If Pyramids not tombs where are the pharaohs?

[Thanos5150]

The Origin of Monumental Architecture in Egypt, Henri Frankfort. You can log in through your Google or Microsoft account to read the full paper. Frankfort as always is an excellent resource. 

Quote

Moreover, any explanation of the facts in strictly Egyptological terms ignores the remarkable circumstance that closely similar buildings were erected at about the same time in Babylonia. Now all these problems find a simple and straightforward solution when we assume that a technique and style which we can watch developing in Mesopotamia became known to the Egyptians about the time of Menes. Recent Egyptological writings show a noticeable aversion to this sort of explanation. This is largely a reaction against the gross overworking of the argument of foreign influence by a preceding generation of authors. But the prevalent assumption that Egypt, especially in the formative phases of its development, was entirely self-contained is equally unwarranted. Hence this prefatory plea for an unbiased approach to the problem under discussion. 

 

Edited March 24 by Thanos5150

[Antigonos]

18 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

The Origin of Monumental Architecture in Egypt, Henri Frankfort. You can log in through your Google or Microsoft account to read the full paper. Frankfort as always is an excellent resource. 

 

Fantastic. Thanks bro. I agree.

[Thanos5150]

Also: The Satellite Pyramid of Dahshur

Snefru's Subsidiary Pyramid at Dahshur (Bent Subsidiary Pyramid), Rigano

As discussed before in this thread, while technically a sarcophagus would (barely) fit it is generally accepted the chamber was otherwise too small for there ever to have been a sarcophagus in this pyramid (i.e. burial) nor any indication this was its purpose and was built as a cenotaph of some sort. It is interesting though, that despite this, great effort and ingenuity was spent to seal the chamber regardless.  

See HERE p11-14.

[Stokke]

On 4/2/2024 at 12:44 AM, Thanos5150 said:

As discussed before in this thread, while technically a sarcophagus would (barely) fit it is generally accepted the chamber was otherwise too small for there ever to have been a sarcophagus in this pyramid (i.e. burial) nor any indication this was its purpose and was built as a cenotaph of some sort. It is interesting though, that despite this, great effort and ingenuity was spent to seal the chamber regardless.

Regardless of their small sizes.. if it walks like a duck..

Satellite pyramids were obviously an integral component of the funerary complex - hence, the key to determine their function must be to understand the Egyptian funerary beliefs.

The Pyramid Texts seems to be a good starting point.

[cladking]

4 hours ago, Stokke said:

Satellite pyramids were obviously an integral component of the funerary complex - hence, the key to determine their function must be to understand the Egyptian funerary beliefs.

The Pyramid Texts seems to be a good starting point.

They've been doing this for a century and a half and nothing has been generated except for mysteries.  If these are just incantation as is believed, what can we expect to find other than the writers believed in incantation? 

Doing the same thing over and over that doesn't work is madness.    Inferring what the pyramids did, how they did it, and how they were constructed from a book of incantation is illogical.  

 

 

[Antigonos]

4 minutes ago, cladking said:

They've been doing this for a century and a half and nothing has been generated except for mysteries.  

Doing the same thing over and over that doesn't work is madness.    Inferring what the pyramids did, how they did it, and how they were constructed from a book of incantation is illogical.  

 

 

Your complete ignorance and total lack of knowledge concerning the history of archaeology in Egypt for the past 200 years isn’t an argument.

[Thanos5150]

2 hours ago, cladking said:

Doing the same thing over and over that doesn't work is madness. 

30 Days of Cladking

Case in point:

Quote

Inferring what the pyramids did, how they did it, and how they were constructed from a book of incantation is illogical.  

You've said this same moronic phrase nearly verbatim at least 427 times just on GHMB alone. 48 times at UM in the last year. Just one of your many stupid and offensive bizarro aphorisms. 

