Let's talk history

[Wepwawet]

36 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

Seems farfetched to believe that if/when the predecessors of the AE might have been in the then wet Sahara that they would have been influenced in this way. I don't remember who brought it up but there are vaguely pyramid shaped mountains to the west and those too have been pointed out as possible initiators of 'Pyramids'. I would think they did so because that is the natural shape you are going to get if you stack mastabas on top of one another...

If any natural formation was the inspiration for a pyramid it would be El-Qurn, yet it was a factor in choosing the VoK for a necropolis because it reminded them of the pyramids, not the other way around. But, lets's imagine that El-Qurn was the inspiration for the first pyramid, it's certainly not a volcano. I'll keep to my belief that the pyramid shape is a mix of the Sun's rays and the primeval mound, and the PT I think make it reasonably clear on the last point, at least with the pyramidion being a representation/manifestation of the Benben stone/Atum at Heliopolis.

[ShadowSot]

Example of a cranioplasty from 4th century Perú. Gold was used for the insert. 

[ShadowSot]

4 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

If any natural formation was the inspiration for a pyramid it would be El-Qurn, yet it was a factor in choosing the VoK for a necropolis because it reminded them of the pyramids, not the other way around. But, lets's imagine that El-Qurn was the inspiration for the first pyramid, it's certainly not a volcano. I'll keep to my belief that the pyramid shape is a mix of the Sun's rays and the primeval mound, and the PT I think make it reasonably clear on the last point, at least with the pyramidion being a representation/manifestation of the Benben stone/Atum at Heliopolis.

I've always been curious if there wasn't some influence from the ziggurats of Sumer as well

[Hanslune]

2 hours ago, ShadowSot said:

I've always been curious if there wasn't some influence from the ziggurats of Sumer as well

It is possible that an Egyptian trader or vice versa brought the idea. The timing is a consideration however.

https://books.google.com/books?id=fOlgDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA63#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=0KQCscrPDgUC&pg=PA23#v=onepage&q&f=false

[Wepwawet]

7 hours ago, ShadowSot said:

I've always been curious if there wasn't some influence from the ziggurats of Sumer as well

Very likely I would have thought, though used as a template for a different purpose. An analogy, of sorts, could be the transformation of the Greek theatre into the Roman amphitheatre, though entertainment as the basic purpose remained the same.

I suspect that the Step Pyramid was only stepped as it was a first step to the true pyramid that appears with the Red Pyramid, pyramid number 4. If possible, I'm sure Djoser would have had a true pyramid, and if his pyramid had been so, then a link to ziggurats may be less evident, but, you have to start somewhere.

[R Avry Wilson]

18 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

I think not. If the AE had ever seen a classic cone shaped volcano erupting, why would they not make any reference to this until the time of Djoser, yet it is proposed that this volcanism occured thousands of years before the first traces of any culture appear in Egypt.

Hello, that is the point of the article - such events and experiences would survive as lore. Existence of culture is irrelevant. They were humans with brains and the ability to communicate. FYI, Bayuda was active closer to Dynastic times, although nothing with high VEIs. I show remnants of these observations in the AE texts. 

[R Avry Wilson]

17 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

If any natural formation was the inspiration for a pyramid it would be El-Qurn, yet it was a factor in choosing the VoK for a necropolis because it reminded them of the pyramids, not the other way around. But, lets's imagine that El-Qurn was the inspiration for the first pyramid, it's certainly not a volcano. I'll keep to my belief that the pyramid shape is a mix of the Sun's rays and the primeval mound, and the PT I think make it reasonably clear on the last point, at least with the pyramidion being a representation/manifestation of the Benben stone/Atum at Heliopolis.

Consider the extant stories of the primeval mound. 

[Ianus]

4 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

[...] the transformation of the Greek theatre into the Roman amphitheatre, though entertainment as the basic purpose remained the same.

...and transformation back and forth!  Why not booking a place for Giuseppe Verdi's Requiem in the amphitheatre of Verona in 2021 CE?

https://www.arena.it/it/arena-di-verona/requiem-giuseppe-verdi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verona_Arena

[Hanslune]

1 hour ago, R Avry Wilson said:

Consider the extant stories of the primeval mound. 

