Comments on: Ancient Egyptian text used to keep snakes away from sarcophagus http://www.makeyougohmm.com/20070124/4173/ Technology, music, video, art, news, reviews and muse on the web Fri, 05 Dec 2008 02:43:38 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2 By: Don’t let readers down, answer these five questions » Make You Go Hmm http://www.makeyougohmm.com/20070124/4173/#comment-395073 Don’t let readers down, answer these five questions » Make You Go Hmm Thu, 25 Jan 2007 17:43:14 +0000 http://www.makeyougohmm.com/20070124/4173/#comment-395073 [...] Also, and this happened here yesterday to me. If you make a strong factual statement, make sure you reference (with link when possible) where the statement came from. [...] […] Also, and this happened here yesterday to me. If you make a strong factual statement, make sure you reference (with link when possible) where the statement came from. […]

]]> By: Sterling Camden http://www.makeyougohmm.com/20070124/4173/#comment-395048 Sterling Camden Thu, 25 Jan 2007 17:14:28 +0000 http://www.makeyougohmm.com/20070124/4173/#comment-395048 No problem, and thanks for fixing the link. That's a fascinating story. They date the inscription to more than 1000 years earlier than Tut, so it could indeed be the oldest Semitic text. As the article says, the oldest previously known Semitic texts were from the 24th century BC (Old Babylonian and Eblaic). I take it that since they are mixed in with the Egyptian and were not recognized as Semitic for a century, they must be transcribed into hieroglyphics. I'd sure like to get hold of a picture of them to see for myself. No problem, and thanks for fixing the link. That’s a fascinating story. They date the inscription to more than 1000 years earlier than Tut, so it could indeed be the oldest Semitic text. As the article says, the oldest previously known Semitic texts were from the 24th century BC (Old Babylonian and Eblaic). I take it that since they are mixed in with the Egyptian and were not recognized as Semitic for a century, they must be transcribed into hieroglyphics. I’d sure like to get hold of a picture of them to see for myself.

]]> By: TDavid http://www.makeyougohmm.com/20070124/4173/#comment-394474 TDavid Thu, 25 Jan 2007 02:11:26 +0000 http://www.makeyougohmm.com/20070124/4173/#comment-394474 The link was there but the closing < /a> was in front of the IMG tag instead of behind. Doh! Has been fixed now. If you view the cache of the original post you'll see it's operator error on my part. Again, they really are two separate stories. One is my memory of the King Tut exhibit and the other is the USA Today story. It's just when I think of snakes and mummies, I think of King Tut. The link was there but the closing < /a> was in front of the IMG tag instead of behind. Doh! Has been fixed now. If you view the cache of the original post you’ll see it’s operator error on my part.

Again, they really are two separate stories. One is my memory of the King Tut exhibit and the other is the USA Today story. It’s just when I think of snakes and mummies, I think of King Tut.

]]> By: Sterling Camden http://www.makeyougohmm.com/20070124/4173/#comment-394471 Sterling Camden Thu, 25 Jan 2007 02:07:47 +0000 http://www.makeyougohmm.com/20070124/4173/#comment-394471 Hey TD, I get no link on the USA Today logo. But if they're talking about a different Pharaoh, then the inscriptions could theoretically be older than the oldest known Semitic texts. It would be interesting to see whether they used an alphabet, cuneiform, or hieroglyphics to represent the Canaanite words. Hey TD, I get no link on the USA Today logo. But if they’re talking about a different Pharaoh, then the inscriptions could theoretically be older than the oldest known Semitic texts. It would be interesting to see whether they used an alphabet, cuneiform, or hieroglyphics to represent the Canaanite words.

]]> By: TDavid http://www.makeyougohmm.com/20070124/4173/#comment-394469 TDavid Thu, 25 Jan 2007 02:05:54 +0000 http://www.makeyougohmm.com/20070124/4173/#comment-394469 Oops, my bad, the USA Today story wasn't linked. I'm going to chase down that link and fix ... Oops, my bad, the USA Today story wasn’t linked. I’m going to chase down that link and fix …

]]> By: TDavid http://www.makeyougohmm.com/20070124/4173/#comment-394464 TDavid Thu, 25 Jan 2007 01:55:28 +0000 http://www.makeyougohmm.com/20070124/4173/#comment-394464 Click on the USA Today logo, Sterling, the quote you had came from the article already linked in the post. The King Tut exhibit stuff is separate from the USA Today story. My own embellishment and memories there. And a little carbon dating on my age as well. Click on the USA Today logo, Sterling, the quote you had came from the article already linked in the post. The King Tut exhibit stuff is separate from the USA Today story. My own embellishment and memories there. And a little carbon dating on my age as well.

]]> By: Sterling Camden http://www.makeyougohmm.com/20070124/4173/#comment-394460 Sterling Camden Thu, 25 Jan 2007 01:48:05 +0000 http://www.makeyougohmm.com/20070124/4173/#comment-394460 Do you have a source for the idea that this "might be the most ancient Semetic (sic) text ever discovered"? Tutankhamen was buried in the 1300's BC. We have Semitic texts from Babylonia and Ebla that are about 1000 years older than that. If you mean the Canaanite languages or their alphabet specifically, there are the Ugaritic texts that date to about 1400 BC. Do you have a source for the idea that this “might be the most ancient Semetic (sic) text ever discovered”?

Tutankhamen was buried in the 1300’s BC. We have Semitic texts from Babylonia and Ebla that are about 1000 years older than that. If you mean the Canaanite languages or their alphabet specifically, there are the Ugaritic texts that date to about 1400 BC.

]]>