Heaven's Mirror: details, details...

[RebeccaBradley]

From this thread (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?p=0#p0)

[RebeccaBradley]

Damn it, did something wrong. Here is the text that should have accompanied the pictures above:

So I got Heaven’s Mirror out of the library, to see what Kilik is going on about, and found it no more convincing than Hancock’s previous effusions, though the pictures are prettier. But I was interested to find a very clear instance of Hancock misrepresenting a piece of evidence in order to take a jab at the Egyptologists and further his agenda.

On pp.145-6, near the end of a chapter on Angkor Wat, Hancock turns to Egyptian parallels:
“Though they are commonly portrayed as bitter opponents, like the asuras and the devas, there are reliefs in ancient Egypt that show Horus and Set co-operating, pulling on either end of a long rope wrapped around a vast drill and thus rotating it. (Ref: Hamlet’s Mill, illustration opposite 162, caption.)”
The accompanying illustration is this:

http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/1637/horusset15is.jpg

The theme continues on the next page with a photo of the same (extremely common) motif in a relief from Karnak, captioned (in part): “The stylized drilling device…is continuously mislabelled by Egyptologists as ‘the uniting of the two lands’ whether Horus and Set turn it, or the two Nile gods (as is more often the case), or the two lions of yesterday and today.”

As it happens, I recognized the source of the drawing: the side of the throne from one of the statues of Senwosret I, from his pyramid complex at Lisht. I couldn’t find a good drawing of it on the Net, and the photo I had was too faint for the details to show clearly, so I did a rather hamfisted tracing. Sorry. Anyway, the roiginal is reproduced below:

http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/3449/horussetcomp4sb.jpg

It’s clear what details Hancock’s version leaves out – all the ones that make it obvious what the so-called drill is, and why Egyptologists identify it with the uniting of the two lands (Upper and Lower Egypt).

The "drill" is an ordinary cartouche (shen) on top of a common hieroglyph - the lungs and windpipe, Gardiner's F36, with the phonetic value sema (sm3). For details, see:
http://www.vivart.co.uk/hieroglyphs_u.htm
It’s used in the word for lungs, of course; but also in the words for unite (sm3), union (sm3t), confederate (smay), etc; and was frequently used on its own in amulets, friezes, and reliefs to express the concept of union. Note that Hancock’s drawing has carefully trimmed away:

1) the lungs at the bottom, which make the glyph identifiable as sm3 - so much for "mislabelling". This also leaves the gods’ feet hanging rather comically in midair.
2) the short bar at the top of sm3, and the long bar that forms the bottom of the cartouche, in order to make the “drill” look more like a unit.
3) the name of Senwosret, to further conceal that the oval is a normal cartouche.
4) the lilies and papyrus bells, symbols of Upper and Lower Egypt respectively, the two entities whose union is being commemorated. Why Hancock replaces two of them with crescents, I couldn’t say. What he calls a “rope”, however, is in fact the elongated stems of these totemic plants, knotted around the shaft of the sm3 glyph. Which brings me to:
5) the KNOT, which would make it pretty impossible for the two of them to be rotating the so-called drill. I’m afraid I didn’t do a good job of tracing the knot; but you can see a photo of the scene by scrolling towards the bottom of:
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/senusret1p.htm

This is one tiny detail in a thick book in a series of thick books; but the devil is in the details. The whole Orion scenario seems to be built up of hundreds of tiny misrepresented details, adding up (I think) to a pattern of shoddy and dishonest “scholarship”.

[c4ts]

Graham Hancock quotes ancient texts entirely out of context to support his convictions, and treats many alchemical and religious writings like the Book of Thoth as factual documentary in some cases, and symbolic commentary on what he wants to prove in others.

[supercorgi]

Very interesting post Rebecca! It just goes to show how dishonest people like Hancock are. Sure, you can rewrite history, but only if you leave out and misrepresent the details. :mad:

[Starthinker]

What disturbs me the most is that I actually know what a cartouche is.

[c4ts]

No, it's only disturbing if you can read it.

