Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Penumbra

Yahweh = Canaanite War God/Cult?

245 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

cormac mac airt

Or Yahweh history, for that matter. Whatever happened to Yahweh?

He's playing poker with Ba'al and Astarte, while his Asherah is out walking the dog. :w00t:

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
granpa

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khnum

http://www.ancientegyptonline.co.uk/khnum.html

In Egyptian mythology, Khnum (also spelled Chnum, Knum, or Khnemu) was one of the earliest Egyptian deities, originally the god of the source of the Nile River. Since the annual flooding of the Nile brought with it silt and clay, and its water brought life to its surroundings, he was thought to be the creator of the bodies of human children, which he made at a potter's wheel, from clay, and placed in their mothers' wombs. He later was described as having molded the other deities, and he had the titles Divine Potter and Lord of created things from himself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Puzzler

Editing to add: This thread is called "Yahweh = Canaanite War God/Cult," right? LOL I'm always entertained by the twists and turns our discussions take. From the origins of Yahweh to the question of Herodotus' veracity, where will it lead next? To Atlantis? :w00t:

I can arrange that. ;)

I always wonder where these thread starters go...they start threads but never contribute to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swede

Swede: I'm talking way before any 'Early Dynastic State'.

My statement was simple, Osiris as Asir and it's variation names as well as the Djed Pillar is an ancient concept and the same as other Aesir, which all began development prior to 7000BC.

kmt, you go on about how we should note what the Egyptians themselves believed:

series of years which the Egyptians pro-

fessed to draw from a recorded chronology 17,000 years from

their god Herakles, and 15,000 years from their god Osiris or

Dionysus, down to their king Amasis (550BC)

http://www.archive.o...rniala_djvu.txt

Osiris was from 15,000 years ago. You all disregard this statement, why? Because archaeology doesn't show it, or they can't find it, or don't recognise his form any earlier than 5th Dynasty, they made up stories to make themselves appear older, anything, you all come up with anything, rather than accept this might actually be factual.

This position may present difficulties. While research regarding pre-dynastic cultures in northeast Africa and the Levant is ongoing, a number of elements have been documented. Let us first start with the epipaleolithic and follow up through the Naqada phases. Below is a synopsis followed by more detail.

http://www.faiyum.com/html/summary.html

http://www.faiyum.com/html/palaeolithic.html

http://www.faiyum.com/html/epipalaeolithic.html

http://www.faiyum.com/html/neolithic_transition.html

http://www.faiyum.com/html/neolithic_faiyum.html

http://www.faiyum.com/html/neolithic_cairo.html

http://www.faiyum.com/html/chalcolithic__maadi-buto_.html

Further information regarding the Naqada phases can be found in the same reference. Points to observe: Number of cultural elements, lithic technologies and typologies, ceramic methodologies and stylistic motifs, population densities and distributions.

To address you timeframe more closely:

"No human presence has been attested in Egypt between 11,000 and 8,000 BP, apart from a group of very small Arkinian sites (~9,400 BP) in the region of the second cataract" (Shaw:27). The author goes on to discuss related environmental matters.

http://books.google.com/books?id=092jP1lBhtoC&pg=PA38&lpg=PA38&dq=badarian+culture&source=bl&ots=7tWQOkMq3Q&sig=9Hr8OueG28pyaX_9_7oIW6ZnekE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZKgRT97DHNH2ggesv_GFBA&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBzgU#v=onepage&q=badarian%20culture&f=false

The following references go into various details of the cultures pre and post your timeframe. Again, please note some of the cultural indicators mentioned above.

http://books.google.com/books?id=GzTiXt49I0YC&pg=PA21&lpg=PA21&dq=qadan+culture&source=bl&ots=DIYp-OA3lj&sig=eRTyxOk7CIG-o0lnxYZfyRDjXgg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8pQRT7ilN8LYgAeAnt3jAw&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=qadan%20culture&f=false

http://ancientneareast.tripod.com/Badarian_Culture.html

http://www.antiquityofman.com/Ecological_context.html

http://grepal.free.fr/articles/luc_watrin_icom_anglais.pdf

http://www.nemo.nu/ibisportal/0egyptintro/2aegypt/merimde.htm

http://ancientneareast.tripod.com/40.html

And lastly, an interesting genetic discussion:

http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2009/01/14/the-m78-y-chromosome-and-m1-mt-dna-as-makers-for-the-expansion-of-the-halfan-culture/

To fully explore the research of the pre-dynastic cultures is beyond the capacity of this venue. However, it should be noted that there would not appear to be any significant indications of the interactions that you would appear to be proposing.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abramelin

I will tell you a little secret, Swede.

