...
EgyptSearch Forums Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» EgyptSearch Forums » Egyptology » Rhakotis pre-Alexandria was not a small fishing village

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Rhakotis pre-Alexandria was not a small fishing village
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tukuler   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Originally posted January 14, 2009:

Below articles from the Egyptology News blog.


Thursday, July 26, 2007
More about pre-Alexander Alexandria - at Rhakotis
MSNBC
The presence of occupations at Alexandria which predated Alexander was proposed by researchers analysing lead, and was reported in April last year. They proposed that there had been a bronze age settlement dated to the IV dynasty and an iron age settlement dated to about 1000-800 BC. The latest discoveries are summarized on the above site:
quote:

Now scientists have discovered hidden underwater traces of a city that existed at Alexandria at least seven centuries before Alexander the Great arrived, findings hinted at in Homer's Odyssey and that could shed light on the ancient world. . . .

Alexandria was known to have developed from a settlement known as Rhakotis, or Râ-Kedet, vaguely alluded to as a modest fishing village of little significance by some historians. Seven rod-shaped samples of dirt gathered from the seafloor of Alexandria's harbor now suggest there may have been a flourishing urban center there as far back as 1000 B.C.

Coastal geoarchaeologist Jean-Daniel Stanley of the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History and his colleagues used vibrating hollow tubes to gently extract three-inch-wide rods of sediment 6 to 18 feet long (2 to 5.5 meters) from up to 20 feet (6.5 meters) underwater. Collecting these samples underwater proved challenging. "Alexandria now is home to as many as 4 million people, and we were in the unfortunate position of having to deal with their discharge — human waste, municipal waste, industrial waste — which got released into the harbor," Stanley said. "It's not funny, but you have to sort of laugh."

Friday, July 27, 2007
More re pre-Alexandrian site at Rhakotis
International Herald Tribune (Associated Press)
quote:

The discoveries, reported in the August issue of GSA Today, the journal of the Geological Society of America, came by accident when his team drilled underwater in Alexandria's harbor, Stanley said.

Their project was part of a 2007 Smithsonian-funded study of the subsiding Nile Delta and involved extracting three-inch-wide sticks of core sediment some 18 feet long (5.5 meters), from up to 20 feet (6.5 meters) under the seabed. Egypt's antiquities department and a French offshore group were involved in the project. The goal was to understand what happened to cause later structures, from the Greek and Roman eras, to become submerged. "One of the ways you do this is by taking sediment cores and examining core structures," he told The Associated Press by phone from Washington. "This often happens in science. We were not searching for an ancient city," said Stanley, who has been working in the Delta region for 20 years.

When his team opened the cores, what they saw were "little ceramic fragments that were indicative of human activity." But there was no immediate cause for excitement. Then, more and more rock fragments, ceramic shards from Middle and Upper Egypt, a lot of organic matter plant matter and heavy minerals were found. All the materials were found by radiocarbon dating to be from around 1000 B.C.


Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tukuler   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Originally posted January 14, 2009:

From the Al~Ahram article Alexandria before Alexander

quote:
Continuing his march westwards, Alexander reached a long, narrow sandy ridge where a series of islands separated the Mediterranean from Lake Maryut (Mareotis). Pharos, the largest of the offshore islands, protected a natural bay, and tradition holds that Alexander immediately perceived a site on the mainland opposite as an ideal location for his new city.

In fact, its strategic importance had been recognised much earlier. A community which existed nearby was probably founded in the 18th dynasty, about 1567 BC. This town was known as Rhakotis, a name it retained in the Egyptian community until the 12th century AD. This community grew, and two centuries later Ramses II built a temple there in honour of Osiris to cater to the people's spiritual needs. In the Saite Dynasty, six centuries before the arrival of Alexander, a military garrison was established at Rhakotis.

So it is clear from the above that alongside the site chosen by Alexander for his new capital there was already a large town with a temple
, and there is indication, but no conclusive proof, that it was important enough for Nektanebo II, the last native Pharaoh before the Greek conquest, to consider being buried there.

