GP a theory by Lloyd and Brian Babineau

[Thanos5150]

On 12/22/2020 at 12:29 PM, Kenemet said:

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

No one is saying it is but you. Somehow you got it in your head if serekh's are "palaces" and "to the best of your knowledge,..."  "-- palaces had plain walls, according to all the descriptions I've seen." ergo "...there are "no serekh "buildings..." and therefore "that's your point. It's a gate, not a building". Uhh...

To start, though not that it matters because no one other than you is suggesting "palaces" must be the serekh building and if not then there is no such thing as a serekh building, but surely you understand just because "palaces" have not been found prior to the NK (with one possible exception) does not mean there were none. The king has to live somewhere, right?

Also, which again has nothing to do with the serekh building, just to get the record straight here, NK palaces (temples and whatnot) were decorated on the interior and exterior with the exterior walls being painted and architectural decoration and reliefs appearing on the plyon(s):

 

Some of you might recognize these:

The pylons are two towers joined by a door with the niches and door an homage to the palace facade of the serekh building. The Malkata palace, an interesting example, was a compound with with individual rooms within its walls whose exterior walls were also decorated:

 Which again we see the incorporation of the palace facade motif.

We are reminded again of your words: " -- palaces had plain walls, according to all the descriptions I've seen." Truly baffling. 

I need to leave it here for now but will be back.  

 

[Wepwawet]

I've not seen any traces of the exterior walls of Malkata being decorated. They may have been, but as at Akhetaten only fragments of interior decoration remains. The photo above showing Malkata is of the interior walls of the king's bedchamber. Fragments of the painted ceiling can be seen in the photo, which further shows we are looking at interior decoration.

The pylon looks like two towers, but it's not splitting hairs to say that the entire structure represents the horizon. The niches are were the flagpoles once stood, and are not connected with the palace wall facade. The function of the flagpoles was protective in guarding against chaos, and, it should be noted, form the sign for god = neter, a pole with a flag, though it's not certain that the temple flagpoles should be read as neter, even though guarding the home of a god or gods.

The only royal palace still showing the decoration of it's external wall is at Nekhen = Hieronkonpolis, and we see the niched palace facade design. Of note is that Nekhen is the "Home of Horus", so we really do have Horus in his palace, both in the form of the king and the god. While the old temple at Nekhen is rubble, the replacement at Edfu, pictured above, is rather skimpy when it comes to the palace facade design, even though so strongly associated with Horus, but several thousand years separate the palace at Nekhen and the temple at Edfu, and they are two very different structures in their purpose.

Edit for clarity. The front wall of the pylon slopes backwards, therefore to get a vertical flagpole sitting neatly a niche needs to be cut into the wall. Otherwise it would need restraining clamps protuding some way out of the wall. This would look unbalanced, ugly even, in the overall design, and the AE did not do ugly with temple design. In the photo the shadows falling across the niches show that they are cut vertically.

Edited December 25, 2020 by Wepwawet

[Thanos5150]

On 12/21/2020 at 8:26 AM, 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)":

 

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. 

A History of Ancient Egypt From the First Farmers to the Great Pyramid, Romer:

...now known as the serekh, a highly specific image which, for the following three thousands years, would be used to hold one of the five names of the pharaoh. Later [after Narmer] and more elaborated representations of the sign show that it represents the "Great House", the per'a, as it is spelled out in later hieroglyphs, which is the origin of our word "pharaoh". Here, then, on Narmer's Palette the three little signs together would appear to signify "the (royal) house (of Narmer)....

Now the serekh sign, as we have already seen, is an image of a compound or a residence and came to denote, in Narmer's day, the royal name....

And here at last, and most intriguingly, there are indications that, along with their adoption of Mesopotamian design and imagery-and even the serekh itself has Mesopotamian precedents-the Naqadans had also taken up accounting systems first used in the Gezira and in the Uruk settlements in the Levant.... 

Though engravings on Uruk seals made centuries before the building of these mud-brick tombs [palace facade mastabas] hold clear images of Mesopotamian temples with serekh-like patternings, it seems unlikely that such tiny images alone would have prompted the introduction of full-blown decorative mud-brick architecture into the Valley of the Nile. It is more likely that the sudden appearance of this powerful and idiosyncratic design was a consequence of the so-called "second wave" of Uruk expansion....

Early Dynastic Egypt, Wilkinson: 

The serekh and palace facade: The serekh, enclosing the king's primary name and proclaiming his identity as the incarnation of Horus, has been generally interpreted as depicting a section of the facade of the royal palace.....

