kmt_sesh, on 29 December 2012 - 06:30 AM, said:
Quote
SC: Your absolute statement above is a gross over-simplification of the situation. You well know that Osiris is attested in the 5th Dynasty Pyramid Texts and that by this time he was regarded as a god. He is also associated in the PTs with grain. There are a number of eminent scholars who all accept the likelihood that Osiris and his cult predates the 5th dynasty and some even as early as the Archaic Period.
KMS: My statement is absolute, yes, but I stand by it. This is a basic tenet of current Egyptology. That's the source from which I derive my arguments. Until such time that evidence surfaces clearly showing Osiris as a deity possessing a notable cult prior to late Dynasty 5, I shall remain absolute about this. I'm not saying it's impossible that Osiris did not exist prior to late Dynasty 5, nor have I ever tried to argue that point.
SC: Once again we observe the brazen double-standards of the Egypt-apologists. They are not prepared to accept a premise (in this instance a pre-5
th dynasty Osiris) until “evidence surfaces clearly showing Osiris as a deity”. And yet they are quite happy to promote the Pyramid Tomb Theory to all and sundry when no such empirical primary evidence has ever been recovered “clearly showing” that the early, giant pyramids were conceived and built as tombs. This is the kind of duplicity that makes consensus Egyptology a laughing stock. You cannot demand of others that which you do not demand of yourself.
Osiris is already deified by the time of the Pyramid Texts first appearing. Gods do not pop up over-night out of the blue. Take Imhotep, for example. He was deified around 1,000 years after he lived. Christ was deified around 300 years after he lived. It stands to reason that if Osiris had been deified by the time of Unas then he must surely have existed in some form long before that time. To deny the simple logic of this is simply nothing more than denying for the sake of historical (and to some extent political) expediency and I suspect is being done to prop up an out-dated and seriously flawed paradigm.
Quote
KMS: I am only saying if he was a deity in the Egyptian pantheon in earlier periods, he was a god of such minor status that he did not warrant attention at the state level of religion. That's a basic fact—the name and icons of Osiris do not appear until the end of Dynasty 5. What caused the cult of Osiris to start to emerge late in the Old Kingdom remains wholly unknown, but it's obvious he was not a key figure in earlier periods.
SC: With regards to the RVT, it does not require Osiris to be a god at all prior to his later emergence as an attested god in the time of Unas. He could simply have been the AEs equivalent to our modern ‘Minister of Agriculture’ whose task was to pack the Pyramid Recovery Vaults with the best grains from across the kingdom. As such he would be closely associated with all the pyramids and the various grains stored therein. And this is what we find in the PTs – “This Pyramid is Osiris… this construction is Osiris…” as well as his connections with grain mentioned in the PTs. For all we know, the Pyramid Recovery Vaults may have been a grand plan first conceived by Osiris and implemented by the AEs over a number of generations. This is, of course, pure speculation and we will never know why Osiris came to prominence much later. The point here, however, is to show that in terms of the RVT, Osiris need not have been important prior to the end of Dynasty 5 but by his actions to ensure the recovery of the kingdom by way of the Pyramid Recovery Vaults, this led to his being revered as a god by the time of Unas. By this time the pyramids had become icons of rebirth/regeneration and given the close association of Osiris to the pyramids and to the various grains therein, it is not too much of a stretch to see why he would have become revered by the time of Unas.
Quote
KMS: Before proceeding, let's review the eminent scholars you referenced. You've brought out this list before. Griffiths was indeed an Egyptologist, but not of eminent status. Note that his most notable book, The Origins of Osiris and His Cult, is now mostly out of print and is difficult to find at a reasonable price. This is reflective of its status as research material—it's not a primary research source in contemporary historical studies. I'm not saying the book has no value because it's an interesting study and worth the read, and Griffiths did some intelligent work in it. But his basic premise is wrong. That's not my opinion but the consensus of modern scholarship. In point of fact, as far as a published body of work goes, Griffiths is better known as a Welsh poet.
