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 -

GP a theory by Lloyd and Brian Babineau


WVK

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Thanos5150 said:

Just so I am understanding you correctly- what you are saying is that this information, otherwise unknown to you, is according to one of your "fellow graduates in Egyptology" flat rental website who is only privy to such information compared to yourself because she "attended a lot more lectures"? And she lived in Egypt but is originally from England. Is this a haiku of some sort? Let me close my eyes and throw a few darts at sources about pyramids and see what they say: 

Verner, The Pyramids:

"The arrangement of the [pyramid] complex mirrored the ancient Egyptian's worldview: the beginning of the world was associated with the primeval mound the pyramid symbolized". 

Lehner, The Complete Pyramids:

"As an image of the primeval mound, the pyramid is, therefore, a place of creation and rebirth in the Abyss."

Or how about Wikipedia (with no source, but hey-who cares its Wikipedia so it must be true):

"The shape of Egyptian pyramids is thought to represent the primordial mound from which the Egyptians believed the earth was created." 

Or better yet, how about Ducksters Education Site for children:

"These pyramids represent a mound that emerged at the beginning of time."

....?  

Yes.  What you quoted is one part of what I was talking about in my post (however it's not unknown to me.)  I also added that the concept of a "primordial mound within another primordial mound has not been a feature of any Egyptian representation that I am aware of." (that is the part that is unknown to me)

Were you aware of any representations of this type -- mound within benben?

Edited by Kenemet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/14/2020 at 8:08 PM, Kenemet said:

The pyramids were considered primordial mounds............A primordial mound within a primordial mound isn't a theme that has ever been found in Egyptian art or iconography.

Which is a very clear statement that while the pyramid may represent the primordial mound, this function is not further replicated within the internal structure of the pyramid, ie, the burial chamber. There is nothing that I can see in either the PT, or any subsequent works, that indicate that the burial chamber had any function in representing the primordial mound.

Then it can be argued that the pyramid only supports a representation of the primordial mound in the form of the pyramidion, and that the body of the pyramid, external and internal, has other functions beyond housing the body of the dead. The pyramidion, representing the benben stone, forming a link with Heliopolis, and possibly a manifestation of Atum protecting the pyramid and the dead. Recitation 600, from the pyramid of Pepy II, associates Atum with actually being the benben, and I'll quote this line from Allen:

"Atum Beetle! You became high, as the hill; you rose as the benben in the Benben Compound in Heliopolis...."

and:

"Ho, Atum! May you extend protection over me, over this my pyramid and this my work...."

and:

"Let there be none of you who will turn his back to Atum as he tends me, as he tends this my pyramid...."

 

 

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

Yes.  What you quoted is one part of what I was talking about in my post (however it's not unknown to me.)  I also added that the concept of a "primordial mound within another primordial mound has not been a feature of any Egyptian representation that I am aware of." (that is the part that is unknown to me)

....

Quote

Were you aware of any representations of this type -- mound within benben?

Of course not. The logic path here, however, is that Sakovich doesn't even mention any of this ergo it is a moot point regardless: 

Quote

Before the appearance of the sarcophagus, the tumulus, or low mound, was a fairly common element of royal tombs of the early dynasties....

The primeval mound was the key element of rejuvenation and rebirth, and is thought to be originally represented by the low mounds atop graves, which were subsequently replaced (in function, but not necessarily symbolism) by the mastaba. 14 To a certain extent, this primeval mound symbol was eventually replaced by the sarcophagus, the physical manifestation of Nut, mother of Re

He is doing away with the whole concept of the benben and pyramids themselves being the primeval mound which he magically replaces with the sarcophagus which among other reasons is nonsense.

I want to reiterate again that from the 2nd Dynasty onward at the least, the sarcophagus is often a representation of the serkeh building. Again:

2nd Dynasty:

article-1280801-09B7987B000005DC-119_634

 4th Dynasty:

V07PnUM.jpg

 This is not the primeval mound. So while the pyramid, or mastaba even, may represent the primeval mound this building was placed inside of it which is where the body was to reside (literally or figuratively in the case of cenotaphs). Whether decorated or not I believe it is reasonable this what the sarcophagi ideologically represented. In Unas's case we have a sarcophagus inside of the serekh building inside of a primeval mound. 

pyra-factslunas3.jpg

Which is common practice as well among mastabas in the 4th Dynasty long before Unas to use this scheme with the mastaba having some form of serekh building motif on its exterior, interior or both, even if only false doors.  

French%20Photographer%20-%20Auguste%20Ma

 So if we think about it, in the 1st Dynasty the tomb itself was made as the serekh building:

mastaba3504djet.jpg

 

At least by the 2nd Dynasty, the serekh building was also emulated by the sarcophagi- something that while the sarcophagus I suggest was representative of regardless of whether it was decorated or not, was stylistically revived in the 4th Dynasty continuing well through the OK and beyond in some form or another. In the 3rd Dynasty, in the case of the pharaoh, the mastaba was replaced by the pyramid which is taken to be representative of the primeval mound, but still contained a sarcophagus either inferred or directly representative of the serekh building. 

