Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Big Bad Voodoo

Sphinx and GP dates from 10 500 BC?

1,651 posts in this topic

I think this is a real good time for me to post a couple of reminders:

6a. Compliance: You agree to co-operate with the requests of our site staff should you be asked to stop doing something that they deem to be disruptive, inappropriate or in violation of the terms of service.

6c. Appeal: Do not post content designed to complain about, rally support against or to criticise moderator action. If you disagree with action taken by a member of staff you have the option to appeal the decision by PMing a moderator or administrator.

At this point it would be a very good idea to review the UM rules.

SC: Please explain to me exactly how I breached UM rule 6a you cite above? Is it an obligation of a UM member to respond in detail to every point made in another's post? Is it an obligation of a UM member to provide every piece of information when asked? I have provided much information relating to Swede's particular question already elsewhere in this thread - and beyond UM. Anyone familiar with the search facility of UM and the wider internet can easily find the further evidence/citations for themselves.

So please explain to me exactly how it is a cautionary offense to ask people to research material for themselves?

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The original request was simple and innocuous enough, it is generally more helpful to provide a source in a discussion than to tell others to go and figure it out for themselves. Nobody suggested that it was a policy issue or that you were obligated to do so, it was a matter of etiquette and a helpful suggestion in reference to others' criticisms. The reason these rules have been quoted to you now is because you won't stop arguing with the moderators about it despite being asked to and the thread is being disrupted as a result.

Can we please return this thread to the topic being discussed.

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: First of all, of the early giant pyramids, only THREE were found to contain a stone box. Of those three, one has gone missing so it is impossible to otherwise prove its provenance. The second was found to contain earth along with the bones of a bull. The third is empty and lidless (although there are ancient claims of various items having been found therein).

That these stone boxes have been labelled as 'sarcophagi' by consensus Egyptology in no way MAKES them sarcophagi. As far as I am concerned these stone boxes represent an element of a chthonic religion with the stone boxes being the archetype or fore-runner to the later form of 'Osiris Bed' - these are stone (sometimes wooden) boxes the AEs made to bury earth and seeds under a mound of earth. There was never any intention to place a physical body in these stone/wooden boxes. The seed placed in the earth in these boxes represented the Ka - the hidden life-force - that resurrected the earth. Consensus Egyptology has made a HUGE ASSUMPTION in declaring these stone boxes sarcophagi. They were never found with a body and later AE festivals show us exactly why these stone boxes were found empty and what these stone boxes actually were - 'Osiris Bricks' or 'Osiris Beds'. The early, giant pyramids came to represent the allegorical 'Body of Osiris'. The stone box containing seed and earth would symbolise the Ka of Osiris. The stone box containing earth and bull bones represents the Ba of Osiris. These stone boxes contained the 'soul of Osiris' (his ka and Ba) within the allegorical, dismembered Body of Osiris i.e. the early, giant pyramids.

If we look at an Osiris bed, we see that the inside is in the rough shape of Osiris and that they are small in size, when compared to the sarcophagi found in the pyramids.

osiris_bed.jpg

The image was filled with dirt and Barley (I believe). None of the sarcophagi have been found with the image of Osiris and only one contained dirt and the bones of a bull. None of the Osiris beds had animal parts or bones buried within them.

The sarcophagi are too large to be Osiris beds as it would have been a waste of dirt for the planting of a few seeds. If the sarcophagi were Osiris beds, dirt would have been found in all of them and this is not the case.

I tend to think that the sarcophagus found with dirt and the bones of a bull were tied to a ritual to Apis rather than anything to do with Osiris.

Osiris beds are from the new kingdom while the sarcophagi are from the old kingdom. Despite that, you continue to claim that the sarcophagi were the forerunners of the Osiris beds. Can you point me to anything that supports that view?

One point you keep raising is the lack of mummies. If we look at what was found with King Tut, we see what normally would have been buried with the king. A tempting target for any and all grave robbers. You previously claimed that you believe that the Arabs were not the first to break into the GP but was done much earlier. It easily could have been tomb robbers at work which is why nothing was found wheh the Arabs entered the GP. Someone, earlier in this thread I believe, though it could have been a different thread, posted a picture of a mummy salesman which would explain why, if tomb robbers did empty the GP, there was no mummy. It would have been yet another source of revenue for them.