In ancient as in modern times, the king's palace was a powerful symbol of the institution of monarchy and of royal authority. (Compare the use of the term "pharaoh"-from pr-'3, "great house" [i.e. the royal palace]-to denote the king himself from the New Kingdom onwards). What seems to have made the royal palace a particularly suitable motif for the use within emergent iconography of rule was its distinctive appearance.  The architectural style represented in two dimensions by the serekh panel is known to Egyptologists as "palace facade". The term denotes a mudbrick building with a series of recessed niches on the exterior walls, forming a decorative facade.   

There is little doubt about the foreign origins of the palace-facade style....The similarity between Mesopotamian and Egyptian mudbrick architecture is so close as to make their independent development highly unlikely....

The construction of a large scale building of exotic appearance must have spoken to its viewers of power and prestige....

Egypt's Making The Origins of Ancient Egypt 5000-2000BC, Rice:

The second, later use to which the form [palace facade] was put, as late as the end of the Old Kingdom at least, was in the shape of great sarcophagi which were made to contain the mummified remains of kings and great princes, a few hundred years after the serekh's first appearance. These represented the serekh in three dimensions and again are representations of the palaces in which the "Old Ones" passed their days.  

Though the serekh's origins are to be found in the temples of Sumer this does not explain why the rulers of what was to become Egypt should have chosen it as their badge. Why an architectural form should have had this profound importance to them is quite obscure....It is another of the mysteries attending this obscure time. 

Archaic Egypt, Emery:

The serech [serekh] enclosure represented the paneled facade of the royal palace, which would be a building similar in outward appearance to the superstructures of the royal [1st Dynasty] tombs.  

No, its not a "gate"-its a building, the serekh building, which later sarcophagi, among other things, were made to represent.   

Edited December 26, 2020 by Thanos5150

[Kenemet]

3 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

 

No, its not a "gate"-its a building, the serekh building, which later sarcophagi, among other things, were made to represent.   

After having posted a long lecture about how you said I was going on and on about buildings ... you then come back and once again make the claim (incorrect) that it's a building.

[Wepwawet]

There is an analogy to this in the UK were a portcullis surmounted by a crown is the symbol of parliament. Nobody suggests that the portcullis is a "portcullis building", it only represents the gate of a building, a castle, that only the highest rank of society could use as their home. The crown on top of the portcullis is directly analogous to Horus in saying that this is where authority resides.

Edited December 26, 2020 by Wepwawet

[Thanos5150]

8 hours ago, Kenemet said:

After having posted a long lecture about how you said I was going on and on about buildings ... you then come back and once again make the claim (incorrect) that it's a building.

Lol. "I posted a long lecture about how I said you were going on and on about buildings"? Uhh...WTF are you talking about? 

And then my "come back" to this non existent "long lecture", let alone train of thought (which ironically I am responding to myself), is to give numerous quotes from 4 Egyptological sources telling us in their own words it is a building and how the Egyptians themselves say it is a building and yet somehow according to you it is I who am making the claim and it is I who am incorrect...? And you say its a gate with no evidence or sources to back it up and yet you are right and everyone else including the Ancient Egyptians are wrong. Even the definition of the word facade is now wrong, so instead of being the face of a building it now means "gate".  Yeah, I can't help you. 

 

 

[Wepwawet]

Decorative use of the serekh design in burials is not an issue, it's staring us right in the face, yet any religious function apart from the design of the false door seems to be elusive.

[Thanos5150]

22 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

There is an analogy to this in the UK were a portcullis surmounted by a crown is the symbol of parliament. Nobody suggests that the portcullis is a "portcullis building", it only represents the gate of a building, a castle, that only the highest rank of society could use as their home. The crown on top of the portcullis is directly analogous to Horus in saying that this is where authority resides.

It is not analogous because it is meant only to be a representation of a gate which is why no one would suggest this. The serekh depicts the two dimensional facade of a building which is why, along with the AE telling us this, is it considered to be a building. Again:

...now known as the serekh, a highly specific image which, for the following three thousands years, would be used to hold one of the five names of the pharaoh. Later [after Narmer] and more elaborated representations of the sign show that it represents the "Great House", the per'a, as it is spelled out in later hieroglyphs, which is the origin of our word "pharaoh". Here, then, on Narmer's Palette the three little signs together would appear to signify "the (royal) house (of Narmer)....

Now the serekh sign, as we have already seen, is an image of a compound or a residence and came to denote, in Narmer's day, the royal name....

The serekh, enclosing the king's primary name and proclaiming his identity as the incarnation of Horus, has been generally interpreted as depicting a section of the facade of the royal palace.....

The architectural style represented in two dimensions by the serekh panel is known to Egyptologists as "palace facade". The term denotes a mudbrick building with a series of recessed niches on the exterior walls, forming a decorative facade.   

The second, later use to which the form [palace facade] was put, as late as the end of the Old Kingdom at least, was in the shape of great sarcophagi which were made to contain the mummified remains of kings and great princes, a few hundred years after the serekh's first appearance. These represented the serekh in three dimensions and again are representations of the palaces in which the "Old Ones" passed their days.  