So here is the rub, which I have tried to impress its significance, is that regardless of primeval mounds that may or may not be represented as mastabas and/or pyramids, ba's and ka's and cosmic engines and what have you-the constant through all of this is the serekh building. Though obviously it is a standard presence from the beginnings of Dynastic Egypt, the very symbol of kingship itself, from the 4th Dynasty though the OK in particular it becomes ubiquitous-synonymous with AE funerary beliefs which clearly there is nothing more important. Why? What does it mean? Why did this ideology go bonkers in the 4th Dynasty?   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/15/2020 at 2:33 PM, Thanos5150 said:

....

Of course not. The logic path here, however, is that Sakovich doesn't even mention any of this ergo it is a moot point regardless: 

He is doing away with the whole concept of the benben and pyramids themselves being the primeval mound which he magically replaces with the sarcophagus which among other reasons is nonsense.

I want to reiterate again that from the 2nd Dynasty onward at the least, the sarcophagus is often a representation of the serkeh building. Again:

2nd Dynasty:

article-1280801-09B7987B000005DC-119_634

 4th Dynasty:

V07PnUM.jpg

 This is not the primeval mound. So while the pyramid, or mastaba even, may represent the primeval mound this building was placed inside of it which is where the body was to reside (literally or figuratively in the case of cenotaphs). Whether decorated or not I believe it is reasonable this what the sarcophagi ideologically represented. In Unas's case we have a sarcophagus inside of the serekh building inside of a primeval mound. 

pyra-factslunas3.jpg

Which is common practice as well among mastabas in the 4th Dynasty long before Unas to use this scheme with the mastaba having some form of serekh building motif on its exterior, interior or both, even if only false doors.  

French%20Photographer%20-%20Auguste%20Ma

 So if we think about it, in the 1st Dynasty the tomb itself was made as the serekh building:

mastaba3504djet.jpg

 

At least by the 2nd Dynasty, the serekh building was also emulated by the sarcophagi- something that while the sarcophagus I suggest was representative of regardless of whether it was decorated or not, was stylistically revived in the 4th Dynasty continuing well through the OK and beyond in some form or another. In the 3rd Dynasty, in the case of the pharaoh, the mastaba was replaced by the pyramid which is taken to be representative of the primeval mound, but still contained a sarcophagus either inferred or directly representative of the serekh building. 

So here is the rub, which I have tried to impress its significance, is that regardless of primeval mounds that may or may not be represented as mastabas and/or pyramids, ba's and ka's and cosmic engines and what have you-the constant through all of this is the serekh building. Though obviously it is a standard presence from the beginnings of Dynastic Egypt, the very symbol of kingship itself, from the 4th Dynasty though the OK in particular it becomes ubiquitous-synonymous with AE funerary beliefs which clearly there is nothing more important. Why? What does it mean? Why did this ideology go bonkers in the 4th Dynasty?   

I'm sorry, did I forget to mention the serekh building comes from Atlantis?  

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can it be determined if the serekh design as used in burials is part of a religious belief and ritual, or is just decoration. If it were a core part of their funerary practices, surely this would be universal, but it isn't as G1 shows, and some coffins have decoration and others don't. I would contend that while it may seem contrary to suggest, the coffin was not of the greatest importance before the sixth dynasty, the first appearance of religious belief on a coffin in the form of the eyes. The coffin, it seems, was only important as a receptacle for the body so it's not just "laying about". Perhaps we are looking at the huge importance of the coffin from the start of the MK, and thinking it was always so important when it may not have been. It is often an argument that G1 was never used as a burial as the coffin is plain, with those making this argument clearly ignorant of the history of the AE coffin and presuming it should always have been decorated no matter in which era.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An example where it would be possible to look at the structure and design of a building and come to wrong conclusions is that of the Christian church. We know what's going on, but in 4,000+ years time, if our culture has vanished, those in the future may look at the ruins of a church and ascribe great importance, if not religous belief, to the ruins of an ancient church, let's say a grand cathedral. They would be right about the shape of the cross in it's ground plan and that worship took place there, but everything else is actually superfluous decoration, as Protestants, particularly puritans, will tell you. And indeed apart from the shape of the cross embedded in the building, it is, as we all know, an adaptation of the Roman basilica and nothing to do with Christianity at all. We like to decorate things, and if we have the money we will decorate lavishly, but it does not necessarily mean that the decoration has any deep meaning. If any part of the celing of King's College Chapel Cambridge survived for 4,00 years, it's highly likely that great importance will be given to the remants of this incredible acheivement, but we know it means nothing at all, there is no religious or essential structural functionality of such a grand design. It's just "I can do it so I did", yes, Ad Majoram Dei Gloriam, but not essential. So, the serekh design 4000+ years on?