Mortuary Temple? Again this is but a LABEL consensus Egyptology attaches to these temples. SAYING they were Mortuary Temples does not and will not MAKE them Mortuary Temples. What consensus Egyptology, with regard to the early, giant pyramids, must do is PROVE these temples were mortuary in nature. As far as I am concerned these were Chthonic Temples built to recite spells, prayers and incantations to ensure the rebirth of the KINGDOM. The AEs built temples to recite such spells etc to ensure that the Sun would be reborn each and every day - their sun temples. The temples attached to the pyramids were NOT mortuary temples for the king but Chthonic Temples ensuring the rebirth of the earth (kingdom). Why do you think the fragments from the causeways from these temples were found to have been inscribed with stars, plants, animals etc? Because this is symbolising the rebirth that would come from within the pyramid - just as it did at the First Time (Sp Tpy) of Creation. Mortuary Temples, no. Chthonic Rebirth Temples, yes.

SC

You're right. Saying they are mortuary temples, by itself, does not make them mortuary temples. However, let us examine just one, Hatshepsut's. There is no doubt that the AE's would have prayed and performed rituals in the solar chapel and others within the temple. The existence, within the temple, of the tomb of Senenmut and chapel to Anubis who was associated with mummification and the afterlife clearly mark it as a mortuary temple. http://ancientegyptonline.co.uk/hatshepsutmorttemple.html

Can you show anything that supports your view that they were merely Cthonic temples whose purpose was to ensure the rebirth of the kingdom?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QN: If we look at an Osiris bed, we see that the inside is in the rough shape of Osiris and that they are small in size, when compared to the sarcophagi found in the pyramids.

The image was filled with dirt and Barley (I believe). None of the sarcophagi have been found with the image of Osiris and only one contained dirt and the bones of a bull. None of the Osiris beds had animal parts or bones buried within them.

The sarcophagi are too large to be Osiris beds as it would have been a waste of dirt for the planting of a few seeds. If the sarcophagi were Osiris beds, dirt would have been found in all of them and this is not the case.

SC: First of all, kudos to you for going and doing some research into this of your own rather than expecting me to spoon-feed it to you.

Secondly, you confuse ‘Osiris Bricks’ with ‘Osiris Beds’. Whilst thousands of Osiris Bricks have been found (made of wood, stone or mud-brick), only a small number of Osiris Beds have been discovered. (This is understandable given that the idea was that they would be buried under a mound of earth hence not easy to find).

”…the priests bring forth a sacred chest containing a small, golden coffer, into which they pour some potable water… and a great shout arises from the company for joy that Osiris is found (or resurrected). Then they knead some fertile soil with the water… and fashion there from a crescent-shaped figure, which they cloth and adorn, this indicating that they regard these gods as the substance of Earth and Water.” – Plutarch, Isis and Osiris.
”In the tomb of Tutankhamun was a huge black box containing a figure of Osiris swathed in linen. This "Osiris-Bed" or "germinated figure of Osiris" consists of a wooden frame moulded in the form of this deity, hollowed out, lined with linen, filled with Nile silt, and planted with barley. This was moistened, the grain germinated, and the inanimate form became green and living thus symbolising the resurrection of Osiris, and, of course of the deceased. The life-size effigy found in Tutankhamun's tomb was completely bandaged in the same way as a mummy.

Other examples of "Osiris-Beds" with germinated barley are known: two were found in the tomb of Yuya and Thuya, measuring 1.63m. and 1.73m. respectively in length. Another specimen, 1.78m. long and 68cm. wide, was found in the tomb of Mahirper at Thebes. In the Cairo Museum is an empty specimen from the tomb of Horemheb, and in the Egyptian Museum at Stockholm is a small "Osiris-Bed", of unknown date, dug into a brick about 25cm long and filled with germinated barley"

Peter Ucko, G. W. Dimbleby, The Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and Animals, p.135

