Khasekhemwy- Bridge to the Pyramid Age

[Thanos5150]

The Dynastic Egyptians leading up to Djoser and the beginning of the 3rd Dynasty were prolific producers of fine stoneware with known examples numbering in the tens of thousands. Unparalleled masters of the craft at this point in time, as with carpentry, the sum of the labor required to produce these vessels is estimated to be equivalent to the 4th Dynasty pyramids. While no stone working tools have been found, curiously absent even in the pyramid age, the copper carpentry tools discovered are exemplary- in some instances little different than what one would buy today at a modern hardware store. The stone vessels further show that various drills, lathes, and turning wheels must have been part of the DE tool kit as well. Despite the prolific DE monumental architectural works of the 1st Dynasty, with few examples, notably a few portcullis doors and a tomb floor, they otherwise did not utilize stone in construction until the end of the 2nd Dynasty during the reign of Khasekhemwy.  

His burial tomb at Umm al-Qa’ab (Abydos), for example, is considered the "world's oldest" use of quarried stone construction blocks and he is further credited with restoring and expanding pre-existing mud brick sites, which very likely includes Shunet el-Zebib, including retrofitting some with new stone "hardware" such as granite door jambs and the like. The 5th Dynasty Palermo Stone credits Khasekhemwy with building an as yet to be identified stone building named "Mn-n rt". Also with Khasekhemwy, though smaller in size, we find the identical style of stone statuary as seen from the 3rd Dynasty onward prior to which were made of wood.  

For reasons not quite clear, though I believe it stems from a revolt against the gruesome practice of the decades long practice of ritual murder of hundreds of retainers culminating in the sacking by fire of many of the large serekh palace façade tombs at Saqqara and elsewhere, a story for another time, the end of the 1st Dynasty marked a destabilization of a unified Upper and Lower Egypt which continued with earnest until the end of the 2nd Dynasty and the rule of Khasekhemwy. Not only was he a stabilizing force in Egypt, seemingly reuniting Upper and Lower Egypt once again after perhaps a century or more of civic malaise, but he had also renewed long distance trade with the Levant/Byblos, something that had abruptly disappeared at the end of the 1st Dynasty, which interestingly earned him the title "overseer of foreign lands". Even though the stone working of Khasekhemwy pales in comparison in scope, complexity, and skill to that of his immediate 3rd Dynasty successor Djoser, there is no comparison really, he nonetheless represents at least the impetus for the use of stone for construction which almost certainly dates towards the latter part of his reign  directly coinciding with renewed foreign relations. 

However limited the stone construction ability of Khasekhemwy was compared to Djoser, the seed was planted nonetheless which what was to directly follow, in just mere years, was nothing short of an inexplicable explosion of fully developed stone masonry, regardless of Khasekhemwy. Despite the fact we are told there is no difference in the tools and materials before and after Djoser, nor the ability to work stone, something obviously and abruptly changed dramatically that not only allowed for the instantaneous birth of the stone working construction and quarrying industry, which would also include the necessary logistical, engineering, and architectural principles required to go with it, but also the materials of tooling to allow for such prolific and industrial use of stone of which many question if copper alone is possible.

To get back to what may have been the "stone building" Khasekhemwy is said to have built, the fact is there are no such buildings of this period save what is found supposedly directly after him at Saqqara. As we know the Saqqara pyramid was built in multiple stages, perhaps over pre-existing structures:

Found in the passage system below the the pyramid were some 40,000 stone vessels mostly dating from the 1st and 2nd Dynasties including those of Khasekhemwy. A 2nd Dynasty necropolis was found at south Saqqara including a seal which bears Khasekhemwy's name which implies he was contemporaneous with the necropolis. Regardless, the presence of the 1st and 2nd Dynasties at Saqqara is clear leaving me to wonder if "Mn-n rt", the "stone building" credited to Khasekhemwy, may in fact be the core structure, "M1", of the Saqqara stepped pyramid later converted by Netjerikhet (Djoser) to the stepped pyramid we see today. While it is thought by some M1 was originally a mastaba, this is debated as it is unlike any known mastaba which are rectangular whereas M1 is a square. Just a thought. 

To circle back, as to how the "Saqqara problem" all came about, a work in progress mind you, I propose it was the result of yet another round of foreign influence that filled the vacuum left by the collapse of the 1st Dynasty leading to the 2nd. It is impossible such technology and methods were just magically invented overnight literally from one pharaoh to the next fully developed both technically, logistically, and aesthetically with no sign of precedent. While this is all credited to the "genius" of Djoser's vizier Imhotep, the rub is that nowhere in AE literature is Imhotep credited as the builder or architect of the Step Pyramid nor the genius behind the sudden stone working explosion of the beginning of the 3rd Dynasty. This comes from Manetho some 2500yrs later and has been repeated by Egyptologists so many times it is now a "fact" despite there being no evidence of such. The only contemporary inscription alluding to anything of the sort is found on a statue of Djoser:

It reads:

"The chancellor of the king of Lower Egypt, the first after the king of Upper Egypt, administrator of the great palace, hereditary lord, Greatest of Seers, Imhotep, the builder, the sculptor, the maker of stone vases."

 A lot to unpack here, for another time, but regardless, though he is a "builder" we have no idea what he is a "builder" of and while is "maker of stone vases" and sculptor-why no stone mason?  

At any rate, it had to have come from "somewhere" which there is no evidence it came from Egypt all by itself if at all. This is all well and good, but equally implausible is that the entirety of these tens of thousands of cut and dressed stone blocks, both limestone and granite with some of the latter weighing upwards of 30 tons, were all fabricated using copper tools. As we are told, and to be fair so far what the archeology has discovered as well, is that there is literally no difference whatsoever in the tooling available before and after the construction of Saqqara yet somehow the same old copper tools became magic copper tools and voila-stone working on a massive scale. Real life doesn't work this way with the only solution being that if the tools did not change then the materials the tools were made of must have.

This amazing bowl and ewer set was found by Petrie among hundreds of other precious artifacts in the Umm al Qa'ab 2nd Dynasty tomb of our friend Khasekhemwy:

They are not copper, but bronze.