Ah, the author shows up. Great! Welcome to the board!

[Wepwawet]

2 hours ago, R Avry Wilson said:

Hello, that is the point of the article - such events and experiences would survive as lore. Existence of culture is irrelevant. They were humans with brains and the ability to communicate. FYI, Bayuda was active closer to Dynastic times, although nothing with high VEIs. I show remnants of these observations in the AE texts. 

Is that not just filling in a several thousand year gap from the Bayuda activity to the Step Pyramid with speculation though. I would have thought that if volcanism was important to them, then it would have shown itself in some form before the Step Pyramid, maybe at the very least small models of volcanos, or even images in some form. It does not seem to be feasable that a folk memory suddenly shows itself hundreds of years after the formation of the state, and thousands of years after the volcanic event.

To answer your other post on the primeval mound. If the AE had ever seen an island formed by an undersea eruption, you would have a good case, but the only event like that near to Egypt that comes to mind is the formation of Thera, which was complete by 21,000 years ago, so I think not a prototype for the primeval mound. Then there is the question of what did the AE think the primeval mound was, and from what did it emerge. To me, a lava flow does not fit at all. In general terms. and debatable, Ptah has created the basic matter of the universe, which was "without form", chaos, a sea of chaos they called Nun. The primeval mound was the first formed matter, the ground they stood on, with the image of a mound emerging from chaos being a metaphor, a way of presenting something profound in a way easy to understand. If they had seen a volcano erupting, either a Plinian eruption or a lava flow, this would not look like the creation of, essentially, the planet from a sea of chaos, but more like the bursting of a boil from already formed matter.

[Wepwawet]

2 hours ago, Ianus said:

...and transformation back and forth!  Why not booking a place for Giuseppe Verdi's Requiem in the amphitheatre of Verona in 2021 CE?

https://www.arena.it/it/arena-di-verona/requiem-giuseppe-verdi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verona_Arena

I see that it is in fact a backwards transformation as they have place a modern scaenae frons inside an amphitheatre, so, in a way, defeating the purpose of an amphitheatre, but understandable in the context of a modern performance.

[Ianus]

48 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

so, in a way, defeating the purpose of an amphitheatre

Well, in a way yes; amphitheatres were certainly multi-purpose sites for a wide variety of spectacles, from gladiator lusi (jousts) to uncanny triremes contests, but I don't recall instances of concerts held therein, as they do in Verona. Nor of theatric plays, which where hold in smaller buildings.

But, mutatis mutandis, the soul of spectacle still lingers and thrives in that site, after millenia.

[jaylemurph]

10 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

Very likely I would have thought, though used as a template for a different purpose. An analogy, of sorts, could be the transformation of the Greek theatre into the Roman amphitheatre, though entertainment as the basic purpose remained the same.

I suspect that the Step Pyramid was only stepped as it was a first step to the true pyramid that appears with the Red Pyramid, pyramid number 4. If possible, I'm sure Djoser would have had a true pyramid, and if his pyramid had been so, then a link to ziggurats may be less evident, but, you have to start somewhere.

I’d be willing to bet amphitheaters owe little more than their name to theatres proper — in both form and function they have more in common with circuses and hippodromes. The root of “theatre” means “seeing place” or thereabouts, rather than any specific theatrical  activity, which meaning makes more sense added to “amphi”. 

—Jaylemurph 

[Wepwawet]

44 minutes ago, jaylemurph said:

I’d be willing to bet amphitheaters owe little more than their name to theatres proper — in both form and function they have more in common with circuses and hippodromes. The root of “theatre” means “seeing place” or thereabouts, rather than any specific theatrical  activity, which meaning makes more sense added to “amphi”. 

—Jaylemurph 

Though an amphitheatre in architectural form is two theatres joined together, that's what Vespasian's unknown architect did to create what became known as the Colosseum. Entertainment, no matter if it is a comedic play by Aristophanes or a grim bloodbath with gladiators, is still the function of both. There is though a commonality between the amphitheatre and the circus in that both held Ludi, and both had an appeal to the plebs that the theatre did not. Divided by snobbery I guess, though it's all entertainment, and the "nice" people were hardly averse to the thrill of the races and games.