"The god Osiris was closely associated with vegetation, and particularly with germinating grain. The emergence of young growth shoots from the fertile mud of Egypt was regarded as a powerful metaphor for human resurrection, and this notion was given physical form in Osirian images and figurines in which earth and corn were basic constituents. Some royal tombs of the New Kingdom contained an 'Osiris Bed', a seed bed in a wooden frame or on a piece of textile, made in the shape of Osiris. This bed was planted with barley, which germinated in the tomb, symbolising the renewal of life for the dead king via the agency of Osiris. A similar concept underlay the creation of “corn mummies”, figurines composed of earth or mud mixed with grains of barley and fashioned into a miniature mummiform image of Osiris. These figures were manufactured in an elaborate temple ritual during the month of Khoiak, and then buried in areas with sacred associations."- John H. Taylor, Death and the Afterlife in Ancient Egypt, p.212
”The assumption must be that Osiris bricks were filled with soil and sand, and planted with grains, in the same manner as New Kindom Osiris Beds… The fact that examples of pottery bricks have been found with their original contents indicates that they cannot be regarded as moulds for a three-dimensional figure. It seems much more likely that these are receptacles with lids, perhaps a variation of New Kingdom Osiris Beds…. The form of Osiris Bricks is essentially that of the mummified Osiris (the recess), placed inside a rectangular sarcophagus (the brick), analoguous to the wooden Tutankhamun bed. In this New Kingdom example the mummiform shape, wrapped in linen, was then deposited inside its own rectangular coffin. The same treatment is seen in the small Osiris container in Florence. In one object, the makers of these pottery bricks have combined a a receptacle to containe the soil, sand and cereal grains, the Osirian shape or Osiris mummy, and the outer rectangular coffin of the god. The small size of these objects is to be expected, since the Khoiak Festival was a dramatisation of the Osiris myth, and the ‘stage-props’ used during it were of small scale.” – A. M. Tooley, The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, Vol 82 (1996), p.179

SC: What is plainly evident here is that the AEs made stone, wood or mud-brick containers that they buried in the ground under a mound of earth that had nothing to do with the physical burial of an AE king. What is also plainly evident here is that the festival of Khoiak enacted a Chthonic ritual centered around the god Osiris. It is my contention, and I see no reason to doubt it, that this chthonic festival with its ‘Osiris Bricks’ packed with grain and buried under a mound of earth, arose from the original function of the early, giant pyramids as recovery vaults (containing grain and other seeds, containers, tools and other essential recovery items) built to ensure the rebirth of the earth (after an anticipated deluge). The temples attached to the pyramids would be central to this chthonic rebirth ritual. Such festivals do not arise out of nowhere. They generally have a basis in some actual historical event. It is my contention that the pyramids as recovery vaults (as the 16 dismembered body parts of Osiris) was that historical event.

QN: I tend to think that the sarcophagus found with dirt and the bones of a bull were tied to a ritual to Apis rather than anything to do with Osiris.
According to Manetho, his [Apis Bull] worship was instituted by Kaiechos of the Second Dynasty. Hape (Apis) is named on very early monuments, but little is known of the divine animal before the New Kingdom. Ceremonial burials of bulls indicate that ritual sacrifice was part of the worship of the early cow deities and a bull might represent a king who became a deity after death. He was entitled "the renewal of the life" of the Memphite god Ptah: but after death he became Osorapis, i.e. the Osiris Apis, just as dead humans were assimilated to Osiris, the king of the underworld.- From Wiki

SC: The bull was also closely associated with threshing of grain, another ‘chthonic ritual’.

QN: Osiris beds are from the new kingdom while the sarcophagi are from the old kingdom.

SC: IAs I said before, there is some evidence that the chthonic ritual of Osiris Beds predates the 4th kingdom. But you present an over-simplification and entirely miss the point. I take the view that the stone boxes found within the early, giant pyramids were the archetype of later Osiris Bricks and even later ‘Osiris Beds’ which were associated with a chthonic religion relating to the pyramids as recovery vaults to ensure the rebirth of the earth (kingdom). In celebrating Easter, Christians provide children with small eggs which—in one interpretation—is symbolic of the stone that was rolled away from Christ’s tomb. They do not require a full-sized stone to symbolically take part in the festival of Easter. Likewise ancient Egyptians do not require full-sized stone boxes to celebrate the chthonic Festival of Khoiak.

QN: Despite that, you continue to claim that the sarcophagi were the forerunners of the Osiris beds. Can you point me to anything that supports that view?

SC: No—sarcophagi ARE sarcophagi and can be found in mastaba tombs, rock-cut tombs and shaft tombs. Sarcophagi are found in TOMBS and are generally easily identified as such with inscriptions on the sarcophagus itself and/or within the tomb (even in thirD and fourth dynasty tombs). But this is completely different to the stone boxes and chambers in the early, giant pyramids which were completely uninscribed—just like their later incarnations—Osiris Bricks and Osiris Beds.

I cannot prove my view any more than consensus Egyptology can prove its tomb theory. Do not ask me to do something that consensus Egyptology cannot do to support its own theory. Suffice to say, however, the RVT has large quantities of seed and tens of thousands of other recovery goods found within and around the Step Pyramid complex to support the premise. How many AE kings have you found in-situ to back up the tomb theory you so obviously adhere to?