Bronze artifacts do not appear regularly in Egypt until the late Middle Kingdom, which they were largely imported, though bronze was being manufactured in Mesopotamia for more than 1,000yrs before Khasekhemwy, the "overseer of foreign lands". Making alloys is a skill that requires trial and error to get right or at the very least the right recipe and skilled metallurgists. It seems highly unlikely to me the AE imported tin, or "accidentally mixed ores", just to make these vessels. Given the established contact between Khasekhemwy and regions that made bronze in abundance, i.e. the Levant (Mesopotamia by way of the Levant), it seems to me a forgone conclusion these objects, like many other goods and materials like boatloads of cedar wood from Lebanon, were in fact imported by the DE. Not that they couldn't make them mind you as evidenced by the many amazing copper wares found going back to the beginnings of Dynastic Egypt, but if they could make bronze instead of copper it goes without saying they would have made a hell of a lot more. And out of the hundreds of artifacts found in Khasekhemwy's tomb, including much gold, these were the only bronze objects found and quite amazing ones at that further suggesting a rarity of something imported and not made indigenously. Fit to bury with the king no less.

And if such exquisite bronze objects such as this ewer and bowl set were imported, or brought as the case may be, there is nothing stopping tools from being made/imported as well. I suggest this is what happened and it is the importation of bronze that was at least partly responsible for the sudden transition to monumental stone working at Saqqara. In short, it was possible, in part, because bronze made the job more practical and ultimately achievable in the first place. While these artifacts do not "prove" this was the case, what it does prove and create precedent for is that the DE clearly had access to bronze centuries before the great pyramids were built which common sense, as well as the implication of the evidence itself, suggests they also also utilized it for tool making which was the catalyst, among other things, for the sudden transition to stone. 

Lee Anderson

 

[Thanos5150]

Right....

Khasekhemwy's "oldest use of cut and quarried stone":

Granite door jamb:

Large.

Statue:

 

 

[Wepwawet]

On 11/23/2021 at 12:47 AM, Thanos5150 said:

"The chancellor of the king of Lower Egypt, the first after the king of Upper Egypt, administrator of the great palace, hereditary lord, Greatest of Seers, Imhotep, the builder, the sculptor, the maker of stone vases."

 

 

 

I just want to make an observation on the titles of Imhotep and their implications. That text is all that there is from his times, so has to be taken as the most accurate description of him. He is titled "Greatest of Seers", which means that he is the high priest at Heliopolis, an "astronomer priest" involved in what was surely a change in religious thought that led to the invention of the pyramid. Yet, he is also "builder". I believe that this means he was the architect, and so could be connected to Thoth. Being a sculptor and maker of stone vases makes him a craftsman, and this ties him to Ptah, and after his times he was directly associated with Ptah to the extent of being depicted almost the same way as Ptah. Curiously, I think, if you look up the entry for Imhotep in Wilkinson's gods and goddesses, he is only associated with Ptah. How did Wilkinson miss Imhotep's only known religious rank when he was alive putting him firmly at Heliopolis, not Memphis? Anyhoo, clearly Imhotep was a polymath and a master of various skills looked over by multiple gods, so perhaps it is not surprising that he was deified, a man surpasing the actual gods in knowledge and skill.

So, the Step Pyramid. I'll not go into what tools they used, which is of course an issue, but into why it was built in the first place, and is it entirely Egyptian, or something foreign that has been adapted, namely the ziggurat. I believe that while the Egyptians probably knew of ziggurats, they did not copy them, the Step Pyramid is not a ziggurat, and while there were layered mastabas, they were hardly ziggurats. What we see I think is the native genius of the Egyptians personified by Imhotep working for Djoser. Imhotep as HP at Heliopolis has, presumably with others, worked out a theological need for a king's tomb to be a pyramid shape, and this also sets it apart from the temple that is a ziggurat. Given Imhotep's titles, he was uniquely positioned to work out the theological need for a pyramid, and how the idea can be turned into reality from concept to design to construction.

To me, the pyramid is the result of a new theology that needed an expression in stone, not an existing structure, the ziggurat, needing a theological raison d'être to suit the Egyptians, and this needed the skill sets of three major gods manifest in one man to accomplish. That text with his titles, IMO, states this.

Edited November 24, 2021 by Wepwawet

[Thanos5150]

19 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

I just want to make an observation on the titles of Imhotep and their implications. That text is all that there is from his times, so has to be taken as the most accurate description of him. He is titled "Greatest of Seers", which means that he is the high priest at Heliopolis, an "astronomer priest"

An assumption based on later associations imposed from the late OK, but if so what it would mean is he was the "high priest of RA", a solar cult, not necessarily an "astronomer priest". Which makes sense if the pyramid is supposed to represent the rays of the sun, i.e. RA. And before the 6th Dynasty this title is an administrative one, not priestly.  

The 1st mention of RA is late 2nd Dynasty, I assume the reign of Khasekhemwy, which would be interesting to track down. Who was RA in the 3rd Dynasty namely the lifetime of Imhotep? Where does RA come from? 

Quote

involved in what was surely a change in religious thought that led to the invention of the pyramid.

Did it? The DE were building stepped pyramids in the 1st Dynasty which these at least I believe were directly influenced by their Mesopotamian counterparts.  

Quote

Yet, he is also "builder". I believe that this means he was the architect,

Which is what it would be is a "belief". Again, in all the annals of DE history, his name omitted from history until the NK in which he does not even become a notable figure until the Late Period, Manetho is the first to make the claim he was the architect of the pyramid and inventor of stone architecture. The assertion by Egyptologists this is "fact" we see repeated over and over again is simply not true. We do not know and Manetho (by way of how many later translations? ) said a lot of things.  

Quote

and so could be connected to Thoth. Being a sculptor and maker of stone vases makes him a craftsman, and this ties him to Ptah, and after his times he was directly associated with Ptah to the extent of being depicted almost the same way as Ptah. Curiously, I think, if you look up the entry for Imhotep in Wilkinson's gods and goddesses, he is only associated with Ptah. How did Wilkinson miss Imhotep's only known religious rank when he was alive putting him firmly at Heliopolis, not Memphis? Anyhoo, clearly Imhotep was a polymath and a master of various skills looked over by multiple gods, so perhaps it is not surprising that he was deified, a man surpasing the actual gods in knowledge and skill.

You've out foxed the experts once again....What was this title and relationship to Heliopolis at the beginning of the 3rd Dynasty? Maybe because the nature of the connection to any god at such time with this title is not known which the association with Ptah, granted from 2000+ years later, is actually attested.  And regardless this connection would be to RA. 