Edited July 10, 2021 by Wepwawet

[Abramelin]

[jaylemurph]

19 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

Though an amphitheatre in architectural form is two theatres joined together, that's what Vespasian's unknown architect did to create what became known as the Colosseum. Entertainment, no matter if it is a comedic play by Aristophanes or a grim bloodbath with gladiators, is still the function of both. There is though a commonality between the amphitheatre and the circus in that both held Ludi, and both had an appeal to the plebs that the theatre did not. Divided by snobbery I guess, though it's all entertainment, and the "nice" people were hardly averse to the thrill of the races and games.

An amphitheater is a circle. That form is hardly unique. Nor was the Colosseum the first. The Greeks had them; and as Greek theaters were pointedly not semi-circular, it’s of little consequence to suggest an amphitheater is just two theaters back to back. You’re ahistorically projecting back modern (or at least post-dated) beliefs about their origins.

But to be fair, that is totally a Roman thing to do.

The Romans certainly saw a difference; there was no permanent, dedicated theatre in Rome til Ceasar’s time, but there were both circi and hippodromes well before.

—Jaylemurph 

[Wepwawet]

20 minutes ago, jaylemurph said:

An amphitheater is a circle. That form is hardly unique. Nor was the Colosseum the first. The Greeks had them; and as Greek theaters were pointedly not semi-circular, it’s of little consequence to suggest an amphitheater is just two theaters back to back. You’re ahistorically projecting back modern (or at least post-dated) beliefs about their origins.

But to be fair, that is totally a Roman thing to do.

The Romans certainly saw a difference; there was no permanent, dedicated theatre in Rome til Ceasar’s time, but there were both circi and hippodromes well before.

—Jaylemurph 

While the Colosseum was not the first amphitheatre, it is formed by joining two free standing semi-circular Roman style theatres back to back, with the scenae frons and stage removed, and that area, which became the arena, enlarged. I was taught that in school, I've read that in every book I have ever read that touched on the subject, and I'll quote this from the wiki

Quote

Unlike earlier Greek theatres that were built into hillsides, the Colosseum is an entirely free-standing structure. It derives its basic exterior and interior architecture from that of two Roman theatres back to back.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colosseum#Physical_description

Of course the Romans saw a difference between a theatre for plays and an amphitheatre for the games, or a circus/hippdrome for chariot racing and games. We see a difference between a football stadium and a movie theatre, and the difference between that and a theatre for plays, and a circus for that matter, but they are all for entertainment, which was the point I was making.

[jaylemurph]

50 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

While the Colosseum was not the first amphitheatre, it is formed by joining two free standing semi-circular Roman style theatres back to back, with the scenae frons and stage removed, and that area, which became the arena, enlarged. I was taught that in school, I've read that in every book I have ever read that touched on the subject, and I'll quote this from the wik

So if I understand you, the Colosseum is an amphitheater when it’s useful to your argument and not when it isn’t. 

It isn’t the first amphitheatre, but we really ought to take as such because it’s occasionally useful in your argument. 

And the Greek amphitheaters that are clearly not two theatres smushed together and clearly predate the Colosseum don’t count because you presumably didn’t specifically read about them in your previous research on theatre history and architecture.

Well heavens, so history is merely what you happened to have read, then the rest of us historians can take the rest of the weekend off. I just hope you really have read enough to be the only historian in the world. 

I’m beginning to see just why so many people here are inclined to anti-academia.

—Jaylemurph 

[Wepwawet]

34 minutes ago, jaylemurph said:

So if I understand you, the Colosseum is an amphitheater when it’s useful to your argument and not when it isn’t. 

 

I'll just deal with this part of your, odd, post.

The proper name for the Colosseum is the Flavian Amphitheatre, as you well know. Note the word "amphitheatre".

[jaylemurph]

7 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

I'll just deal with this part of your, odd, post.

The proper name for the Colosseum is the Flavian Amphitheatre, as you well know. Note the word "amphitheatre".

How convenient of the Romans to name it in English. No mean trick, considering the language wouldn’t even exist for six centuries or so. 