Rhakotis was clearly not the insignificant village peopled by nomadic pastoralists and their flocks alluded to in classical sources, nor "the wretched fishing village" described by Idris Bell in his Egypt from Alexander the Great to the Arab Conquest.


Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tukuler   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Originally posted January 14, 2009:

More from the Al~Ahram piece:
quote:

The library of Alexander's former tutor Aristotle was also brought to Alexandria. The complex scriptures of the Zoroastrian Bible (Avasta Zend) were translated into Greek in the institution, along with the Hebrew scriptures and the Egyptian "king list", which was compiled by a priest called Manetho.

But little was done to collect or collate the rest of Egypt's enormous literary heritage, and one must ask why this was so. The answer is self- evident. It was because the Egyptians had their own library in the now upgraded temple of Osir-Apis (Serapis) in Rhakotis.

All important Egyptian temples had a "house of life" where ancient literature was stored, texts copied by scribes, and some of the papyrus scrolls cut and bound into books (codices). The temples of Heliopolis, Sais and Memphis were among the most famous for their scribes and sages, who studied the constellations and the courses of the planets, trained physicians, and copied their ancient wisdom from generation to generation through the millennia.


Under what is known as the Saite revival in the sixth century BC, for example, scribes were ordered to collect, document and recopy proverbial wisdom, medical prescriptions and sacred religious texts. Faced with mountains of inherited literature they had to acquaint themselves with an archaic method of writing, and soon became an exclusive class of society. They were not historians, however, and sometimes in their copies of the texts they added fresh associations, or rendered them in a form they never originally possessed. Recollections of earlier times had become hazy, and the interpretations sometimes confused. But they were proud of their heritage, and when Alexandria became the capital and a great centre of learning the contents of some of the most important "houses of life" in the temples may have been transported there.

In other words, the libraries of Alexandria, which are referred to in classical literature as the Great Library and the so-called Daughter Library established in the Serapeum "at some unknown date", may well have been two separate and distinctive libraries.


The three re-posts above disconfirm the Lioness,' implication
that Rhakotis was an insignificant village without any temple.

It always pays to visit the ES archive via GOOGLE site:egyptsearch.com + keyword(s)

Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
lioness productions did not use the word "insignificant"
lioness productions retracts the word "small" that was used by a team member


Alexandria, Egypt, before Alexander the Great: A multidisciplinary approach yields rich discoveries