Quote

So, the Step Pyramid. I'll not go into what tools they used, which is of course an issue, but into why it was built in the first place, and is it entirely Egyptian, or something foreign that has been adapted, namely the ziggurat. I believe that while the Egyptians probably knew of ziggurats, they did not copy them, the Step Pyramid is not a ziggurat, and while there were layered mastabas, they were hardly ziggurats. What we see I think is the native genius of the Egyptians personified by Imhotep working for Djoser. Imhotep as HP at Heliopolis has, presumably with others, worked out a theological need for a king's tomb to be a pyramid shape, and this also sets it apart from the temple that is a ziggurat. Given Imhotep's titles, he was uniquely positioned to work out the theological need for a pyramid, and how the idea can be turned into reality from concept to design to construction.

To me, the pyramid is the result of a new theology that needed an expression in stone, not an existing structure, the ziggurat, needing a theological raison d'être to suit the Egyptians, and this needed the skill sets of three major gods manifest in one man to accomplish. That text with his titles, IMO, states this.

I appreciate the qualifiers. And its not just about the tools-to quote the OP: 

Quote

Despite the fact we are told there is no difference in the tools and materials before and after Djoser, nor the ability to work stone, something obviously and abruptly changed dramatically that not only allowed for the instantaneous birth of the stone working construction and quarrying industry, which would also include the necessary logistical, engineering, and architectural principles required to go with it, but also the materials of tooling to allow for such prolific and industrial use of stone of which many question if copper alone is possible.

And this isn't just the pyramid but the entire compound including roofed temples. We take for granted how all complex this is which all told, no I do not believe it came the the genius of one man which there is no evidence to support this claim regardless.  

Regardless, the OP does not mention ziggurats or where the impetus for building pyramids came from. Regardless, both the Mesopotamians and Egyptians built these fundamentally similar structures as an earthly connection to the stars-a "stairway to heaven". All things considered, while the way it was built may be unique the the DE (accretion method and later making true pyramids), it beggars belief to think the latter was not inspired by the former.       

[Wepwawet]

4 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

An assumption based on later associations imposed from the late OK, but if so what it would mean is he was the "high priest of RA", a solar cult, not necessarily an "astronomer priest". Which makes sense if the pyramid is supposed to represent the rays of the sun, i.e. RA. And before the 6th Dynasty this title is an administrative one, not priestly.  

The 1st mention of RA is late 2nd Dynasty, I assume the reign of Khasekhemwy, which would be interesting to track down. Who was RA in the 3rd Dynasty namely the lifetime of Imhotep? Where does RA come from? 

Did it? The DE were building stepped pyramids in the 1st Dynasty which these at least I believe were directly influenced by their Mesopotamian counterparts.  

Which is what it would be is a "belief". Again, in all the annals of DE history, his name omitted from history until the NK in which he does not even become a notable figure until the Late Period, Manetho is the first to make the claim he was the architect of the pyramid and inventor of stone architecture. The assertion by Egyptologists this is "fact" we see repeated over and over again is simply not true. We do not know and Manetho (by way of how many later translations? ) said a lot of things.  

You've out foxed the experts once again....What was this title and relationship to Heliopolis at the beginning of the 3rd Dynasty? Maybe because the nature of the connection to any god at such time with this title is not known which the association with Ptah, granted from 2000+ years later, is actually attested.  And regardless this connection would be to RA. 

I appreciate the qualifiers. And its not just about the tools-to quote the OP: 

And this isn't just the pyramid but the entire compound including roofed temples. We take for granted how all complex this is which all told, no I do not believe it came the the genius of one man which there is no evidence to support this claim regardless.  

Regardless, the OP does not mention ziggurats or where the impetus for building pyramids came from. Regardless, both the Mesopotamians and Egyptians built these fundamentally similar structures as an earthly connection to the stars-a "stairway to heaven". All things considered, while the way it was built may be unique the the DE (accretion method and later making true pyramids), it beggars belief to think the latter was not inspired by the former.       

Atum in those times was the prime god at Heliopolis, which is why I did not use the rank "High priest of Ra". Now the rank "Greatest of Seers" is not too clear as to it's origins, but I don't think this is too much of an issue here as no matter how the title in early times is translated, "He who sees the Great One" is an option, it is a Heliopolitan title and does involve observing, and at Heliopolis they observed the Sun and the heavens, which fits into the pyramid and the journey of the king in the afterlife, though of course that journey is not recorded until the first PT and has to be assumed, but it did not appear overnight.

Ra as a god is a manifestation of the Sun, which Atum was not in the first instance, who became the dying/setting Sun. The Sun, Ra, had of course always been there in the sky, and Ra, Re, Pre, Aten, or whatever else, was just the name for the visible Sun. As Atum was not the actual Sun, I presume they needed to create a mythology for how the Sun was born, and so the Ra element of the Heliopolitan creation myth was concocted. They do fit together, even if not perfectly, and also complement the Memphite theology.

Certainly stepped structures existed before Djoser, but I do not see them as pyramids.

Imhotep has the title "builder" extant in his own times as we see on the text you posted, what then do you suppose is meant by "builder". Certainly I am positing my own opinion on this, but it is based on what could be possible. Clearly he was not an actual labourer, which really only leaves him to be the architect, and that profession is within the domain of Thoth, who had been created by the Third Dynasty. Likewise I do not think he actually sculpted stone or made vases, but may have been responsible for their manufacture. Such things are made by craftsmen, and their god is Ptah, who also existed in those times, and the Apis bull is attested from the 1st Dynasty. So where I am coming from here is looking at what Imhotep's titles were, and looking at what they could actually signify when I do not believe he was an actual mason, labourer, sculptor or vase maker. What I have suggested fits with the existance of the relevant gods in his time, and his titles may be a form of shorthand for what he was actually doing, not unknown for the AE. There is a difference to what I am suggesting and what you see as Egyptologist "dogma", and I have not seen any dissection made of his titles in the way I have, though as is the way of these things, I don't doupt that there exist papers that cover this in far more depth than I ever could.