"You are the very definition of a belligerent hobby horsing fraudulent troll Cladking. All of your posts, every single day-day after day year after year-are literally the same exact things said over and over again ad nauseum. And to think this is but a fraction of your canned rhetoric from just these 30 days. There is literally nothing you haven't said before verbatim. How you have been allowed to continue to post here is beyond me."

Just as true then as it is today. 

Edited April 3 by Thanos5150

[Thanos5150]

8 hours ago, Stokke said:

Regardless of their small sizes.. if it walks like a duck..

Sorry, not sure what you are trying to say. 

Quote

Satellite pyramids were obviously an integral component of the funerary complex - hence, the key to determine their function must be to understand the Egyptian funerary beliefs.

Right....

Quote

The Pyramid Texts seems to be a good starting point.

"Pyramid Texts" you say? Never heard of it. 

Regardless, as per the OP title and subsequent 38 pages of conversation the point would not be what the SP is per se', but rather what it is not. Which is a tomb to inter a body.  

 

Edited April 3 by Thanos5150

[cladking]

2 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

30 Days of Cladking

Case in point:

You've said this same moronic phrase nearly verbatim at least 427 times just on GHMB alone. 48 times at UM in the last year. Just one of your many stupid and offensive bizarro aphorisms. 

"You are the very definition of a belligerent hobby horsing fraudulent troll Cladking. All of your posts, every single day-day after day year after year-are literally the same exact things said over and over again ad nauseum. And to think this is but a fraction of your canned rhetoric from just these 30 days. There is literally nothing you haven't said before verbatim. How you have been allowed to continue to post here is beyond me."

Just as true then as it is today. 

Rather than being rude and trying to silence people who don't agree with me I'm simply trying to get answers to many many questions such as where is the logic in trying to get answers to practical questions from a book of incantation.  Where my questions is relevant to the thread since Stokke specifically stated starting with a book of incantation was a good way to progress your response does not address my statements and implied questions.   Now that you've drawn me off topic with your off topic attack there will be a wailing and gnashing of teeth that cladking is off-topic.  

If there were anything in the Pyramid Texts that sheds any light on any of these questions it would have been found long long ago.  

Do you think the small size of the sarcophagi precludes the pyramid being for a burial?  

Do you think the answer can be found in the PT which is a book of incantation? 

Why do you think so much effort went into sealing the "tomb" and is this explained in the PT?

This isn't about what I think or your incorrect claim that I repeat myself.  This is about what you think and what Stokke thinks.  This is not about me so why change the subject?  

  

[Antigonos]

34 minutes ago, cladking said:

Rather than being rude and trying to silence people who don't agree with me I'm simply trying to get answers to many many questions such as where is the logic in trying to get answers to practical questions from a book of incantation.  Where my questions is relevant to the thread since Stokke specifically stated starting with a book of incantation was a good way to progress your response does not address my statements and implied questions.   Now that you've drawn me off topic with your off topic attack there will be a wailing and gnashing of teeth that cladking is off-topic.  

If there were anything in the Pyramid Texts that sheds any light on any of these questions it would have been found long long ago.  

Do you think the small size of the sarcophagi precludes the pyramid being for a burial?  

Do you think the answer can be found in the PT which is a book of incantation? 

Why do you think so much effort went into sealing the "tomb" and is this explained in the PT?

This isn't about what I think or your incorrect claim that I repeat myself.  This is about what you think and what Stokke thinks.  This is not about me so why change the subject?  

  

You aren’t interested in this thread as your previous post made abundantly clear. More of the same old same old with you. Don’t use Stokke as an excuse to default to your tired nonsense.

If you’re not going to contribute anything to the actual subject of the thread, please confine your decades old ramblings to your Progress in Egyptology thread.

You know, since you’re not about being rude all of a sudden.

It’s obvious to everyone from the lack of participation there that no one cares to talk about your personal nonsense. Even to you which is why you drag it into other threads. Just stop already.

[Stokke]

7 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

Regardless, as per the OP title and subsequent 38 pages of conversation the point would not be what the SP is per se', but rather what it is not. Which is a tomb to inter a body.  