QN: One point you keep raising is the lack of mummies. If we look at what was found with King Tut, we see what normally would have been buried with the king. A tempting target for any and all grave robbers.

SC: Hence why the AEs would not have been so stupid to build such a massively visible ‘target’ if all it would do is attract robbers to the pyramid and especially so given the importance of the dead king’s body.

QN: You previously claimed that you believe that the Arabs were not the first to break into the GP but was done much earlier. It easily could have been tomb robbers at work which is why nothing was found wheh the Arabs entered the GP.

SC: Or it could be, as I maintain, that the pyramids were Recovery Vaults DESIGNED to be secure but not so secure that they could not be breached to access the recovery goods therein. Just like some of the Arab chronicles tell us.

QN: Someone, earlier in this thread I believe, though it could have been a different thread, posted a picture of a mummy salesman which would explain why, if tomb robbers did empty the GP, there was no mummy. It would have been yet another source of revenue for them.

SC: And if the mummy of the king went missing, where is the Ka replacement? And the ka replacement if that one was stolen?

SC: Mortuary Temple? Again this is but a LABEL consensus Egyptology attaches to these temples. SAYING they were Mortuary Temples does not and will not MAKE them Mortuary Temples. What consensus Egyptology, with regard to the early, giant pyramids, must do is PROVE these temples were mortuary in nature. As far as I am concerned these were Chthonic Temples built to recite spells, prayers and incantations to ensure the rebirth of the KINGDOM. The AEs built temples to recite such spells etc to ensure that the Sun would be reborn each and every day - their sun temples. The temples attached to the pyramids were NOT mortuary temples for the king but Chthonic Temples ensuring the rebirth of the earth (kingdom). Why do you think the fragments from the causeways from these temples were found to have been inscribed with stars, plants, animals etc? Because this is symbolising the rebirth that would come from within the pyramid - just as it did at the First Time (Sp Tpy) of Creation. Mortuary Temples, no. Chthonic Rebirth Temples, yes.

QN: You're right. Saying they are mortuary temples, by itself, does not make them mortuary temples. However, let us examine just one, Hatshepsut's. There is no doubt that the AE's would have prayed and performed rituals in the solar chapel and others within the temple. The existence, within the temple, of the tomb of Senenmut and chapel to Anubis who was associated with mummification and the afterlife clearly mark it as a mortuary temple. http://ancientegypto...morttemple.html

Can you show anything that supports your view that they were merely Cthonic temples whose purpose was to ensure the rebirth of the kingdom?

SC: When considering the AEs Creation Myth where everything in existence came out from within the primeval mound (the archetype pyramid) and in consideration of the physical evidence recovered from the pyramids and the ancient texts that indicate their original function, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the temples associated with the pyramids were Chthonic in nature and not mortuary. The fragments from the causeways depicting stars, animals, plants etc is precisely what we would come to expect from the ‘burst of creation’ coming forth from the eastern side of the pyramid. In short, whilst I cannot prove my contention any more than consensus Egyptology can prove its, I believe I make a better argument. Hatshepsut’s temple is irrelevant to my argument since it is from the 18th dynasty when the original function of the pyramid as rebirth instruments for the earth (kingdom) would have been adopted as rebirth instruments for the king and the temples associated with that also adopted for the king.

SC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: In relatively recent history I have made many claims and have also provided the evidence/citations to back up my claims as a number of Egypt-apologists on this Forum (and elsewhere) have already found to their cost. Only a fool would make claims they cannot substantiate. But do not think that I am about to spoon-feed you. Far from it. On this one you’ll just have to do your own research. Trust me – the evidence is there. Not that such evidence is what actually matters to you in any case since you have already decided that it is not going to change your mind one iota. It’s tombs or bust for you. Your desire for me to present the evidence supporting my claims to you on a plate (instead of you doing your own legwork) is all about you trying to find some means of discrediting the evidence that backs up my claim. For you this is not about the evidence supporting what I am saying – for you it’s simply about trying to find a means of debunking it. You have already decided that my re-interpretation of the evidence is wrong and that it is not going to change your mind a single dot. One has to wonder then - why bother with what I am claiming? If you want to learn more about my re-interpretation of the evidence then you are just going to have to get up off your bahookie and do your own legwork. Think of this as ‘keeping one’s powder dry’.

SC

Critical evaluation of self-admitted "claims" (and the data purportedly supporting them), particularly those claims professed to "overturn" current and well studied understandings, is part and parcel of research. As you have so graciously deemed to, after the fact, present a modicum of your references/interpretations, these will be addressed.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: No. Swede made a statement that is factually incorrect. .

