34 replies to this topic

[Scott Creighton]

Hi UM,

The origins of Osiris, the AE god of rebirth/regeneration is shrouded in the dark veil of antiquity. No one truly knows who Osiris was or even if he actually existed at some time in the ancient past. And yet, somehow, by the end of the 5th dynasty, Osiris rose from relative obscurity to become one of ancient Egypt's most important gods and remained so for the remainder of ancient Egyptian history.

The few references we have about the Origins of Osiris have been passed down to us for thousands of years in the 'Pyramid Texts' and in the 'Myth of Osiris and Isis'. But where did it all begin and why was Osiris so revered by the ancient Egyptians of later times?

One of the few clues we have as to who (or what) Osiris actually was comes to us from the Pyramids Texts:

Quote

"This pyramid... is Osiris. This construction... is Osiris" - PT 1657

It seems then from the PTs that Osiris was a pyramid construction, or perhaps the construction of a series of pyramids. We learn also from the 'Myth of Osiris and Isis' that the body of Osiris had been cut into 14 pieces (some version say 16 pieces) and scattered across Egypt. Could it be then that the first 16 pyramids that were built by the ancient Egyptians came to represent the 'body of Osiris' in a similar way that modern Christian churches are collectively described as the 'Body of Christ'?

If we then consider the locations of the first 16 or so pyramids the ancient Egyptians built might it in some way resemble the classic 'Body of Osiris' (see image 1 below) that we are so accustomed to seeing in ancient Egyptian art?

Image 1:



I will say right away that what I am about to present here is something of a stretch but it is possible that such might be the case; that the first pyramids represent the 'body of Osiris' (well, the 'backbone' of Osiris).

Let us first of all consider the arrangement of the first 17 pyramids built by the ancient Egyptians. (I use 17 because 3 of these first pyramids were never completed which might perhaps explain why the 'Myth of Osiris and Isis' refers to 14 pieces of Osiris).

Image 2:



The image above shows the following pyramids constructed on the high plateaus along the Nile:

Djoser (Saqqara)
Sekhemkhet (Saqqara - Unfinished)
Khaba (Zawiyet al-Aryan - Unfinished)
Sneferu (Meidum - furthest south)
Sneferu (Dahshur - Bent)
Sneferu (Dahshur - Red)
Khufu (Giza)
Djedefre (Abu Rawash - furthest north)
Khafre (Giza)
Nebka (Zawiyet al-Aryan - Unfinished)
Menkaure (Giza)

In addition to the above, Mark Lehner lists in his 'The Complete Pyramids', we also have the 6 so-called Queens’ pyramids at Giza, giving a total of 17 pyramids.

Looking at image 2 above, there is little immediate correlation with the classic Osiris figure we see in image 1. If we look a bit closer, however, and apply our imagination in the same way astronomers do with star asterisms whereby all manner of creatures are conjured up, it is possible (admittedly with a stretch) to depict the 'bare bones' of an Osiris outline. Let us see:

Image 3:



Image 4:



Image 5:



Image 6:



Image 7:



Image 8:



Image 9:




With each pyramid within the 'Body of Osiris' serving as a 'Recovery Vault' (securing seed - wheat, barley etc and other vital recovery goods - see the Recovery Vault Theory), it is little wonder then that later ancient Egyptians during the Festival of Khoiak would create small effigies of Osiris known as 'corn mummies' and pack them full with grain, perhaps in remembrance of the original purpose of the pyramids - the 'Body of Osiris' - as Recovery Vaults. These grain stuffed 'Osiris bodies' would then be placed in a small wooden or stone box and buried in a mound of earth. Given that the 'seed of life' would come forth from 'the Body of Osiris' (the early, giant pyramids), it is easy to understand how Osiris, having secured the 'rebirth' of the kingdom would, in time, become venerated, leading ultimately to his status as a god in later dynasties and paving the way for the Osirian burials of later Egyptian kings.

Food for thought.........

SC

[The_Spartan]

Questions :

1. How many Pyramids are there in Egypt?
2.  But you are considering only 11 Pyramids for your Osiris representation using the pyramid location.
3. Why haven't you not considered the other pyramids also in your graphical representation?
4. Why are you not considering Mastabas? There are many pharaos who have been entombed in mastabas.
5. is there any Dynasty related criteria for the selection of these pyramids? Upto  which dynasty have you considered?
6. If the Pyramids are considered based on dyansties that have built them, are there any pyramids or mastabas(belonging to pharaos) that havent beein considered for your graphical representation?

