It took me one Google search to find this. Did you think I made it up? Plucked it out of thin air? This is Historum, for goodness sake. Note that the medical school is based on archaeologic "evidence" as opposed to a written historic reference:
"
2700 BCE. Merit-Ptah is the first female doctor known by name in world history, but evidence suggests a medical school at the Temple of Neith in Sais (a cityin Lower Egypt) run by a woman whose name is unknown c. 3000 BCE. ... Pesehet (c. 2500 BCE) was known as 'Lady Overseer of Female Physicians' and may have been associated with the temple-school at Sais. ... it does establish Pesehet as a medical practitioner and also makes clear there were other female physicians practicing at the time whom she supervised or trained. "
Female Physicians in Ancient Egypt
Your link doesn't provide the ancient texts that are the source for its claims. What is the ancient source of knowledge for its claims of ancient female Egyptian physicians. And the article only talked about a woman head of a medical school, which isn't the same as proving a an entire school of female physcians as you claim. The article does dismiss the statements of female Egyptologist Barbara Wattson that female Egyptian physcians were very rare, but does not actually provide sources to prove her wrong. Like you, the article merely makes assertion.
Some of the arguments the article made are laughable. That a goddess was associated with medicine doesn't say much about whether that female Egyptian physcians were common. Athena was the goddess of wisdom, yet the Greeks were extremely patriarchal and there were extremely few female ancient Greek scientist and philisophers
One more search for this. Wasn't that your exact point? Creation of new knowledge?
"
In ancient Egyptian writings and architecture, the House of Life is an institution aligned with kingship, preserving and creating knowledge in written and pictorial form. "
Museum: House of Life
...and again
"
The House of Life was more than a library and a scriptorium. It contained a community of educated men and occasionally, when no answers to a question could be found in the existing literature, discussions must have arisen which might then lead to the composition of completely new texts "
The House of Life.
Those references do not support your claims. That do not provide evidence of The House of Life invovled in legal their, or in the study of mathematics, nor do the references provide examples of famous scientist, mathematicians, or philosophers and the discoveries they made. In short, you haven't done what I asked or proven your point.
It does not answer any of the questions I raised. "All their crafts", is not the samething as "all crafts", and your quote gives no idea of what those particular crafts consisted of. Did it include mathematics? It doesn't say. Did it include the science of metallurgy? It didn't say. The properties of antimony hardening lead was unknown to the ancient Egyptians. Telescopes and microscopes were unknown to the ancient Egyptia.
I don't understand why the concept of organized education pre-Christianity is anathema to you.
I never said that there was no concept of organized of organized education pre,dating Christianity, so it would be appreciated if you stop making or implying false claims. I do say that rhese earlier concepts did not match the creation of Christiabity, and I stand by those claims. Despite several opportunities you had, you haven't shown that these anxient creations cover d the same scope of fields of knowledge as universities, or were involved in the same kind of science tific and philosophical debate. There is no evidence these institutions were involved in expanding knowledge. We see a tremosous advament in knowledge in all kinds of fields from the 13th to 19th century, while we see little overall advancement in knolwdge from the 2000 BC to 1000 BC in Egypt, certainly no where near the same advancement we see in Europe.
Ancient people weren't "like" us, they "were" us ... just different technology, same brains. Christianity can't make a claim to curiosity or experimentation. You saw my reference to Dr. Nierenstein's reproduction of a 45 BCE black water fever experiment, correct? You missed the Euclid reference? The Museo was established to allow the brightest minds in the world to "think" ... for pay. It was exactly like a university with everyone working on research projects ... except they didn't have to worry about pesky undergrads.
Ther was not the same systematic experimentation as we find modern times. Ancient technology was nowhere near as advanced as modern technology. Did the ancient Egytpians have reading glasses, telescopes, and microscopes? No, there is no edivence for it, and no discoveries were made by them. Did the ancient Romans, Greeks and Egyptians have mariner magnetic compasses? No. Did the ancient Greeks, Romans, Eqyptians figure out the earth revolves around the sun, or realize the planets move ellispes and calcate the actual orbits of the planets? Caculate the orbit of Halley's comet, and when it would return, or the samething of any other comet? All Nos.
There's nothing new here. This isn't hidden knowledge or Graham Hancock wild fantasy. It's well known, old, boring archaeology.
Yes, boring technology demonstratss that overall, the ancient were technologically inferior. Even the simplest things we take for granted they lacked. They lacked the simple theaded fasterner the screw, or the threaded nut and botl. They lacked the simple.windmill. As you got older, you were just out of luck when you could no longer read without assistance. If you didn't have the money to buy/build a house or buy a farm or a piece of technological machinery, you couldn't go to the bank and get a 15 to 30 year loan to buy it. Even if the machine would generate for you a lot more money, like a mechanical reaper, so you could make more in one year with it than you could in in 4 years without, you were still just out of luck. Governments couldn't borrow money for a long term to compensate them for the consequenfes and the loss of tax revenue due to some disaster like a massive flood or drought, or detruction caused by war, so either they either not paid theirntroops (leading to mutinies) or increased the tax burdens on those still able to pay or debased the money supply, a which had negative consequences.