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/14/2020 at 7:46 PM, cladking said:

Can you provide any details whatsoever about this? 

Are you referring to a drawing of a ben ben?

Cladking ask for "proof"!! The world is turning the other way around.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The_Spartan said:

Cladking ask for "proof"!! The world is turning the other way around.

Yes it's spinning slightly c***-eyed now due to this bizarre occurrence. However, if the information is provided he will ignore it if its something he doesn't like.

Super duper Clad-metaphysics by cherry picking

Edited by Hanslune
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

Can it be determined if the serekh design as used in burials is part of a religious belief and ritual, or is just decoration. If it were a core part of their funerary practices, surely this would be universal, but it isn't as G1 shows, and some coffins have decoration and others don't. I would contend that while it may seem contrary to suggest, the coffin was not of the greatest importance before the sixth dynasty, the first appearance of religious belief on a coffin in the form of the eyes. The coffin, it seems, was only important as a receptacle for the body so it's not just "laying about". Perhaps we are looking at the huge importance of the coffin from the start of the MK, and thinking it was always so important when it may not have been. It is often an argument that G1 was never used as a burial as the coffin is plain, with those making this argument clearly ignorant of the history of the AE coffin and presuming it should always have been decorated no matter in which era.

Gadzooks. 

The Development of the Egyptian Coffin 

Quote

In addition to protection, the coffin had several religious and symbolic functions that changed over time. In its earliest history, the coffin was considered the eternal dwelling of the deceased. In the Old Kingdom, rectangular coffins were often constructed to mimic the recessed niches associated with elaborate, walled dwellings. This shape reflected the belief that the deceased dwelled in the tomb and received offerings from surviving family members. 

This author does not distinguish between a "coffin" and a "sarcophagus", which the coffin was often placed within, yet they both in principle served the same religious and symbolic function.  The argument I make is that this was not any 'ol "dwelling" but rather a specific building, the serekh building, which I would hope is pretty obvious by now. Again, this practice of emulating the serekh building began in at least the 2nd Dynasty and continued though the 3rd and were made of wood. Though the earliest stone sarcophagi were not decorated (3rd Dynasty/beginnings of the 4th), the first of their kind which few from this period have been found with G1 being one of them, it is clear that beginning around the time of Djedefre's reign such emulation of the serekh building became the norm which regardless of decoration or not still held the same meaning. It is obvious the sarcophagus was paramount to AE funerary beliefs long before the MK, not just as a "receptacle for the body so it's not just "laying about"", but as a symbolic representation of a belief. 

As an aside, an interesting 5th Dynasty painted interior example from the recently discovered tomb of Khuwy:

misir-da-kesfedilen-4-000-yillik-mezar-a 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could it be possible the shafts were used for something as simple as a conduit for oxygen , or perhaps sunlight reflected down in with mirrors? Or maybe even ropes. Whatever for , it is quite a feat to incorporate them in there.

Edited by razman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

Gadzooks. 

The Development of the Egyptian Coffin 

This author does not distinguish between a "coffin" and a "sarcophagus", which the coffin was often placed within, yet they both in principle served the same religious and symbolic function.  The argument I make is that this was not any 'ol "dwelling" but rather a specific building, the serekh building, which I would hope is pretty obvious by now. Again, this practice of emulating the serekh building began in at least the 2nd Dynasty and continued though the 3rd and were made of wood. Though the earliest stone sarcophagi were not decorated (3rd Dynasty/beginnings of the 4th), the first of their kind which few from this period have been found with G1 being one of them, it is clear that beginning around the time of Djedefre's reign such emulation of the serekh building became the norm which regardless of decoration or not still held the same meaning. It is obvious the sarcophagus was paramount to AE funerary beliefs long before the MK, not just as a "receptacle for the body so it's not just "laying about"", but as a symbolic representation of a belief. 

As an aside, an interesting 5th Dynasty painted interior example from the recently discovered tomb of Khuwy:

misir-da-kesfedilen-4-000-yillik-mezar-a 

I'll quote from that article:

Quote

In addition to protection, the coffin had several religious and symbolic functions that changed over time. In its earliest history, the coffin was considered the eternal dwelling of the deceased. In the Old Kingdom, rectangular coffins were often constructed to mimic the recessed niches associated with elaborate, walled dwellings. This shape reflected the belief that the deceased dwelled in the tomb and received offerings from surviving family members. These early coffins were usually undecorated, but in the later Old Kingdom, they were inscribed with simple offering formulas. A pair of wadjet eyes and eventually an image of a “false door” painted on the exterior provided additional, magical assistance for leaving the coffin and the tomb to receive offerings.