I'll return to Griffiths later, but allow me to continue. Walter Emery, for example, was indeed an eminent early scholar in Egyptology, but his book, Archaic Egypt, contains some clear errors where Osiris is concerned. That's not his fault, but there are pitfalls involved when citing work that was published over fifty years ago. I'll return to Emery, too. Jane B. Sellers is not an Egyptologist, although I understand she took some relevant courses at the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago. I've taken courses at the same place but it doesn't make me an Egyptologist, either. I have not read Sellers's book so I can't comment on it authoritatively, but from what I've been able to learn she is an enthusiast in archaeo-astronomy. Her overall premise is that nearly the entirety of Egyptain religion and myth derives from a deep-prehistoric cosmological tradition. This is not correct. Her book sounds interesting and I might even read it sooner or later, but it's not among the body of professional literature in the studies of ancient Egypt. It is from the alternative camp—although from what I can discern, it's perhaps more academically approached than most from the alternative literature. I noticed on the Amazon comments how she's bemoaned being lumped in with Bauval and others.
Finally there is Sir Wallace Budge. He was a scholar for his time but his work is woefully outdated. There's a reason the copyright has expired and his books sell for next to nothing. Budge wrote prolifically but allowed almost none of his colleagues to review or critique his work before it was published. This shows, especially by the comparison of modern scholarship. His work is riddled with errors. This is not my opinion but a fact commonly understood by those familiar with Egyptological research. Viewing Budge's work as primary research material would be a bit like a modern medical student referring only to nineteenth-century medical tomes. It doesn't compute.
SC: Another typical Egypt-apologist ploy - when the weight of authority goes against you, simply dismiss the authority. This is why I refer to Egyptology as ‘Consensus Egyptology’ because that is all it is. Everyone has their opinion and there are opinions that go against the consensus. That does not and will not make those alternative opinions wrong. So Budge’s work is “riddled with errors”, Griffith’s “premise is wrong” – that does not make them wrong about everything and it certainly does not make them wrong about Osiris predating the 5
th dynasty. But you simply spout forth this guff in order to blacken and tarnish, to undermine authorities that are eminently more familiar with the subject matter than you or I. Your whole approach here would have you throwing out the baby with the bathwater. But if it helps to prop up the creaking consensus paradigm, it’s fair game to you. Not everyone is fooled by such tactics.
Quote
SC: Nonsense. That’s like saying a small crucifix manufactured last week in a factory in Scunthorp has to be disconnected with all associations with Christ simply because it was manufactured 2,000 years after the original events supposedly took place.
SC: So by that standard a modern crucifix has no association to the original cross of Christ because it is made of metal? ‘Orisis Bricks’ are called such because they are brick-shaped and fired. Osiris Bricks, Osiris Beds and Corn Mummies are all part of the same underlying Chthonic ritual stretching back thousands of years to the original event – the early, giant pyramids (the allegorical dismembered ‘Body of Osiris’ as per the PTs) storing various grains and other seed types as well as other recovery items. Why do you think the AEs packed the Osiris figurines (Corn Mummies) with grain? Because it is a symbolic re-enactment of the original event, recalling the time when the pyramids (as the allegorical ‘Body of Osiris’) performed that very function (storing grains and other recovery items) that ensured the earth (the kingdom) could be reborn. In time this concept of the pyramids as 'rebirth machines' would become associated with the king to ensure his own corporeal rebirth in this ream as opposed to a metaphysical rebirth in the realm beyond. Why do you think the Osirian Rebirth is corporeal as opposed to metaphysical in nature? Because the original event was all about the corporeal rebirth of the kingdom (as opposed to the king).
KMS: The comparison with crucifixes doesn't work for your example. The equating of crucifixes with the Christian Jesus is unequivocal because that was a symbol of the Christian religion from nearly the very start. There is no "fuzziness" with this equation because the symbol of the death on the cross belongs to no other deity. The same is not true with the origins of Osiris, on which I'll elaborate presently.