As too "outfoxing the experts", well, if only I could, but the fact is that Imhotep does have the title "Greatest of Seers", which no matter how this is spun, is only linked to Heliopolis, and Wilkinson makes no mention of this title at all and says, and I quote "Although apparently a commoner by birth, he served as a priest of Ptah", and he goes on to state that he became a high priest. I've always taken this at face value, but we come back to this rank of "Greatest of Seers". No matter any doubt about the origins of this title, it was not a title connected to Ptah. I can do no more than look at this title and take it as having the same meaning that we know it did after his times, and, as you say, this does connected him, if not to Ra, at least to Heliopolis, which leads to the theology.

Before the PT we of course are somewhat groping in the dark when it comes to their theology. We know the names of gods and what they were associated with, we also know where their main temples were, and, even with some murkiness at Heliopolis, we do know that there was a High Priest of Hermopolis, a title held by some OK princes. I do see the Step Pyramid as a step change, and while so much information is lost, I do see that a change of emphasis from Horus to Atum has taken place. From step to bent to true pyramid took place very quickly, and I believe without doubt that Djoser was the originator of this, he was king, he had to be, though Imhotep, and others of high rank, in Rome or anywhere else, I believe had serious input. I do not see the Step Pyramid as an evolution of any other structure, the older stepped structures not withstanding, but that is a matter of opinion. It's the Helipolitan connection and, admittedly rather loose connections to other major gods bundled up in this one man that makes me think something bold took place in their thinking, and the later pyramids, then the Fifth Dynasty Sun temples, being evolutions of the Step Pyramid and the theology behind it.

So, while I see your point that the earlier forms informed the later, I, in the absence of any record of what the theology behind these earlier structures was, am taking the line that while they had practice at making a stepped structure, the theological purpose of the Step Pyramid was different and new. I'm not totally sure that a pyramid was a "stairway to heaven" as I see the emphasis of the structure as being from the top down, even while we know from the PT that the king ascends. I say that because at least from the PT we know that it is Atum at the top of the pyramid, and obelisk, looking down and protecting, but who knows exactly what was going through their minds, possibly a mass of what to us would be unreconcilable contradictions.

 

Edited November 25, 2021 by Wepwawet

[Thanos5150]

On 11/25/2021 at 1:36 PM, Wepwawet said:

Imhotep has the title "builder" extant in his own times as we see on the text you posted, what then do you suppose is meant by "builder".

Would you say these statements regarding Imhotep are "fact":

Quote

Of course, Imhotep is most famous as the builder of Djoser's unprecedented step pyramid complex, called the "The Refreshment of the Gods.” Imhotep designed this complex on a scale that surpassed everything achieved by his predecessors....

Imhotep replaced the traditional organic and mudbrick building materials with small blocks of limestone. Because he lacked experience with this innovative material, he used stone blocks close to the same size as the traditional mudbricks. But the stone allowed Imhotep to work toward his goal of designing a true copy of the king's earthly palace as an "eternal" residence in stone.

From Miroslav Bárta/ARCE no less, something you will see repeated in one form or another ad nauseum. 

And this is still said despite the article that begins:

Quote

According to later legends, Imhotep - “he who comes in peace” - invented building in stone around 2600 BCE, at the beginning of the 3rd dynasty. This achievement corresponds with the spread of monumental stone architecture during the reign of Khasekhemwy, last king of the second dynasty and Djoser’s predecessor on the throne – and probably his father. While no break in political development seemed evident between the second and third dynasties, the reign of Djoser marked a new era characterized by an incredible rise in complexity of the Old Kingdom state. 

Almost as if he forgot this part.

Nothing wrong with "believing" Imhotep is responsible for these things, it stands to reason he no doubt was involved in one way or another, but I think it really sucks when these things get repeated as fact when they are not which happens quite a bit. Another thread you make a comment about tricks of the fringe, well, this would be the other shoe. 

Another example is Verner who says a graffito found on the enclosure wall of the Sekhemkhet pyramid complex (not just pyramid mind you) "...indicates that the brilliant architect Imhotep built this pyrmaid as well as Djoser's". 

Uhh, no it doesn't. 

Interestingly, regarding the Djoser inscription with Imhotep's titles he notes:

Quote

Imhotep's extraordinary position in Egyptian society is documented on the statue base of Djoser – now kept in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. That base contains the most important and only known titles of Imhotep: "prince, royal seal-bearer of the king of Lower Egypt, high priest of Heliopolis, director of sculptors." 

Curiously the "builder" title is missing from an article largely about Imhotep being the builder. 

Another:

Quote

"chancellor of the king of lower Egypt", the "first one under the king", the "administrator of the great mansion", the "hereditary Noble", the "high priest of Heliopolis", the "chief sculptor", and finally the "chief carpenter".

No mention of "builder". 

Nor here: Imhotep: A Sage between Fiction and Reality.. Though Escolano-Poveda alludes to a title "related to building" does not actually include "builder" in the list of titles. 

According to Romer though, my original source, the title "builder" is included.  

Here it is included as well:

Quote

For example, a statue of king Djoser was found at Saqqara with an inscription, exceptionally, naming Imhotep and a list of his epithets, such as ‘the builder, sculptor and maker of stone vases’, the ‘overseer of masons and painters’, ‘royal chancellor’, ‘ruler of the great mansion’ and the ‘greatest of seers’. 

So which is it really? 

As an aside, the beautiful top of the base this inscription is found:

 

[Wepwawet]

18 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

Would you say these statements regarding Imhotep are "fact":

 

 

It's all a matter of interpretation, and these differ between Egyptologists. I'm going to quote the German wiki on Imhotep, and that's because the German entries on the AE are usually of a higher standard than those of other countries, and have more information. What I will quote will go against what I have written in one aspect, but re-enforce another. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imhotep

This is the anaylsis of the inscription on the statue of Djoser. This is not a verbatim translation on my part, but any differences are for clarity in various areas.

Sedjauti-biti  Seal Keeper of the King of Lower Egypt. Originally a title for the supply manager for the royal palace, and by the time of Imhotep had become a title used by a prince. This indicates that Imhotep was not a commoner, but a royal prince.

Cheri-tep-nesu  Who is under the head of the King of Upper Egypt. A high rank of unclear function.

Iri-pat Hereditary Prince in English usage, but in German can be rendered as Crown Prince. The wiki cannot agree with itself on proper translation, and suggests that it's use for Imhotep was essentially a one off honorific used for Djoser's Sed. The title used in English to denote the crown prince is "King's First Son"

Heqa-hut-aa No direct translation of this is given. Basically it means that you receive the revenues generated by certain goods while not actively involved in the trade, you just sit back and take the cash, like a tax.