The serech [serekh] enclosure represented the paneled facade of the royal palace, which would be a building similar in outward appearance to the superstructures of the royal [1st Dynasty] tombs. 

Let's add The Pyramids, Verner to the list:

The increasing importance of the state is shown by additions to the royal nomenclature. At first, the latter consisted of simply the name Horus, written in a rectangle called a serekh that was a stylized representation of the royal palace's facade....

The word pharaoh itself is of Egyptian origin and is derived from per aa, "Great House", the name of the royal residence [of the serekh].  

One can only guess at the value of keeping to insist it is a gate when no one else is, the least of which the AE themselves, only compounded by the fact no evidence or sources have been provided to back up this interpretation in the first place.

12 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

Decorative use of the serekh design in burials is not an issue, it's staring us right in the face, yet any religious function apart from the design of the false door seems to be elusive.

The false door is commonly portrayed in the palace facade style including at times as a larger vignette as part of the serekh building and are inextricable linked. The false door is thought to be the "threshold between the worlds of the living and the dead" or the like so it stands to reason the serekh building would be a part of this scheme which to enter this door one is effectively entering the serekh building, or "Great House".  

What I question, however, is the notion that the serekh building (Great House) represents the "residence" or "palace" of the king. The AE to my knowledge do not refer to it as such and it makes little sense one of the most important things to the dead is to have been buried inside the residence of the king. Nor does it make sense the king's residence would represent kingship itself either in life or death. It is a misnomer to think the AE reference to "house" is always to be taken literally as a residence and in reality is in context often more aptly defined as "a building which people meet for a regular activity".  Some of the places listed as "houses" in tombs are specified in the titles of individuals (Old Kingdom for example):

"Overseer of the Two Houses of Gold."
"Overseer of the Two House of Silver."
"Overseer of the House of Ships."

There is a "House of Life", "House of Birth", "Toilet House", etc, etc. 

When looking at references to the Great House we find titles such as:

"Master of the Secrets of the Great House."
"Chief Oculist of the Great House."
"Physician of the Great House."
"Scribe of the Great House."
"Overseer of the Department of the Holders of the Domains of the Great House."
"Inspector of the Holders of Domains of the Great House."
"Overseer of the Land Holders of the Great House."
"Overseer of all Nice Pleasures in the Secret Places of the Great House."

Which there are many many more. 

While true, it "may" be the where the king himself lived, it seems by these titles it was much more than that if at all being more of a national state house- a "capitol building" of a sort. In essence a "palace" defined as a "large public building", not a "residence". This idea may be bolstered by reading the Westcar Papyrus, for example, as it refers to the "palace" (house of the king) many times yet makes no mention of the "Great House" which if in fact the Great House/serekh building were one and the same as the residence of the king they would just say so. 

We are also reminded of the paradox of the 1st Dynasty royal tombs found Saqqara (and elsewhere) and their chronological counterparts at Abydos (Umm El-Qa'ab) as discussed at length before with those at Saqqara et al made to represent the serekh building and those at Abydos not. The problem is that, again, the serekh building tombs increasingly do not appear/and or are definitively not the tombs of the kings meaning that it was not the kings who wished to be buried in their own "residence", or even the "state house' for that matter, but rather only their subjects. Can't say this makes much sense any which way. 

This leads us back to the question of what is the serekh building/Great House really? It is elusive. It's not a rhetorical question-I have not found the answer yet. If just a "capitol building" then why is it associated not just with death but a place which to symbolically go beyond its doors is to cross over into the world of the dead and the divine? And to cross over to the world of the dead-what are we to find within its walls? The "Department of the Holders of the Domains of the Great House"? Paper pushers and accountants and whatnot? The king in his jammies? I don't think so. The fact is there is an apparent duality of meaning and function that is little understood which its emphatic association with the afterlife seems to go far beyond simple "patriotism" and/or that the serekh building design just "looks cool".

There is a history to it that predates the AE ability to make such buildings. Yes, there is the Mesopotamian connection which explains its appearance in Egypt among other things, and probably even its function in life, but if there is any connection with its meaning within AE religious beliefs in the afterlife I have yet to find a link to what it might be and ultimately, for me, this is where a great mystery lies. And I hate to say it but I believe that boat burials are somehow a part of it. I have some thoughts, but am reluctant to share them here as I am getting a little wary of people stealing from me so I'll just hold on to it and the fact is I have no proof as of yet so its just a thought for now. 

Edited December 27, 2020 by Thanos5150

[jmccr8]

30 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

t is not analogous because it is meant only to be a representation of a gate which is why no one would suggest this. The serekh depicts the two dimensional facade of a building which is why, along with the AE telling us this, is it considered to be a building. Again:

...now known as the serekh, a highly specific image which, for the following three thousands years, would be used to hold one of the five names of the pharaoh. Later [after Narmer] and more elaborated representations of the sign show that it represents the "Great House", the per'a, as it is spelled out in later hieroglyphs, which is the origin of our word "pharaoh". Here, then, on Narmer's Palette the three little signs together would appear to signify "the (royal) house (of Narmer)....

