The History of Ancient Egypt : Revision Forthcoming : More Fragments of the Turin Canon of Kings (Kinglist, Papyrus) are Discovered in Italy

Evidence, evidence, evidence.

THIS IS SENSATIONAL NEWS for everyone who has an interest in the history of civilization, Ancient Egypt and the chronology of the Ancient Near East, which is based to a large degree on Egyptian chronology, and that in turn is based on a papyrus known as the Turin Canon of Kings.

More fragments of the Turin Canon have been found in Italy, so that the British Museum will now be re-reconstructing an already reconstructed papyrus, and that may give us some very new results about the Pharaonic Dynasties. See New fragments of the Turin King List : Fresh light on the pharaohs by Robyn Gillam, Discovery News, Ancient Tides, and La Stampa, Vittorio Sabadin “I faraoni scomparsi nel buco:Trovati nei sotterranei dell’Egizio di Torino i frammenti mancanti del “Papiro Reale”: sovrani sconosciuti e una storia da riscrivere” (see Google Translation into English), Roger Pearse , Muhlberger’s Early History, NewKerala.com , News from the Valley of the Kings , and Tim – The Egyptians.

I have a special “evidentiary” interest in that papyrus.

As I wrote a number of years ago at LexiLine:

As some of you know, I have several times recommended the re-study of the Turin Canon by new thermoluminescence methods, since I am sure some of the pieces of this important historical papyrus have been mis-pasted in the reconstruction process. Thermoluminescence would easily determine where the pieces should properly be pasted (by grains on the paper, etc.). My suggestions have fallen on deaf ears in Egyptology, for the … reason [that] – the object is “too important” to study – it might be damaged.

And so, erroneous conclusions drawn from a – surely – falsely reconstructed document are used to map the chronology of ancient Egypt, for which the Turin Canon is of eminent importance.

We provide our decipherment of columns I and II of the Turin Canon (viz. Turin Papyrus, Turin Kinglist) here, here, here and here. These digress from the erroneous ideas of mainstream Egyptology.

Rossella Lorenzi of Discovery News at Fragments of Ancient Egyptian Papyrus Found writes:

[S]tored between two sheets of glass in the basement of the Museo Egizio in Turin, the fragments belong to a 3,000-year-old unique document, known as the Turin Kinglist….

Scholars from the British Museum were tipped off to the existence of the additional fragments after reviewing a 1959 analysis of the papyrus by a British archaeologist. In his work, the archaeologist, Alan Gardiner, mentions fragments that were not included in the final reconstruction on display at the museum. After an extensive search, museum researchers found the pieces….

The finding could help more accurately piece together what is considered to be a key item for understanding ancient Egyptian history.

This is one of the most important documents to reconstruct the chronology of Egypt between the 1st and 17th Dynasty,” Federico Bottigliengo, Egyptologist at the Turin museum, told Discovery News.

Unlike other lists of kings, it enumerates all rulers, including the minor ones and those considered usurpers. Moreover, it records the length of reigns in years, and in some cases even in months and days.

Some of the finest scholars have worked on the papyrus last century, but disagreement about its reconstruction has remained,” Bottigliengo said. “It has been a never-ending puzzle….

We are confident that a new examination with modern scientific techniques will enable a much improved reconstruction to be achieved,” Richard Parkinson, curator in the Department of Ancient Egypt and Sudan at the British Museum, told Discovery News.

As written by Robyn Gillam at Suite101.com, in a longer article which provides the most detailed coverage of this development:

With permission of the Italian government, the Turin Kinglist will travel to British Museum in London, where it will be subjected to advanced techniques that examine not only its content but the state and content of the document itself before being conserved in a way that ensures its more permanent preservation. The incorporation of the unplaced fragments and an overall rearrangement promise to usher in a whole new era in our understanding of Egyptian history and chronology.

This is a great day for the study of Ancient Egypt, because it means that the reconstruction of the Turin Papyrus will finally be corrected by the necessity to fit in the new fragments – which of course will demand that the old reconstruction also be reviewed. I am certain that my decipherment of Columns I and II will be shown to be accurate.

JustAnswer.com Legal Questions Answered Online : A Portent of Law Practice in the Future at the Simplest Level? or is it the Illegal Practice of Law?

We have learned never to sneeze at new developments until we have examined them carefully. It is so easy to make judgments based on preconceptions, which often turn out to be wrong.

One area about which have been very skeptical is the use of the Internet as an online service for user questions to be answered by “experts”, who are paid for their efforts by the questioner.

We have nevertheless discovered that there is a website at JustAnswer.com which provides “just” that question and answer service, also for elementary questions of law, which are allegedly answered online by attorneys.