SC

And this would be?

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: 1) Whilst thousands of Osiris Bricks have been found (made of wood, stone or mud-brick),

SC:2) What is plainly evident here is that the AEs made stone, wood or mud-brick containers that they buried in the ground under a mound of earth that had nothing to do with the physical burial of an AE king.

SC: 3) As I said before, there is some evidence that the chthonic ritual of Osiris Beds predates the 4th kingdom.

4) tens of thousands of other recovery goods found within and around the Step Pyramid complex

SC

1) Citation? And from what period?

2) Yet none of your cited references would appear to propose this concept.

3) Citation?

4) As you are aware, many of the vessels associated with the Step Pyramid complex were quite small (cups/bowls, etc.) Would you be suggesting that these were to be considered effective "mass storage" implements? Additionally, a notable proportion of these vessels can be dated as early as the First and Second Dynasties. Given the understood practices related to establishing associations with ruling lineage, would this not appear to be a more well supported interpretation?

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this would be?

.

Swede: There would appear to be inconsistencies in your rationale. To my knowledge, there are only three known "Osiris Beds" (KV36, KV46, KV62). From here.

SC: There were more than three discovered (see my citations above) hence you were factually incorrect.

SC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Citation? And from what period?

2) Yet none of your cited references would appear to propose this concept.

3) Citation?

4) As you are aware, many of the vessels associated with the Step Pyramid complex were quite small (cups/bowls, etc.) Would you be suggesting that these were to be considered effective "mass storage" implements? Additionally, a notable proportion of these vessels can be dated as early as the First and Second Dynasties. Given the understood practices related to establishing associations with ruling lineage, would this not appear to be a more well supported interpretation?

.

SC: I think I have given more than enough for you now to continue your own research into this topic. And trust me - I NEVER say anything I cannot later substantiate as some on this forum have already found to their cost. Good luck with your own research into this intriguing field of AE history. I am hopeful that by the end of your own studies into this we may find some consensus here.

SC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What many people seem to keep forgetting is how sparse evidence of any sort

is from before the 5th dynasty. Then there is the simple fact that much of the little

evidence that survives is open to wide interpretation. We all look at the later per-

iods and try to see how our understanding fits into the evolution of the cultural art-

efacts but we should never lose sight of the simple facts that none of these later

practices and artefacts can have any direct bearing on the earlier period. I believe

it is orthodoxy who are most guilty of this projection of later ideas and even word

meanings.

The evidence is out there but there is simply nothing determinatve. People need

to remember there's more than one way to skin a cat and a cat mummy doesn't have

to be interpreted in only one way. We share few ideas and perspectives with the

ancients so understanding them in our terms or in the terms of the 19th dynasty can

lead one far astray.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: I think I have given more than enough for you now to continue your own research into this topic. And trust me - I NEVER say anything I cannot later substantiate as some on this forum have already found to their cost. Good luck with your own research into this intriguing field of AE history. I am hopeful that by the end of your own studies into this we may find some consensus here.

SC

In some earlier discussion (maybe even this one) you and I discussed Osiris beds. In my own research the earliest example of one I could find is from a Dynasty 12 pyramid complex at Lisht, and the status of that example (as some form of Osiris bed) has been questioned.

I've done some research on this and have read plenty about Osiris beds and related funerary paraphernalia, and cannot remember reading of an example—even on conjectural grounds—from the Old Kingdom. This is not to say such a thing is not known, but I personally have never come across mention of it. Can you provide a source or some other avenue of citation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: There were more than three discovered (see my citations above) hence you were factually incorrect.

SC

Reading comprehension? To quote:

To my knowledge, there are only three known "Osiris Beds" (KV36, KV46, KV62). (Swede #1614).

However KV46 did contain two. Which brings us to a total of four, all 18th Dynasty. This factor supports your position?

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: I think I have given more than enough for you now to continue your own research into this topic. And trust me - I NEVER say anything I cannot later substantiate as some on this forum have already found to their cost. Good luck with your own research into this intriguing field of AE history. I am hopeful that by the end of your own studies into this we may find some consensus here.

SC

Your capacity for evasion is (again) noted.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've gone back to my library to look a little more into Osiris beds. I pulled four decent sources to see what they had to say, so I'll try to keep it as brief as possible.