Hi Thanos 

Pretty much sums up that it is an image and not a building.

32 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

There is a history to it that predates the AE ability to make such buildings. Yes, there is the Mesopotamian connection which explains its appearance in Egypt among other things, and probably even its function in life, but if there is any connection with its meaning within AE religious beliefs in the afterlife I have yet to find a link to what it might be and ultimately, for me, this is where a great mystery lies. And I hate to say it but I believe that boat burials are somehow a part of it. I have some thoughts, but am reluctant to share them here as I am getting a little wary of people stealing from me so I'll just hold on to it and the fact is I have no proof as of yet so its just a thought for now. 

Well maybe get published and peer reviewed but if you are not willing to discuss this then it reinforces the first part of my post. Good luck if you do decide to face peer review.

jmccr8

[Wepwawet]

1 hour ago, Thanos5150 said:

It is not analogous because it is meant only to be a representation of a gate which is why no one would suggest this. The serekh depicts the two dimensional facade of a building which is why, along with the AE telling us this, is it considered to be a building.

 

Yes it is analogous, and I think it is a good one. That the portcullis and crown design do not show the building the portcullis is attached to, does not mean there was no building. It is the edifice of the sovereign state, the Palace of Westminster, and a state with a monarch, who in earlier times in the UK was annointed by God, that is why the crown above the portcullis is analogous to Horus as it represents whoever is the monarch at the time, with the addition for the Egyptians of using it as a device to also name the monarch of the day. Yes, the serekh design used for the king's Horus name does have a compound outlined indicating that this is the king's abode, but the main element of the design is of the gate, IMO.

As hairs are being split here, let's address this term "serekh building". This is actually sloppy terminology as serekh is the design of the king's Horus name, not the actual building. It's rather like calling, say, an 18th Century AD royal palace "The fancy red brick and stone fronted building". As you point out, the word the Egyptians used for palace was per-aa.

[Wepwawet]

4 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

The false door is commonly portrayed in the palace facade style including at times as a larger vignette as part of the serekh building and are inextricable linked. The false door is thought to be the "threshold between the worlds of the living and the dead" or the like so it stands to reason the serekh building would be a part of this scheme which to enter this door one is effectively entering the serekh building, or "Great House".

I believe that the false door is just a door irrespective of it's religious purpose. As these things start at or near the top of society, I do not expect that the false door would be just a simple door frame, but would be in the style of the elaborate doors used in the homes they had in life. I cannot see any evidence that the door/gate to a palace, whether for king or noble, had any religious significance.

Yes, there is this seeming anomaly that the 1st Dynasty tombs of nobles at Abydos are "better" than those of the kings at Sakkara. I'll offer this as a suggestion.

Kings, particularly in death, are not the same as anybody else, in those times only the king was resurrected. A noble is confined to his tomb for eternity, so may want to "live" in death as he did in life. The soul of the king left the tomb to be with the gods, so perhaps there was not, at that time, a need for the tomb to try and mimic life as the king was not confined to his tomb for eternity. We see this difference between the tomb of a king and those of all others very clearly in later times. Here the main obsession with everubodt except the king was in magically recreating the world of the living for them in the afterlife. So we have the beautifully decorated tomb of Nebamun which recreates "life for the dead". Compare this with the tomb of a king, which apart from his personel possesions stored in the tomb, does not show anything of his life at all, only of his journey and ressurection in the Duat, for nothing else matters except this cycle of ressurection.

While these scenes in the tomb of a king can be maginificent, they can also be very esoteric and confusing to the casual viewer, and do not have the same beauty and impact as the scenes in the tomb of Nebamun, where we see a man and his family doing things that we can understand and relate to. It could be argued that artistically scenes such as those in Nebamun's tomb are superior to those in the tomb of a king, to our eyes and minds. Likewise, while the tombs of the kings at Sakkara are less impressive than those at Abydos, we do not see the "magic" involved, and the same can be said for pyramids, G1 specifically. And on that we go back to the argument that mastaba tombs at Giza are better decorated than undecorated pyramids, therefore the pyramids are "not tombs", when the funery arrangements and beliefs for a king are not exactly the same as for everybody else.