This, and indeed the entire article, does not contradict me at all, in fact it backs me up. Just because I used words such as "laying about" does not mean that the coffin does not give protection for the dead, and I in no way implied that, but it is physical protection, not magical before the 6th Dynasty. The author talks about decoration as mimicking the walled recesses in walled dwellings, yes, and why not as I am not arguing that they were not decorated, but that I would like to see an argument put forward to show that this decoration, the serekh desigh, a term not used at all by that author, had any real religious significance. Note that OK coffins are dealt with in a few sentences, why, because they are simply boxes that may or may not have decorations to indicate that this is a home for the dead, so if you lived in a palace in life, you live in an imitation palace in death. Most people of course were buried wrapped in a reed mat, the upgrade to that not being a wooden coffin, but one made of clay. In the great tome Ancient Egyptian Coffins edited by John H. Taylor and Marie Vandenbeusch, published in 2018, the OK barely gets a mention as the coffin is for the most part just a box without any clear magical function, until the first small steps in the 6th Dynasty

Is the serekh design a thing in decoration of high class burials, of course, but is it significant beyond being decoration, which is why I made the second post about decoration and if it has any functionality, either structural or religious, and gave an example were in our future a case could be made, with lack of proper understanding, that elaborate decoration had great significance when it does not. So just what is the significance of the serekh design in a "house of the dead" beyond mimicking the house that the dead used in life.

 

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/18/2020 at 12:42 AM, Wepwawet said:

This, and indeed the entire article, does not contradict me at all, in fact it backs me up. Just because I used words such as "laying about" does not mean that the coffin does not give protection for the dead, and I in no way implied that, but it is physical protection, not magical before the 6th Dynasty.

You didn't "imply" it, that is what you actually said:

"The coffin, it seems, was only important [before the 6th Dynasty] as a receptacle for the body so it's not just "laying about"". 

Also:

"I would contend that while it may seem contrary to suggest, the coffin was not of the greatest importance before the sixth dynasty...."

"Perhaps we are looking at the huge importance of the coffin from the start of the MK, and thinking it was always so important when it may not have been".

Regardless, it clearly does contradict the argument you are trying to make which is that before the 6th Dynasty the sarcophagus had no meaning and they just decorated it or not as the serekh building and only the SB because it "looked cool". I wouldn't think I would even have to give source to know this is obviously not the case. 

 

Quote

The author talks about decoration as mimicking the walled recesses in walled dwellings, yes, and why not as I am not arguing that they were not decorated, but that I would like to see an argument put forward to show that this decoration, the serekh desigh, a term not used at all by that author, had any real religious significance.

This source is written for popular consumption and is not the most nuanced view. I cited it for you to show that even the lowest common denominator of popular thought disagrees with you. 

Regardless, the point is not that they decorated it to mimic the "style" of "walled recesses in walled dwellings", which we should also know by now is called "palace facade" or "niched facade",  it was made to be a building, the serkeh building, which was to be their "dwelling for all eternity". What is the disconnect here? Does your browser not allow you to view pictures? 

This is not a "dwelling" nor is it related to the individual being entombed inside it:  

V07PnUM.jpg

Hmm, look at this-same building:

pyra-factslunas3.jpg

By the way, the reader will not this building is decorated in a skew of geometric patterns-this is how they actually looked as has been found the 1st Dynasty serekh mastabas at Saqqara. 

Same building:

d5078774l.jpg

Same building:

main-qimg-ab6e4dde6a955e1d299cf6cea3fec9

Same building:

French%20Photographer%20-%20Auguste%20Ma

Same building:

misir-da-kesfedilen-4-000-yillik-mezar-a

As this:

djet11349803056765.jpg

 

Quoting again from your previous post:

"...the coffin was not of the greatest importance before the sixth dynasty, the first appearance of religious belief on a coffin in the form of the eyes." 

The building itself is clearly represents a religious, but no, this is not true as you will note on this building is an object which at a glance looks like a "stick figure" or "double axe", but is two tied lotus flowers which clearly symbolize a religious and/or ideological belief.  And not only in Egypt but at the same time in Mesopotamia, also depicted on the palace façade building:

76952f7763bb306b3097db669886ed03.jpg

A story for another time, but this is not coincidence. 

Again, this building is not a "dwelling" of the individual being buried there and, again again, is the same building depicted in the serekh from the beginning of Dynastic Egypt. I am the one saying this which we can see this to be true with our own eyes.

I am not sure how many ways this can be said or pictures given, but ironically you cite the appearance of the "eyes" on a coffin which amazingly appears in direct association with the serekh building:

d5078774l.jpg

main-qimg-ab6e4dde6a955e1d299cf6cea3fec9

These are a pair of Wadjet eyes i.e. "the eyes of Horus", depicted as dwelling inside the serekh building. Which is an extension of the original serekh building which has Horus sitting on top of the serekh building enclosure:

4ce8025378562b16e8f6a021a5932d78.jpg

Horus has always been directly associated with the serekh building.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

 

main-qimg-ab6e4dde6a955e1d299cf6cea3fec9

These are a pair of Wadjet eyes i.e. "the eyes of Horus", depicted as dwelling inside the serekh building. Which is an extension of the original serekh building which has Horus sitting on top of the serekh building enclosure:

The eyes on the coffin are not "dwelling inside the serekh building", they allow the dead to see out of the coffin, a fact I am sure you know, so why give an incorrect meaning. The eyes in this example are also placed within the design of a false door to allow the soul of the dead to leave the coffin, another fact I am sure that you know, yet choose to twist somewhat.