Maa-wer Greatest of Seers It is suggested in the wiki that while in later times this was certainly the title of the High Priest at Heliopolis, in the time of Imhotep it meant, and I'll quote directly, with my bold,  "Supreme leader of construction works and expeditions"

Medjh-nechen Head of the Shipyard

The last two titles are unclear, and it is suggested that they refer to the sculptor of the statue. I personally don't see this as it was not usually their practice to name craftsmen, and not in such a prominent position on the statue of a king with text about a man of far more importance, Imhotep, than a sculptor.

Medjh-qesti Head of the Sculptors

Missing hieroglyphs speculated to say Manufacturer of Vessels

So, while the word "builder", at least in clear terms and as a stand alone title is missing, thus going against the idea that Imhotep was THE builder, we have this interpretation of "Greatest of Seers" that has him as "Supreme leader of construction works and expeditions". Now that's very interesting is it not, and, if a correct reading of the meaning of the title, does put Imhotep into the frame for at least potentially being THE builder. My observations on this are that just as I believe it unlikely, though not impossible, that the name of a craftsman, even if of the highest rank, would appear on the statue of a king, I do not believe that the name of the builder of a king's tomb, no matter how high their rank, would ever be given, and despite in later times there being a huge amount of information in kings' tombs and on temple walls, the name of the builder is never given. We have the Temple of Seti I at Abydos, but who designed and built it, nobody knows. The actual workmen may mention in their own tombs what they have done, but the tomb or temple they built is not theirs, it is the king's alone, and I think that lack of a direct reference to Imhotep building the Step Pyramid should not be seen as a bar to him being the builder. This issue goes beyond Imhotep of course, and there is a similar situation with Hemiunu being described as the "Architect of the Great Pyramid", and cast iron evidence for this is...... But, the balls are all laying on the floor for anybody to pick them up and juggle them as they please.

Another observation is that if this interpretaion of Greatest of Seers is correct, then Imhotep was carrying out the functions later given to the lector priests, and there is documention of them commanding expeditions. It is known that the functions of the lector priest have their origins with princes, and that was the case in Imhotep's time. I still think though that in Imhotep's time there was a connection between this title and Heliopolis, the lack of clarity being that we are in the early part of a religious "revolution" moving away from Horus and to Atum-Ra as prime god. And finally, what could be called the elephant in the room, why was Imhotep deified, what reason can be put forward that has supporting evidence greater than the, addmittedly circumstantial, evidence that he was the builder of the Step Pyramid. What else occured in his life to warrant deification other than making something up. Parsimony needs using here.

 

 

Edited November 28, 2021 by Wepwawet

[atalante]

4 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

....And finally, what could be called the elephant in the room, why was Imhotep deified, what reason can be put forward that has supporting evidence greater than the, addmittedly circumstantial, evidence that he was the builder of the Step Pyramid. What else occured in his life to warrant deification other than making something up. Parsimony needs using here.

In the late period, Herodotus was told that, in effect, most of the Egyptian pharaohs did not do anything worth remembering - but Herodotus was also told that the priesthoods had been hereditary, passing from father to son, during all of Egyptian history.  So the late era Theban priesthoods are likely to be ones who deified Imhotep, and fabricated a genealogical linkage back to Imhotep.  

 

https://www.academia.edu/475684/Herodotus_and_an_Egyptian_Mirage_The_Genealogies_of_the_Theban_Priests

quoting from pages 78-79

The drama of Herodotus' meeting with the Theban priests involves more than the Ionian's %pa at the expanses of Egyptian chronology - for it is the priests who are described as the agents in this encounter. Herodotus says they 'did to Hecataeus what they did to me', when they led him into the great hall of statues.46 These genealogies were, in fact, part of a priestly self-representation particular to late Egyptian culture and continuing through the Persian period in which Herodotus made his enquiries." Hereditary succession in the priesthood became well established relatively late in Egyptian history, in the Third Intermediate Period, and extended genealogies on non-royal stelae and statue inscriptions became common only at this time.  At Thebes, in particular, the departure of the pharaonic household from its New Kingdom capital in the 20th Dynasty meant the diminished importance of royal patronage for securing and maintaining rank and office. Thus,

 

tenure of priestly office probably came to depend more on tradition and inheritance.48 With the rise to power of Soshenq I, inaugurating the 22nd Dynasty, there began a period of Libyan influence in the rule of Egypt. The importance of the segmentary lineage system in the Libyan chiefdoms influenced the Libyan dynasts' appointments to various offices, including the priesthoods. Since the traditional sources of wealth and social prestige for families of Egyptian descent were threatened by appointments based on Libyan hereditary kinship, lengthy and detailed genealogies became a means for elite Egyptian families to reassert their claims to positions in the priesthoods.49 This emphasis on the hereditary principle in appointments to the priesthoods eventually led to the system of inheritance observed by Herodotus at 2.37.5. The cultural practice that lies behind Herodotus' account of the 345 generations of Theban priests is, therefore, conditioned by particular historical circumstances, and is one element in changing relations with the past that the Egyptians themselves experienced in the later periods of their history.

[Wepwawet]

1 hour ago, atalante said:

In the late period, Herodotus was told that, in effect, most of the Egyptian pharaohs did not do anything worth remembering - but Herodotus was also told that the priesthoods had been hereditary, passing from father to son, during all of Egyptian history.  So the late era Theban priesthoods are likely to be ones who deified Imhotep, and fabricated a genealogical linkage back to Imhotep. 

 

Putting Herodotus aside, it does not really matter that all the things attributed to Imhotep came after his death, or that no evidence of his deification appears until the Saite Period, we need to ask why this legend grew around him. He is not an invention of the Late Period and is referenced all through Eygyptian history after his death in a way that no other man not a king is. Using references from the Late Period to say that his myth is not so old is an error. An example is the Shabaka Stone on which the only known written account of the Memphite Theology is written. This dates to the reign of Shabaka in the 25th Dynasty, and therefore it has been assumed by far too many people who should know better, that the Memphite Theology was invented probably no earlier than the New Kingdom, with some suggesting it may be from the Middle Kingdom. However, Ptah dates from the First Dynasty, and it is beyond the bounds of reason that his creation myth was not invented until up to a thousand years or more later. We know Imhotep existed, we know that many legends attached to him, some, if not all of which, he cannot possibly have been responsible for, but there still remains the fact that he was seen as a man to hang these legends on, and, at some point, deify, why.