I do know you mean well, and I do know you do your utmost best to provide us all with up-to-date and on topic informaton.

But I learned that people really hate to click links.

Either they are too lazy, or they are too paranoid ("if I click that link my computer may get infected by some virus"), or they just don't even see it (and yes, even that is possible).

Next time when you post, not only add links, but also add quotes from those links.

Just a suggestion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swede

I will tell you a little secret, Swede.

I do know you mean well, and I do know you do your utmost best to provide us all with up-to-date and on topic informaton.

But I learned that people really hate to click links.

Either they are too lazy, or they are too paranoid ("if I click that link my computer may get infected by some virus"), or they just don't even see it (and yes, even that is possible).

Next time when you post, not only add links, but also add quotes from those links.

Just a suggestion.

Abe - Chuckle! Yes, certainly understand your point. The difficulty lies in the extent and complexity of the information noted. To even begin to selectively quote would not do just service to the data and would fill pages. In the case that a subset of the topic (i.e., a specific cultural element) could be defined for discussion, direct quotations could then be more practically utilized. Hopefully, any truly interested will take the time to peruse at least some of the references.

As to viruses: While not necessarily "bullet proof", all of the above have been checked by AVG.

Edit: Spacing.

Edited by Swede

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Puzzler

This position may present difficulties. While research regarding pre-dynastic cultures in northeast Africa and the Levant is ongoing, a number of elements have been documented. Let us first start with the epipaleolithic and follow up through the Naqada phases. Below is a synopsis followed by more detail.

http://www.faiyum.com/html/summary.html

http://www.faiyum.com/html/palaeolithic.html

http://www.faiyum.com/html/epipalaeolithic.html

http://www.faiyum.com/html/neolithic_transition.html

http://www.faiyum.com/html/neolithic_faiyum.html

http://www.faiyum.com/html/neolithic_cairo.html

http://www.faiyum.com/html/chalcolithic__maadi-buto_.html

Further information regarding the Naqada phases can be found in the same reference. Points to observe: Number of cultural elements, lithic technologies and typologies, ceramic methodologies and stylistic motifs, population densities and distributions.

To address you timeframe more closely:

"No human presence has been attested in Egypt between 11,000 and 8,000 BP, apart from a group of very small Arkinian sites (~9,400 BP) in the region of the second cataract" (Shaw:27). The author goes on to discuss related environmental matters.

http://books.google.com/books?id=092jP1lBhtoC&pg=PA38&lpg=PA38&dq=badarian+culture&source=bl&ots=7tWQOkMq3Q&sig=9Hr8OueG28pyaX_9_7oIW6ZnekE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZKgRT97DHNH2ggesv_GFBA&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBzgU#v=onepage&q=badarian%20culture&f=false

The following references go into various details of the cultures pre and post your timeframe. Again, please note some of the cultural indicators mentioned above.

http://books.google.com/books?id=GzTiXt49I0YC&pg=PA21&lpg=PA21&dq=qadan+culture&source=bl&ots=DIYp-OA3lj&sig=eRTyxOk7CIG-o0lnxYZfyRDjXgg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8pQRT7ilN8LYgAeAnt3jAw&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=qadan%20culture&f=false

http://ancientneareast.tripod.com/Badarian_Culture.html

http://www.antiquityofman.com/Ecological_context.html

http://grepal.free.fr/articles/luc_watrin_icom_anglais.pdf

http://www.nemo.nu/ibisportal/0egyptintro/2aegypt/merimde.htm

http://ancientneareast.tripod.com/40.html

And lastly, an interesting genetic discussion:

http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2009/01/14/the-m78-y-chromosome-and-m1-mt-dna-as-makers-for-the-expansion-of-the-halfan-culture/

To fully explore the research of the pre-dynastic cultures is beyond the capacity of this venue. However, it should be noted that there would not appear to be any significant indications of the interactions that you would appear to be proposing.

