46 replies to this topic

[Purifier]

jaylemurph, on 18 February 2013 - 06:41 PM, said:

The trouble is that an open mind accepts whatever garbage is thrown into it. Why don't we sit down and use the gifts for logic and clear thought we've been given instead, so we can avoid the pitfalls of untested belief? It is a bit harder and more demanding, but it's ultimately more rewarding.

--Jaylemurph

That's not really a opened mind, Jaylemurph. That's a mind that simiply doesn't read enough information, doesn't want to do investigative research in all possibilities and apply strict critical thinking to both sides(fringe and professional) of the argument. Takes what it is told at face value, from either side I might add, with the quickest answer of the unexplained or unknown. Doesn't want to wait for more info to come along and provide more clues and answers on the subject, which could lead to future unknown archaeological discoveries and a correction of written history. Like in the case of the first Europeans to get to America. First it was Colombus <-(yeah, that was preached like it was written in stone, couldn't be no one else could it?. Suprise! Wrong! ) and now it's the Norse, yet today...professionals are arguing about possibly even earlier European arrivels (English fisherman) before the Norse. Which is a maybe according to them, but so were the Norse.


It can also be biased in it's thinking, which is actually a close mind or one sided viewpoint of a majority. Because they don't look at things from a third point of view, which is:  We know very litlle of what we think we do know, we've only begun to scratch the archaeological surface and we can't write world history in stone, permanently, as of yet.

the L, on 18 February 2013 - 08:19 PM, said:

Sekhmet is lion head body of human. Sphinx is opposite.

Right. Not sure why you brought it up then, thought you was leading to what I was talking about. No biggie, L.

Edited by Purifier, 20 February 2013 - 12:12 AM.

[jaylemurph]

the L, on 19 February 2013 - 09:42 PM, said:

No one cant know all. To understand how everything comes to be you first must know about

1.cosmology
2.geology
3.biology
4.paleometerology
5.palaentology
6.archaeology
7.anthropology
8.metallurgy
9.then history
10.art,music
11.philosophy
12.religion
13.medicine
14.math,physics,chemistry
17.architecture
18.literature
...

So dont be harsh even if people are wrong.

I think everyone can't know it all, actually.

Please don't take that as a serious dig at your English skills. You speak better English than I do any other langauge, (except maybe Latin, any there's hardly any excuse here to trot that out here), but I can't let that statement go without comment.

But I certainly take your point, or else I wouldn't be a teacherish person -- although given some of our previous discussion, I think it's funny/pointed that you left language out of your list.

--Jaylemurph

[the L]

jaylemurph, on 20 February 2013 - 04:30 AM, said:

But I certainly take your point, or else I wouldn't be a teacherish person -- although given some of our previous discussion, I think it's funny/pointed that you left language out of your list.

--Jaylemurph

Thank you on your comment about my English. Some users think I shouldnt post at all untill I learn it. (minority but still)
Lingustics as psychology and others are under "..."

[kmt_sesh]

I would ignore those posters, then, L. They're foolish. You're English is fine.

On to matters of Löwenfrau or Löwenmencsh (or whatever it's currently being called) and possible connections with Sekhmet.

Cross-cultural Transference
What's interesting is that the anthropological culture to which Löwenmencsh belongs, the Aurignacian culture, extended all the way into southwest Asia, including the Levant. But the Löwenmencsh figure was carved some 40,000 years ago—deep in Paleolithic times—so that alone makes a connection unlikely. I don't think Sekhmet is attested in the historical records until the Pyramid Texts at the end of Dynasty 5, although it's possible she pre-exists them in an iconographic, unwritten form. As has been mentioned in this discussion, the lion in general has been an icon in numerous world cultures, wherever lions can be or were once found. I'd say Löwenmencsh and Sekhmet represent two unrelated things, their only similarity being a lion head.

Sekhmet's Origins
How Sekhmet came to be is not known, but the same can be said for many ancient Egyptian deities. I doubt there's any connection with Aker, who could be shown in lion form but who served an entirely different purpose in Egyptian religion. As far as that goes there were many different leonine and feline deities in ancient Egypt, and while some may have stemmed from others, more is the case that they represent the dieties of different cults in different regions of the ancient Nile Valley.

The Sphinx and Leo
The Sphinx is an altogether different animal—pardon the pun. It is strictly a royal form. This is true from the earliest datable Sphinx, in the reign of Djedefre. It goes back to the popularity of the leonine figure in ancient cultures, the Near East included. The ancient Egyptian word for lion was mai, and it served as one of the ancient words for "king." Besides which, the Sphinx was a male form. Sekhmet from the beginning was female. Sekhmet was very much tied into the religion of the state but there is no observable connection with sphinxes.

I cannot discount the possibility that the Sphinx once had a different head, although I personally do not consider it plausible. The leonine body with the king's head makes perfect sense from the start. At least, I confess, the possibility might be there. It's considerably more realistic than Robert Temple's amusing idea that the original head was of the Anubis jackal.

The constellation of Leo was not part of the ancient Egyptian tradition, but the ancient Greek. Constellations were not integral in Egyptian religion to begin with—although they existed in the tradition, of course—but the very few "star charts" that can be observed in a pre-Greek pharaonic context reveal no attribution to Leo.