—Jaylemurph 

[Thanos5150]

12 hours ago, Hanslune said:

It is possible that an Egyptian trader or vice versa brought the idea. The timing is a consideration however.

https://books.google.com/books?id=fOlgDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA63#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=0KQCscrPDgUC&pg=PA23#v=onepage&q&f=false

Well, here's two sources that say it so I guess it must be true. We would note these are the two sources used by Wikipedia. 

For the first source, Dr Held is a fine fellow but obviously ancient history is not his bailiwick and is making his own speculative leap based on less than sound reasoning let alone any actual facts.  

The building of terraced or stepped towers in Mesopotamia was generally contemporary with pyramid construction in Egypt, and the stepped design of the Pyramid of Djoser, the oldest known pyramid along the Nile, suggests it was borrowed from the Mesopotamian ziggurat concept. 

No doubt this is possible, but there is no direct evidence and the 2nd period of Mesopotamian influence in Egypt ended 3 centuries earlier not to mention ziggurats as we know them did not appear until the end of the 3rd millennium. The Ubaid built stepped platforms, no doubt the precursor to ziggurats if not ziggurats in their own right, as early as the 5th millennium, but the first "ziggurats" do not appear until c.3000BC both at Uruk and Elam, the Anu and Sialk ziggurats respectively.

Sailk:

Uruk:

The palace facade White Temple sits on top. Look familiar? 

Again, ziggurats as we know them did not begin appearing until long after Djoser at the end of the 3rd millennium, let alone the Old Kingdom, with little to nothing in-between as yet found of the practice, though it stands to reason there must be, so what the Mesopotamian stepped structure(s) was that would have so inspired DE pyramid building is a bit of a mystery.  While the Sailk ziggurat might fit the bill (though who is to know what condition it was in 300yrs later), and some early Mesopotamian artistic motifs in Egypt strongly lean more Elamite than Urukian, the Uruk ziggurat clearly does not. Of note as well is that some of the largest Ubaid stepped platforms are found at Susa, Elam, which pottery found has some identical motifs as those found on Egyptian Naqada II pottery which is where the first wave of the Uruk expansion's influence on Egypt is found. On the other hand, the Anu ziggurat originated as a large mound in the Ubaid Period as well, nearly 1,000yrs before but not exactly the stuff of stepped pyramids either. 

We are also reminded of the fact stepped pyramid structures 1st began appearing in Egypt  at least at the end of the 1st Dynasty which was shortly after the 2nd wave of Mesopotamian influence in Egypt. 

Which I would note again 1st Dynasty monumental architecture aligned the corners to the cardinal points, the Mesopotamian way, and not the sides as in later times. I think it is very possible these "pyramids" were what was inspired by the Ubaid stepped platforms which interestingly they also built tombs within these structures as well.  

Dr Held continues next:

Thus, evidence from five thousand years ago clearly shows remarkable interaction between peoples and environment in the Tigris-Euphrates Basin. 

Uhh....Not sure how this equates to pyramids being inspired by ziggurats, see above, which if one wants to make an actual fact based claim there is much other actual Mesopotamian influence to choose from. I don;t remember and am not going to look, but I suspect this train of thought comes from a Frankfort or Winkler or the like which was interesting at the time given the discoveries of Mesopotamian influence in Egypt but has yet to bear out archeologically. 

The other source is a nothing burger which is very likely just repeating Dr Held. 

At any rate, no one would be happier than me for such a connection to be had but the truth of the matter is it has yet to be found and/or recognized. Yeah, the 1st Dynasty built stepped "pyramids" possibly similar to the Ubaid, and Mesopotamian influence is certainly found at the beginnings of the 1st Dynasty, and yes there were some kind of ziggurats in Mesopotamia that date to the beginning of Dynastic Egypt which we know had some form of influence on Egypt during this period and before. But this is a long stretch of time to get to Djoser and in Djoser's day there is no evidence of Mesopotamian influence in Egypt, something that appeared to end rather abruptly shortly after the beginnings of Dynastic Egypt. Though obviously they would have had relations with others who dealt with the Sumerians, like for example the Elbaites of Syria, a region whose relations with Egypt was very strong at times going back to the very beginning of the Dynastic Period if not before, which even the name of Khufu is found on an artifact there. I am certainly open to the possibility, and the eruption of stone working culture from one pharaoh to the next (Khasekhemwy to Djoser) certainly defies explanation which may very well be the result of foreign influence of some sort, but the hurdle to get over, if true, is where are the ziggurats that would have inspired Djoser? 