We sometimes think we know more than we do, and it was long thought that a minor god, whose name eludes me right now, never had a temple or priesthood as this god was so minor and obscure that only one reference to it had ever been found, and that was one inscription on the walls at Karnak. However, about two years ago during excavations at Saqqara, the mummies of two priests of this god were found, and if you have priests, then there was a temple at some point as they did not have "wandering homeless priests". It's true that you can say that no record of Imhotep's deification apeears until the Saite Period, but the door cannot be slamed shut on any possibility that he had been deified centuries, or even millenia earlier.

The formalization of a hereditary priesthood dates back to the 19th Dynasty, perhaps part of the repercussions of the Amarna period, when "new men" were installed as HP in the major temples, not just of Amun at Thebes, and some of these new HP made sure that these positions remained in the family. Technically, there was no profession of priest as there were no priests except for the king, and anybody could be what we call, for convenience, a priest. When these "management" positions became hereditary, and it devolved down to lower ranks of priest, it was a form of corruption and helped bring down the New Kingdom. In later times they may have wished to associate themselves with Imhotep, but the why they would do this needs to be asked.

So, no matter at what point we have a reference for Imhotep, and no matter what the reference is, why do we have a reference to him at all, because he did "nothing", or because he did something, and even if only one thing and not the miriad of things associated with him, surely it must have been something of profound importance. What do we have from his lifetime that is remarkable ?

Edited November 28, 2021 by Wepwawet

[Thanos5150]

13 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

It's all a matter of interpretation, and these differ between Egyptologists.

Since when does "interpretation" = "fact"? Part of the problem wouldn't you say? We are entitled to our own opinions but not our own facts which the repeating of the former does not substitute the absence of the latter. 

Quote

 

I'm going to quote the German wiki on Imhotep, and that's because the German entries on the AE are usually of a higher standard than those of other countries, and have more information. What I will quote will go against what I have written in one aspect, but re-enforce another. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imhotep

This is the anaylsis of the inscription on the statue of Djoser. This is not a verbatim translation on my part, but any differences are for clarity in various areas.

Sedjauti-biti  Seal Keeper of the King of Lower Egypt. Originally a title for the supply manager for the royal palace, and by the time of Imhotep had become a title used by a prince. This indicates that Imhotep was not a commoner, but a royal prince.

Cheri-tep-nesu  Who is under the head of the King of Upper Egypt. A high rank of unclear function.

Iri-pat Hereditary Prince in English usage, but in German can be rendered as Crown Prince. The wiki cannot agree with itself on proper translation, and suggests that it's use for Imhotep was essentially a one off honorific used for Djoser's Sed. The title used in English to denote the crown prince is "King's First Son"

Heqa-hut-aa No direct translation of this is given. Basically it means that you receive the revenues generated by certain goods while not actively involved in the trade, you just sit back and take the cash, like a tax.

Maa-wer Greatest of Seers It is suggested in the wiki that while in later times this was certainly the title of the High Priest at Heliopolis, in the time of Imhotep it meant, and I'll quote directly, with my bold,  "Supreme leader of construction works and expeditions"

Medjh-nechen Head of the Shipyard

The last two titles are unclear, and it is suggested that they refer to the sculptor of the statue. I personally don't see this as it was not usually their practice to name craftsmen, and not in such a prominent position on the statue of a king with text about a man of far more importance, Imhotep, than a sculptor.

Medjh-qesti Head of the Sculptors

Missing hieroglyphs speculated to say Manufacturer of Vessels

 

Thank you for this. 

Quote

Maa-wer Greatest of Seers It is suggested in the wiki that while in later times this was certainly the title of the High Priest at Heliopolis, in the time of Imhotep it meant, and I'll quote directly, with my bold,  "Supreme leader of construction works and expeditions"

This is not what Google translate says: 

Quote

Maa-who (German: Who looks at the great ) is a title that in later times referred to a high priest of Heliopolis , but in the period of the early Old Kingdom, the use of this title by other people suggests that it is not about a high priesthood, but rather an expedition and construction manager. ^[9]

The source p257.

This is not what it "meant", a "fact", it is what Helk [or whoever he is parroting] is imposing on it from his interpretation. So this title is used by others in the "early OK" [who? when?], which as far as we know may just as easily be the reign of Sneferu, "suggests", for what that is worth as we have not seen the primary source, it may be something related to being an "expedition and construction manager" [during whenever this title is found which may be a century later for all we know].  Construction manager and expedition manager? Do otherwise such disparate titles make sense in conjunction if one is not related to the other? And "supreme leader of construction works" means what? That he is the inventor of the pyramid and industrial strength stone working and quarrying? It tells us nothing either which way.  

Quote

So, while the word "builder", at least in clear terms and as a stand alone title is missing, thus going against the idea that Imhotep was THE builder, we have this interpretation of "Greatest of Seers" that has him as "Supreme leader of construction works and expeditions". Now that's very interesting is it not, and, if a correct reading of the meaning of the title, does put Imhotep into the frame for at least potentially being THE builder.

A glaring omission given the fundamentally transformative effect of pyramid building and the ideology behind it that would have dominated the entire Egyptian state. Not to mention it seems highly unlikely this credit would have gone to a subordinate of the pharaoh and not the pharaoh himself.  

Theoretically, if all true, then he has at least entered the building but we are still no closer to the assertion of "fact" as it is otherwise presented.  

Edited November 28, 2021 by Thanos5150

[Thanos5150]

6 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

Putting Herodotus aside, it does not really matter that all the things attributed to Imhotep came after his death, or that no evidence of his deification appears until the Saite Period, we need to ask why this legend grew around him. He is not an invention of the Late Period and is referenced all through Eygyptian history after his death in a way that no other man not a king is.

This is not true. Other than the statue inscription and this nebulous graffiti in Sechemchet's pyramid, which his name is included in a series of mason's marks for some reason, he is not mentioned again until the MK nearly a millennia later. And this is accepting that the works found in the NK claiming they were copies from MK originals is accurate. If Imhotep were the figure later traditions claim him to be it makes little sense he would have been otherwise omitted from the very pyramid age itself not to be found again until the MK at best.  

[Wepwawet]

8 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

Since when does "interpretation" = "fact"? Part of the problem wouldn't you say? We are entitled to our own opinions but not our own facts which the repeating of the former does not substitute the absence of the latter. 