Jean-Daniel Stanley*, Geoarchaeology Program, Rm. E-206, Paleobiology, Smithsonian Institution National Museum of Natural History [NMNH], Washington, D.C. 20013-7012, USA; Richard W. Carlson*, Carnegie Institution of Washing- ton, Department of Terrestrial Magnetism, Washington, D.C. 20015, USA; Gus Van Beek*, Anthropology, Smithsonian Insti- tution NMNH, Washington, D.C., 20013-7012, USA; Thomas F. Jorstad*, Geoarchaeology Program, Rm. E-206, Paleobiology, Smithsonian Institution NMNH, Washington, D.C. 20013-7012, USA; Elizabeth A. Landau*, Geological Sciences, San Diego State University, San Diego, California 92182-1020, USA
ABSTRACT
Historic records refer to Rhakotis as a settlement on Egypt’s Mediterranean coast before Alexander the Great founded the famous Mediterranean port city of Alexandria in B.C. 332. Little is known of Rhakotis, however, because the site has yet to be clearly identified beneath the modern city. This problem moti- vated a geoarchaeological investigation of sediment cores from Alexandria’s East Harbor, from which radiocarbon-dated sec- tions of pre-Alexander age [>2300 yr B.P.] have been obtained for study. These core sections comprise a number of critical components, five of which are emphasized here: ceramics, rock fragments derived from Middle and Upper Egypt, and sediment with markedly increased contents of lead, heavy minerals, and organic matter. A multidisciplinary approach, by which archae- ological, stratigraphical, petrological, and geochemical method- ologies are applied to study the five distinct core components, reaffirms that a sum can be greater than its parts. Together, the diverse markers in the dated core sections enable us to confirm human activity to at least seven centuries before B.C. 332 on the mainland coast, where Alexandria would later be established. Alexander’s city, it now appears, rose from a pre- existing town whose inhabitants had long before recognized the favorable harbor potential of this Egyptian coastal sector. The discoveries, providing direct evidence of the settlement’s early [to ca. B.C. 1000] existence, are intended to prompt new exploratory efforts on land and offshore to further delineate that center’s actual position and history.
INTRODUCTION
Coastal and marine geology are now well-established earth science subfields that developed from the turn of the twenti- eth century to the 1950s. Study of archaeological vestiges sub- merged in the marine realm, on the other hand, is a more recent scholarly pursuit, having evolved primarily after World War II. Integration of geological and archaeological sciences to investigate offshore sites has emerged in close association with the improvement of diving technology and equipment for offshore exploration. These include enhanced underwater
drilling, photography, and television, along with refinement of applicable high-resolution seismic methodologies and surveys by research submarine and remote operated vehicle. Coastal geoarchaeology reached a subdiscipline threshold ~25 years ago, at the time of publication of the multi-authored volume on Quaternary coastlines and marine archaeology edited by Mas- ters and Flemming [1983]. Since then, the number of studies that emphasize integration of varied geological and archaeo- logical approaches in the marine realm has progressively risen. Of special note is the increased use of a classic geological methodology, sediment coring, to help resolve archaeological problems at sites that presently lie beneath the waves. This sub- bottom technology has been applied with successful results in most world oceans, especially in the Mediterranean [Morhange et al., 2005; Marriner and Morhange, 2007; Stanley, 2007].
The present investigation integrates archaeological, geologi- cal, and geochemical data obtained from sediment cores that provide evidence of early human activity in the Alexandria region of Egypt. The focus is on identifying new information dated to well before the arrival of Alexander the Great, who founded this major Mediterranean port city in B.C. 332 [Fig. 1].
BRIEF BACKGROUND
Historians generally agree that Rhakotis, or Râ-Kedet, was a settlement established before the fourth century B.C. in the area subsequently developed as Alexandria. Rhakotis has been vaguely alluded to as a modest fishing village of little signifi- cance, a more substantial walled center, or possibly a fortified settlement [Fraser, 1972; Empereur, 1998; Baines, 2003; McK- enzie, 2003; Ashton, 2004]. The modern city of Alexandria, with nearly four million inhabitants and an extensive cover of municipal and industrial construction, has almost entirely buried the remains of earlier habitation [Empereur, 1998]. Although a city area south of the Heptastadion [Fig. 2] is called Rhacotis [Rowe, 1954], no archaeological excavation to date has revealed the presence of an early pre-Alexandrian site.
A record of early nautical activity near Pharos Island, posi- tioned ~1 km seaward of the Alexandria mainland [Fig. 2], was initially passed down as oral history [from ca. B.C. 1200–1100] and then centuries later [B.C. 800–750] was recorded in Hom- er’s epic Odyssey: “Now in the surging sea an island lies, – Pharos they call it, – By it there lies a bay with a good anchorage, from which they send the trim ships off to sea and get them drinking water.” After Homer, historians and geographers intermittently refer to this Egyptian sector in their texts, such as Herodotus’ The History [fifth century B.C.] and Strabo’s Geographia [near the turn of the first century A.D.]. Subsequently, scholars surmise that Minoan, Philistine, Phoenician, ancient Greek, and other early mariners sailing the eastern Mediterranean sought protec- tion in the lee of Pharos Island long before Ptolemaic [B.C.
GSA Today: v. 17, no. 8, doi: 10.1130/GSAT01708A.1