 

My bad, I didn't read through the whole thread and were thus unaware that you only wanted wrong answers.

The funerary littérature from the Old-, Middle- and New Kingdoms are quite clear when it comes to the purpose of subsidiary tombs. Yes, they had them throughout Egypts history - at least from the time of Djoser. Here is an illustration from the New Kingdom (Sennedjem - TT 1) - two tombs, including an explanation of how the two tombs differ.

https://osirisnet.net/popupImage.php?img=/tombes/artisans/sennedjem1/photo/sennedjem_o_06.jpg&lang=en&sw=1440&sh=900

But ok.

Edited April 3 by Stokke

[Thanos5150]

3 hours ago, Stokke said:

My bad, I didn't read through the whole thread and were thus unaware that you only wanted wrong answers.

No need to apologize. If true, you are obviously doing a great job. Case in point: 

Quote

The funerary littérature from the Old-, Middle- and New Kingdoms are quite clear when it comes to the purpose of subsidiary tombs. Yes, they had them throughout Egypts history - at least from the time of Djoser.

Are they...? Specifically cult/satellite pyramids you say? You seemed quite certain the PT would tell us but instead it has nothing to say on the matter. Maybe you can quote the part that makes this "quite clear". Or how about all this funerary literature from the OK MK and NK you say spells it out "quite clear" yet was somehow completely missed by Egyptologists. We wait. In the meantime let me get you started- these "subsidiary tombs" (cult/satellite pyramid in context) are cenotaphs theorized among other purposes to be for the pharaoh's KA though we do not know for sure. Quoting Hawass p.106:

"The function of the Satellite Pyramid is not known and has been debated at length among scholars. The most frequently cited possible functions of the Satellite Pyramid are: a dummy tomb [cenotaph] connected with the sed festival, burials for the king's ka [cenotaph], symbolic burials for the king as the King of Upper and Lower Egypt [cenotaph], burials of placentas, tombs for the viscera, solar symbols, temporary storage for the body, and tombs for crowns."

Oops. What happened? You just told us as a matter of fact: 

"The funerary littérature from the Old-, Middle- and New Kingdoms are quite clear when it comes to the purpose of subsidiary tombs. Yes, they had them throughout Egypts history - at least from the time of Djoser."

Hawass. What a dope. He continues:

"The southern tomb of the Pyramid Complex of Djoser is a prototype of the Old Kingdom Satellite Pyramids. The reliefs on the panels in Djoser's southern tomb represent the king wearing the white Cron and running holding the flail. These scenes in the southern tomb can be interpreted as representations of the sed festival. 

Therefore I propose a new theory on the function of the Satellite Pyramid: that it was used as a changing room for the ritual of the sed festivaI."

Yikes. 

Quote

 

Here is an illustration from the New Kingdom (Sennedjem - TT 1) - two tombs, including an explanation of how the two tombs differ.

https://osirisnet.net/popupImage.php?img=/tombes/artisans/sennedjem1/photo/sennedjem_o_06.jpg&lang=en&sw=1440&sh=900

 

They are not "tombs" but rather shrines (tomb-shires). It would be helpful if you actually read your source:

"This group, a highly symbolic image of rebirth, is protected by two lapis-blue Anubis jackals, one on either side, reclining on tomb-shaped structures. Around the neck of each jackal is a red bow, and a black flail projects from its back. The interpretation of the red ribbon remains controversial, possibly a chthonic symbol. The facade of the tomb-like structure, on which the jackals rest, is pierced by a door, which corresponds to the entry of the deceased's funeral chapel, and generally to the underground world, represented by the ancients as a mastaba."

Ironically, though not unexpected, no it does not give an explanation as to how these tombs differ, which strangely isn't even the point, nor more importantly their function the least of which as tombs or how it relates to pyramids and their cult/pyramids. 

But by all means, tell us more.  