[jaylemurph]

kmt_sesh, on 21 February 2013 - 03:49 AM, said:

I cannot discount the possibility that the Sphinx once had a different head, although I personally do not consider it plausible. The leonine body with the king's head makes perfect sense from the start. At least, I confess, the possibility might be there. It's considerably more realistic than Robert Temple's amusing idea that the original head was of the Anubis jackal.

Pfft. Jackal. Of course not. It was originally a Basset Hound of Most Prodigious Size. It is, as the Dothraki say, known.

--Jaylemurph

[kmt_sesh]

jaylemurph, on 21 February 2013 - 04:56 AM, said:

Pfft. Jackal. Of course not. It was originally a Basset Hound of Most Prodigious Size. It is, as the Dothraki say, known.

--Jaylemurph

It is known.

(Just bought Season 2 on BlueRay. Can't wait to start watching it.)

[the L]

Kmt,

Thanks on support about my English. Feel free to correct my bad grammar.
I didn know that Aurignacian culture extend to Levant. That somehow can support my strech idea. Time gap is big but still. Many things originate far back in history. such as usage of fire, usage of language, clothing...Also you said that origin of Sekhmet is unknown. Ofcourse that doesnt proof that Im right, But they are VERY similar. Even design. Atleast to me.
In my country we called Sphinx - Sfinga. Indicating female. Just interesting thing which probably explain my mistake.
Also as I understand Aker is connected with heavens. Seting and rising sun. So could it be that Sphinx was once leo representing one guradian Aker?

Edited by the L, 25 February 2013 - 09:06 PM.

[Everdred]

the L, on 25 February 2013 - 09:06 PM, said:

In my country we called Sphinx - Sfinga. Indicating female. Just interesting thing which probably explain my mistake.

That's following the Greek, which was also feminine; their idea of a sphinx was a creature with the body of a lion, wings, and a human woman's face.  The Great Sphinx of Egypt was somewhat similar so they applied that word to it.

But the idea of anthropomorphizing animals isn't something that needs to be explained by cultural connection.  It's an easy place for anyone's mind to wander.

[Proxima]

The trouble is that an open mind accepts whatever garbage is thrown into it. Why don't we sit down and use the gifts for logic and clear thought we've been given instead, so we can avoid the pitfalls of untested belief? It is a bit harder and more demanding, but it's ultimately more rewarding.

--Jaylemurph   

Sounds just like theory. The trouble is that a lot of these have been wrong also. The human race thinks that it knows so much when actually we know so very little.

[jaylemurph]

Proxima, on 01 March 2013 - 11:14 PM, said:

Sounds just like theory. The trouble is that a lot of these have been wrong also. The human race thinks that it knows so much when actually we know so very little.

Well yes, but logical thought provides us a way to judge old information against new data, so we can retain the useful and ditch the untrue. Wildly believing without rigor or reason whatever happens to appeal to an individual doesn't really do that. If you have a better system, now's the time to pipe up.

--Jaylemurph

[The Puzzler]

the L, on 25 February 2013 - 09:06 PM, said:

Kmt,

Thanks on support about my English. Feel free to correct my bad grammar.
I didn know that Aurignacian culture extend to Levant. That somehow can support my strech idea. Time gap is big but still. Many things originate far back in history. such as usage of fire, usage of language, clothing...Also you said that origin of Sekhmet is unknown. Ofcourse that doesnt proof that Im right, But they are VERY similar. Even design. Atleast to me.
In my country we called Sphinx - Sfinga. Indicating female. Just interesting thing which probably explain my mistake.
Also as I understand Aker is connected with heavens. Seting and rising sun. So could it be that Sphinx was once leo representing one guradian Aker?

kmt wrote you're (you are) for your, I wouldn't be relying on him to correct your grammar...

Quote

You're English is fine

[The Puzzler]

But I do agree with kmt, your English is fine L.
I like the Sekhmet idea too.


When Marcelino Sanz de Sautuola first encountered the Magdalenian paintings of the Altamira cave, Cantabria, Spain in 1879, the academics of the time considered them hoaxes.

All I can say is thank goodness the open-minded people question these all-knowing academics and their opinions.

Edited by The Puzzler, 02 March 2013 - 04:12 PM.

[third_eye]

I hope we're not bringing back the Inquisition of ye olden days

[Proxima]

Well yes, but logical thought provides us a way to judge old information against new data, so we can retain the useful and ditch the untrue. Wildly believing without rigor or reason whatever happens to appeal to an individual doesn't really do that. If you have a better system, now's the time to pipe up.

--Jaylemurph

I wish I had a better system but I haven't. If anybody was to propose one it probably wouldn't be met with great enthusiasm but I for one think that the current system in place is a little too set in its ways and would benefit from a little shake up from time to time, much the same as any established practice does, and it will always ruffle some feathers. This is why those who think just that little bit outside the box and offer alternative ideas ought to be given just a bit more thought without being classified as radical as some of the more well known names that have been proposing some extreme notions hitherto.

[kmt_sesh]

The Puzzler, on 02 March 2013 - 03:51 PM, said:

kmt wrote you're (you are) for your, I wouldn't be relying on him to correct your grammar...

Your correcting my spelling? Is you're English up to the task?