You post a link to back you up and then essentially complain about the quality of the information in that link, hm. Post links to better articles then, an example being the link I posted about AE chronology in another thread today.

You went off to Mesopotamia and tried to give some religous significance to the serekh design, but have not shown this to be the case in Egypt.

The living king is the living Horus, and he lives in a palace, hence Horus depicted upon a serekh. Horus is a god so there is religious significance in that aspect, but the discussion is about the tomb and the coffin, and in a royal tomb the king is no longer Horus. Yes, he still has a Horus name, but he is no longer Horus in the palace.

Looking at the coffin depicted, and at other images you posted, I say that you are mistaking decoration for significant religious function. It is rather like looking at one of the stained glass windows at King's College Chapel, and while clearly seeing the religious significance of the OT and NT scenes depicted, also giving significance to the actual structure of the window. The serekh design we see in that coffin, and other places, holds the texts and forms a false door. The texts and false door are significant, but othwerwise the serekh elements are not much more than decoration. This coffin is also from after the 4th Dynasty and so not relevant. I only mentioned the later decoration of coffins to show that they evolve, and that earlier coffins do not have the same religious significance as later ones. The same excercise can be done with the evolution of the temple as well.

If there is religious significance in the use of the serekh design in burials, can you show what this significance is.

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/19/2020 at 10:05 AM, Thanos5150 said:

 

.... Regardless, the point is not that they decorated it to mimic the "style" of "walled recesses in walled dwellings", which we should also know by now is called "palace facade" or "niched facade",  it was made to be a building, the serekh building, which was to be their "dwelling for all eternity". What is the disconnect here? Does your browser not allow you to view pictures? 

This is not a "dwelling" nor is it related to the individual being entombed inside it:  

V07PnUM.jpg

Hmm, look at this-same building:

pyra-factslunas3.jpg

By the way, the reader will not[e] this building is decorated in a skew of geometric patterns-this is how they actually looked as has been found the 1st Dynasty serekh mastabas at Saqqara. 

Same building:

d5078774l.jpg

Same building:

main-qimg-ab6e4dde6a955e1d299cf6cea3fec9

Same building:

French%20Photographer%20-%20Auguste%20Ma

Same building:

The earliest known Egyptian "serekh building" occurred after objects containing "serekh symbols" had been used for a few centuries in Egypt.  As the following link indicates, the earliest "serekh building" was not a palace - instead it was a specific Royal Tomb at Naqada, the mastaba of Neithhotep, wife of legendary king Menes a.k.a. king Narmer; and it is believed to have been built by 1st dynasty king Aha (son of Narmer and Neithhotep). 
 
Based on these combined circumstances of place and time and function, plus a shortage of other known "serekh buildings" in Dynasty 1 Upper Egypt -- the early concept for a "serekh building" among those Dynasty 1 Egyptian people is likely to have been a memorial about the beginning of "dynastic" Egypt (under king Menes-Narmer and his son).   
 
2.1 - The Late Predynastic 'Serekh'
......
In the classical royal titulary, the s[erekh] is the first of the five titles, representing the so called Horus name (or Ka-name).[3]
It is generally assumed that the Falcon is the archaic sky-god Horus (cf. n. 2) who protects the king and his residence; most of the scholars believe that s. represent the royal palace, but there are some exceptions (royal tomb, funerary enclosure, false door).[4]
In any case we can consider it as a powerful graphical metonymy of conceded authority (n. 5): a numinous or divine being, of which the falcon is a hypostasis, rests and watches over the residence of the reigning monarch, which is a very direct symbol; the palace, from where the king commands, is a sort of micro-cosm of the whole state territory, which the king rules just "in the name of the god", under the god's protection and for god's will and delegation. It is not a case that the king-name, which labels the serekh-palace, is written below the falcon, with evident implications about the nature of the early divine kingship.

The Egyptian word for "srkh" is only later attested and its meanings are generally based on the terms which indicate: a banner for the Horus-name, a throne, a palace façade, a memorial (stela); alternatively the word etymology has been related to the causative of the verb rekh, (srkh, 'cause to know', 'to display', 'to learn about').[5]
The Horus name written with(-in) the s., was the official name of the Dynasty 0-3 sovereigns, with rare exceptions [6]; from Snofru onward the cartouche name became the main and most frequently used one (attached to the Nswt-bity 'prenomen' and to the Sa-Ra name) so that the Horus name knew a more restricted use and it is in fact far less frequently encountered (alone) in the inscriptions.
 
......
 