332–30] rule [Jondet, 1916; Weill, 1919]. Additional evidence of pre-Alexander occupation in this region is provided by early archaeological sites in proximal sectors [Egypt Exploration Society, 2005], including those along the Mariut lagoon to the south [Rowe, 1954] and the Nile delta coast to the east of Alex- andria [Stanley, 2005, 2007].
Recent preliminary findings record more direct evidence of settlement prior to the Ptolemies in, or proximal to, the modern city. These are based on assessments of cores collected on land adjacent to the East Harbor of Alexandria [Goiran et al., 2000; Véron et al., 2006] and in the East Harbor proper [Stanley and Landau, 2005]. New findings summarized herein are obtained by a comprehensive and multidisciplinary study of dated cores recovered in the harbor.
METHODS
The present East Harbor basin covers an area of ~2.5 km2 and is bound to the south by an arcuate coastline bordered by the city of Alexandria [Fig. 2]. The region has been the focus of numerous investigations, including geography [Goddio et al., 1998], oceanography [Inman and Jenkins, 1984], geology and paleogeography [Warne and Stanley, 1993; Goiran et al., 2005], stratigraphy [Goiran et al., 2000], sedimentology [El- Wakeel and El-Sayed, 1978; Wali et al., 1994], and geochem- istry [Véron et al., 2006].
New information to define this basin’s early Holocene to present evolution is provided by seven vibracores [lengths ~2.0–5.5 m; Fig. 3] collected in the East Harbor [Stanley and Bernasconi, 2006]. The 52 Accelerator Mass Spectrometry [AMS] dates obtained for core samples are given in uncalibrated 14C