.

OK, well thanks, that should keep me busy for the NEXT YEAR.

Seriously Swede, I have quite a few large books on Egypt, I'm quite familiar with the pre-dynastic cultures, moreso than the Dynastic ones in fact, because my researches take me back to 11000BC when I started, as you know, looking for Atlantis, I am quite versed, thanks very much, in Libyan and pre-dynastic Saharan culture and history including Ethiopian as well.

Your last sentence is what is most important.

What there is, is no proof of it as such, but no proof it was not there. That's how I work, as per the OLB also: From the translator's preface - "they do not offend our ideas of possibility or even probability."

The proof (for me) doesn't rest in proving it, the proof is in not being able to disprove it. I'll give you one link...

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=dBYGJUSmuwMC&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=osiris+cult+predynastic+libya&source=bl&ots=jhMPvsZnGi&sig=1HBt5Y_4eBlO-w7fdGVTDSyziaM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=gmIST5yYO8SNiAfqs4FD&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=osiris%20cult%20predynastic%20libya&f=false

It talks about the mummification practices that were the backbone of the Osiris cult at Abydos and how these concepts can be found very early in Spain with Cro-Magnon man c. 20,000BC. At that time there was definite movement from Spain and Nth Africa. The book asks:

"Is it quite improbable that their cultural and religious ideas, however elementary, did not gradually and in the course of ages find their way to Egypt (where they developed under more favourable conditions) as they certainly did to Britain at a later time by a much more difficult and dangerous route? Or is it contended that the similarity between their beginnings and that of Egypt is merely fortuitous?"

These are the questions I myself ask when you see the similarities that go way beyond the timeframe of the Dynastic eras. Maybe you should read all those links yourself Swede and this time, look harder. :geek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
What there is, is no proof of it as such, but no proof it was not there.

An argument from ignorance IS NOT a good fall-back position. Nor does it lend you any credibility at being "quite versed" as you put it, Puzzler. It actually works against you. I'm sure Swede has not only read the links once, but several times over. I know I've read them and in no case do they support the claims you've made.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swede

OK, well thanks, that should keep me busy for the NEXT YEAR.

Seriously Swede, I have quite a few large books on Egypt, I'm quite familiar with the pre-dynastic cultures, moreso than the Dynastic ones in fact, because my researches take me back to 11000BC when I started, as you know, looking for Atlantis, I am quite versed, thanks very much, in Libyan and pre-dynastic Saharan culture and history including Ethiopian as well.

Your last sentence is what is most important.

What there is, is no proof of it as such, but no proof it was not there. That's how I work, as per the OLB also: From the translator's preface - "they do not offend our ideas of possibility or even probability."

The proof (for me) doesn't rest in proving it, the proof is in not being able to disprove it. I'll give you one link...

http://books.google....20libya&f=false

It talks about the mummification practices that were the backbone of the Osiris cult at Abydos and how these concepts can be found very early in Spain with Cro-Magnon man c. 20,000BC. At that time there was definite movement from Spain and Nth Africa. The book asks:

"Is it quite improbable that their cultural and religious ideas, however elementary, did not gradually and in the course of ages find their way to Egypt (where they developed under more favourable conditions) as they certainly did to Britain at a later time by a much more difficult and dangerous route? Or is it contended that the similarity between their beginnings and that of Egypt is merely fortuitous?"

These are the questions I myself ask when you see the similarities that go way beyond the timeframe of the Dynastic eras. Maybe you should read all those links yourself Swede and this time, look harder. :geek:

First, to address your reference: Red flags went up at the first mention of Kendrick and his "Hamitic race". That and all the mid-19th to very early 20th century citations, content section format, etc. A quick check confirmed that your reference was published in 1905. Hardly representative of the current state of research. Further reading revealed other inadequacies.

Second, yes, as cormac observed, the provided references have been well read and cross-compared for consistency of dating, reflection of current understandings, etc. They do not support your speculations. Technical papers can be provided.