I think that the term per-aa does refer to the court of the king, wherever he may be. We know they were generally very mobile in that they seemed to be constantly cruising up and down the Nile, and we have reference to "Mooring Places of Pharoah". KV62 had furniture designed for travel, stools and shades for instance. They did have an actual palace, and of course we have a tiny number of examples. Akhetaten can be seen as a one off anomaly as Akhenaten stated that he would never leave the boundries of the city, and Malkata was for a corpulent Amunhotep III who may not have done much travelling in his later years. Medinet Habu is also not usual in being an adjunct to a mortuary temple, and built of stone. The same applies to the small palace attached to the Ramesseum. Neither was the royal palace anyway which would have been at Pi-Ramesses.

Can the king administer his kingdom, and later an empire, while being on the move?. I would say certainly. We, with our ridiculously overblown bureaucracies probably think that a vast horde of penpushers is always needed, but let's look at the Roman Empire, surely it needed tens of thousands of jobsworths? um, no, just a few hundred working in the Tabularium. There would have been more in other places, for instance in each city, but so it would have been in Egypt, and the temples come to mind let alone those who worked for the local nomarch. But I'm sure the king managed just fine with enough penpushers to fit on a boat or two.

Another analogy from the UK. Tudor monarchs, and those before them, engaged in a "Royal Progression" around the country. They stayed at the homes of nobles, who footed the bill, and this progress may take months. So while the monarch had a palace, several, their court was wherever they were. Perhaps per-aa is analogous to court in the same sense as the mobile Tudor Court.

 

Edited December 27, 2020 by Wepwawet

[Wepwawet]

Here's something to consider about the nature of the serekh and the false door. I'll quote in full note 106 on page 13 of The Great Name by Ronald J. Leprohon published in 2013

"On the analogy of the false door, which may have been reinterpreted in the late Old Kingdom into having the main top panel representing a window into the home (Lacau 1967, a suggestion that has not won full approval), one wonders whether the same reinterpretation was applied to the serekh, which would then have made the top panel a window into the royal palace through which the king's name was seen."

It is after all us who interpret what the elements of the serekh mean, and say that the upper panel represents the outer walls of the palace, the Egyptians are silent.

Apart from the serekh and the walls, either as a physical feature in some examples or as decoration in others, the main feature we see depicting the royal palace is the window of appearance, so maybe Leprohon is onto something by suggesting that the top panel of the serekh is a window, and here not with an actual picture of the king depicted, just his name.

Reading various tomes about this, it is impossible to pin down anything definitive. For instance in The Tomb in Ancient Egypt by Dodson and Ikram, while they discuss the false door, the word serekh or the term palace facade are entirely absent. If there was a relationship beyond that of style, particulalry when depicted on a coffin, surely it would rate a mention. Similarly in Dodson's The Royal Tombs of Ancient Egypt, and O'Connor's Abydos, the palace facade design is not given any importance. However, I would say that your choice of tomb design most certainly is important, but that the design in itself does not hold any significance other than political statement by royalty and nobility, and with no discernible religious significance at all.

 

Edited December 27, 2020 by Wepwawet

[Thanos5150]

8 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Pretty much sums up that it is an image and not a building.

This makes no sense. It is an image of a building. 

Quote

Well maybe get published and peer reviewed but if you are not willing to discuss this then it reinforces the first part of my post. Good luck if you do decide to face peer review.

Again you make no sense on multiple levels as regardless of my thoughts about that sub-aspect of the topic it literally has nothing to do with the fact the serekh depicts a building and not a gate which is what you are mistakenly trying to relate it to.  The fact you would make these comments, among other things, makes it clear you do not understand what is being said nor have an interest to and quite frankly just seem to want to be negative towards me regardless of the facts which does not interest me. 

[Thanos5150]

2 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

Reading various tomes about this, it is impossible to pin down anything definitive. For instance in The Tomb in Ancient Egypt by Dodson and Ikram, while they discuss the false door, the word serekh or the term palace facade are entirely absent. If there was a relationship beyond that of style, particulalry when depicted on a coffin, surely it would rate a mention. Similarly in Dodson's The Royal Tombs of Ancient Egypt, and O'Connor's Abydos, the palace facade design is not given any importance. 

The reason it is absent is because Dodson choose to refer to it only as "panelled" omitting even a passing reference to what is otherwise defined and palace or niched facade. It is a wonder Dodson would choose to purposefully omit even a passing reference to it if only for his readers who have read or would read anything by anyone else on the subject to understand they are one and the same.    

[Wepwawet]

1 hour ago, Thanos5150 said:

The reason it is absent is because Dodson choose to refer to it only as "panelled" omitting even a passing reference to what is otherwise defined and palace or niched facade. It is a wonder Dodson would choose to purposefully omit even a passing reference to it if only for his readers who have read or would read anything by anyone else on the subject to understand they are one and the same.

Aha, so the problem here is an Egyptologist and his presumably lumpen audience. What about Ikram, tarred with the same brush, and what about the silence on what you say is the importance of the palace facade by O'Connor. You have quoted Romer and Verner in a way to suggest some significance to the serekh, so I guess those two are fine, but do they actually clearly state that the serekh is of any significance beyond being the design of the device that holds the king's Horus name, and if so, precisely what the significance is. This is the heart of the matter, and it's all a bit murky. Please shine a light on this were others have failed.