[Scott Creighton]

The_Spartan, on 13 September 2012 - 11:29 AM, said:

Questions :

Hi Spartan,

Quote

Spartan: 1. How many Pyramids are there in Egypt?

SC: I believe there are 138 pyramids presently known in Egypt.

Quote

Spartan: 2.  But you are considering only 11 Pyramids for your Osiris representation using the pyramid location.

SC: I am considering the FIRST 14 pyramids the AEs built (plus a few unfinished ones) as this corresponds to the 'Myth of Osiris' whose body was cut into 14 pieces (some versions of the myth say more which may be a reference to the unfinished pyramids).

Quote

Spartan: 3. Why haven't you not considered the other pyramids also in your graphical representation?

SC: For the reason given above - the Myth of Osiris states the 'Body of Osiris' was cut into 14 pieces (slightly more in other versions of the myth).

Quote

Spartan: 4. Why are you not considering Mastabas? There are many pharaos who have been entombed in mastabas.

SC: Because the Pyramid Texts state the PYRAMID is Osiris (not the mastaba).

Quote

Spartan: 5. is there any Dynasty related criteria for the selection of these pyramids? Upto  which dynasty have you considered?

SC: Not really--just the first 14 completed pyramids as per the Myth of Osiris.

Quote

6. If the Pyramids are considered based on dyansties that have built them, are there any pyramids or mastabas(belonging to pharaos) that havent beein considered for your graphical representation?

SC: 'Dynasties' are simply an arbitrary means of dividing the AE kings, devised by Manetho. Only Dynasties 3 and 4 are represented in the presentation.

Regards,

SC

[The_Spartan]

Some more questions

• When did the AE first start worshipping Osiris?
  
• Did the AE worship Osiris as the god of the afterlife, the underworld and the dead, from the beginning or he evolved in the Egyptian Pantheon into the god of the afterlife, the underworld and the dead

Now considering my layman knowledge,

The AE started worshipping Osiris as the God of earth and vegetation. He was associated with/known as Khenti-Amentiu "The foremost of the westerners". This title was ascribed to  Osiris from the 1st Dynasty onwards.
The worship of Osiris as the God of the Afterlife, the underworld and The Dead can be attributed to the 5th Dynasty.

Please correct me if i am wrong. Kmt, i need your advice too.


So,  Scott, as per your post above, you are considering only those Pyramids that were built under the 3rd and the 4th Dynasty.
If Osiris was worshipped as a god from the 1st Dynasty, why don't you consider any structures/landmarks belong ing to the 1st and 2nd dynasty in your graphical representation?
Why nit pick and show only those Landmarks/Structures that suit the image of Osiris?
Would the image change if you consider older landmarks/structures?

these are genuine doubts i have.
Please try to clarify.

[Scott Creighton]

The_Spartan, on 14 September 2012 - 04:52 PM, said:

Quote

Spartan: these are genuine doubts i have.

SC: Don’t concern yourself. It’s only a hypothesis and I have plenty of doubt about it myself.

Quote

Spartan: When did the AE first start worshipping Osiris?

SC: No one really knows. There are, however, a number of scholarly authorities who believe Osiris existed (in whatever capacity) long before he was first attested in written form in the 5^th dynasty.

Quote

Spartan: Did the AE worship Osiris as the god of the afterlife, the underworld and the dead, from the beginning or he evolved in the Egyptian Pantheon into the god of the afterlife, the underworld and the dead.

SC: No one can say for sure but it does seem to have been an evolution (of sorts). Certainly Osiris became a god (eventually), no one can question that. But, as J. G. Griffiths points out, in his earliest form, it seems that Osiris was in no way associated with rebirth (spiritual or corporeal) but only with vegetation/agriculture. What brought Osiris to such an eminent position in AE religious philosophy? Surely as an icon or metaphor for continual rebirth the sun god, Re, would have been more appropriately conferred with such an important role, especially when the rebirth of vegetation is itself dependent upon the rebirth of the sun.