Figure 3. Stratigraphic logs of the seven vibracores collected in the East Harbor, showing five dominant lithofacies [I–V], conventional radiocarbon [uncalibrated] dates [in thousand yr B.P.], and positions of artifacts and lithoclasts. Modified after Stanley and Bernasconi [2006].
radiocarbon years [most shown in Fig. 3]. Samples [n = 441] were taken throughout the sand-rich cores at <15 cm intervals for petrologic study. Lithological logs of the cores and results of different analyses are given in Stanley and Bernasconi [2006].
Lead isotopic analyses were performed at the Carnegie Insti- tution of Washington. After addition of a 205Pb spike, ~20–50 mg of coarse core material was dissolved, and the Pb was separated and analyzed using procedures described in Carlson et al. [2006]. Some samples, labeled with an “L” in Table 1, were first subjected to an acetic acid leach. In most cases, >50% of the sample was dissolved in the acetic acid. After leach- ing, the residue was dissolved as described above, while the leach was first dried and then redissolved in HBr in preparation for Pb separation. All measured Pb isotopic compositions are corrected for mass fractionation based on these average stan- dard values compared to the isotopic composition of NBS 981 reported by Todt et al. [1996].
OBSERVATIONS
Core Content in Greek to Recent Time
Stratigraphic analysis of dated borings identifies five mostly carbonate lithofacies [coded I to V] from base to top of East
Harbor cores [Figs. 3 and 4A]: Lower Sand [I] and Lower Mud [II] units of early to mid-Holocene age [>7500 to ca. 5600 yr B.P.]; Middle Sand [III] facies of mid- to late Holocene age [ca. 5600–2300 yr B.P.]; and Upper Mud [IV] and Upper Sand
[V] of late Holocene age since Ptolemaic rule [<2300 yr B.P.]. Core AL19 comprises all five stratigraphic facies, with a basal section older than 6310 ± 90 radiocarbon yr B.P., and thus serves as a representative, or type, boring to define changes through time denoted by diagnostic archaeological, geological, and geochemical criteria.
Upper Sand [V] and Upper Mud [IV] sections in this and other East Harbor cores comprise the most abundant and diverse suites of archaeological material. These upper two units contain potsherds, pebble-size rock clasts, and high concentra- tions of heavy minerals [Fig. 4D], lead [Fig. 5A], organic mat- ter, quartz, and crystalline and aggregate limestone, when com- pared to the three older facies [I–III]. Rapid municipal develop- ment during the reign of the Ptolemies and Romans gave rise to marked anthropogenic signals in the two upper lithofacies. For example, very high lead concentrations [>100 ppm] occur in post-Alexander sediment in core AL19 [Fig. 5A]; this is also recorded in core sections of this age collected on land in Alex- andria proper [Goiran et al., 2000; Véron et al., 2006]. The
findings denote heavy lead use by Greeks and Romans during Alexandria’s swift expansion.
Accelerated construction along the mainland shore and in the East Harbor proper [Fig. 2] during this time [IV–V] is amply recorded [Empereur, 1998; Goddio et al., 1998; Hesse, 1998], including the building of the Heptastadion, the large freshwater aqueduct-causeway system between the city and Pharos Island [Hesse, 1998; Goiran et al., 2000, 2005]. Increased organic mat- ter content in upper core facies IV and V includes fibers of Phragmites sp. and algae. Such materials were derived from the city’s sewage runoff and from Alexandria Canal discharge into the harbor [Stanley and Bernasconi, 2006].
Key Markers in Pre-Greek Time
Until now, the record of human activity in Alexandria prior to the Ptolemies has been sorely limited. Underwater diver excavation at the eastern end of now-submerged Antirhodos Island [marked by an asterisk in Fig. 2] recovered posts of elm [Ulmus sp., a non-local wood] radiocarbon-dated [calibrated calendar years] at B.C. 410 ± 40 and planks of pine [Pinus sp.] at B.C. 395 ± 40 [Goddio et al., 1998].
Materials found in cores recovered in the East Harbor, how- ever, provide more ample evidence of older pre-fourth cen- tury B.C. [>2400 yr B.P.] human activity, especially in sediment forming the upper part of the Middle Sand [III] unit in East Har- bor cores [Fig. 4A]. Foremost are potsherds of early age that were recovered in this part of unit III in core AL25, in the west- ern East Harbor [Fig. 3]. Ceramic fragments include coarse and poorly fired material, mostly cooking vessels, although some thinner ceramics from bowls and small jars are also observed. The pottery is wheel-made and appears to be of local produc- tion rather than imported. Archaeological analysis of ceramic fragments, including ones preserved with slip [Fig. 4B, 1–2] and others that are rimmed [Fig. 4B, 3–4], show they are most closely comparable to typical southeastern Mediterranean ware made in the ninth to seventh centuries B.C. [plates 81–83 in Tufnell, 1953; National Museum of Natural History collec- tions]. These potsherds and lithic fragments prevail in sediment radiocarbon dated to well before 2330 yr B.P. [calibrated dates of B.C. 940 to B.C. 420].
Most cores include carbonate pebbles derived from expo- sures proximal to the East Harbor that originated in the lower [older] sections of cores AL18A, AL26, and AL27. Core AL19 also contains pebble-sized rock fragments [diorite, gab- bro, quartzite, marble, and dense fossiliferous limestone] in the upper half of facies III at a depth of 2.3 m from core top [Fig. 4C]. These lithoclasts, with diameters of 1–5 cm, are of non-local [allochthonous] derivation and were obtained from distant quarries, mostly in Middle and Upper Egypt. This upper facies III section, positioned >50 cm beneath the base of the Upper Mud [IV] unit, is radiocarbon dated as older than ca. 2320 yr B.P. but younger than 2890 ± 40 yr B.P. [Fig. 4A]. Rock reached Alexandria’s East Harbor either by vessel or overland transport for use in building structures; in the case of core site AL19, located ~500 m from the present coastline [Fig. 2], this material was likely brought to localities near the southern East Harbor margin. Some clasts may also have been derived from materials recycled from statuary or other artifacts of Egyptiandynastic origin. Polished, flat, well- to very well–rounded clasts are typical of rock worn on a beach or in a shallow aqueous setting subject to strong swash action [Stanley, 2005].
Similarly, in the mid- to upper section of the Middle Sand [III] unit there is a marked increase in proportions of heavy minerals [to 1%; Fig. 4D] and organic matter content [to 1.5% by weight; Stanley and Landau, 2007]. As with potsherds and rock clasts, the increased content of heavy minerals and organic matter found in carbonate-rich facies dated prior to Ptolemaic rule are associated with increased human activity. Construction activity involved use of noncarbonate rock mate- rial and sediment transported to the area, while organic matterwas discharged into the East Harbor by increasing volumes of municipal waste water.
Geochemical Markers in Pre-Greek Time
In addition to the four archaeological and petrologic param- eters, lead concentration and isotopic composition in core AL19 [see Table 1] present a formidable additional line of evi- dence of human activity prior to B.C. 332. Lead concentrations are consistently below 10 ppm at depths >251 cm from core top [e.g., sections in the lower part of unit III that are older than ca. 4000 yr B.P.; Fig. 5A]. From 251–230 cm [deposition in pre-Alexander time], Pb concentration gradually increases, reaching 50–80 ppm through depths of 123 cm [Ptolemaic time]. Above 120 cm, Pb concentrations increase to >100 ppm, marking substantial Pb input into the East Harbor following accelerated growth of Alexandria by Greeks and Romans, as also documented by Véron et al. [2006].
In all samples below 251 cm, both 204Pb/206Pb and 208Pb/206Pb ratios are slightly lower than values typical of average continen- tal crust [e.g., 204Pb/206Pb = 0.0535 and 208Pb/206Pb = 2.0658; Stacey and Kramers, 1975]. These values are indicative of the isotopic composition of natural Pb deposited in sediment prior to human influence. Throughout the post-Alexander portion of the core [above 226 cm depth], Pb concentrations are very high [>43 ppm] and show continually increasing 204Pb/206Pb and 208Pb/206Pb ratios upsection in the core [Fig. 5B], consistent with increasing input of pollutant Pb from ore sources [Véron et al., 2006]. Potential examples of this material include the metal frag- ment and ceramic glaze recovered from core AL25 [Fig. 5C].
Of special note, however, is that Pb concentration and isoto- pic composition do not correlate at the onset of anthropogenic Pb contamination in the interval between 251 cm and 183 cm from core top. Within the 251–235 cm interval, 204Pb/206Pb ratios increase to values similar to those seen in the shallowest portions of the core, yet both Pb concentrations and 208Pb/206Pb [Fig. 5C] remain below those characterizing the shallow por- tions of the core. Between ~230 and 183 cm from core top, Pb concentrations increase dramatically, yet 204Pb/206Pb ratios drop to values similar to those of the natural sediment Pb, but with significantly higher 208Pb/206Pb. This may indicate an initial burst of anthropogenic Pb contamination into the East Harbor involving a source of Pb different from the ore-leads characteristic of the post-Alexander era.
The core component between 251 and 183 cm depth, char- acterized by high 208Pb/206Pb [~2.07 to ~2.084] and moderate 204Pb/206Pb [~0.0532 to ~0.0538] is similar in isotopic compo- sition to ceramic potsherds from core AL25 that date to pre- Alexandrian times [Figs. 4B and 5C]. These ceramic fragments have only moderate Pb concentrations [17–128 ppm], at least compared to weight percent concentrations in the analyzed pigments and metals [Table 1], and thus explain the relatively modest Pb concentration increase but marked Pb isotopic variation between 251 and 230 cm depth in the core. These data suggest that the first significant anthropogenic Pb contri- bution to East Harbor sediments did not derive from Greek and Roman metalworking, but instead reflect deposition of clay used perhaps for both building construction and manufactur- ing of ceramic vessels. The area surrounding the East Harbor