Lastly: Your "methodology" would appear to rely on the logical fallacy of asking research to prove a negative. This is quite unrealistic. For you to adequately support your position, it becomes incumbent upon yourself to provide qualified supportive data.

Addendum: Do not forget the principle of convergent evolution, anatomically, technologically, and culturally.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt

First, to address your reference: Red flags went up at the first mention of Kendrick and his "Hamitic race". That and all the mid-19th to very early 20th century citations, content section format, etc. A quick check confirmed that your reference was published in 1905. Hardly representative of the current state of research. Further reading revealed other inadequacies.

Second, yes, as cormac observed, the provided references have been well read and cross-compared for consistency of dating, reflection of current understandings, etc. They do not support your speculations. Technical papers can be provided.

Lastly: Your "methodology" would appear to rely on the logical fallacy of asking research to prove a negative. This is quite unrealistic. For you to adequately support your position, it becomes incumbent upon yourself to provide qualified supportive data.

Addendum: Do not forget the principle of convergent evolution, anatomically, technologically, and culturally.

.

Ah yes, the perils of utilizing outdated and incorrect information and sources to support one's argument. Not exactly a glowing recommendation for the validity of ones personal knowledgebase. Sadly this is seen quite frequently amongst fringe theorists.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

Ah yes, the perils of utilizing outdated and incorrect information and sources to support one's argument. Not exactly a glowing recommendation for the validity of ones personal knowledgebase. Sadly this is seen quite frequently amongst fringe theorists.

cormac

That is because most people think that something published in the past reflects the past better, when it is a fact that we know more now about the past than we did 50 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh

First, to address your reference: Red flags went up at the first mention of Kendrick and his "Hamitic race". That and all the mid-19th to very early 20th century citations, content section format, etc. A quick check confirmed that your reference was published in 1905. Hardly representative of the current state of research. Further reading revealed other inadequacies.

Second, yes, as cormac observed, the provided references have been well read and cross-compared for consistency of dating, reflection of current understandings, etc. They do not support your speculations. Technical papers can be provided.

Lastly: Your "methodology" would appear to rely on the logical fallacy of asking research to prove a negative. This is quite unrealistic. For you to adequately support your position, it becomes incumbent upon yourself to provide qualified supportive data.

Addendum: Do not forget the principle of convergent evolution, anatomically, technologically, and culturally.

.

I was waiting for you to reply first, Swede, and I noticed the same thing about the outdated and questionable source. Just that one page that comes up in the link is riddled with errors. Aside from the inaccurate placing of the emergence of cults for Osiris (Dynasty 1? Really?), the author makes the same mistake many do who are not familiar with the source material they are describing. For example, the Book of the Dead is first observable in a very tentative and incomplete state on the coffin of a queen dating to Dynasty 13. However, it did not become a real and regular part of funerary tradition until Dynasty 18, especially during the joint reign of Tuthmosis III and Hatshepsut. This hardly suggests the Book of the Dead appeared in a written form in prehistoric times. No religious corpus can be attested in Egypt that far back. The author appears, however, to be lumping the Pyramid Texts, Coffin Texts, and Book of the Dead into one tradition. That's sloppy and inaccurate.

I notice the author also references Wallis Budge. LOL It's quite possible Budge was considered an authority at the dawn of the twentieth century but that's hardly the case today. Any serious student of ancient Egypt is best off avoiding Budge altogether.

And one must absolutely take care in citing a book authored a century or more ago. I do believe there are more modern and reliable histories. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swede

Cormac - Indeed!

Questionmark - Yes, this can be an unfortunate approach, particularly in regards to such fast moving fields as bio-archaeology, archaeology, and genetics.

Kmt_sesh - And let us not forget the comparison of a purported "Cro-Magnon mummy" to those of Egypt. Would be interested to read the technical report on that one(!).

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh

That is because most people think that something published in the past reflects the past better, when it is a fact that we know more now about the past than we did 50 years ago.

Oh my, how painfully true this is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Puzzler

Ah yes, the perils of utilizing outdated and incorrect information and sources to support one's argument. Not exactly a glowing recommendation for the validity of ones personal knowledgebase. Sadly this is seen quite frequently amongst fringe theorists.

cormac

Again, my opinion was simple, Osiris was just another Aesir, the same as Etruscan and Nordic beliefs were entrenched in, beams, poles, pillars and backbones of the sky, life, death and cycles of stability and unstability, when these pillars, backbones, poles and so on, fell. All coming from a common ground from very ancient times. It's not my problem if you can't see it, hardly fringe, just logical and obvious.