Griffiths makes a subtle but important distinction of the 'Osirian Rebirth' doctrine i.e. that it was regarded by the AEs as a 'corporeal recovery' that would occur in this realm rather than a 'spiritual rebirth' in the realm hereafter. Such a doctrine equates much better and easier with the notion of the pyramids as 'Recovery' instruments of the kingdom (ensuring a physical recovery of the kingdom) as opposed to 'Resurrection' instruments of the king (i.e. to bring about a spiritual resurrection of the king, although, it's entirely possible, if not probable, that such an idea may have evolved much later).

We have to ask ourselves what was at the root of such religious practices? As stated, an 'Osirian Resurrection' was not something that the AEs believed would occur in what we today would call 'heaven'. They believed that this 'rebirth' was a truly corporeal event that would occur in this side of heaven; a ‘preservation’ leading to a ‘reawakening’ (as opposed to a spiritual or metaphysical resurrection of the dead); an ‘injury’ leading to a ‘recovery’ as opposed to a fatal wound resulting in death. Such a concept is more in keeping with recovery after 'injury' as opposed to spiritual resurrection after death and as such, better fits the Recovery Vault Theory (RVT) than it does the Pyramid Tomb Theory (PTT).

Quote

"If Osiris and his cult cannot be claimed to have originated the belief in life after death, it may properly be asked whether his cult made any distinctive contribution to Egyptian thought on the matter. The three passages quoted above make it clear that there was something different in the Osirian conception of immortality. First, it was a corporeal conception. Whereas the other religious systems involved the ascent of the deceased to heaven or his temporary transformation into another form, the Osirian system is clearly concerned with the body of the dead king and desiderates continued life for his body. Death indeed is not usually admitted. As Osiris, the tired god, was able to revive from his sleep, so the king will awake and stand… Death is really only a sleep, then, a phase of tiredness; and the firm denial of it in other references shows that it is denied both as a state and as an occurrence.”

"O king, thou hast not gone away dead; though hast gone away alive. Sit on the throne of Osiris." (Pyr. 134a)

Here then is a doctrine of continued life rather than of resurrection or resuscitation after death. In view of the pretence or euphemism involved one should possibly not object to the common use of the term resurrection as a description of the doctrine, although it is not precisely correct; it is the non-Osirian doctrine, in various forms, which amounts to a belief in resurrection [i.e. a spiritual life after a corporeal death].

J. G. Griffiths , The Origins of Osiris and His Cult, p.66-67

‘… when the dead king came to be regarded as Osiris the ceremony of washing his corpse was retained as an episode in the Rite of Embalmment, being performed when the corpse was taken out of the salt-bath.’ He goes on: ‘But the view now held was, not that the dead king was reborn as a result of this lustration, but that his body, like that of Osiris, was revivified.’ These remarks involve a recognition that embalming was essentially an Osirian rite.

That the ceremony of Opening of the Mouth, which was the climax of the rite of embalming, was a means of imparting life and energy is shown by its extension to images and heart-scarabs. A further more interesting extension is the ‘Opening of the Mouth’ of a Temple which is recorded in the Ptolemaic texts from the temple of Edfu, and which aimed at making the temple as a whole alive and active, and also, as Blackman and Fairman have shown, at animating its reliefs, figures and vessels. [Just as the opening of the mouth (entrance) of the Recovery Vaults (the ‘body’ of Osiris) to gain access to its cache of life-supporting recovery goods would originally have done].

Ibid, p.74

Quote

Spartan: Now considering my layman knowledge,

The AE started worshipping Osiris as the God of earth and vegetation.

SC: Indeed. It is believed that this was the original association of Osiris hence why the images that are passed down to us show Osiris with a green face (colour of vegetation) or black face (colour of fertile Nile silt).

Quote

Spartan: He was associated with/known as Khenti-Amentiu "The foremost of the westerners".

Quote

”Khentiamentiu (or Khentyamentw) was an ancient god of the necropolis at Abydos. It is thought that his temple at Abydos, founded in the late Predynastic period, was the first to be built there. The sun set (died) in the west and rose (was reborn) in the east so the name, which means "foremost of the westerners", refers to the dead, not a geographical location. He was depicted as a man swathed in bandages (like the mumiform Osiris) wearing the crown of upper (southern) Egypt.

He is referred to in the necropolis seals of Den, and was often mentioned during the Old Kingdom. However, as time progressed his position as the guardian of the Abydos necropolis and his role as the deity representing the dead king was absorbed by Osiris, and his funerary role was to some degree absorbed by Anubis. His later appearances are largely as the combined deity Asir-Khentyamentiu.