This is a good example of how sources are misused as "facts" in and of themselves. Just because someone writes something in a book does not make it true nor does repeating it. Neither of these sources give any evidence whatsoever as to why it would be and in reality are just repeating someone else, if not one the other, who doesn't know either and ultimately the facts behind the premise range anywhere from incorrect to yet to be proven. I think it basically goes like this: Mesopotamia is older. Mesopotamia built ziggurats. Pyramids are kinda like ziggurats. Therefore Egyptian pyramids likely came from ziggurats. Not good enough.    

 

 

[Wepwawet]

9 hours ago, jaylemurph said:

How convenient of the Romans to name it in English. No mean trick, considering the language wouldn’t even exist for six centuries or so. 

—Jaylemurph 

No, of course they did not name it using the English way of writing latin, they named it, as again you well know, Amphitheatrum Flavium. If you want to go into this ridiculous level of trolling pedantry, then let's start using hieroglyphs for all AE words and names, or at least use the MdC.

[Abramelin]

On 7/10/2021 at 1:54 AM, ShadowSot said:

I've always been curious if there wasn't some influence from the ziggurats of Sumer as well

And what about Sardinia?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_d'Accoddi

Quote:

Monte d'Accoddi is a Neolithic archaeological site in northern Sardinia, located in the territory of Sassari. The site consists of a massive raised stone platform thought to have been an altar. It was constructed by the Ozieri culture or earlier, with the oldest parts dated to around 4,000–3,650 BC.

The initial Ozieri structure was abandoned or destroyed around 3000 BC, with traces of fire found in the archeological evidence.[4] Around 2800 BC the remains of the original structure were completely covered with a layered mixture of earth and stone, and large blocks of limestone were then applied to establish a second platform, truncated by a step pyramid (36 m × 29 m, about 10 m in height), accessible by means of a second ramp, 42 m long, built over the older one.[4] This second temple resembles contemporary Mesopotamian ziggurats, and is attributed to the Abealzu-Filigosa culture.

(...)

Based on the evidence of architecture, ritual deposits and diagnostic pottery, G. and M. Webster argued, in 2017 & 2019, for the monument's status as a product of a migration event (probably exilic) initiated from Mesopotamia, during the first half of the 4th millennium B.C.E.

-----

https://www.203challenges.com/monte-daccoddi-where-in-italy-youll-feel-like-youre-in-mesopotamia/

Quote:

Why is Monte D’Accoddi so unusual, and where does Mesopotamia fit into the whole story?

The answer is simple: nowhere else in Italy or the whole Mediterranean has a similar altar been discovered. In terms of architecture, its closest relatives are ancient Sumerian temples called ziggurats (dating back to around 3000 BC). To date, 32 ziggurats have been discovered in Iran and Iraq, revealing with them some of the world’s oldest known scripts.

Archaeologists are perplexed at how such a similarity can be observed in two cultures that have never been connected in any way (at least as far historians know), especially in their cults and temple-building.

 

Edited July 11, 2021 by Abramelin

[Ianus]

An insight into Roman (empire) theatre customs: the spectators waged wars by gangs on actors' performances:

Quote

Moreover, covertly brought in a litter to the theatre, Nero, from the higher part of the proscenium was a spectator as well as a chief of party for the riots over the actors.

And as soon as things came to a fight, which was fought with stones and fragments of the wooden benches, he himself threw a lot of those on the people, and went as far as to injure the head of a praetor.

G. Suetonius Tranquillus, De vita Cesarum, Nero, XXVI

Quote

Interdiu quoque clam gestatoria sella delatus in theatrum seditionibus pantomimorum e parte proscaeni superiore signifer simul ac spectator aderat. Et cum ad manus ventum esset lapidibusque et subselliorum fragminibus decerneretur, multa et ipse iecit in populum atque etiam praetoris caput consauciavit.

 

[Ianus]

17 hours ago, jaylemurph said:

But to be fair, that is totally a Roman thing to do.