3 - 'Serekhs', early royal names, niched architecture and emergence of writing
It is in Upper Egypt that the architectural motifs (which are thought by some scholars to lie behind the serekhs stylised representations) are presently known from earlier contexts: 1) Niche-like slits in tomb U-j chambers (similar to false doors between the various rooms of the model royal-palace which the tombs seems to imitate). 2) Naqada mastaba of Neithhotep (but this already dates early Naqada IIIC). The important evidence of a bastioned palace- (?) gateway in the settlement of Hierakonpolis (K. Weeks, in: JARCE 9, 1971, 29ff.) is generally considered, not doubtlessly, of late Second Dynasty date (reign of Khasekhemwy)
...
Finally, even more important, Hendrickx underlines the possible antecedent of the serekhs in the UE architectural structures (both in light materials and in mudbrick) at least as early as 3300BC (mentioned slits in tomb U-j chambers).
This opens another problem: the origin of the wine jars on which serekhs are inscribed (originally probable indicators of royal property). It can be thought that pottery was occasionally or regularly manufactured elsewhere from where it was finally found. I think that this problem could be solved with a deep analysis of documents (materials, palaeography and, more limitately -for the inscriptions are usually short- epigraphy). [Cf. similarly the stone vessels with incised inscriptions from Djoser's complex].
Some of the known pottery incised serekhs must have been drawn in Canaanite centers.
The problem about relationship between architectural palace façade and representational one (serekh) is that the earliest evidence for the former one are actually much more recent than the latter; besides, the serekh, except perhaps those from Maadi, are always assumed to have been attached to chiefs' or kings' ownership, while the very first niched architecture presently known (Naqada IIIC1) is not directly related to the kings, rather to their wives or courtiers.
Edited by atalante
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, atalante said:
The earliest known Egyptian "serekh building" occurred after objects containing "serekh symbols" had been used for a few centuries in Egypt.  As the following link indicates, the earliest "serekh building" was not a palace - instead it was a specific Royal Tomb at Naqada, the mastaba of Neithhotep, wife of legendary king Menes a.k.a. king Narmer; and it is believed to have been built by 1st dynasty king Aha (son of Narmer and Neithhotep). 

I read over the material at the link and I did not read anything that matches your statement there.  The actual text says this:

3 - 'Serekhs', early royal names, niched architecture and emergence of writing
It is in Upper Egypt that the architectural motifs (which are thought by some scholars to lie behind the serekhs stylised representations) are presently known from earlier contexts: 1) Niche-like slits in tomb U-j chambers (similar to false doors between the various rooms of the model royal-palace which the tombs seems to imitate). 2) Naqada mastaba of Neithhotep (but this already dates early Naqada IIIC). The important evidence of a bastioned palace- (?) gateway in the settlement of Hierakonpolis (K. Weeks, in: JARCE 9, 1971, 29ff.) is generally considered, not doubtlessly, of late Second Dynasty date (reign of Khasekhemwy).

..and, as you see, does not say that the mastaba is a serekh -- in fact, it could not be a serekh - ever!  

Serekhs are palace gates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serekh, for convenience' sake) and thus we see the name of the ruler atop the royal gate.

Serekhs are not buildings.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Kenemet said:

I read over the material at the link and I did not read anything that matches your statement there.  The actual text says this:

3 - 'Serekhs', early royal names, niched architecture and emergence of writing
It is in Upper Egypt that the architectural motifs (which are thought by some scholars to lie behind the serekhs stylised representations) are presently known from earlier contexts: 1) Niche-like slits in tomb U-j chambers (similar to false doors between the various rooms of the model royal-palace which the tombs seems to imitate). 2) Naqada mastaba of Neithhotep (but this already dates early Naqada IIIC). The important evidence of a bastioned palace- (?) gateway in the settlement of Hierakonpolis (K. Weeks, in: JARCE 9, 1971, 29ff.) is generally considered, not doubtlessly, of late Second Dynasty date (reign of Khasekhemwy).

..and, as you see, does not say that the mastaba is a serekh -- in fact, it could not be a serekh - ever!  

Serekhs are palace gates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serekh, for convenience' sake) and thus we see the name of the ruler atop the royal gate.

Serekhs are not buildings.

"In Egyptian hieroglyphs, a serekh is a rectangular enclosure representing the niched or gated façade of a palace surmounted by (usually) the Horus falcon, indicating that the text enclosed is a royal name." 

His source: "The Serekh (henceforth s.) is a roughly rectangular stylized representation of a niched-façade building (or part thereof)":

240px-Egypte_louvre_290.jpg

mastaba3504djet.jpg

 

The Egyptians referred to this building as the "Great House" or "Great Palace" depending on what translation you prefer. While the palace facade mastabas are not the serekh building itself, they are a representation of it. 