I'd agree though Swede, the mummy connection to the early Cro-Magnons is stretching it, my views did not exactly match what the book said, it was meant to ask a question and think about it some more, did all this develop independently or was their a more ancient connection that spread throughout and can be found in the religions. I think the 3 of you have less imagination than I could fit in a thimble so I wouldn't be holding my breath for you to understand.

Rather closer to home the Spanish also destroyed much of the culture of the Guanches, native inhabitants of the Canary Islands and descendants of the Berbers from nearby North Africa. The cave-dwelling, goat-herding Guanches mummified their dead and although the Spanish again destroyed all the mummies they could find, the few which remain display highly sophisticated techniques of preservation using locally available materials. Recent examination has also suggested a link with the mummification practices of ancient Egypt, an important connection since the Guanches were still mummifying their dead when the Spanish arrived in the 15th century AD.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/egyptians/mummies_01.shtml

I suppose you all think Amun is Egyptian too..?

The most remarkable common god of the Berbers and the Egyptians was Amun. This god is hard to attribute to only one pantheon. Although most modern sources ignore the existence of Amun in Berber mythology, he was maybe the greatest ancient Berber god.[20] He was honored by the Ancient Greeks in Cyrenaica, and was united with the Phoenician god Baal due to Libyan influence.[21] Some depictions of the ram across North Africa belong to the lythic period which is situated between 9600 BC and 7500 BC.

The most famous temple of Amun in Ancient Libya was the temple at the oasis of Siwa. The name of the ancient Berber tribes: Garamantes and Nasamonians are believed by some scholars to be related to the name Amon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berber_mythology

I'll leave the last word to Dr Budge (in addition to a few other scholars apparently) again...

Osiris was among the Egyptian deities who were venetrated in Libya. However, Dr. Budge (in addition to a few other scholars) believed that Osiris was originally a Libyan god saying of him that "Everything which the texts of all periods recorded concerning him goes to show that he was an indigenous god of North-east Africa, and that his home and origin were possibly Libyan."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berber_mythology

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Puzzler

Oh my, how painfully true this is.

Your painfully archaic attitudes belong in the 19th century, I know that. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt

Again, my opinion was simple, Osiris was just another Aesir, the same as Etruscan and Nordic beliefs were entrenched in, beams, poles, pillars and backbones of the sky, life, death and cycles of stability and unstability, when these pillars, backbones, poles and so on, fell. All coming from a common ground from very ancient times. It's not my problem if you can't see it, hardly fringe, just logical and obvious.

I'd agree though Swede, the mummy connection to the early Cro-Magnons is stretching it, my views did not exactly match what the book said, it was meant to ask a question and think about it some more, did all this develop independently or was their a more ancient connection that spread throughout and can be found in the religions. I think the 3 of you have less imagination than I could fit in a thimble so I wouldn't be holding my breath for you to understand.

Rather closer to home the Spanish also destroyed much of the culture of the Guanches, native inhabitants of the Canary Islands and descendants of the Berbers from nearby North Africa. The cave-dwelling, goat-herding Guanches mummified their dead and although the Spanish again destroyed all the mummies they could find, the few which remain display highly sophisticated techniques of preservation using locally available materials. Recent examination has also suggested a link with the mummification practices of ancient Egypt, an important connection since the Guanches were still mummifying their dead when the Spanish arrived in the 15th century AD.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/egyptians/mummies_01.shtml

I suppose you all think Amun is Egyptian too..?

The most remarkable common god of the Berbers and the Egyptians was Amun. This god is hard to attribute to only one pantheon. Although most modern sources ignore the existence of Amun in Berber mythology, he was maybe the greatest ancient Berber god.[20] He was honored by the Ancient Greeks in Cyrenaica, and was united with the Phoenician god Baal due to Libyan influence.[21] Some depictions of the ram across North Africa belong to the lythic period which is situated between 9600 BC and 7500 BC.