Khentyamentiu may have himself replaced an older god, Wepwawet ("the opener of the ways") who was also syncretised with Osiris.” Source

Quote

Spartan: This title was ascribed to Osiris from the 1st Dynasty onwards.

SC: It is virtually impossible to say with any certainty when Osiris absorbed/usurped the role of other deities.

Quote

Spartan: The worship of Osiris as the God of the Afterlife, the underworld and The Dead can be attributed to the 5th Dynasty.

SC: His ‘god status’ is certainly attested in written form for the first time in the Pyramid Texts found within the pyramid of Unas.

Quote

Spartan: So, Scott, as per your post above, you are considering only those Pyramids that were built under the 3rd and the 4th Dynasty. If Osiris was worshipped as a god from the 1st Dynasty, why don't you consider any structures/landmarks belong ing to the 1st and 2nd dynasty in your graphical representation?

SC: First of all, we do not know if Osiris was worshiped as a god in the 1^st dynasty.  Secondly, I consider only PYRAMIDS as opposed to “structures/landmarks” because the Pyramid Texts clearly tell us: “This PYRAMID… is Osiris.  This construction… is Osiris.” (emphasis mine).

Quote

Spartan: Why nit pick and show only those Landmarks/Structures that suit the image of Osiris?

SC:There is no nit picking. I have selected only the FIRST 14 completed pyramids that the ancient Egyptians actually built--14 as per the Myth of Osiris, some versions of which tell us that his body was cut into 14 pieces. I’m suggesting these 14 pieces of Osiris' body may represent (metaphorically of course) these first 14 pyramids (i.e. the early, giant pyramids) the AEs built i.e. the ‘body of Osiris’ as per the Pyramid Texts “this pyramid… is Osiris”. Just like the modern Christian church, the various churches around the world are collectively regarded as the ‘body of Christ’. Similar idea.

Quote

Spartan: Would the image change if you consider older landmarks/structures?

SC: I’m sure it would but, as far as we presently know, there are no older pyramids.

Regards,

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton, 15 September 2012 - 12:09 AM.

[Jon101]

Oh scott, you are suffering from mental pareidolia, do try and be objective.  




Dear boy.

[kmt_sesh]

There's a lot of ground to cover here and any number of interesting points to discuss, but time is limited tonight so I'm going to concentrate only on the spell from the Pyramid Texts quoted in the OP:

Quote

"This pyramid... is Osiris. This construction... is Osiris" - PT 1657

This is one line of a spell from Utterance 600 in the Pyramid Texts. First, Scott, I have to ask why you used the ellipses and redacted information from this line? No single line from the Pyramid Texts is going to make sense unto itself if it's pulled from its appropriate context.

Below is a chart showing Kurt Sethe's line drawings of Spell 600:1657. The Pyramid Texts are often in a fragmentary state in any single pyramid, so it's common practice to consider the spells from more than one pyramid in order to understand the whole. Here, Sethe has used inscriptions from the pyramids of Merenre and Pepi II (Neferkare). Sethe published a translation of the Pyramid Texts in German in 1908. His translations are still useful but are now considered outdated, but his line drawings of the inscriptions are invaluable. One can view them online here (my image below is adapted from the online resource).


Transliterating and translating excerpts from the Pyramid Texts is good practice for a student of hieroglyphs, and doing so is helpful in understanding the language and intent of the spells. My work is as follows (I'm providing first the transliteration and then the translation for each line, so that interested parties can fact-check my work; I'm using the texts from the pyramid of Pepi II):

1657a:  hA Hr wsir pw (Pepi Neferkare) pn
O, Horus, this (Pepi Neferkare) is Osiris

1657b: wsir pw mr pn n (Pepi Neferkare) kAt.f tn
This pyramid of (Pepi Neferkare) and this his construction are Osiris

1657c: ims.kw r.f
Go yourself to him

1657d: (t)mn Hr ir.f m rn.f n(.f) mr
Do not be far from his identity of the pyramid

Numerous spells from the Pyramid Texts have given me pause when I try to translate them, but this one is pretty straight forward. To check the accuracy of my translation I first consulted Raymond Faulkner's results. Faulkner's translations of the Pyramid Texts supplanted Sethe's long ago and were the standard for many years. Here is how he translated the same lines (Faulkner 2007 ed: 247):

O Horus, this King is Osiris, this pyramid of the King is Osiris, this construction of his is

Osiris; betake yourself to it, do not be far from it in its name of 'Pyramid.'