Edit: If Dodson is to "low brow", let's have a look at Assmann. He states in Death and Salvation in Ancient Egypt that the false door represents in two dimensions the three zones of the tomb. I'll go into detail if required, but it's really a bit aside from the core issue here. What is pertinent is, like others, the silence of Assmann in mentioning any importance of palace facades or serekhs. What is Assmann's audience to make of this, or are they also lumpen.

Edited December 27, 2020 by Wepwawet

[Thanos5150]

5 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

Aha, so the problem here is an Egyptologist and his presumably lumpen audience. What about Ikram, tarred with the same brush, and what about the silence on what you say is the importance of the palace facade by O'Connor.

You misconstrue my meaning and create a conspiracy of your own making.  

[snip]

Edit: Unbelievable. I wrote this whole thing out and then there is a strike thorough the rest of the post except this line which won't remove. Whatever, I am done. Not typing this out again. 

Edited December 28, 2020 by Thanos5150

[Wepwawet]

7 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

You misconstrue my meaning and create a conspiracy of your own making.  

[snip]

Edit: Unbelievable. I wrote this whole thing out and then there is a strike thorough the rest of the post except this line which won't remove. Whatever, I am done. Not typing this out again. 

Your post was awkwardly constructed and gives the impression that you may not hold Dodson and his readers in the highest regard. If I have misrepresented you, then I apologize.

However, the points I am making about a lack of reference regarding the serekh, palace facade and false door in terms of the importance you give them still stands, and I await you exposition on this. I note that you do not want to put some of your ideas out in the public domain for fear of theft, and I most certainly understand that, as there are some aspects of the Amarna episode that I will not discuss in public again for the same reason. But this is the nature of the internet, and of life, so are we at an impasse because of this issue, and at the moment no progress is being made as you will continue to state that these items are important, without firm evidence, and I will continue to show that whatever this importance is, it does not appear in published works at all levels of the Egyptological spectrum.

[Thanos5150]

7 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

Your post was awkwardly constructed and gives the impression that you may not hold Dodson and his readers in the highest regard. If I have misrepresented you, then I apologize.

If so, not so awkward as to suggest Dodson is "low brow" and his readers are  "lumpen". That's quite a hard left turn compared to what I actually wrote. 

It is curious Dodson does not mention the term "palace facade", even if he wishes to continue using "panelled", as this is the commonly accepted term for it even if another word is preferred, like "niched". It does not mean there is a sinister motive or his ommision to mean therefore it lacks importance. He has his reasons which I do not know what they are. Regardless, it seems a disservice to new or unfamiliar readers who might read other works which most do not use just the term "panelled", if at all, leaving the reader confused or needing to expend unnecessary effort to reconcile the two. For example, something avoided by, which is very common, O'Connor:

"The exterior of each enclosure possessed a repeated series of alternating niches and pilasters, a pattern frequently characterized as a niched or “palace” façade." 

How many times have I explained this very thing in exactly the same terms?  

Or Lehner speaking of the enclosure wall "complex" near Umm El-Qa'ab:

"Such structures, with their niched facades, may be models of the palace enclosure of the living king (the style is often called "palace facade")."  

My interest is the Pre/early Dynastic Period which this language is standard and common knowledge which I should not have to defend or explain repeatedly the least of which by quoting notable sources again and again. Why Dodson et al you cite do not go into detail is not evidence there is no detail to go through as you are trying to assert which should be self evident by now.      

Quote

However, the points I am making about a lack of reference regarding the serekh, palace facade and false door in terms of the importance you give them still stands, and I await you exposition on this.

Which confuses me as the answer has already been given. For example, by Rice who I quoted which sums up the current state best:

Why an architectural form should have had this profound importance to them is quite obscure....It is another of the mysteries attending this obscure time. 

 

You yourself said this did you not:

"Decorative use of the serekh design in burials is not an issue, it's staring us right in the face, yet any religious function apart from the design of the false door seems to be elusive."

To repeat myself:

The false door is commonly portrayed in the palace facade style including at times as a larger vignette as part of the serekh building and are inextricable linked. The false door is thought to be the "threshold between the worlds of the living and the dead" or the like so it stands to reason the serekh building would be a part of this scheme which to enter this door one is effectively entering the serekh building, or "Great House".  