The most famous temple of Amun in Ancient Libya was the temple at the oasis of Siwa. The name of the ancient Berber tribes: Garamantes and Nasamonians are believed by some scholars to be related to the name Amon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berber_mythology

I'll leave the last word to Dr Budge (in addition to a few other scholars apparently) again...

Osiris was among the Egyptian deities who were venetrated in Libya. However, Dr. Budge (in addition to a few other scholars) believed that Osiris was originally a Libyan god saying of him that "Everything which the texts of all periods recorded concerning him goes to show that he was an indigenous god of North-east Africa, and that his home and origin were possibly Libyan."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berber_mythology

Thank you. You've made Swede's, kmt_sesh's and my point better than we could have. Again showing that you'll utilize, to a great degree, the least valid and most outdated material to support your unevidenced claims. I can't speak for the others but considering how intelligent you are I'm rather embarrassed for you.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

On a lighter note:

It's Yahweh or the highway.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Puzzler

Thank you. You've made Swede's, kmt_sesh's and my point better than we could have. Again showing that you'll utilize, to a great degree, the least valid and most outdated material to support your unevidenced claims. I can't speak for the others but considering how intelligent you are I'm rather embarrassed for you.

cormac

Don't be, I just do things differently to you and your textbook crowd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Puzzler

On a lighter note:

It's Yahweh or the highway.

Harte

I'd agree on that. (I know, don't faint).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swede

Again, my opinion was simple, Osiris was just another Aesir, the same as Etruscan and Nordic beliefs were entrenched in, beams, poles, pillars and backbones of the sky, life, death and cycles of stability and unstability, when these pillars, backbones, poles and so on, fell. All coming from a common ground from very ancient times. It's not my problem if you can't see it, hardly fringe, just logical and obvious.

I'd agree though Swede, the mummy connection to the early Cro-Magnons is stretching it, my views did not exactly match what the book said, it was meant to ask a question and think about it some more, did all this develop independently or was their a more ancient connection that spread throughout and can be found in the religions. I think the 3 of you have less imagination than I could fit in a thimble so I wouldn't be holding my breath for you to understand.

Rather closer to home the Spanish also destroyed much of the culture of the Guanches, native inhabitants of the Canary Islands and descendants of the Berbers from nearby North Africa. The cave-dwelling, goat-herding Guanches mummified their dead and although the Spanish again destroyed all the mummies they could find, the few which remain display highly sophisticated techniques of preservation using locally available materials. Recent examination has also suggested a link with the mummification practices of ancient Egypt, an important connection since the Guanches were still mummifying their dead when the Spanish arrived in the 15th century AD.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...ummies_01.shtml

I suppose you all think Amun is Egyptian too..?

The most remarkable common god of the Berbers and the Egyptians was Amun. This god is hard to attribute to only one pantheon. Although most modern sources ignore the existence of Amun in Berber mythology, he was maybe the greatest ancient Berber god.[20] He was honored by the Ancient Greeks in Cyrenaica, and was united with the Phoenician god Baal due to Libyan influence.[21] Some depictions of the ram across North Africa belong to the lythic period which is situated between 9600 BC and 7500 BC.

The most famous temple of Amun in Ancient Libya was the temple at the oasis of Siwa. The name of the ancient Berber tribes: Garamantes and Nasamonians are believed by some scholars to be related to the name Amon.

http://en.wikipedia....erber_mythology

I'll leave the last word to Dr Budge (in addition to a few other scholars apparently) again...

Osiris was among the Egyptian deities who were venetrated in Libya. However, Dr. Budge (in addition to a few other scholars) believed that Osiris was originally a Libyan god saying of him that "Everything which the texts of all periods recorded concerning him goes to show that he was an indigenous god of North-east Africa, and that his home and origin were possibly Libyan."

http://en.wikipedia....erber_mythology

Re: Reference #1 - Current research indicates that the earliest inhabitants of the Canary Islands arrived circa 3000 BP or later. This aspect notably postdates some of your previously supplied speculative figures:

The first human settlers that arrived at the Canary Islands do not seem to pre-date the 1st millennium BC.