  • In Burial Customs in Ancient Egypt (2003), Wolfram Grajetzki notes that almost all Osiris beds are attested in royal burials in the New Kingdom (80).
  • In Death and Burial in Ancient Egypt (2003), Salima Ikram also stresses the provenance of New Kingdom date, although she notes that Middle Kingdom examples are known from wooden rectangular boxes outside the sphere of the Osiris cult (136).
  • In Death and the Afterlife in Ancient Egypt (2001), John Taylor also stresses the provenance to royal tombs of the New Kingdom (212). I've set aside evaluations of corn mummies because as Taylor explains, almost all examples date to the Late Period and Ptolemaic Period, although Osiris-like figures of similar design have been found in Dynasty 22 contexts (Third Intermediate Period). All of my reading on this matter shows that corn mummies supplemented or replaced Osiris beds in later periods, so corn mummies clearly have no affiliation with the Old Kingdom. They need not be considered in this matter.
  • In The Mummy in Ancient Egypt (1998), joint authors Salima Ikram and Aidan Dodson further stress the provenance of New Kingdom date. In this book, however, there is some more detail on the earlier, Middle Kingdom examples of rectangular boxes containing soil. No connection with Osiris is clear with these earlier examples. I erred earlier in stating that this Dynasty 12 site was Lisht; it was instead Lahun, in the necropolis of Senusret II (120).

Try as I might—and I did look for it—I could find no examples of such soil-filled beds predating the conjectured examples from Dynasty 12 Lahun. To me this makes sense, as the cult of Osiris was taking off ardently by the Middle Kingdom but no attestation for any sort of cult for this god is known prior to late Dynasty 5. Certainly nothing is known of Osiris in Dynasty 4. Connections between Osiris and soil-filled containers have to be ruled out for such an early date. There are the Dynasty 12 boxes which have no clear affiliation with Osiris, so we have here at least a possible link with this aspect of fertility rituals in tombs, but I simply cannot find any attestation of the same prior to Dynasty 12.

Scott has emphasized that earlier examples are known, so I await his citation for further clarification on this matter.

On the subject of the materials from which Osiris beds were made, nearly all sources I reviewed stress wood as the primary component. I could find no description of a stone Osiris bed. I recall having read of ceramic Osiris beds but couldn't come across any mention of such in the sources I pulled this evening. Scott has said stone was used for some of these beds, so I would appreciate citation for that, too.

Of the Osiris beds which are known—and the number in total is small—they tend to vary in size quite a lot. Most are rather small. The one found in the tomb of Tutankhamun (KV62) is considerably large, but as a review of the pages of the Anatomy of an Excavation shows, Tut's example is clearly also composed of wood and is quite shallow in dimensions. Although the container and its Osiride soil-figure are clearly meant to represent a body inside a coffin or sarcophagus, the distinction between sarcophagi and Osiris beds is patently obvious. The overall dimensions simply do not compare. And I stress again that I can find no clear attestation of this practice from the Old Kingdom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KMS: Certainly nothing is known of Osiris in Dynasty 4.

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.

"While there is every likelihood that the Osirian material in the Pyramid Texts derives in part from a much earlier date, so far it has not proved possible to track down the god or his symbols tangibly to the First or Second dynasty." (Emphasis mine). - John G. Griffiths, The Origins of Osiris and His Cult, p.44

"Although there is a strong likelihood that the cult of Osiris began in or before the First Dynasty in connection with the Royal funerals at Abydos, archaeological evidence hitherto does not tangibly date the cult to an era before the Fifth Dynasty." (Emphasis mine). - Ibid.

"The myth of Osiris seems to be an echo of long forgotten events which actually took place." - Walter B. Emery, Archaic Egypt, p.122-23

"Much points to the conclusion that Osiris’s story was cloaked in a veil of distant antiquity even at this [Fifth Dynasty] early date. The discovery at Helwan of a very early Djed symbol and the ‘girdle of Isis’ (Isis being his female counterpart) shows that during the Archaic Period (Dynasty 1 and 2) Osiris’s cult already existed." (Emphasis mine). - Jane B. Sellers, The Death of Gods in Ancient Egypt, p.6

“It is, however, well known that the position of Osiris as the god-man was well established in the minds of the Egyptians at the beginning of the Dynastic Period, and that he was even at this remote time regarded as the head of a small company of five gods, each of whom was endued by his worshipers with human attributes. (Emphasis mine). - E. A. Wallis Budge , Osiris and the Egyptian Resurrection, p.28

KMS: Connections between Osiris and soil-filled containers have to be ruled out for such an early date.

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.