 

Edited April 4 by Thanos5150

[Stokke]

4 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

 

They are not "tombs" but rather shrines (tomb-shires). It would be helpful if you actually read your source:

"This group, a highly symbolic image of rebirth, is protected by two lapis-blue Anubis jackals, one on either side, reclining on tomb-shaped structures. Around the neck of each jackal is a red bow, and a black flail projects from its back. The interpretation of the red ribbon remains controversial, possibly a chthonic symbol. The facade of the tomb-like structure, on which the jackals rest, is pierced by a door, which corresponds to the entry of the deceased's funeral chapel, and generally to the underground world, represented by the ancients as a mastaba."

 

It would be helpful if you actually read what you quote: "Tomb-like structure, funeral chapel, underground world, mastabas".

It doesn't strike you as odd that they depict two tombs again and again in their iconography? A connection between repetetive depictions of two tombs in the New Kingdom, and actual two tombs in the Old/Middle Kingdoms, can not be made because Hawass didn't tell you?

You are doing a fine job in copying/pasting from the Internet. The lack of independent thinking and the hostility is less impressing.

Ironically, though not unexpected, no it does not give an explanation as to how these tombs differ.

Actually is does if you understand the iconography and the myths behind them. But alas, I seem to have overestimated you.

[Wepwawet]

I'll suggest that the two tombs, tomb-like structures or whatever, that we see surmounted by two depictions of Anubis, are meant to represent a single tomb, that of the deceased. I believe that what we are seeing is yet another example of how the Egyptians depicted a place or activity taking place at two different times. An example discussed here recently is the "Dream Stela" of Thutmose IV, where we see just the one king and one Great Sphinx depicted at two diffent times. A vertical line of hieroglyphs acts as a divider to show these two events with the same actors separated by time. Sometimes the divider is a simple vertical line, but it can also be something that binds the two scenes as well as dividing them, in the case of the scene in Sennedjem's tomb I believe that the canopic jar and entwined lotus flowers act as the divider.

So just as there is only one Thutmose IV and one Great Sphinx, so there is only one Anubis, and he is depicted twice on Sennedjem's tomb, one at dusk and the other at dawn. This mirrors the opposite scene in the tomb, and they liked symmetry of course, where two baboons are depicted, one at dusk and one at dawn, separated by a depiction of the Sungod named in all his forms. One overall scene but showing two events separated by time. How this could corellate to pyramids I do not know, unless they did in fact at times have more than one pyramid for different events in the cycle of death and rebirth. This would be very extravagant, but if actually a thing at times, then discontinued for reasons of expense if nothing else, the duality of events then becoming confined to stylistic depictions and metaphor. But, this all just a suggestion.

Edit: On the theme of the possibility of a king having two structures marking two events in his cycle of death and rebirth, then I would also suggest that the use of sun temples near a king's pyramid in the 5th Dynasty might fit with providing a dual mortuary structure, the pyramid for death, even though it has strong solar connotations, and the sun temple for rebirth. Just an idea.

Edited April 4 by Wepwawet

[Thanos5150]

12 hours ago, Stokke said:

It would be helpful if you actually read what you quote: "Tomb-like structure, funeral chapel, underground world, mastabas".

Please be honest. You made multiple false claims and never bothered to read it yourself nor do you even understand what you are talking about in the first place. Boorish insults and misrepresenting the source isn't going to change that. To quote it again so maybe you will actually understand it this time:  

The facade of the tomb-like structure, on which the jackals rest, is pierced by a door, which corresponds to the entry of the deceased's funeral chapel, and generally to the underground world, represented by the ancients as a mastaba."

First of all, this is the interpretation of an internet website, but to take it at face value the "tomb-like structure", otherwise called by most every one else a shrine, is the serekh building represented on mastabas in the 1st Dynasty and from the 2nd onwards on sarcophagi. The door of the serekh mastaba is one and the same as the false door, a vignette of the serekh building, which is the gateway between the worlds of the living and the dead though not in and of itself a "tomb".  