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v12/n2/full/5201075a.html

Pottery remnants suggest there were up to four distinct waves of colonization, whilst carbon dating techniques suggest that the first colonists arrived during the first millenium BC.

http://www.ing.iac.es/PR/lapalma/history.html

Re: Reference #2 - The source of the first part of this reference comes from Basset (H.), published in 1921. As to the ram factor:

The sacred animal of Amun was originally the Goose, and was sometimes known as the "Great Cackler". Later he was more closely associated with the Ram, a symbol of fertility

http://www.aldokkan.com/religion/amun.htm

Re: Reference #3 - No further comment needed.

Re: "Imagination" (or the lack thereof) - In this you bring up one of the tactics/catchphrases not uncommonly utilized amongst the fringe and it falls in line with the well-worn "thinking out of the box", etc.

This perception is not well evidenced in the realities of scientific research. One need only look at the advancements in electronic technology, medicine, transportation, ad infinitum that have occurred within your own lifetime. These are the result of the practical application of "could we try...?", "what if...?".

This same endless curiosity and application of exploratory thinking is also quite alive and well in the anthropological sciences. After all, the very raison d'etre of these fields of study is to reconstruct and understand the complex environmental, biological, social, and cultural elements that have composed the human past and led to our current state of existence. Extensive efforts are made to correlate and perhaps connect innumerable evidences, be they related to lithic technologies, ceramics, burial patterns, habitation patterns, procurement strategies, fabric technologies, spiritual/artistic motifs and practices, linguistics, genetics, etc., etc.

In the process of attempting to correlate this data, you may be surprised to learn of the degree of "imagination" and speculation that occurs on a quite regular basis. While technical papers may be rather dry to some, the physical and mental exploration that lies behind them is not always so clinical.

However, in the incidences referred to above, the ability to logically present one's argument based upon sound data and methodology is inherent.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

So,

You're all telling me that only the Puzz can appreciate my wit?

Thanks Puzz. :tu:

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lightly

So,

You're all telling me that only the Puzz can appreciate my wit?

Thanks Puzz. :tu:

Harte

I appreciate it too Harte.. it's amazing what you do with just the one ! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swede

I appreciate it too Harte.. it's amazing what you do with just the one ! :P

Chuckle!

Harte - You may have some competition!

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh

Again, my opinion was simple, Osiris was just another Aesir, the same as Etruscan and Nordic beliefs were entrenched in, beams, poles, pillars and backbones of the sky, life, death and cycles of stability and unstability, when these pillars, backbones, poles and so on, fell. All coming from a common ground from very ancient times. It's not my problem if you can't see it, hardly fringe, just logical and obvious.

I'd agree though Swede, the mummy connection to the early Cro-Magnons is stretching it, my views did not exactly match what the book said, it was meant to ask a question and think about it some more, did all this develop independently or was their a more ancient connection that spread throughout and can be found in the religions. I think the 3 of you have less imagination than I could fit in a thimble so I wouldn't be holding my breath for you to understand.

Rather closer to home the Spanish also destroyed much of the culture of the Guanches, native inhabitants of the Canary Islands and descendants of the Berbers from nearby North Africa. The cave-dwelling, goat-herding Guanches mummified their dead and although the Spanish again destroyed all the mummies they could find, the few which remain display highly sophisticated techniques of preservation using locally available materials. Recent examination has also suggested a link with the mummification practices of ancient Egypt, an important connection since the Guanches were still mummifying their dead when the Spanish arrived in the 15th century AD.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/egyptians/mummies_01.shtml

I suppose you all think Amun is Egyptian too..?

The most remarkable common god of the Berbers and the Egyptians was Amun. This god is hard to attribute to only one pantheon. Although most modern sources ignore the existence of Amun in Berber mythology, he was maybe the greatest ancient Berber god.[20] He was honored by the Ancient Greeks in Cyrenaica, and was united with the Phoenician god Baal due to Libyan influence.[21] Some depictions of the ram across North Africa belong to the lythic period which is situated between 9600 BC and 7500 BC.

The most famous temple of Amun in Ancient Libya was the temple at the oasis of Siwa. The name of the ancient Berber tribes: Garamantes and Nasamonians are believed by some scholars to be related to the name Amon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berber_mythology

I'll leave the last word to Dr Budge (in addition to a few other scholars apparently) again...