We are all searching for the answers beyond this. And sorry, but you are also mischaracterized the argument here as I am not giving them this importance-  the Dynastic Egyptians have given it by plastered it all over the place in one form or another, most often in a funerary or ritual setting, for thousands of years since the beginnings of Dynastic Egypt. It "is staring s in the face", which regardless of its meaning it is really bewildering to keep belaboring this point. I am just trying to figure out why which of course no one knows for sure otherwise I would quote it here so unless you want opinion there are no statements of "fact" to offer you. I quoted Wilkinson which you can read for opinion on the matter. It is also a common opinion that the palace facade with its crazy quilt of geometric patterns is made to emulate woven reed mat architecture and is a naturalistic homage in stone. I would assume you had read at least that one yourself somewhere. There is also its connection to Mesopotamia of course which can have a myriad of possibilities which given it is part and parcel of the subject I should not have to keep defending and/or explaining it exists. To ask my opinion the answer lies there which just like everyone else have nothing definitive to offer as to what it might be. 

Quote

I note that you do not want to put some of your ideas out in the public domain for fear of theft, and I most certainly understand that, as there are some aspects of the Amarna episode that I will not discuss in public again for the same reason. But this is the nature of the internet, and of life, so are we at an impasse because of this issue, and at the moment no progress is being made as you will continue to state that these items are important, without firm evidence,

And you will continue to state that these items are not important not only without evidence but in direct contradiction to the very evidence you keep claiming is not there yet in the same breath acknowledge it is "staring us in the face".  

I have provided numerous evidence in photos and quotes which are as "firm" as there is available. You seem quite certain there is a definitive answer to be had which I have said several times in one form or another there is not as we do not know for sure. 

Regardless, you know full well by now how important it was to the Dynastic Egyptians regardless of what meaning it may or may not have.  Again, in your own words it is "staring us right in the face". I have provided numerous evidence to this effect including sources, quotes and pictures so to that end I have done my part.  

Quote

...and I will continue to show that whatever this importance is, it does not appear in published works at all levels of the Egyptological spectrum.

Show what exactly? You referenced 4 books, 3 in passing and quoting from one, two by the same author. I have not read them so I cannot fully verify what you or they say though I am sure to ask any of them directly they would obviously note its significance regardless of what their opinions were on its meaning. We know that even though Dodson and his co-author may not use the term "palace facade" they do use the term "panelled" so maybe this will help you.  

And about the bit on my not wanting to present a personal idea in public, it is not an impediment to the progress of this conversation. To quote myself yet again:

Quote

There is a history to it that predates the AE ability to make such buildings. Yes, there is the Mesopotamian connection which explains its appearance in Egypt among other things, and probably even its function in life, but if there is any connection with its meaning within AE religious beliefs in the afterlife I have yet to find a link to what it might be and ultimately, for me, this is where a great mystery lies. And I hate to say it but I believe that boat burials are somehow a part of it. I have some thoughts, but am reluctant to share them here as I am getting a little wary of people stealing from me so I'll just hold on to it and the fact is I have no proof as of yet so its just a thought for now. 

I fail to see how this is not a fair statement. 

[Thanos5150]

On 12/27/2020 at 3:04 AM, Wepwawet said:

Yes, there is this seeming anomaly that the 1st Dynasty tombs of nobles at Abydos are "better" than those of the kings at Sakkara. I'll offer this as a suggestion.

Its actually the other way around. The Saqqara (and elsewhere) serekh tombs are superior and now thought to be for the nobles and the Abydos "inferior" tombs for the king. The 1st Dynasty serekh tombs of Saqqara, Abu Roash, Naqada, and Helwan (others?) also had boat burials which is widely accepted as serving a function in the afterlife.   

Quote

Kings, particularly in death, are not the same as anybody else, in those times only the king was resurrected.

What times? The 1st Dynasty? How do you know this? At Abydos, the enclosure complexes and tombs at Umm El-Qa'ab both had numerous retainer burials as did the serekh tombs at Saqqara (and elsewhere?). Again, boat burials for both noble and king. Both had a plethora of grave goods which ultimately, other than the architectural style and scope of the tombs, there is no fundamental difference between the two to suggest one was different in the afterlife than the other.  

I'll let you reevaluate, but this highlights one of the fallacies of those who focus on NK and impose its culture on the archaic period as if a 1,000+yrs was a day.  Skimming through the rest of your post your logic is based on NK tombs yet what evidence is there any of what is seen applies to this earlier period?  Things changed in the 2nd Dynasty. And Again in the 3rd. And the 4th then again in the 5th and so on. Pyramids and RA. Then we get to the MK with more changes and some 1500yrs after we began we arrive at the NK which is a hell of a lot different than the 1st Dynasty. Waves of ongoing foreign influence like the Canaanites, Hyksos, Hittites, etc. How many gods have come and gone the least of which the arrival of Osiris who did not exist in this earlier time? While yes there are certain iconography that passed through the ages, like the ankh and was scepter for example, but how do we know the meaning in 1300BC was the same in 3100BC? This is not being argumentative its just the fact of the matter. 