CONCLUSIONS
The more approaches utilized in an archaeological investiga- tion, the greater the possibility of attaining robust new findings. Results from the application of diverse geological methodolo- gies in this study provide consistent data on five distinct and diverse components in radiocarbon-dated East Harbor cores: ceramics, allochthonous rock fragments, lead concentration, heavy minerals, and organic matter, which all increase substan- tially in the same upper part of the Middle Sand [III] unit dated to ca. 3000 yr ago. Stratigraphically, this depositional phase clearly corresponds to one that began well before the arrival of Alexander in B.C. 332.
Together, the five archaeological, petrological, and geochem- ical markers provide compelling evidence of human activity dating to as much as seven centuries before the development of Alexandria by the Ptolemies. In particular, the ceramic sherds, lead isotopes, and associated data collected from har- bor sediment cores indicate that a coastal population flour- ished in this area during Egypt’s Intermediate [ca. B.C. 1000] and Late Dynastic [pre-Ptolemaic] periods.
In summary, evidence from East Harbor cores shows that Alexandria did not grow from a barren desert, but was built atop an active town that had for centuries exploited the safe harbor setting along this Egyptian coast. Beyond providing a preliminary insight into the early settlement’s history, it is expected that the investigation findings will provide impetus for further geoarchaeological exploratory efforts in this histori- cally rich region.