And don't try. The cartouche says "Senworset" before you start. Rebecca already said so. Don't bother with the rest, it's dark-sided stuff! That's because the Egyptians were evil vowel-hating heathens who stacked everything together for the sole purpose of confusing you. Oh, sure, translating Middle Egyptian heiroglyphics can be great fun, if your idea of "fun" is to spring for a lexicon every few words. But don't take it from me, the interweb can explain:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040603125448/webperso.iut.univ-paris8.fr/~rosmord/Intro/node4.html#SECTION00031000000000000000

[RebeccaBradley]

The rest of it's more of less a Hallmark card from Horus and Set - good wishes for good things like life, stability and dominion. Of course, who knows what deep, dark Atlantean subtext might lurk beneath the surface....but anyway, it's not instructions for a Black & Decker superdrill.

[logical muse]

hey good post RebeccaBradley

[c4ts]

Wikipedia and Google are my friends. Also Kilik and Rodney. They have all inspred me to learn from a bunch of Egyptology websites instead of sleeping. When it's all over, between this and all the John Milton, I'll be lecturing at Harvard and Villa Nova. Or a street corner.

Anway, there were no Graham Hancock books in my library. Thank gawd. So I went to the internet and found a chapter from Heaven's Mirror.

http://www.grahamhancock.com/library/hm/c4-1.htm

At first he seemed okay. I expected a torrent of new information, but was pleasantly surprised with none. At first, anyway. He went on describing an afterlife scene I was already familiar with since grade school, and that disappointed me. But, there was hope on page two:

The feather and the heart, the two objects weighed in these scales, combine to convey a potent symbolic message. The former, as we have seen, is the type and symbol of the goddess herself, whilst it cannot be an accident that the latter, resembling a small vase with two handles, is not only used as the ancient Egyptian hieroglyph for "heart" but also forms the "determinitive" (defining sign) of the word tekh, "a weight". From this etymology - tekh through tehuti - some scholars derive the origins of the name Thoth, a derivation which the Egyptians themselves appear to have favoured. Let us also note in passing that the towering granite obelisks found in temples along the Nile were called tekhen by the ancient Egyptians - "a word of unknown origin" according to Martina D'Alton of New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Egyptians like to put their heiroglyphics together, compressing them so they can all fit in the same section, even at the cost of things like word order? Therefore, wouldn't they stick the determinitive next to the rest of the word it relates to?
http://www.grahamhancock.com/images/hm/c4/p73a.jpg
Yes. That would be a jar on one side, and a feather on the other. He even admits they could be ideograms, but no, they're symbols. And let's see..."Tekh" does not appear to be a part of either of them. Especially not in the drawing where he removed a bunch of heiroglyphics, again.

Determinatives are like letters and word endings plus mood and a whole bunch of other stuff. They are lingual components. They can go at the end of any word, in the sense that letters or characters can. What other reasons do Graham Hancock give for picking "tekh" rather than some other word with the same determinative? Why do I get the feeling he is playing some kind of alphabet soup game with what used to be legitimate archaeology? I mean, the rest of the chapter was the sort of basic outlining of the Egyptian journey to the underworld, which anyone who's ever taken an art history course should at least be familiar with. He's not saying anything new or exciting until he gets to page 2...

From this etymology - tekh through tehuti - some scholars derive the origins of the name Thoth
It would be nice if he cited some sources, or at least footnoted the thing. Given that he needed a whole page to explain a familiar scene, why should he expect his audience to be familiar with this? Did he footnote that in the book, Rebecca? I'm not saying he's wrong to say this, but academic honesty is important, especially in a text that is so groundbreaking and revolutionary to the field of archaeology! This is a totally different secret advanced Egypt we're talking about, possibly the most important discovery of the century! It's such a big secret, the Egyptians had to subsitute a bunch of words just to say "Thoth!" Don't these myriad scholars deserve a little credit for helping you along the way to your amazing discovery?

Anyway, at least he names a source for his next quote:
Let us also note in passing that the towering granite obelisks found in temples along the Nile were called tekhen by the ancient Egyptians - "a word of unknown origin" according to Martina D'Alton of New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Let's see, the important part about etymology doesn't even get a footnote, but this blurb, which is not a part of his actual argument, does. No, wait, he's just naming a source. If you're going to do a half-assed job, at least do it where it counts.

I appreciate Mr. Hancock's attempts to make archeology accessible to the lowest common denominator. However, I don't appreciate his attempts to call obelisks Thoths and make heiroglyph soup out of ideograms and determinitives. I don't care if Graham Hancock is a super-genius archaeologist who knows more about Egyptian grammar than anybody else, he's not using logic anyway. I'd like to continue, but I'm too tired. Heiroglyphics float before my eyes as I close them and they spell out some kind of an ancient secret, which could only be meant for a secret society of astronomer priests:

"B ll sh t."