Quote

It doesn't strike you as odd that they depict two tombs again and again in their iconography? A connection between repetetive depictions of two tombs in the New Kingdom, and actual two tombs in the Old/Middle Kingdoms, can not be made because Hawass didn't tell you?

Your comments are a rambling mess. Where to begin. The NK examples, more famously found on the Dream Stele:

Again, not tombs to begin with let alone "two tombs. This duality represented is a symbolic literary device and artistic motif applied to the entirety of the image and not meant to be a depiction of two different physical structures. You are fixating on something you do not understand which only has relevance (to you) because of this misunderstanding. 

As this thread talks about at length, the notion of two tombs dating back to the 1st Dynasty is related to royal burials as an acknowledgement of both Upper and Lower Egypt. This NK business is not it nor related to cult pyramids which is where your comments were directed.  

Hawass is stating the fact of the matter regarding the understanding of a cult pyramids purpose. I'm going with him on this one over you.  

Quote

You are doing a fine job in copying/pasting from the Internet.

Its called providing a source which you are apparently incapable of yourself regardless of how many times you are asked to provide such.  

Quote

The lack of independent thinking and the hostility is less impressing.

Your "independent thinking" equates to stating your assumptions as fact from things you do not even understand in the first place. So, yeah-no thanks. And as far as "hostility" goes, don't give it and you are less likely to see it returned, a lesson you seem impervious to: HERE.

Quote

Ironically, though not unexpected, no it does not give an explanation as to how these tombs differ.

Actually is does if you understand the iconography and the myths behind them. But alas, I seem to have overestimated you.

So then it actually doesn't give an explanation....I have certainly not overestimated you. 

You bore me. Shoo. 

Edited April 4 by Thanos5150

[Wepwawet]

13 hours ago, Stokke said:

 they depict two tombs

Correct, in my opinion. What we see Anubis sitting on in the scene on the west wall of the tomb is, as the description states, a representation of a mastaba, a tomb, not a shrine or anything else. I also, as already stated, believe that this mastaba, doubled of course, represents the tomb of Sennedjen, but does not reproduce it's actual appearance. The reason for this is that Sennedjem's actual tomb is topped by a pyramid, as seen in the photo. It would be difficult, if not painful, for Anubis to sit on a pyramid, so, in my opinion, the image of a mastaba was used deliberately as it provides a proper base for Anubis, and is also a tomb. There is no correlation between the scene in the tomb of Sennedjem and the "Dream Stela" whatsoever, and the purpose in my mentioning it was to show how the AE depicted differences in time within the same overall scene.

Tomb of Sennedjem

Edited April 4 by Wepwawet

[Thanos5150]

20 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

They are not "tombs" but rather shrines (tomb-shires). 

A cool thought but that should read "tomb-shrines". 

[Stokke]

Correct, in my opinion.

Thank you. The Mastaba is the archetypical tombs. How can anyone mistake it for anything else?

The Big Boss told me to "shoo". His thread, his rules.

Is he always this unhinged?

Perhaps we will engage in another thread.

Edited April 5 by Stokke

[Thanos5150]

22 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

They are not "tombs" but rather shrines (tomb-shires shrines). It would be helpful if you actually read your source:

"This group, a highly symbolic image of rebirth, is protected by two lapis-blue Anubis jackals, one on either side, reclining on tomb-shaped structures. Around the neck of each jackal is a red bow, and a black flail projects from its back. The interpretation of the red ribbon remains controversial, possibly a chthonic symbol. The facade of the tomb-like structure, on which the jackals rest, is pierced by a door, which corresponds to the entry of the deceased's funeral chapel, and generally to the underground world, represented by the ancients as a mastaba."

Ironically, though not unexpected, no it does not give an explanation as to how these tombs differ, which strangely isn't even the point, nor more importantly their function the least of which as tombs or how it relates to pyramids and their cult/pyramids.