Posts: 42968 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944

Icon 5 posted      Profile for Tukuler   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You do understand the difference between statement and implication?

Your statement "Rhacotis was a small fishing
village where Alexander built a large Greek
style city (but included a Temple ..."
implies
insignificance. Rather than a production you
made a "muckuption" which needed correction.

It's OK you needn't thank me, it was my pleasure  - .

Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
You do understand the difference between statement and implication?

noted, look at AE revisited thread
Posts: 42968 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
It always pays to visit the ES archive via GOOGLE [i]site:egyptsearch.com + keyword(s)

tell me if this is true or not.

the method you describe which can locate in a google search a specific phrase like

"It always pays to visit the ES archive"

As of today you cannot find that exact phrase when searched for with or without the ES domain indicated (but it works for other websites)

Unless I'm not doing it right

Try looking for this in google:

"It always pays to visit the ES archive"

with or without domain specified

Posts: 42968 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mena7
Member
Member # 20555

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for mena7   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lioness Canopus/RaKedet pre Alexandria wasnt a fishing village but the most important maritime trade city in the mediteranean.Today city of Alexandria was called Canopus in ancient times, even long after Alexanders death in 323 BCE.Canopus was already a multi harbor region with several fabulous temples,long before Alexander arrival.There were numerous temple of Ancient Egyptian Neteru such as Herakles, Apis, Auset.

The magnificient harbors of the Canopus region accomodated an immense volume of maritime trade with the Mediteranean world and also made Canopus an important center of ship building industry.Throughout the history of the Ancient world Canopus (ancient Alexandria)remained the most important commercial city of the Mediteranean world.The strategic location of Canopus allowed access to the Mediteranean, Nile Valley, wich was also connected to commerce in the East via the Red Sea.

The most westerly Delta branch the Canopic branch(one of seven branches of the Nile Delta) was historicaly the most important branch.Herodotus entered Egypt through this gate in 450 BCE, but Strabo entered Egypt in 24 BCE via the Pharos harbor, at the western end of the Greater Canopus region.

Ancient Egyptian culture revealed by Moustafa Gadalla.

--------------------
mena

Posts: 5374 | From: sepedat/sirius | Registered: Jul 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
this thread is not about Canopus

you need to follow the thread better my remarks were about Rhacotis (Rhakotis) and I updated, changed what what I said.
Go back and read the thead. I also posted a long article to reflect the update.
Moustafa Gadalla syas very little about Rhakotis because very little is known about it. He has written two sentences total on the subject and he described it as a "causeway".m Look up "causway"
But am now describing it as the most recent research calls it:
a town.
It has already been established that Egypt produced large cities and huge monuments and temples.
Further I posted in a new thread Alexandria before Alexander the complete article AlTakruri had quoted, please follow the lateset developments

Posts: 42968 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lyinass productions = sh|t

Anyway, getting back to the topic. These findings do not surprise me at all. We've known that Egypt since early dynastic times have had trade contacts with other polities in the Mediterranean such as Crete. So why would there be no major coastal city or port hub prior to Alexandria? Despite what many historians have said about Rhakotis being a "small fishing village", I have always had my suspicions which now are confirmed. Excellent news, Tukuler.

Posts: 26322 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | EgyptSearch!

(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3