We wonder how this matter is viewed by the various State bar associations, which are essentially archaic monopolies at their core, and protect their territory tooth and nail. When can and can not an attorney answer an online legal question as a matter of bar jurisdiction? Can he do it under his own name, or incognito, under an alias? Can such an attorney claim that no lawyer-client relationship is established? Does the reimbursed answer by online attorneys of law-related online user questions constitute the practice of law? Does the reimbursed answer of law-related online user questions constitute the practice of law also if the answerer is NOT a lawyer? Under what circumstances? For which jurisdiction? Does it depend on the domicile of the asker? or the State whose law is in question? What about federal questions? What standards apply?

Can an attorney claim that no direct attorney-client relationship has been established in spite of the fact that he or she is paid for the answers provided to legal questions raised at JustAnswer.com?

JustAnswer.com has the following disclaimer on its site at “Answer” pages:

Information in questions, answers, and other posts on JustAnswer (“Posts”) comes from individual users, not JustAnswer; JustAnswer is not responsible for Posts. Posts are for general information, are not intended to substitute for informed professional advice (medical, legal, veterinary, financial, etc.), and do not establish a professional-client relationship. The site and services are provided “as is” with no warranty or representations regarding the qualifications of Experts. JustAnswer is not intended or designed for EMERGENCY questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service.”

The JustAnswer Expert Agreement provides at 6. Expert Warranties:

(b) You will not provide any legal or medical advice or other professional advice or information (such as securities, tax, psychiatry, veterinary, etc) that may only lawfully be rendered or provided by a licensed professional unless you are a licensed professional in good standing and you abide by all the rules and regulations of such profession.

That is clear enough. An online lawyer can legally answer only those questions which he or she can legally answer. But what questions are those?

Please be aware that we find the JustAnswer.com idea to be quite a good one and futuristic in its approach. Moreover, we are by no means a friend of the monopolistic bar associations, whose main purpose is to serve as economic barriers to entry and as generally unnecessary and ineffectual controlling institutions for their guild-like membership. There is for example no reason whatsover to exclude graduates of accredited law schools from practicing law until some bar association has obtained its pound of flesh. Nor should each State have its own bar association which can determine who can and who can not practice law in its State. It is all quite a monopoly scam, with State bar exams bearing little if no relation to the actual practice of law.

Nevertheless, given the present anachronistic realities, it would nevertheless appear to us that any legal advice given online for any kind of reimbursement, cloaked in the “expertise” of the law, IS IN FACT the practice of law, and thus in many cases prohibited in this form by the bar. Or are we wrong?

Subscription Newsletters for Professionals at PinHawk : Corporate Financial Economic Political Federal Law Firms NYC Real Estate Blawgs Media Courts

We ran across a professional fee-based newsletter service at PinHawk which could be of interest to the law and business community as a means to keep up to date with the latest developments, especially in the legal field, mostly covering the United States but also including newsletters about Australian, Canadian and UK law firms. A newsletter on Law on Blogs is also included. They offer newsletters on the following topics:

Law Firm News

Legal

Compliance

Financial

Real Estate

The Media

New York

U.S. Federal Government

German Constitutional & Election Law : Electronic Vote Computers Rejected by Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court for Lack of Proper Public Scrutiny

As reported at Germany.info, the website of the German Missions in the United States, the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany (the Bundesverfassungsgericht, BVerfG) has rejected electronic “vote computers” as machines which – by current law – are not ensured to abide by the constitutional requirement of the public nature of elections, for which reason the law permitting such voting machines is unconstitutional.

The court decision is at first glance a surprising one since the voting machines in question have been used in Germany for the past 10 years, including the most recent 2005 general election, and since there was no evidence that the machines had failed in executing their proper task.

See the court’s Press release no. 19/2009 of 3 March 2009 Use of voting computers in 2005 Bundestag election unconstitutional (in English), where it is written:

The Second Senate [of the Court] decided that the use of electronic voting machines requires that the essential steps of the voting and of the determination of the result can be examined by the citizen reliably and without any specialist knowledge of the subject. This requirement results from the principle of the public nature of elections (Article 38 in conjunction with Article 20.1 and 20.2 of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz – GG)), which prescribes that all essential steps of an election are subject to the possibility of public scrutiny unless other constitutional interests justify an exception. Accordingly it is, admittedly, constitutionally unobjectionable that § 35 of the Federal Electoral Act (Bundeswahlgesetz – BWG) permits the use of voting machines. However, the Federal Voting Machines Ordinance (Bundeswahlgeräteverordnung) is unconstitutional because it does not ensure that only such voting machines are permitted and used which meet the constitutional requirements of the principle of the public nature of elections.

Nevertheless, the court points out in that same press release that there is no need to dissolve the present German Parliament as elected in the 2005 general election:

This, however, does not result in the dissolution of the Bundestag because for lack of any indications that voting machines malfunctioned or could have been manipulated, the protection of the continued existence of the elected parliament prevails over the electoral errors which have been ascertained.

For the full text of the decision in German, see the Judgment of 3 March 2009 at:

2 BvC 3/07 and 2 BvC 4/07