Apparently it needs to be said, but if they were "tombs" the source would say "tombs" not "tomb-shaped structures". And to read it the description is not that it is a mastaba but that a mastaba is a representation of the "underground world" implying that these "tomb-shaped structures" look why they do because of this symbolism not because, again, they are actually mastabas or "tombs".    

Unfolding Sennedjem’s tomb p3:

"The tympanum of the west wall shows two jackals recumbent on tomb-shrines on the opposite sides of a central passage. These are the guardians of the gates to the West, the Kingdom of Osiris, and they are the openers of the road to eternity." Which the shrine is the gateway. 

The Tomb of Sennedjem in the Necropolis of Deir el-Medina:

"Turning the corner, we encounter a scene of Snnedjem [sic] and his wife worshiping the gods of the dead below a dual representation of Anubis in the form of a jackal crouching on a shrine."

Not "tomb". We can also see these shrines have nothing to do with reality related to Sennedjem's tomb with their meaning in context clearly symbolic. Tomb of Sennedjem:

Depicted multiple times in the BoD as their actual tomb as well:

Obviously nothing like the dual shrines having nothing to do with it. Also from the BoD, several shrines/buildings including similar to the ones in question, i.e. not "tombs" nor are they mastabas:

Which there are several nearly identical examples in the BoD to what is seen in TT-1 which are shrines, not tombs:

And not mastabas and there is no source I wager that will tell you that they are. They are shrines which in the NK this form of shrine or chapel with the serekh corniced roof in various forms for various purposes is ubiquitous continuing well into the Ptolemaic Period yet none are mastabas or tombs: 

 

Edited April 5 by Thanos5150

[Stokke]

4 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

I have certainly not overestimated you.

Thank you. I will give you a moment to reflect on what you said. Not too bright are you?

You bore me. Shoo.

No problem. Your thread, your rules.

You will of course extend me the same courtesy and stay well outside of any threads I might initiate. 

[Wepwawet]

7 hours ago, Stokke said:

Correct, in my opinion.

Thank you. The Mastaba is the archetypical tombs. How can anyone mistake it for anything else?

 

Perhaps we will engage in another thread.

Yes, it's clear about these depictions of mastabas being representative of tombs in general. But, as there are "difficulties", maybe another thread is needed to discuss, say, the reasons why when we see two of something, either in art or the structures themselves, for instance paired obelisks, what we are seeing is one of something depicted in two different states. This is not always the case, but that the AE went in for this may help to examine the issue of "double tombs", if that is what they are, and nobody has the definitive answer, no matter how loud they shout when presenting dubious slideshows.

Edited April 5 by Wepwawet

[Wepwawet]

I'd better address this business of a shrine otherwise the "readers" will get mislead. When viewing the entire east wall of the tomb, not a crop just showing the top part, we do in fact see an obvious shrine in the bottom register, note the row of uraeus around the top, not essential, but often a feature. Shrines can also have a sloped roof. Sennedjem and his wife, as the scene shows, are indeed worshipping gods in this shrine, however, note the black dividing line separating the shrine from the register above with Anubis, and note that this divider runs all around the tomb at that level as it separates two different spaces. To the eye of anybody who does not know what a shrine should look like, and does not understand the way the AE divided space within a scene, ie, does not understand what, in our terms, a register is and what function it serves, it can look like Anubis is sitting on a shrine, but he is not, he is depicted in a space above a depiction of a shrine, but is not physically connected to the shrine, as they, to an AE, do not share the same physical and temporal space. It can be noted that the side walls of the tomb do in fact have three registersThe two objects that the two manifestations of Anubis are sitting on do not have the shape of a shrine whatsoever, but they do have the shape of a mastaba, a tomb, which the ba of Sennedjem enters at dusk and leaves at dawn, hence the real name for the "Book of the Dead", being "The Book of Going Forth by Day". So the two mastabas that the two Anubis's are sitting on are in fact just the one tomb at two different times of day, dawn and dusk, and there are not two versions of Anubis, just the one shown at two different times.