Next, I checked my work against James Allen's translations of the same lines. Allen published his translations of the Pyramid Texts in 2005 and contributed the most comprehensive and accurate translations to date. Egyptologists specializing in the linguistics of the ancient civilization now consider his translations to be the standard. Here is Allen's take on it (Allen 2005: 269):

Ho, Horus! This Pepi Neferkare is Osiris, this pyramid of Pepi Neferkare and this work are

Osiris. Betake yourself to him and don't be far from him in his identity of the pyramid.

My work is not as polished as either Faulkner's or Allen's, of course, but I think my results match theirs well enough. I was aware that ims.kw is typically translated as "betake yourself," but frankly that word "betake" sounds antiquated to me so I prefer a simple "go."

These lines, by the way, are part of a wider set of spells for protection of the pyramid, and are found on the east wall of the burial chamber.

The point is, Scott's redacted version of 1657b in his OP leaves out the essential reference to the king who was buried in the pyramid and for whom that series of spells were inscribed. It is the king to whom the lines of 1657 refer. Secondarily, the pyramid is associated with Osiris but only through the king. This makes sense. The spells were devised to aid the king's soul in its ascension to the heavens. Without the king, the pyramid is just an anonymous and expensive pile of stones.

In closing, I must emphasize that the Pyramid Texts as we are able to read them have no association with any pyramid, including Khufu's, before the end of Dynasty 5. To date no evidence for the texts has been found in any context predating the end of Dynasty 5. Consensus is nearly universal that the Pyramid Texts are a hell of a lot older than late Dynasty 5, and in fact may date back to burial rituals from at least late prehistory (at which early time they had nothing to do with pyramids, of course), but this is only theoretical. We do not know what the Pyramid Texts read like, what spells might have been added, or what spells might have been deleted before they first appeared inside the pyramid of Unis.

[Scott Creighton]

kmt_sesh, on 16 September 2012 - 03:56 AM, said:

Quote

KMS: Here is how he translated the same lines (Faulkner 2007 ed: 247):

O Horus, this King is Osiris, this pyramid of the King is Osiris, this construction of his is Osiris;

The point is, Scott's redacted version of 1657b in his OP leaves out the essential reference to the king who was buried in the pyramid and for whom that series of spells were inscribed. It is the king to whom the lines of 1657 refer.

SC: My use of lacunae in no way alters the essential meaning and message that the pyramid itself is considered as Osiris: the King is Osiris, the pyramid is Osiris and the construction is Osiris. That is what PT 1657b tells us. The pyramid itself is personified as Osiris.

This makes perfect sense. Osiris as an actual physical person is equated with the physical person of the King. The first 14 pyramids the AEs built could have been considered as the allegorical ‘body of Osiris’ (the personified body of Osiris) hence why PT 1657b tells us that the pyramid construction itself is also Osiris.

It would be no surprise that later dynasties would then regard the pyramid construction itself as the allegorical ‘body of Osiris’ (the personified body) whilst the king then becomes equated with the physical body of Osiris.

Quote

KMS: Secondarily, the pyramid is associated with Osiris but only through the king. This makes sense.

SC: It does not make sense. The pyramid itself is clearly and separately identified as a personification of Osiris.

Quote

KMS: Without the king, the pyramid is just an anonymous and expensive pile of stones.

SC: In later times perhaps, but not the original pyramids (the original 14 pyramids, the 'body of Osiris') whose function without the king was to store something much more precious in order to help secure a rebirth of the kingdom (not the king).

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton, 16 September 2012 - 10:24 AM.

[Hanslune]

Howdy Kmt & Scott

What happens when osiris faces to the west?

Where did this image of Osiris come from?

What is the earliest representation of Osiris in AE art?

As I understand it the pyramids are built near habitations, so that would mean the habitations were located prior to this AE desire to put points on the terrain?

[Scott Creighton]

Hanslune, on 16 September 2012 - 03:30 PM, said:

Hello Hans,

Quote

Hans: As I understand it the pyramids are built near habitations, so that would mean the habitations were located prior to this AE desire to put points on the terrain?