Edited by Thanos5150
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, atalante said:
The earliest known Egyptian "serekh building" occurred after objects containing "serekh symbols" had been used for a few centuries in Egypt.  As the following link indicates, the earliest "serekh building" was not a palace - instead it was a specific Royal Tomb at Naqada, the mastaba of Neithhotep, wife of legendary king Menes a.k.a. king Narmer; and it is believed to have been built by 1st dynasty king Aha (son of Narmer and Neithhotep). 

Yes, depictions of the serekh building predate any building like it as yet found. 

This is not what your source is saying and is just giving the earliest example of a physical representation of it. 

Quote

Based on these combined circumstances of place and time and function, plus a shortage of other known "serekh buildings" in Dynasty 1 Upper Egypt -- the early concept for a "serekh building" among those Dynasty 1 Egyptian people is likely to have been a memorial about the beginning of "dynastic" Egypt (under king Menes-Narmer and his son). 

Serekhs predate the unification of Egypt, like you yourself noted, by more than a century so I'm not sure how that works out.   

Edited by Thanos5150
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Thanos5150 said:

"In Egyptian hieroglyphs, a serekh is a rectangular enclosure representing the niched or gated façade of a palace surmounted by (usually) the Horus falcon, indicating that the text enclosed is a royal name." 

His source: "The Serekh (henceforth s.) is a roughly rectangular stylized representation of a niched-façade building (or part thereof)":

240px-Egypte_louvre_290.jpg

mastaba3504djet.jpg

 

The Egyptians referred to this building as the "Great House" or "Great Palace" depending on what translation you prefer. While the palace facade mastabas are not the serekh building itself, they are a representation of it. 

I would disagree.  To the best of my knowledge, there are no serekh "buildings" -- palaces had plain walls, according to all the descriptions I've seen.

Also, I've missed the source that insists they're buildings.  Could you link it?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Kenemet said:

I would disagree.  To the best of my knowledge,... 

Um, yeah....

Quote

...there are no serekh "buildings" -- palaces had plain walls, according to all the descriptions I've seen.

Regardless, "building". Not plural. It is hard to explain how this could not be understood by now. 

How strange. You have not seen any descriptions of palaces in the early Dynastic period, or the OK or MK for that matter, because none have been found. There's one thing. The other, perhaps equally unfortunate, is some (all?) of the NK and later palaces that have been found are in fact decorated, often lavishly. Say, like this one: Palace of Amenhotep III. 

Quote

Fragments of plastered wall paintings have given archaeologists a glimpse of how the palace was decorated. Various paintings of the goddess Nekhbet made up the ceiling of the royal bedchamber. The walls were decorated with scenes of wildlife - flowers, reeds, and animals in the marshes, as well as decorative geometric designs, complete with rosettes. Ornate wooden columns painted to resemble lilies supported the ceilings. In the palace archaeologists also found some paintings of the great royal wife, Tiye. Rare traces of original wall paintings are still visible on site, despite the badly ruined state of the mudbrick walls.

A recreation of how it was thought to have looked:

9fbc372dff761e57f3ba294fd3b603bc--amenho

One of the original ceiling paintings:

4e4a154c1c21848be8194ce196683413.jpg

Gadzooks. 

Quote

Also, I've missed the source that insists they're buildings.  Could you link it?

The source...? The ancient Egyptians. I am going with them on this one, but thanks. 

 

Edited by Thanos5150
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Malkata palace, and the palace at Akhetaten, do of course show evidence of decoration, but this is internal. While not depicting a palace, funerary models of the houses of nobles show a decorated interior and plain exterior walls. The walls of temples both interior and external were of course covered in decoration, though the compound walls were plain, except for the undulating top that represented the waters of Nun surrounding the temple as a representation of the primordial mound, and protecting it from external chaos.

That the palace has an external wall shows that it is protective, but is this protective both in the physical sense that a castle wall is protective, or also in the supernatural sense where it may hold back the forces of chaos. I don't see anything that indicates a religious function for the palace, even if in later times the palace may be right by a temple, for instance at Akhetaten or Medinet Habu, which both have windows of appearance where the palace joins the temple, though unlike the physical remains at Medinet Habu, this is implied at Akhetaten by tomb scenes. Does not the palace wall and it's facade provide a clear separation between the king and the hoi poloi, and so is a political statement rather than a religious function, that being the province primarily of the temple, and then the tomb. That nobles also used the palace facade design in a mortuary setting being the first instance of the long process of the democratization of death in Egypt, though in this specific case it is a matter of the king allowing a style of design to be aped, not a religious function as that, in other forms, comes later.

Edited by Wepwawet
typo
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, but what is being debated here? I see a lot of photos and AE terminology being thrown about. It's not my area of expertise so I'm a bit out of my league and depth of understanding as to what is being argued.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Trelane said:

I'm sorry, but what is being debated here? I see a lot of photos and AE terminology being thrown about. It's not my area of expertise so I'm a bit out of my league and depth of understanding as to what is being argued.