SC: Nevertheless, I am quite sure you understand the central point here. If you want a better example then what about chocolate Easter eggs then? In some Christian traditions the Easter egg symbolically represents the stone that was rolled away from the tomb of Christ. (I am well aware there are other traditions for this). A fairly modern association but chocolate and stone are nothing alike. And their size is nothing alike either. Just because something is not made of the same material as the original does not mean it is automatically to be disassociated from the original, that it represents something else altogether. The ‘Osiris Bricks’ and later ‘Corn Mummies’ would have been mass produced for festivals so it makes sense to make small symbolic representations of the original and from a material that is easier to mass produce (wood, fired pottery). It would not make sense for those attending the Festival of Khoiak to want their own, full-size, granite ‘Osiris Bed’, now would it?
Quote
SC: And modern crucifixes are “rather small” and often vary in size. The idea of the Osiris Bricks and Osiris Beds is that they were to be buried hence why we have found relatively few. But there are some nice stone examples in some of the early giant pyramids.
KMS: Calling the Osiris beds akin to sarcophagi is your own premise. It is not accepted orthodoxy, therefore this is an absolute statement that cannot stand on its own.
SC: No—we have sarcophagi in mastabas, rock-cut tombs and shaft tombs and they are quite different from the stone boxes we find in the early, giant pyramids. This is because the granite stone boxes in mastabas etc ARE sarcophagi but the granite boxes found in a few of the early, giant pyramids are NOT—they are the archetype ‘Osiris Bed’.
The point here, of course, is that we know that the AEs created boxes, filled them only with earth and seed and buried them. These ‘burials’ were not funerary in nature whatsoever—it was a chthonic ritual. The larger granite examples found in a few of the early giant pyramids were also placed in the earth i.e. the pyramid symbolising the primeval mound’ out of which all of creation came into being. Indeed, the granite box in G2 was found to contain earth (and the bones of a bull). Because consensus Egyptology couldn’t understand why this would be, they simply dismissed it as a ‘historical prank’. Oh sure, that makes sense—chuck out the king and fill the granite box with earth and bull bones. There is another perfectly plausible explanation why the granite box in G2 was found filled with earth—it wasn’t a sarcophagus at all but the archetype ‘Osiris Bed’.
Whilst much less evidenced, the granite box in G1 may also only have contained a dark, pitch-like substance (according to the Arab chronicles—yes, I’m aware of the other things that were supposedly found therein). But a dark, pitch-like substance is precisely what earth, grain and some water would turn to after hundreds or thousands of years. Speculation perhaps but still a possibility that this is what was found.
Quote
KMS: You can find no Osiris beds or Osiris bricks from the Old Kingdom, nor any clear Osiride shapes at all prior to the end of Dynasty 5.
SC: As far as I am concerned, the layout of the first 16 early, giant pyramids can be viewed as an Osirian shape. And as far as I am concerned, the granite boxes in the early, giant pyramids are the archetype ‘Osiris Beds’. As I have shown you before, these are quite different from the Royal sarcophagi of the time found in mastaba tombs.
Quote
KMS: I can show you photos of Old Kingdom stone sarcophagi with mummies still in them. The fact that these mummies are not of royals is immaterial.
SC: Good for you. Now just show us some from the early, giant pyramids and you might then have a case. Until then, I see little reason not to consider the stone boxes found in a few of the early, giant pyramids as ‘Osiris Beds’. There is simply better empirical evidence to support that conclusion, namely the earth and bull bones found in the Osiris Bed of G2 (the bull threshed the grain) and the later traditions that evolved—Osiris Bricks, Corn Mummies etc.
Quote
KMS: The sarcophagi in the pyramids do not count because this is, again, your personal premise, not accepted orthodoxy.
SC: I know my premise is not "accepted orthodoxy". Why would it be? It is "accepted orthodoxy" I am challenging. And the granite boxes of the early, giant pyramids most certainly count as evidence to support my premise. Just look at what was found in G2’s granite box. Like I said—the Osiris Bed premise is better evidenced than the sarcophagus premise.
Quote
KMS: Now, to continue with our exploration of Osiris.
John Gwyn Griffith's book,
The Origins of Osiris and His Cult, was a scholarly attempt to search out evidence for Osiris in earlier contexts than orthodox Egyptology maintains. In archaeological contexts Osiris first appears on a handful of private monuments and fragmented reliefs late in Dynasty 5, and then as an important deity in the Pyramid Texts at the end of Dynasty 5. This was in the pyramid of King Unis. Unfortunately no earlier evidence for the Pyramid Texts has ever surfaced, but the consensus is some earlier version (or versions) certainly existed. The question is, then, did Osiris have some role in the earlier versions or was he an addition to the tradition of texts when they were inscribed inside the pyramid of Unis? No one can answer that at this time.