In this scene below from the BoD of Ani we see two bas sitting on top of the tomb, note that while not as long, the tomb they are sitting on is portrayed the same as the ones in the tomb of Sennedjem. In the second image, also from Ani, we see Anubis on a real shrine, note the difference.

 

 

A slideshow for sure, but this one is correctly captioned.

Edited April 6 by Wepwawet

[Wepwawet]

Further. In the vignettes to Chapter 17 of Ani's BoD we have depicted various objects in the form of structures, or what seem to be structures, on the left is a representation of Rosetau, the mythological place of birth of Osiris and also known and the "Land of Sokar" in the Amduat, therefore it's not a structure as such but the representation of a place, in this case the context puts it in the 5th Hour of the Amduat. We then have the Eye of Ra over, what, it's not a shrine, the eye of Ra does not exist in or above a shrine, though a shrine may incorporate the Eye of Ra in it's design elements. As this is in a funerary setting I believe that the eye is over a representation of the tomb of Ani, itself an extension of the Amduat, or at least the burial chamber is. Next we have Mehet-Weret, described in the captions at the bottom as "Great Flood". She has a re-birth role, fitting for the contex. But again, what is she sitting on. She is usually shown sitting or standing on a mat of reeds, or, like Hathor, peering out from reed bushes. She is not depicted in or on a shrine, and like the Eye of Ra I believe that she is shown over a representation of the tomb of Ani, linking him from the netherworld to the sky. Next we have what the caption says is the "Mound of Abydos", which is the tomb of Osiris, and it is gaurded by the four gods of the canopic jars. So this is not a shrine either, but the representation of a tomb.

Though the text of Chapter 17 does not fit, to our minds, what we know of the Fifth Hour of the Amduat, the vignette scenes do, for in that hour of the  Amduat, admittedly for kings originally, "Flesh", the dead Ra, who can here be seen as Ani, arrives at Rosetau and then to the tomb of Osiris, the "Hidden Chamber" which the Amduat is about, and there is ressurected by union with Osiris, and in the vignette we see the head of Ani appearing from the top of the tomb. There is no place here for shrines, they would not make sense, and in the Amduat version of this scene there are no shrines, excepting the shrine on the Night Barque that Ra is transported in, which is not applicable to Ani.

I'll also point out that these structures over which there is debate are, apart from the cornice, plain undecorated white, usually with a door, where as shrines are shown as multi-coloured and guilded, and the actual shrines found in KV 62 were guilded. Real shrines have a double door that reaches from the floor to the cornice, and usually fill one end of the shrine, not the square opening seen in the middle of these debated structures, bar the one that Mehet-Weret sits on, and I don't see that as an issue.

[Stokke]

1 hour ago, Wepwawet said:

 

Further. In the vignettes to Chapter 17 of Ani's BoD we have depicted various objects in the form of structures, or what seem to be structures, on the left is a representation of Rosetau, the mythological place of birth of Osiris and also known and the "Land of Sokar" in the Amduat, therefore it's not a structure as such but the representation of a place, in this case the context puts it in the 5th Hour of the Amduat. We then have the Eye of Ra over, what, it's not a shrine, the eye of Ra does not exist in or above a shrine, though a shrine may incorporate the Eye of Ra in it's design elements. As this is in a funerary setting I believe that the eye is over a representation of the tomb of Ani, itself an extension of the Amduat, or at least the burial chamber is. Next we have Mehet-Weret, described in the captions at the bottom as "Great Flood". She has a re-birth role, fitting for the contex. But again, what is she sitting on. She is usually shown sitting or standing on a mat of reeds, or, like Hathor, peering out from reed bushes. She is not depicted in or on a shrine, and like the Eye of Ra I believe that she is shown over a representation of the tomb of Ani, linking him from the netherworld to the sky. Next we have what the caption says is the "Mound of Abydos", which is the tomb of Osiris, and it is gaurded by the four gods of the canopic jars. So this is not a shrine either, but the representation of a tomb.