 

Edited December 29, 2020 by Thanos5150

[Wepwawet]

8 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

 

I have provided numerous evidence in photos and quotes which are as "firm" as there is available. You seem quite certain there is a definitive answer to be had which I have said several times in one form or another there is not as we do not know for sure

The vast bulk of that post is disingenous. You have not shown any religious purpose for the palace facade design, and, as I pointed out, in some of your examples, the eyes on a coffin residing within the coffin, is wrong. It's also wrong to give the religious functions of the false door to the palace facade design, as the prime aspect of the false door is that it is just a door, which in itself evolves over time.

Where is this religious function for the palace facade design, or even the walls per se of a building that is not a temple.

[Wepwawet]

7 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

 I'll let you reevaluate, but this highlights one of the fallacies of those who focus on NK and impose its culture on the archaic period as if a 1,000+yrs was a day. 

 

I'm sure cladking will give you a like for that one.

I'm not even going to defend what I have written as folk who read this thread will know what I am saying, as do you, but you need to try and trash it for your own purpose. Just say what this important religious function of the palace facade design is and discuss that, instead of coming out with a lot of blather and slide shows that work against you, the coffin and Edfu temple for instance, still think the flagpole channels are the "palace facade" ? And, btw, you don't like me using the NK as an example, yet the Temple of Edfu used by you as an example is of course Ptolomaic.

Edited December 29, 2020 by Wepwawet

[Wepwawet]

9 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

 What times? The 1st Dynasty? How do you know this? At Abydos, the enclosure complexes and tombs at Umm El-Qa'ab both had numerous retainer burials as did the serekh tombs at Saqqara (and elsewhere?). Again, boat burials for both noble and king. Both had a plethora of grave goods which ultimately, other than the architectural style and scope of the tombs, there is no fundamental difference between the two to suggest one was different in the afterlife than the other.  

 

 

For context that was in reply to this statement by me:

Quote

Kings, particularly in death, are not the same as anybody else, in those times only the king was resurrected.

Does this show a man equal to his nobles?, does this show a man at least "first among equals"?, or does this show a divine king towering above and apart from all others. Do you really think that he was regarded in death the same as his nobles and subjects?. Did anybody except the king join with the gods after death?

 

And an article by Assmann on resurrection in Ancient Egypt. For sure with a written account we cannot go back further than the PT, but they did not spring into being with Unas, and on the Narmer Palette, while we do not see Osiris or Ra, but we do see the unified state of Egypt and are therefore deep into the beginnings of the myth. Does not also the serekh look more like a gate than a section of wall the way it is shown here ?

Resurrection in Ancient Egypt

Edited December 29, 2020 by Wepwawet

[Scott Creighton]

Lee: 

This leads us back to the question of what is the serekh building/Great House really? It is elusive. It's not a rhetorical question-I have not found the answer yet.

Might not it be analogous with "House of Windsor", "House of Hanover", "House of Stuart" etc? These Royal 'Houses' are, in fact, not houses in the literal sense but rather royal dynasties. Might not it have been similar in ancient Egypt?

SC

[Wepwawet]

On 12/26/2020 at 4:48 AM, Thanos5150 said:

A History of Ancient Egypt From the First Farmers to the Great Pyramid, Romer:

Though engravings on Uruk seals made centuries before the building of these mud-brick tombs [palace facade mastabas] hold clear images of Mesopotamian temples with serekh-like patternings, it seems unlikely that such tiny images alone would have prompted the introduction of full-blown decorative mud-brick architecture into the Valley of the Nile. It is more likely that the sudden appearance of this powerful and idiosyncratic design was a consequence of the so-called "second wave" of Uruk expansion....
 

Anyhoo, and being a glutton for "punishment", I'm not going to let go of this quite yet, and will add to that quotation from Romer, which can be found starting on page 192. I'll continue with Romer's narrative on page 194, and I quote, with my bold:

Quote

Like the Victorians' appropriation of elements of medieval Venetian architecture to decorate the buildings of nineteenth-century England, the influence of Uruk on the Naqadans was limited to pattern and to style. So, though beautifully bonded brickwork was intrinsic to the form and structure of both Venetian palaces and Uruk temples, the Naqadan bricklayers, like the followers of Ruskin, simply imitated the patterns that the original bondings had produced.

I would think that if Romer saw anything in the palace facade design that was clearly of a religious nature, he would have said so, but he just mentions pattern and style, and in a following paragraph he mentions prestige and power, which I have also mentioned, though using the term "political". So the search for religion in the palace facade design continues.

[Thanos5150]

17 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

Might not it be analogous with "House of Windsor", "House of Hanover", "House of Stuart" etc? These Royal 'Houses' are, in fact, not houses in the literal sense but rather royal dynasties. Might not it have been similar in ancient Egypt?

SC

If so I believe it would be the "House of the Horus" and not any individual Dynasty.