Griffiths sought to show that Osiris might have possessed earlier manifestations. This was a logical approach for him, given the manner of Egyptian deities to form unions with other Egyptian deities (which ancient priests did, for a myriad of reasons). One of Griffiths's examples, as I recall, was the deity Khentyimentu, whose name translates as "Foremost of the Westerners." The problem with this is, Khentyimentu was clearly a deity unto himself in the Abydos region, and was one of the oldest deities of that region. This was a separate deity distinct from Osiris (Wilkinson 2003: 119). Of importance was the appearance Khentyimentu took—he was a jackal deity. At no point in any time or place in the Nile Valley was Osiris depicted as a jackal. In fact, another deity older than Osiris was Anubis, and it's evident that Anubis assumed the role of Khentyimentu and took this name as an epithet (ibid 187). Only later does the name appear attached as an epithet for Osiris (Hornung 1996: 72). In other words, while originally a deity of his own, Khentyimentu was folded into Anubis and then the role of "Foremost of the Westerners" became Osiris'. Khentyimentu disappeared as a separate and distinct god.
Walter Emery's book also tries to paint a picture of an Osiris existing much farther back in time than conventionally thought. Emery's book was written more than 50 years ago and is still an enjoyable read, but some of his conclusions are outdated and in error. This isn't his fault. Plentiful evidence has surfaced and accumulated in the last half century. As an example, Emery turns to
this wooden plaque or label to try to place Osiris farther back in time. Emery identifies the depicted king as Udimu (1961: 123), which belongs to an outdated lexicon; the correct identification is Den, who reigned in Dynasty 1 almost 5,000 years ago.
Note the upper-right corner of the label. Emery references the seated king (ibid 76) and identifies him as mummiform. In point of fact the king is not mummiform but wears the traditional heb-sed robe, something extensively seen in Egyptian royal iconography. While it does resemble a mummiform figure, this is now understood to be part of the festival during which the king displayed his fitness and prowess to continue ruling (a king's first festival occurred in his thirtieth year of rule and then every three or four years thereafter). To emphasize the heb-sed festival, in front of the seated king is a running king, who are one in the same: King Den. One of the components of the heb-sed was a ritual sprint on which the king partook to prove his physical health. The three dots on either side of the running figure represent the boundary markers around which the king must run. Such markers have in fact been found in the sprawling Step Pyramid complex of Djoser, from Dynasty 3.
Emery also points to a pair of amuletic devices (ibid 122): the djed pillar and girdle or knot of Isis. Emery notes that such devices were found in a Dynasty 1 archaeological context, thereby proving a much-earlier existence for Osiris. The djed pillar was long closely associated with Osiris, as was of course his sister-wife, the great goddess Isis. The problem with Emery's conclusion is that the djed pillar was not originally an emblem of Osiris. In its earliest appearances it was associated with the god Sokar and soon thereafter with the god Ptah; only later did the djed come to be associated with Osiris (Andrews 1994: 82), perhaps as early as the end of the Old Kingdom. Emery's mention of the girdle of Isis is more problematic. This device was closely associated with Isis and is thought to represent a sort of tampon, representing the holy blood of this goddess. But the mention of a Dynasty 1 amulet of this form is absent outside of Emery's book, in so far as I've ever been able to determine. It seems unique to him. The girdle of Isis, known as
tit or
tyit in ancient Egyptian, first appears in vignettes of funerary papyri and the amulet itself shortly thereafter, so this cannot be much earlier than Dynasty 17. One of the earliest examples of a girdle of Isis amulet came from a Dynasty 18 tomb (ibid 45). Numerous other amulets are similar to the girdle of Isis, so it's more than likely that Emery is mistaken.