KMS: On the subject of the materials from which Osiris beds were made, nearly all sources I reviewed stress wood as the primary component…

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: Of the Osiris beds which are known—and the number in total is small—they tend to vary in size quite a lot. Most are rather small.

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.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People tend not to believe what's in the PT but they said this of the dead king;

1182a. N. receives his provision from that which is in the granary of the Great God;

1182b. N. is clothed with imperishable stars;

If the pyramid is really his tomb which is the pyramid wrapped in the stars then

it would seem that the God's granary supplies his provisions. This doesn't say

the granary is the pyramid but;

786a. To say: I am Nut, "the Granary." I have proclaimed the name of Osiris N.,

...This certainly implies the granary is in the sky since Nut is the Goddess of the

sky. It also suggests that by being in the sky Osiris and the dead king are now

related. The dead king in his pyramid is Osiris and is in the granary (the sky).

No. I don't believe this is what the lines meant but it is what they say. I certain-

ly believe any pyramid could have been intended as a seed vault since I am con-

fident they were not tombs.

It's a wonder everyone doesn't read the actual PT instead of just accepting Egy-

pological opinion that they don't mean much of anything. It's hard for me to ima-

gine any type of wroiting that doesn't mean anything. Even poetry, even bad po-

etry, affords a chance to understand the writer if it is analyzed.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/pyt/index.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People tend not to believe what's in the PT but they said this of the dead king;

1182a. N. receives his provision from that which is in the granary of the Great God;

1182b. N. is clothed with imperishable stars;

If the pyramid is really his tomb which is the pyramid wrapped in the stars then

it would seem that the God's granary supplies his provisions. This doesn't say

the granary is the pyramid but;

786a. To say: I am Nut, "the Granary." I have proclaimed the name of Osiris N.,

...This certainly implies the granary is in the sky since Nut is the Goddess of the

sky. It also suggests that by being in the sky Osiris and the dead king are now

related. The dead king in his pyramid is Osiris and is in the granary (the sky).

No. I don't believe this is what the lines meant but it is what they say. I certain-

ly believe any pyramid could have been intended as a seed vault since I am con-

fident they were not tombs.

It's a wonder everyone doesn't read the actual PT instead of just accepting Egy-

pological opinion that they don't mean much of anything. It's hard for me to ima-

gine any type of wroiting that doesn't mean anything. Even poetry, even bad po-

etry, affords a chance to understand the writer if it is analyzed.

http://www.sacred-te...y/pyt/index.htm

Hi CK,

Many thanks for this. Great stuff! Of course, we may never understand the exact nuance intended here but nevertheless we have a connection between 'granary' (read 'seed vault') and Osiris in the PTs. And let us not forget either the granary-styled chambers in G1 and G3.

Cheers

SC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are likely numerous supporting lines in the PT.

Here's a firly dramatic one;

1416b. N. truly ascends to heaven, permanent like the earth.

1416c. It is grievous (?) for thy body, O Nut, because of the divine seed, which shall be in thee (or, in thy mother).

1417a. N., this one, he is the divine seed, which shall be in thy mother, Nut.

This one suggests the king rises to heaqven as permanent as the earth. "Khufu's Horizon"

could certainly be this permanent part of the earth that rose to heaven. Here's a strong

implication that seed is in the pyramid; in the sky.

We're told the words don't really mean anything but there they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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. 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.

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: 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).

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: 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.

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. 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. 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. They are identical to the form of those found in the masonry pyramids, and most don't even have decorations or inscriptions. Human remains have been found in two or more sarcophagi from pyramids dating to later in the Old Kingdom, so taken in full it's undeniable that the Egyptians themselves regarded these stone containers as containers for bodies. And Osiris beds were not made of stone, to begin with.

But in my earlier post I admitted I at least know of no such examples, so I invited you to cite a source. I was also looking for a source for something akin to Osiris beds dating to the Old Kingdom. The sarcophagi in the pyramids do not count because this is, again, your personal premise, not accepted orthodoxy. And, with respect, do not ask me to do "more research." I think you know I've done ample research. I have not found anything to substantiate your claim. I admit again that there's possibly something I've missed, so I would appreciate a corroborative source on this.

I'll continue with more detail in a follow-up post. We'll take a closer look at the earliest discernible emergence of Osiris, as well as a closer look at some of the things said by the scholars and writers you referenced.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sources:

Andrews, Carol. Amulets of Ancient Egypt.1994.

Emery, W.B. Archaic Egypt. 1961.

Hornung, Erik. Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt. 1996.

Onderka, Pavel. The Tomb of Unisankh at Saqqara and Chicago. 2009.