Osiris was among the Egyptian deities who were venetrated in Libya. However, Dr. Budge (in addition to a few other scholars) believed that Osiris was originally a Libyan god saying of him that "Everything which the texts of all periods recorded concerning him goes to show that he was an indigenous god of North-east Africa, and that his home and origin were possibly Libyan."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berber_mythology

I mean this with all due respect, Puzzler, and I hope you know I regard you as very intelligent, but do not use Budge or other outdated and questionable sources. There are so many better sources to delve into, especially those reflecting the most modern and comprehensive research to date. Budge was a prolific writer and something of a character, but he was not exactly a polished historian. As often as he churned out books, Budge was well known for avoiding submitting his writing for peer-review. His body of work is riddled with errors, misconceptions, and simplistic exaggerations. This is why pretty much any book he wrote is so widely available and so cheap--the copyrights ended many years ago. His books have little probative research value today.

For instance, what is Budge's argument for Osiris originally being a Libyan deity? My own main focus in researching ancient Egypt is their traditions in death and burial, the sphere of culture to which Osiris was most closely attributed from the very start, of course. In all my years of research I've not come across anything to show that Osiris may have come from Libya. Rather the opposite is clearly true: Egypt profoundly influenced neighboring cultures. I can't even think of any context in which Osiris may have fit into the tribal and feudal culture of ancient Libya, but if for some reason Osiris was popular there, it's because of ancient Libyans' long contact with Egypt.

The same is definitely true of Amun. Like Osiris, Amun in his roles, functions, and iconography is most certainly Egyptian in origin. He can be traced back to the Theban region but not earlier and not outside of there. Just because one of his forms was as a ram should not lead one to confuse him with foreign deities in ram form. The ram as a divine manifestation or cultural icon was extremely common all over the ancient Mediterranean. This hardly means all ram or ram-like deities are connected in some way with Amun. In point of fact, when Amun was depicted by the Egyptians, in the vast majority of cases he was depicted basically in human male form. His manifestation as a ram served other particular functions to Egyptian culture.

You mention Siwa. This is one of several important oases in the Western Desert, otherwise often called the Libyan Desert. That does not mean it was Libyan territory, however. These oases were solidly under the control and administration of Egyptians for almost the entire span of pharaonic history. Libyans would've interacted there and traded at these oases frequently, but the only time they themselves really controlled the full breadth of the Western Desert was in the early period of the Third Intermediate Period, when they wrested control of the Delta and Nile Valley. And while its true there was an important oracle of Amun at the Siwa oasis, this was a fully Egyptian temple. Moreover, this temple was a Johnny-come-lately in the stage of pharaonic history. Its earliest foundations and occupations cannot be dated before Dynasty 26 (664-525 BCE), in the Late Period. I'm not saying it's impossible inhabitations occurred earlier than the seventh century BCE, but all evidence clarifies no temple to Amun stood there prior to that time. All of this is to say, one must take care in citing sites of veneration and attributing them to other cultures, when in fact those sites (like Siwa) might date to much later times.

The cult of Amun in Nubia is much better established than any that might have existed in Libya. And this again was due to cultural transference: Egypt clearly brought Amun to Nubia, not vice versa. There is no evidence for a Nubian cult of Amun prior to the earliest vestiges of the Egyptian cult at Thebes, which by all appearances seems to have begun to thrive around Dynasty 11 at the start of the Middle Kingdom.

In closing, I should think cormac and Swede and I all have plenty of imagination and the ability to apply it. I know I do. You might be surprised by my own imagination. But there's a critical distinction in the use of imagination when it comes to historical research. When your imagination takes you out of the bounds of extant evidence, you end up in the realm of speculation and opinion. These also have their places in historical investigation, but only to a point and only under certain guidelines. Those text books you seem to revile happen to represent the sum total of many, many decades of concerted research and investigation employing a myriad of scientific fields. There is a reason folks such as cormac and Swede and I trust the proper research. Speaking for myself, I don't need to unleash too much imagination when I study the ancient Near East: what orthodox research tells me in those "stodgy" text books happens to be more fascinating to me than anything I could invent. Ancient history doesn't require undue speculation: it's endlessly interesting all on its own.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.