Even when Osiris first appears in his earliest manifestation, it's clear he has not yet risen to top status. Again, this first appearance took place in the monuments and tombs of private, elite individuals. A good example is the mastaba tomb of Unis-ankh, whose offering chapel is on display in Chicago. This tomb and others of the period have been exhaustively studied by a promising young Czech Egyptologist named Pavel Onderka, and Onderka's research demonstrates that when Osiris first appeared he was not at the top of the hierarchy. In the private tombs this hierarchy shows the importance of first the king, then the god Anubis, and only then Osiris (2009: 48).
The god Horus was much older in the pantheon than Osiris. Horus is well attested even in prehistoric contexts. Studying the myths and fables of ancient Egypt can help Egyptologists to track the emergence and development of deities. Many are familiar with the stories of Osiris, Set, and Horus. The fact that Horus has a subordinate role in these myths to Osiris is reflective of the fact that such myths cannot be among the oldest in the Nile Valley (Hornung 1996: 144). These were later adaptations. This is also made clear by the fact that there is no single, cohesive narrative of the Osiris myths. A number of versions are known, most dating to the New Kingdom and beyond. It was the Greek writer Plutarch who assembled them into a common narrative. Also of note is the great Ennead of Heliopolis, the primary cult center of the god Re (originally of the god Atum). The Ennead was not always in a fixed form as is familiar to us in later traditions of pharaonic Egypt—Osiris and Isis are absent from the earlier, schematic versions of the Ennead (ibid 146, 222).
No one knows why Osiris appeared so suddenly late in the Old Kingdom. There is no evident cult for him prior to that time, but his popularity grew rapidly. It's possible he was a deity of minor repute prior to the end of Dynasty 5 and was worshipped by commoners who left no evidence of their veneration, but it's notable that the name Osiris does not appear anywhere in Egypt until late in the Old Kingdom. In later times we definitely see this deity called Osiris Khentyimentu, but prior to late Dynasty 5 there is no mention of the name Osiris on its own. It is possible, however, to track the development of Osiris. He seems to have been a fertility deity of some stature from the start, but his direct associations with the importance of agriculture are almost certainly a later development (Wilkinson 2003: 118). In addition to the roles of Khentyimentu which Osiris assumed, he also appears to have taken over the roles of an older deity named Andjeti from the Busiris region (ibid 119). Andjeti was the original god of resurrection, and some of his icons became those of Osiris. The cult of Andjeti exponentially decreased in stature as that of Osiris' grew, and Busiris became a prominent secondary cult center for Osiris.
A widespread cult for Osiris is not evident until the Middle Kingdom, although it's possible some of it was well established a littler earlier in the First Intermediate Period. By the Middle Kingdom the cult of Osiris was practiced by king and commoner alike. The most important festival for Osiris was that called Khoiak, named after the month during which it took place. There is no evidence for this festival prior to the early Middle Kingdom (Teeter 2011: 58; e.g., the stela of Ikhernofret and the texts of King Neferhotep). The focus of this festival was the Abydos necropolis, the primary cult center for Osiris (although it was practiced to a lesser extent throughout the Nile Valley). An interesting fact is that the Egyptians of the Middle Kingdom even identified a tomb where they held that Osiris had been buried, but in actuality the tomb belonged to the Dynasty 1 king named Djer (ibid 60). King Djer might have been flattered, but it would seem the Egyptians of his time had no cult center for Osiris. This is reflective of later developments.
I hope in the least that this paints a clear picture of the current orthodox consensus for the emergence and development of Osiris. Until such time that evidence arises to alter it, this view remains the standard.
SC: I am quite familiar with most of the material you have posted. But you continue to seem to think that my premise requires Osiris to have been a god or to have been important prior to his appearance in the PTs. It simply doesn’t. In terms of the RVT, that Osiris was revered as a god by the time of Unas may simply have been done in a similar way that Imhotep came to be revered, by being an ordinary man responsible for a very important project, the construction of a ‘National Recovery System’—and his success in implementing that project brought him to god status.
“This pyramid is Osiris… this construction is Osiris…” – Pyramid Texts
SC:
Edited by Scott Creighton, 29 December 2012 - 04:03 PM.
"The man o' independent mind... is king o' men, for a' that." - Robert Burns
3
