATION: Regarding Napoleon shooting the Sphinx...
Newsgroups: alt.history.ancient-egypt
Date: 2001-07-02 23:40:37 PST
This afro-centrist clown will accept no evidence contrary to his
deviant
revisionism, not stop at any lengths to press his unsustainable and
often
silly arguments. I suppose we are fortunate that to date he hasn't yet
descended to the abuse and obscenities which usually characterise his
responses when opposed with unassailable evidence, but it is still
unproductive trying to bring some sanity back into these discussions.
I
suppose the sole benefit is to expose the silly lies and distortions
he
peddles for what they are to the silent viewers on the NG.
NL
[The only intelligent point you made in your paragraph above is at the
end with "I suppose the sole benefit is to expose the silly lies and
distortions he peddles for what they are to the silent viewers on the
NG. NL"
yet
you and the rest of the Griffis-greenberg cheering section have failed
to do exactly that. (WHY?) INSTEAD, you immediately throw
"Afrocentrist" into the conversation (diversion) and claim falsehoods
like you normally do. All the readers on the NG can see that. Just do
as you claimed back on July 2nd - some posts ago - "expose the silly
lies and distortions he peddles for what they are to the silent
viewers on the NG."
JUST DO IT!
Neville Lindsay
You started by peddling afro-centrist revisionist propaganda distortions, as
you have tried to do several times over the past couple of years. You have
been given time and again reasoned corrections based on genuine evidence
rather than your skewed takes designed to further your unsustainable ideas,
and your sole response is 'deny, deny' and try to cast aspersions on the
integrity of others. Your own is in tatters - having had your errors pointed
out to you, repeating them demonstrates that you are a deliberate and
calculating liar.
Now I know that you work on the Goebels theory - think of the biggest lie,
then repeat it often enough and people will believe you. Well, you have been
thoroughly unmasked on this occasion also as a liar, and simply repeating
the lies will not work. I think that everyone has had enough of this game,
but no doubt you will want the woman's last word, so take it - it will just
reaffirm your intention to continue lying whatever the evidence confronting
you. And in so doing you expose this afro-centrist revisionism for the
propaganda lies which it loves to use. You must enjoy doing your cause a
fatal mischief.
NL
UNUTTERABLE ONE
> In article <d073ecd6.01070...@posting.google.com>, reachus2
> @best.com says...
> > I'll repeat: If you hadn't noticed, Katherine Griffis-Greenberg hasn't
> > answered to any of the important questions neither professionally nor
> > skillfully since Monday, 7/2 regarding her sources or citations. You
> > cheerleaders always cite that Katherine answers to her questions -
> > WHERE ARE HER ANSWERS???
> >
> As has been pointed out, she signed off. And she's away this week.
>
> From your comments which mentioned me I doubt very much you are capable of
> judging when someone is being professional or skillful.
>
> Doug
[Translation: Katherine is away from the University of Alabama at
Birmingham
Special Studies. In other words, she's unable to use the University's
resources to be able to discuss the issue at the moment.
Regardless of being gone all week - she's had all her cheerleaders
like you to speak FOR her. Problem is, none of you have had the
answers to the important question pertaining DIRECTLY to her source
and citations. Plenty of smokescreens, but no answers!
Your final comment deserves no explanation, its simply stupid. But for
fun, let's take a stab at it: judging your professional and skillful
answer in this post that has NOTHING to do with the issue itself - you
lack in BOTH areas!]
CIO
[More evasion. Stick to exposing the "silly lies and distortions he peddles for
what they are to the silent views on the NG."]
> revisionist propaganda distortions, as
> you have tried to do several times over the past couple of years. You have
> been given time and again reasoned corrections based on genuine evidence
> rather than your skewed takes designed to further your unsustainable ideas,
> and your sole response is 'deny, deny' and try to cast aspersions on the
> integrity of others.
[To argue how many times you've given reasoned corrections based on "genuine
evidence" requires NO words! Those with common sense and open minds can read on
their own if my sole response has been 'deny, deny'. Contrary, I've questioned
the current assertion pertaining directly to Katherine Griffin's citation about
Makrizi citing the damage to the "nose, lips, and face" of the Sphinx WITHOUT
citing the extent of damage to each area. In other words, contemporaneous with
the 14th century event has NOTHING TO DO with the extent of damage AFTER THAT
period of time.
I don't have to try to cast aspersions on the integrity of others, it's often
self-inflicted.]
> Your own is in tatters - having had your errors pointed
> out to you, repeating them demonstrates that you are a deliberate and
> calculating liar.
[Now look into the mirror while saying that...]