Though the text of Chapter 17 does not fit, to our minds, what we know of the Fifth Hour of the Amduat, the vignette scenes do, for in that hour of the  Amduat, admittedly for kings originally, "Flesh", the dead Ra, who can here be seen as Ani, arrives at Rosetau and then to the tomb of Osiris, the "Hidden Chamber" which the Amduat is about, and there is ressurected by union with Osiris, and in the vignette we see the head of Ani appearing from the top of the tomb. There is no place here for shrines, they would not make sense, and in the Amduat version of this scene there are no shrines, excepting the shrine on the Night Barque that Ra is transported in, which is not applicable to Ani.

I'll also point out that these structures over which there is debate are, apart from the cornice, plain undecorated white, usually with a door, where as shrines are shown as multi-coloured and guilded, and the actual shrines found in KV 62 were guilded. Real shrines have a double door that reaches from the floor to the cornice, and usually fill one end of the shrine, not the square opening seen in the middle of these debated structures, bar the one that Mehet-Weret sits on, and I don't see that as an issue.

I know that I am expected to "shoo" this place, but when I finally meet someone who also understands that we have to understand Egyptian religious beliefs before we can understand the monuments that they left behind, I just can't stay away.

I have got the same book - and this is the exact picture I will analyze when I explain the purpose of satellite pyramids (and all other subsidiary tombs). I think that you will enjoy it.

I will however be doing it over at the other forum as I am more accustomed to that interface.

We then have the Eye of Ra over, what, it's not a shrine..

Small correction - Eye of Horus. And yes, not a shrine but a tomb. A subsidiary tomb.

She is not depicted in or on a shrine, and like the Eye of Ra I believe that she is shown over a representation of the tomb of Ani.

Yes, the primary tomb of Ani.

Next we have what the caption says is the "Mound of Abydos", which is the tomb of Osiris, and it is gaurded by the four gods of the canopic jars. So this is not a shrine either, but the representation of a tomb.

Not a shrine, but also not depicted as a tomb. The importance of the viscera merits its own vignette, but it is not depicted as a tomb so we must assume that it was interred in either the primary or secondary tomb - and the evidence points us to an exact turning point: The fourth Dynasty. Interred in the subsidiary tomb of Hetepheres, and later interred in the primary tomb of Khafre.

Regards.

 

 

[Wepwawet]

27 minutes ago, Stokke said:

Small correction - Eye of Horus. And yes, not a shrine but a tomb. A subsidiary tomb.

Yes, you're correct as it's the left eye. This just goes to show that we can all to easily accept what a caption, or other blurb, says, and even though we know it's wrong, let ourselves be led astray, haste, lazyness, whatever.

 

30 minutes ago, Stokke said:

Not a shrine, but also not depicted as a tomb. The importance of the viscera merits its own vignette, but it is not depicted as a tomb so we must assume that it was interred in either the primary or secondary tomb - and the evidence points us to an exact turning point: The fourth Dynasty. Interred in the subsidiary tomb of Hetepheres, and later interred in the primary tomb of Khafre.

Again correct. Here I was struggling to explain, without writing a book, just what is represented in Ani's BoD and tying it to what is depicted in the Fifth Hour of the Amduat, which in itself is "complicated".

56 minutes ago, Stokke said:

I know that I am expected to "shoo" this place, but when I finally meet someone who also understands that we have to understand Egyptian religious beliefs before we can understand the monuments that they left behind

Thank you, a point I've been pressing for a long time, though usually without result with those few people who should take note.

35 minutes ago, Stokke said:

I have got the same book - and this is the exact picture I will analyze when I explain the purpose of satellite pyramids (and all other subsidiary tombs). I think that you will enjoy it.

I will however be doing it over at the other forum as I am more accustomed to that interface.

A beautiful book that everybody interested in their religion should have on their shelves. I shall look at the other place to read what you propose, but I have to admit that one, of many reasons, that I very rarely post there is because I don't like the format, but we'll see.