SC: You misunderstand what I am suggesting. The priority for the pyramids was to make them as visible as possible. That entails building them big but also building them on the high plateaus of the land. And that is where we find these pyramids have been built. Obviously then, the high plateaus existed before Osiris (before humans in fact).  I am suggesting that the Myth of Osiris which tells us that the body of Osiris was divided into 14 pieces may be in reference to the first 14 pyramids the AEs built; the early, giant pyramids of the 3rd and 4th dynasties. This myth would probably have been developed only AFTER the construction of these pyramids and may, in fact, have been created to represent an allegorical tale of what the pyramids actually (originally) were—pyramids that held within them, the ‘seed of Osiris’.  I am suggesting that this idea may be backed up by the Pyramid Texts which tell us the “pyramid… is Osiris…”. Through the agency of Osiris, (i.e. the 14 pyramids as the allegorical body containing his seed), the kingdom could be reborn.  This idea of the pyramids as the ‘body of Osiris’ containing seed and other recovery items explains why later ancient Egyptians would create small figurines of Osiris (‘corn mummies’), pack them full with grain and bury them in a small wooden or stone box under a mound of earth.

Together with this Myth of Osiris indicating to us (in allegorical terms) that these 14 ‘body parts’ (14 pyramids) contained seed (and other recovery items), it is possible that a ‘mnemonic map’ of the pyramid locations (relative to each other) was also created, thus a figurine of Osiris may have been created after the pyramids were completed for this purpose. The pyramid locations were identified first, then the pyramids were built, then the allegorical myth and the ‘mnemonic map’ were created when the pyramids were completed (or possibly earlier when the pyramid sites had been identified).

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton, 16 September 2012 - 06:10 PM.

[cladking]

Scott Creighton, on 16 September 2012 - 09:48 AM, said:

SC: My use of lacunae in no way alters the essential meaning and message that the pyramid itself is considered as Osiris: the King is Osiris, the pyramid is Osiris and the construction is Osiris. That is what PT 1657b tells us. The pyramid itself is personified as Osiris.

This makes perfect sense. Osiris as an actual physical person is equated with the physical person of the King. The first 14 pyramids the AEs built could have been considered as the allegorical ‘body of Osiris’ (the personified body of Osiris) hence why PT 1657b tells us that the pyramid construction itself is also Osiris.

I fully agree.  The pyramid is Osiris but even more importantly the pyramid is the dead king as well.

These are the  only lines in the PT that calls the pyramid Osiris but many say it is the dead king.

[cladking]

kmt_sesh, on 16 September 2012 - 03:56 AM, said:

In closing, I must emphasize that the Pyramid Texts as we are able to read them have no association with any pyramid, including Khufu's, before the end of Dynasty 5. To date no evidence for the texts has been found in any context predating the end of Dynasty 5. Consensus is nearly universal that the Pyramid Texts are a hell of a lot older than late Dynasty 5, and in fact may date back to burial rituals from at least late prehistory (at which early time they had nothing to do with pyramids, of course), but this is only theoretical. We do not know what the Pyramid Texts read like, what spells might have been added, or what spells might have been deleted before they first appeared inside the pyramid of Unis.

This is illogical though it is the mainstream opinion.  It is known to have existed in the
great pyramid building age but since it might have changed before our version it isn't
legitimate to study it and apply it to the builders.  Yet Egyptology bases their entire un-
derstanding of the builders based on an understanding of this work in terms of the book
of the dead.

Meanwhile nothing survives from the great pyramid building age so we either fill it with
the "culture" (book of the dead) or we have nothing to understand the people.  This is
such convoluted logic it's difficult to even type it out.

What it really boils down to is that Egyptologists believe you have to accept their opin-
ion or you're wrong before you start.

I don't believe it's possible to understand these lines until you understand the entire ut-
terance.

Suffice to say in this case I believe SC's interpretation is closer than KS's.

But this is probably exactly true;

Quote

The point is, Scott's redacted version of 1657b in his OP leaves out the essential reference to the king who was buried in the pyramid and for whom that series of spells were inscribed. It is the king to whom the lines of 1657 refer. Secondarily, the pyramid is associated with Osiris but only through the king. This makes sense. The spells were devised to aid the king's soul in its ascension to the heavens. Without the king, the pyramid is just an anonymous and expensive pile of stones.