> Now I know that you work on the Goebels theory - think of the biggest lie,
> then repeat it often enough and people will believe you. Well, you have been
> thoroughly unmasked on this occasion also as a liar, and simply repeating
> the lies will not work.
[What evidence are you providing here; what makes you say this? Please explain
further.]
> I think that everyone has had enough of this game,
[You cannot think or speak for everyone. You can't even think for yourself!]
> And in so doing you expose this afro-centrist revisionism for the
> propaganda lies which it loves to use. You must enjoy doing your cause a
> fatal mischief.
>
> NL
[Let the RECORD show:
1. Since posting two threads on 7/2/01 at 2:56 A.M. and at 11:08 P.M. regarding
this issue - the concerns in each post pertain DIRECTLY to the source Katherine
Griffis used and was shown to be OUTDATED. Evidence - the illustrations drawn BY
SAVANTS from 1698 to 1798 during the Napoleon expedition which supersede
statements by Makrizi (14th century). The illustrations clearly show the extent
of damage whereas statements provided by Makrizi DO NOT. I've asked for a direct
evidence to Makrizi's statement regarding the "extent of damage" to the areas he
has mentioned (nose, lips, face) to no avail. In other words, they don't exist.
2. My post at 2:56 A.M. cites the illustrations that challenge Katherine's
source directly. Why did she evade this question when it challenges her source
directly - simply by a snip? How can one resolve the issue if its ignored?
3. Katherine cites the various reasons for damage to the Sphinx like:
weathering, erosion by wind, and damage by man while completely evading the
"Napoleon and his troops shooting the Sphinx" story. That's not objective.
Mind you, Katherine cites the story of the Mameluke's as an example while
stating on the other hand - "however, no one knows _when/if_ the Mameluke damage
occurred." These are the kind of answers we get from an "aspiring" consultant?
4. Then there is her claim how "second-hand reports will have to do" while in
another of her post she contradicts that statement with "Secondary sources do
not count as "evidence," after all. Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, Member of the
International Association of Egyptologists wrote that and still hasn't answered
to the charges!
5. Then there is the statement that "European visitors to Egypt prior to
Napoleon's expedition had already discovered the vandalism to the Sphinx." How
can there be 'European visitors' if they already lived there according to the
"diversity/mixed population" claim since the beginning of time? Please explain.
This whole week has been a fun learning experience. I've learned that Katherine
Griffis-Greenbag seems to be the ring leader of the news group
(alt.history.ancient-egypt) often being called upon for her so-called
'expertise'.. Of course, my opinion is based on the fact that people like Steve
Marcus, Doug Weller, and let's not forget Evil Lindsay who never had anything
substantial to add to the conversation yet have all tried to answer FOR
KATHERINE. Yet, they too couldn't answer any of the questions. I guess we'll
have to wait for Kathy's return...
Last but not least - evil lindsay says that I'm doing a fatal mischief for "my
cause" = Afrocentrist. I disagree. I rather believe they are WAITING TO HEAR
what the Eurocentrists have to say about the questions I've asked. I'm sure they
are all waiting to see how the Eurocentrists will put a spin on this one,
smokescreens and all. And they too, can see how evasive and deceitful many of
you have been...and that's MY OPINION. Thank GOD for - freedom of expression.]
UNUTTERABLE ONE
reac...@best.com
"As between the Egyptians and the Ethiopians, I should not like to say which
learned from the other." - Herodotus
"The Ancient Egyptians were the Black people of Africa, known to the Ancient
Greeks as the 'burnt skinned, woolly haired' people..." – Unutterable One
"There are indeed very clear and objective reasons for thinking that the Great
Sphinx portrayed a black African. And if the Sphinx was black, then so may have
been the people who carved it." – Richard Poe “Black Spark White Fire”
Doug Weller
> Birmingham
> Special Studies. In other words, she's unable to use the University's
> resources to be able to discuss the issue at the moment.
>
Doug Weller
> [To argue how many times you've given reasoned corrections based on "genuine
> evidence" requires NO words! Those with common sense and open minds can read on
> their own if my sole response has been 'deny, deny'. Contrary, I've questioned
> the current assertion pertaining directly to Katherine Griffin's citation about
> Makrizi citing the damage to the "nose, lips, and face" of the Sphinx WITHOUT
> citing the extent of damage to each area. In other words, contemporaneous with
> the 14th century event has NOTHING TO DO with the extent of damage AFTER THAT
> period of time.
>
>
were hammered into it, one down from the bridge, the other under the nostril,
and it was pried off to the right.
The Mameluke chronicler Al-Maqrizi wrote (in the 15th century) that a Sufi
named Sa'im Al-Dahr, his contemporary, committed the act in abhorrence of
idolatry. It's thought that later Mamelukes (and even later French) soldiers
may have used the head for target practice.