Teeter, Emily. Religion and Ritual in Ancient Egypt. 2011.

Wilkinson, Richard H. The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt. 1994.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...

I'll continue with more detail in a follow-up post. We'll take a closer look at the earliest discernible emergence of Osiris, as well as a closer look at some of the things said by the scholars and writers you referenced.

I was looking around trying to find out why Osiris' crown is similar to the Crown of Upper Egypt. I hope you will answer this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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-5th 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.

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.

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 5th 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.

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?

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.

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.

Slide5.JPG

Slide6.JPG

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.

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

flawed logic scott, goes against the evidence i have discovered,

now lets deal with the the truth, and things that are really more probable, do you believe jesus know i would come across the rejected stone of the builders by the great pyramid that jesus placed by the great pryamid ?

did jesus give clues to the true symbolism of the great pyramid of the seed that was planted within man by such a staterment ?

is it possible all of this is part of prophency regard jesus, 911, me. 911, the sub-concenious mind, and me ? or was it just jesus just a have knownledge that i would come across the rejectedd stone that he placed by the great pyramid and that i would know the truth?

clearly you wish to ignore what have i have told you, and your aware of my background, and you still wish to believe the belt star of orion play a role in resprenting the great pyramid in the horizon or the ground in some fashion which it is totally hogwash and totally offense.

i for 1 wish you wish to stop believing such garbage and realize your stateing lies, its really is offensive scott.

ciao

Edited by samspade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

flawed logic scott, goes against the evidence i have discovered,

now lets deal with the the truth, and things that are really more probable, do you believe jesus know i would come across the rejected stone of the builders by the great pyramid that jesus placed by the great pryamid ?

did jesus give clues to the true symbolism of the great pyramid of the seed that was planted within man by such a staterment ?

is it possible all of this is part of prophency regard jesus, 911, me. 911, the sub-concenious mind, and me ? or was it just jesus just a have knownledge that i would come across the rejectedd stone that he placed by the great pyramid and that i would know the truth?

clearly you wish to ignore what have i have told you, and your aware of my background, and you still wish to believe the belt star of orion play a role in resprenting the great pyramid in the horizon or the ground in some fashion which it is totally hogwash and totally offense.

i for 1 wish you wish to stop believing such garbage and realize your stateing lies, its really is offensive scott.

ciao

What leads you to believe Jesus of Nazareth gave a damn about the Great Pyramid...or that he ever even saw it for himself?

I can't speak for Scott, but rather than hurling invectives at him—about which I would counsel you to tone it down—why don't you present sources or citations that support your claims? You still have not done so. Scott and I may not agree on much, but he spends a lot of time looking for sources. You do not, or in the least you have yet to support anything you've stated.

This means, despite my disagreements with him, Scott's approach is a lot sounder than yours.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What leads you to believe Jesus of Nazareth gave a damn about the Great Pyramid...or that he ever even saw it for himself?

I can't speak for Scott, but rather than hurling invectives at him—about which I would counsel you to tone it down—why don't you present sources or citations that support your claims?

once again, you seem to have forgot my previous post.

clearly what we have is similar to a 'Null' in computer terms regarding jesus and the rejected stone of the builders.

a null is basically a current absence of data, meaning a current unknown.

therefore as i mention before, it is possible the stone i came across could infact be the stone jesus referred to.And while i even as mention earlier on this board odds are very high against it, it is quite possible it may be in fact the stone jesus refer to.

if you have any evidence to prove with all certainly it was not a stone at the great pyramid, and its symbolism was not what is what is at play at the great pyramid, then i suggest you provide this evidence,

Scott's approach is a lot sounder than yours.

false, can you show how so ? clearly scott goes against egyptoglogy consensus orthodox view.

clearly, your approach is by far the worst on that i have seen on this board earlier by your earlier statement that i replied to you at post #1293 on this very thread.

clearly i believe i may have uncover certain evidence that no one else knows, and your stance as you mention earlier, was to totally ignore anyone who suggest that .You wont even look or read their evidence or theory if they state just a statement.

well i have maded such a statement, therefore you chose to ignore what i have uncovered, proves to me your foolish for not wishing to even believe its possible i could have discover the truth or facts by not even wishing to believe its truth and not even wanting to view it, its totally flawed and stupid logic on your part.

and currently i choose not to disclose my findings because i was ask not too, but thats my stance at the moment,perhaps it may_change. but with my professional background in analyst i know i am not wrong here, and that fact will stand the test of time, fact.

ciao

Edited by samspade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.