...except there are no spells in the PT

Edited by cladking, 16 September 2012 - 06:46 PM.

[samspade]

cladking, on 16 September 2012 - 06:40 PM, said:

Meanwhile nothing survives from the great pyramid building age so we either fill it with
the "culture" (book of the dead) or we have nothing to understand the people.  

hello cladking,

perhaps the benben stone is none other that the rejected stone of the builders, i use the word perhaps.

[kmt_sesh]

cladking, on 16 September 2012 - 06:40 PM, said:

This is illogical though it is the mainstream opinion.  It is known to have existed in the
great pyramid building age ...

"It is known" is perhaps something of an exaggeration. It is not really known, in the sense of facts that one can check and analyze. It is surmised or believed, yes, based on the language in the texts. But as no version of the Pyramid Texts exists prior to Dynasty 5, we can't know anything with certainty about what might have come before.

Quote

Yet Egyptology bases their entire un-
derstanding of the builders based on an understanding of this work in terms of the book
of the dead.

The Pyramid Texts tell us practically nothing about the realities of the workers. Much more significant and revealing are the excavations of the several workmen's villages that existed at Giza, especially the one to the south of the pyramid field. This includes the burials of many of the higher-status workmen, such as foremen. The material culture recovered from the workmen's villages tells us a great deal about how they were supplied and fed and cared for. The Pyramid Texts do not mention any of this—that is, information of a practical and real-world nature.

Quote

Meanwhile nothing survives from the great pyramid building age so we either fill it with
the "culture" (book of the dead) or we have nothing to understand the people.  This is
such convoluted logic it's difficult to even type it out.

You've been disproved repeatedly on this "nothing survives" error, and continuing to repeat it will not make it any more correct. Moreover, the Book of the Dead has nothing to do with modern translations and analysis of the Pyramid Texts. The sum total of the Pyramid Texts provides a complete corpus of material, so there is plenty of source material to work with. The spells in the Pyramid Texts are written in hieroglyphs, and they speak for themselves. I did not, for example, even consider the Book of the Dead when I translated the passages above, nor have I ever done so in those passages I translated in past debates with you. There's no reason to do so.

Quote

What it really boils down to is that Egyptologists believe you have to accept their opin-
ion or you're wrong before you start.

Not quite. It boils down to the ability of an alternative writer to prove a case in point, to the extent that the alternative explanation survives scrutiny and supplants the standard orthodox explanation. Has this ever happened? Can you cite an example? No, of course you cannot.

What must be emphasized is the fringe writer's responsibility to do this. It is not up to any Egyptologist to prove an alternative writer's concept.

Quote

Suffice to say in this case I believe SC's interpretation is closer than KS's.

Demonstrate this with a linguistic and translational argument. The hieroglyphs speak for themselves, and the Egyptians preserved their religious beliefs through their hieroglyphs.

[Scott Creighton]

kmt_sesh, on 16 September 2012 - 10:31 PM, said:

Quote

KMS: Not quite. It boils down to the ability of an alternative writer to prove a case in point, to the extent that the alternative explanation survives scrutiny and supplants the standard orthodox explanation. Has this ever happened? Can you cite an example? No, of course you cannot.

SC: Paradigm-changing theories will NEVER be accepted through evolution. They will succeed only through revolution. If you seriously think the old guard of consensus Egyptology will welcome paradigm-changing ideas that will effectively overturn much of what they hold dear, you are deluding yourself.

Quote

KMS: What must be emphasized is the fringe writer's responsibility to do this. It is not up to any Egyptologist to prove an alternative writer's concept.

SC: Indeed. Consensus Egyptology has a hard enough time trying to prove its own theories let alone anyone else's. Alternative theories need only be proven to the extent that consensus Egyptology can prove its own theories. And, as I have said on many occasions, the Recovery Vault Theory (RVT) with regard to the early, giant pyramids of ancient Egypt is better supported by the extant evidence than the Pyramid Tomb Theory (PTT). But I don't expect you to accept that.

Quote

CK: Suffice to say in this case I believe SC's interpretation is closer than KS's.

KMS: Demonstrate this with a linguistic and translational argument. The hieroglyphs speak for themselves, and the Egyptians preserved their religious beliefs through their hieroglyphs.

SC: Yes, the hieroglyphs DO speak for themselves and they tell us, unequivocally, that the pyramid construction itself was personified as Osiris.

SC