 

Where did I write that "interpretation = facts"

[Wepwawet]

7 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

This is not true. Other than the statue inscription and this nebulous graffiti in Sechemchet's pyramid, which his name is included in a series of mason's marks for some reason, he is not mentioned again until the MK nearly a millennia later. And this is accepting that the works found in the NK claiming they were copies from MK originals is accurate. If Imhotep were the figure later traditions claim him to be it makes little sense he would have been otherwise omitted from the very pyramid age itself not to be found again until the MK at best.  

The reason I mentioned the Shabaka Stone is because at face value it indicates that the Memphite Theology was not created until the 25th Dynasty, or when the "worm eaten papyrus" that Shabaka said that he found had been made. Whatever the case, all we have as actual evidence for the Memphite Theolology is that stone, but do you think that while Ptah is attested from the 1st Dynasty, his creation myth did not exist until 25 dynasties later. Likewise, while the bulk of references to Imhotep are from the Saite Period, we know that he did live during the reign of Djoser, so, again, the question needs to be asked as to why he was chosen to have all these attributes, and why he was deified. They must have had good reason, they must have had access to records long lost to us.

[Wepwawet]

9 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

This is not what Google translate says: 

 

From the German wiki

Oberster Leiter von Bauarbeiten und Expeditionen

I'm sure folks are familiar with the root of the first word oberst, the military rank of full colonel when the "O" is capitalized. The word with a lower case "o", except when it starts a sentence, which it does in this specific case, means highest/supreme, take your pick.

Leiter von Bauarbeiten und Expeditionen cannot be translated in anyway other than Leader Of Construction and Expeditions

I'm not sure why you are quibling over this at all as it is clear cut in translation

As to interpretation, then that is precisely that, an interpreation, which will differ from person to person. I did not use the word "fact" at all, yet you are trying to make it seem as if I had posted some dogmatic "fact" when I deliberately left it all open ended, hence my phrase "But, the balls are all laying on the floor for anybody to pick them up and juggle them as they please" I really don't see your objection to this.

As for your not seeing that one man could have disparate jobs, this is why I mentioned the lector priests, who originate with the princes  sometime before we see them as a priestly rank in the PT. Lectors were, librarians, doctors, magicians, teachers, officiators at funerals and temple ritual, and led expiditions to find new quarries. Why do you think that Imhotep could not carry out some of these functions, multi-tasking was something that high up Egyptians did, notably with high army rank being held at the same time as high priestly rank. Again, what is your objection to a post that simply points this out.

 

I posed the question multiple times, and have yet to get an answer, so again, why would Imhotep have had all these attributes given to him, and why was he made a god, what is there from his lifetime that could be associated with him, what is the only known thing from his lifetime that sticks out.

Edited November 29, 2021 by Wepwawet

[Wepwawet]

9 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

A glaring omission given the fundamentally transformative effect of pyramid building and the ideology behind it that would have dominated the entire Egyptian state. Not to mention it seems highly unlikely this credit would have gone to a subordinate of the pharaoh and not the pharaoh himself.  

Theoretically, if all true, then he has at least entered the building but we are still no closer to the assertion of "fact" as it is otherwise presented.  

Of course credit for anything wonderfull is given to the king, and I did point this out. So when we see Imhotep mentioned on the statue of a king we need to consider what he did to gain this unique honour. And that this is such an honour leads me to think that the titles of sculptor and vessel maker also belong to Imhotep, and not a craftsman, and there is no other name associated with these titles, they just follow on from Imhotep's titles. Parsimony.

I'll note, in case it gets lost among all of this, that nowhere is Imhotep mentioned directly as the builder, because, as we have both stated, credit goes to the king, but in just this one man in all their history we have something different, we have his name with some intruiging titles on a statue of the king, and we have this man associated with all manner of "miracles" at a later date, including deification. Again, why.

[Thanos5150]

8 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

Where did I write that "interpretation = facts"

So you would agree then those are not facts. 

[Wepwawet]

1 hour ago, Thanos5150 said:

So you would agree then those are not facts. 

What, exactly, are these facts, or "facts" that you wish me to agree are not facts, and I'll point out again that I never stated that anything was a fact, or that "interpretation = facts", raher a woo or religious thing to do..

Let's look at what facts we do have. There was a 3rd Dynasty king named Djoser who had an official named Imhotep. A statue of the king had the name of Imhotep and his titles inscribed on it, a unique honour. The name of Imhotep is found at the unfinished pyramid of Sekhemkhet. That's it as far as his name goes.

Though his name is missing, the titles held by Imhotep appear on seal impression found in chamber B of the Step Pyramid, and this pyramid is the one outstanding feature from his times.

Everything else is, to us, mythical, and appears from the Middle Kingdom onwards, culminating, on the evidence surviving, in his deification during the Saite Period and a known cult of Imhotep.

I'll ask these questions again, for about the sixth time. Why was Imhotep uniquely honoured by having his name and titles inscribed on a statue of his king. Why was Imhotep remembered as an outstanding man, even if it was all made up, for millenia after his death, culminating in him becoming a god. I cannot answer them, nobody can answer them because we just don't know. Enter parsimony. What is the only known event from his lifetime that could have caused him to be honoured by his king, and in later times venerated and eventually deified. The answer to that is of course the Step Pyramid. This is not to say that Imhotep was the architect, but what else could he have been doing during Djoser's reign to be so honoured and venerated. Do we see anything else except the Step Pyramid, no, so with zero evidence contra, what answer is the most likely, that he was deeply involved with the Step Pyramid, or he did other unknown stuff, anything except the Step Pyramid.

 

 

[Thanos5150]

23 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

What is the only known event from his lifetime that could have caused him to be honoured by his king, and in later times venerated and eventually deified. The answer to that is of course the Step Pyramid. This is not to say that Imhotep was the architect, but what else could he have been doing during Djoser's reign to be so honoured and venerated.

To quote the OP again:

"While this is all credited to the "genius" of Djoser's vizier Imhotep, the rub is that nowhere in AE literature is Imhotep credited as the builder or architect of the Step Pyramid nor the genius behind the sudden stone working explosion of the beginning of the 3rd Dynasty. This comes from Manetho some 2500yrs later and has been repeated by Egyptologists so many times it is now a "fact" despite there being no evidence of such."