I'll leave the vowels to the Egyptologists.

[RebeccaBradley]

Nice details, C4ts. I'm wading slowly through the book, all the more slowly because I have to stop and do something cathartic when I get too irritated with it. Beating carpets is good.

Yes, Hancock does use references in the print version, and they make very interesting reading (though they are in one of the most user-unfriendly formats known to modern publishing). anyway, it looks like a major source for this chapter was Wallis Budge - not only grossly outdated (he died in 1934), but a bit of a joke among Egyptologists even during his life, for being notoriously inaccurate, slipshod and speculative.

the latter, resembling a small vase with two handles, is not only used as the ancient Egyptian hieroglyph for "heart" but also forms the "determinitive" (defining sign) of the word tekh, "a weight". From this etymology - tekh through tehuti - some scholars derive the origins of the name Thoth, a derivation which the Egyptians themselves appear to have favoured. Let us also note in passing that the towering granite obelisks found in temples along the Nile were called tekhen by the ancient Egyptians

This passage (entirely referenced to Budge) hilariously confuses three separate hieroglyphs. The hieroglyph for heart (ib, Gardiner's F34) is not a small vase with two handles, but a drawing of (duh) a heart, somewhat more anatomically correct than our valentine shape. The determinative for tekh isn't a vase either - it's Gardiner's U31, picture of the kind of plumb bob used on a balance. The writing for 'obelisk' is indeed tekhen, but it's etymologically unrelated the word for plumb bob, and its determinative is a little picture of an obelisk (O25).

From this etymology - tekh through tehuti - some scholars derive the origins of the name Thoth, a derivation which the Egyptians themselves appear to have favoured

Budge is the reference again; one of his long-discredited speculations. The transliteration of Thoth's name is (approximately) Djehewty, and it's totally unrelated to the other words.

Hieroglyph soup is right.

Heiroglyphics float before my eyes as I close them and they spell out some kind of an ancient secret, which could only be meant for a secret society of astronomer priests:

"B ll sh t."


:D :D :D

[Jas]

... Wallis Budge - not only grossly outdated (he died in 1934), but a bit of a joke among Egyptologists even during his life, for being notoriously inaccurate, slipshod and speculative.

However, he was quite adept at inducing sleep. Best cure for insomnia ever.

[Mery Kitsune]

c4ts, Rebecca, thanks. I've got MORE to learn.

I'm an egyptology buff myself, and am currently trying to (slowly) teach myself heiroglyphics from the book "How to Read Egyptian Ehiroglyphics: A step-by-step guide to teach yourself"

Excellent for the beginner. I've learned so much from it.


I run across Budge occaisonally among my Pagan friends. I have to admi a very sadistic delight in poking holes (not like it's hard) through his "research".

I refuse to even pick up a book on Egypt with Budge in the footnotes.

[c4ts]

Good luck with that. Ancient Egyptian makes Ancient Greek look sane.


Ancient Greek is not sane.

[RebeccaBradley]

c4ts, Rebecca, thanks. I've got MORE to learn.

I'm an egyptology buff myself, and am currently trying to (slowly) teach myself heiroglyphics from the book "How to Read Egyptian Ehiroglyphics: A step-by-step guide to teach yourself"

Excellent for the beginner. I've learned so much from it.

Yeah, that's a really good one. I used it as a textbook for courses I taught a few years ago. When I was a student, the only viable Egyptian grammar was Gardiner, which is the size of a small coffee table and exceedingly dense. But Gardiner's a very useful volume to have around, the signlist and dictionaries are more complete, and Gardiner's categories are still the standard ones used for reference. (In fact, I think it was a mistake for Collier & Manley to use their own categories for the signs.) Have fun--the hieroglyphs are terrifically addictive, aren't they!

I run across Budge occaisonally among my Pagan friends. I have to admi a very sadistic delight in poking holes (not like it's hard) through his "research".

I refuse to even pick up a book on Egypt with Budge in the footnotes.

Yeah. And as Jas says (Hey, Jas!), poor old Budge is incredibly yawn-inducingly boooring.