What significance the design of the palace wall has, and is this religious or political. We know that the king's horus name is enclosed within a representation of the palace compound and has Horus above it, though I would say that it actually refers to the king as the living Horus within his palace. This is both political and religious. However, beyond the Horus name of a king, use of the design and it's significance are up for debate. You will need to get a full exposition of his ideas from Thanos in order to understand the issues as I can only provide my own views on this. Though from his posts it is clear that he believes it originates in Mesopotamia and is associated with religous ritual, see his post #37 in this thread.

I'll take this opportuniy though to make a point about the same objects being used by different cultures, and how we can make a wrong assumption. In Mesopotamia a coffin made from clay is high status, yet in Egypt it is low status and falls between being buried wrapped in a reed mat and having at least a basic wooden coffin. Rather like a black cat being lucky in some countries, but unlucky in others, same cat, different beliefs.

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Wepwawet, thank you very much for the explanation. I am fascinated by the AE topic and all ancient civilizations in general. Unfortunately when I venture into this section of the forums I  realize I usually have wandered off into deep waters that I know almost nothing about.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/20/2020 at 4:09 PM, Kenemet said:

I read over the material at the link and I did not read anything that matches your statement there.  The actual text says this:

3 - 'Serekhs', early royal names, niched architecture and emergence of writing
It is in Upper Egypt that the architectural motifs (which are thought by some scholars to lie behind the serekhs stylised representations) are presently known from earlier contexts: 1) Niche-like slits in tomb U-j chambers (similar to false doors between the various rooms of the model royal-palace which the tombs seems to imitate). 2) Naqada mastaba of Neithhotep (but this already dates early Naqada IIIC). The important evidence of a bastioned palace- (?) gateway in the settlement of Hierakonpolis (K. Weeks, in: JARCE 9, 1971, 29ff.) is generally considered, not doubtlessly, of late Second Dynasty date (reign of Khasekhemwy).

..and, as you see, does not say that the mastaba is a serekh -- in fact, it could not be a serekh - ever!  

Serekhs are palace gates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serekh, for convenience' sake) and thus we see the name of the ruler atop the royal gate.

Serekhs are not buildings.

 

Kenemet,

 
Evolution of Egypt's early serekh signs, which were inscribed on pottery in dynasties 0 and 1, is tabulated in https://www.academia.edu/14542028/The_Pottery_Incised_Serekh_Signs_of_Dynasties_0_1_Part_II_Fragments_and_Additional_Complete_Vessels
See especially page 26 in the above link.
The earliest versions of these inscribed serekh markings were very primitive - and seem to imply, roughly, "belonging to a current warlord in dynasty 0".  But later, standardized compartments evolved within (and/or atop) the incised serekhs, to bear names of specific Egyptian Dynasty 0 warlords/chieftains.
 
If I understand Thanos's position correctly from his previous posts in other UM threads, he holds that:  the Egyptian serekh symbol originated as an imitation, 2-dimensional, view of some (unspecified) early monumental building(s) in Mesopotamia.  But then after Egyptian society matured, Egypt began constructing 3-dimensional Egyptian "palace facade" items that memorialize a "hypothesized" original Mesopotamian royal archtype from which Egypt's serekh symbol had been derived.  Egypt's so-called "palace facade" items could be in various forms such as murals, sarcophagi or coffins for Egypt's rulers. 
 
But in a moment of flux, Thanos's post #29 said this:
"So if we think about it, in the 1st Dynasty the tomb itself was made as the serekh building"
mail?url=https%3A%2F%2Fimg263.imageshack.us%2Fimg263%2F4814%2Fmastaba3504djet.jpg&t=1608657862&ymreqid=3453cafd-c5bc-1b5b-2c28-650138010000&sig=K3mxy_AMmSriCGiBte8yAQ--~D
 
 
My suggestion in post #39 is that the "palace facade" artform in Egypt could evolve independently without being connected to earlier Mesopotamian architecture.  i.e. I suggested that the"palace facade" artform in Egypt is likely to memorialize the Royal Tomb of Naqada with its vertical-niched mudbrick exterior (which resembles a combined bunch of the primitive serekh signs that had lacked any regional chiefs's names).
 
If so, then by memorializing the Royal Tomb of Naqada, Egypt's later "palace facade" artforms were memorializing the start of Egypt's genealogical "dynasties" (with mostly peaceful transitions between the successive kings) for ruling Egypt - as contrasted to warlord-chieftains, and potentially civil wars, that previously occurred in the falsely so-called "Dynasty 0".
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

Um, yeah....

Regardless, "building". Not plural. It is hard to explain how this could not be understood by now. 

How strange. You have not seen any descriptions of palaces in the early Dynastic period, or the OK or MK for that matter, because none have been found. There's one thing. The other, perhaps equally unfortunate, is some (all?) of the NK and later palaces that have been found are in fact decorated, often lavishly. Say, like this one: Palace of Amenhotep III. 

But that's not a serekh, nor was it designed as one.

And that's my point.  It's a gate, not a building.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
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.