Re: 25 Classic Books That Have Been Banned

Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

On 2/23/2025 5:37 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
 

On 2/22/2025 2:59 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

[-]

BTW, the last known mammoths lived on Wrangel
Island in the high Arctic, as recently as
2000 BC.

>
Not dwarf ones, nor of relevance for the Middle East.
The contested dwarf mammoth species might have lived on an island
in Lake Baikal, thus within range of possible transport to Egypt.
For the contested image, search on 'tomb of Rekhmire'.
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rekhmire_tomb_elephant.jpg>

>
Interesting. Could it be a baby elephant, with a non-eyewitness
artist simply assuming tusks?

 
Look again.
It may be interpreted as having the characteristic Mammoth hump,
which is obviously not African.
The artist must have been familiar with the North African elephant,
(Loxodonta africana pharaohensis, now extinct)
because they could be seen on an everyday basis in his days.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_African_elephant>
Their habitat was the coasts of the Red Sea and the Southern Med.
Hannibal may have used up the last ones.
 
High and mighty rulers all over the world are known to have had zoos,
with rare animals transported over long distances at great expense.
 
The Rekhmire tomb may be evidence for the existence of dwarf mammoths
in historic times.
With some incredible luck they may find a mummified one,

 
I'm not convinced.

No need to be. Lots of discussion about it.
It caused quite a sensation when it was discovered.

Check out the entire panel:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rekhmire

What makes you think I haven't?

Look at the leftmost servant. He is carrying a full-scale
elephant tusk, far larger than could have come from a
miniature.

Just some piece of treasure, like all servants are carrying.

The artist isn't exactly a hyperrealist - for example, what
is the animal in front of the elephant?

A realistic bear, obviously, with perhaps an imagined tail.
(so also a rare aminal brought in from afar)
The tail's presence is not obvious in the original,
and nit may be a redrawing error of the schematic reconstruction.

Note that the elephant also lacks tusks, so is a female or
an infant.

Look again. (at the original, not at the schematised versiom)
The tusks are there, big curved ones, compatible with mammoth.
They are set upwards an an unrealistic angle,
in order not to overlap with the bear in front.
(as allowed and even usual in Egyptian art)

Egyptian painting -was- realistic, in their way.
They just had different ideas about perspective,
and of how to display what is important about it. (to them)
-Never- try to interpret Egyptian painting as failed photo-realism.

Based on a preponderance of the evidence, it seems far more
likely that this is an infant elephant, not a miniature
mammoth. The former we know existed at the time, there's no
evidence for the latter.

Perhaps, but that hump...                                 [1]

Jan
(wait for better evidence)

[1] You are misinformed about that.
Pygmy mammoth are well known from several places around the world.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmy_mammoth>
All were island species, of about human height.
What is speculative about it is the prolonged survival into historic
times of a remnant population in some, perhaps remote, location.