Despite all of this much later honoring, deifying, and venerating of Imhotep some 1,000+ years after the fact none of it has to do with him being a builder, architect, stone working inventor, or being related to the pyramid in any way. Again, the DE do not make these claims, only Manetho does which again, as you know, Manetho says a lot of things. 

Quote

Do we see anything else except the Step Pyramid, no, so with zero evidence contra, what answer is the most likely, that he was deeply involved with the Step Pyramid, or he did other unknown stuff, anything except the Step Pyramid.

The Egyptians themselves made no connection between Imhotep and the step pyramid and Imhotep himself was an otherwise unknown figure for 1,000+ yrs which initially his claim to fame and most enduring is that of an author of wisdom texts and a physician which curiously neither are among any of his contemporary titles and have nothing to do with architecture or construction. Even texts contemporary to Manetho, like the Oxyrhynchus Papyri, do not refer to him as such but rather as namely a great physician. What could have caused the Egyptians to get it so wrong? But we are just going to say he was the great builder of pyramids anyways? I think this could get even worse. I would be curious to know what later texts, if any, associate Dr Imhotep directly with Djoser or at the very least a period before the kings of the 4th Dynasty.   

 

  

[Wepwawet]

2 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

I would be curious to know what later texts, if any, associate Dr Imhotep directly with Djoser or at the very least a period before the kings of the 4th Dynasty.   

 

  

Unlike most aspects of this saga, this question is easy to answer as Djoser and Imhotep are both named on the Famine Stela https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_Stela This is thought to be Ptolemaic, and recounts how Imhotep interceded with Khnum on behalf of Djoser to end a seven year drought. It's fictional propaganda, but it does tie Imhotep and Djoser together.

This though is similar to the Shabaka Stone, where we have a late reference, but precious little before, yet just as it is entirely unrealistic to suppose that the Memphite Theology was created 25 dynasties after the first known references to Ptah, I think it unrealistic to think that there is nothing behind the stories about Imhotep. There he is named on the base of a statue of Djoser, and at the pyramid of Sekhemkhet, which puts him in the same time period as Djoser.

I'll point out again, and as you know,  that as far as the AE were concerned, all these royal monuments were created by and for the king, yet it is inconcievable that all these kings had the necessary skills, and imagination, to create everything. The mention of Imhotep and his titles on the statue base is, I think, the closest we have ever come to knowing the blindingly obvious that men other than the king were involved in creating these monuments, and Imhotep's inclusion on a statue of his king shouts out that while not a direct reference in the style we would like, to an AE the implication was obvious.

I think that if the Step Pyramid were just an overgrown tomb of the type previously used, then Imhotep would never have been mentioned. However, while the entire complex is an evolution of previous royal burials, and I'm sure the Step Pyramid carried over the functions of the primal mound, also found within the structure of previous tombs, and has been recently discovered under the remains of Heliopolis, we do in fact have something that has radically new elements. These elements, other than the shape, are seen with their religious belief though, hence this never ending tsunami of rubbish swamping all pyramids because the instigators of this rubbish mostly know nothing about AE religion, or have no care for it, and we all know the far to numerous guilty parties.

 

Edited November 30, 2021 by Wepwawet

[Thanos5150]

2 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

Unlike most aspects of this saga, this question is easy to answer as Djoser and Imhotep are both named on the Famine Stela https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_Stela This is thought to be Ptolemaic, and recounts how Imhotep interceded with Khnum on behalf of Djoser to end a seven year drought. It's fictional propaganda, but it does tie Imhotep and Djoser together.

Drrt. Yeah, forgot about the Famine Stele. Which also tells us it was Khufu who came upon the Sphinx already buried in sand. 

Quote

This though is similar to the Shabaka Stone, where we have a late reference, but precious little before, yet just as it is entirely unrealistic to suppose that the Memphite Theology was created 25 dynasties after the first known references to Ptah, I think it unrealistic to think that there is nothing behind the stories about Imhotep. There he is named on the base of a statue of Djoser, and at the pyramid of Sekhemkhet, which puts him in the same time period as Djoser.

What stories? That he was a great physician? Author? Where are the ones about him being an architect, construction manger, builder, or the like? Again, the only person saying this is Manetho. How many have I said this? His name on a statue of a king does not change this.

You keep saying this yet, again, where are the 1st references to Ptah? What is the context? Or how about 3rd Dynasty? What was Ptah in Imhotep's time? What evidence is there that relates that Ptah to this much later Memphite Theology throughout the intervening years to support the idea that it did exist before? It stands to reason it did in some form or another but how do you get this back another 2,000yrs or more? The Ptah then may have been unrecognizable to those that came later. This all reminds me of Osiris as regardless of how important he became later, no matter how some want it to be otherwise, there is a time archeologically that he did not exist. This notion of what is has always been when it comes to Egyptian religion so therefore its ok to impose later ideology on periods millennia before is foolish. More time has passed between 1st Dynasty and the 25th than the "birth" of Jesus to today yet for some reason only Egyptian religion remained the same?  

 

[Thanos5150]

3 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

I think that if the Step Pyramid were just an overgrown tomb of the type previously used, then Imhotep would never have been mentioned.

Mentioned by who-Manetho? 

Quote

However, while the entire complex is an evolution of previous royal burials, and I'm sure the Step Pyramid carried over the functions of the primal mound, also found within the structure of previous tombs, and has been recently discovered under the remains of Heliopolis, we do in fact have something that has radically new elements. These elements, other than the shape, are seen with their religious belief though, hence this never ending tsunami of rubbish swamping all pyramids because the instigators of this rubbish mostly know nothing about AE religion, or have no care for it, and we all know the far to numerous guilty parties.

Not sure I am following you.  

This thread is about the abrupt change in stone working ability and all that entails from one pharaoh to the next that is not explained in the archeological record. Or by religion. What is baffling to me is that you'd think this would be a subject of interest to students of history, a real "mystery" as it were, and yet other than you and one other in response to you there has been no participation here and even then it has not actually been about the point of the OP. Par for the course. Yet in the meantime, since this thread was started, several pages of the same BS has continued in the Atlantis thread by the same participants saying the same things over and over again. 43 f-ing pages and counting and this is just one of these moronic Atlantis threads that have come and gone since I have been here. How do we explain this? 

[jmccr8]

1 hour ago, Thanos5150 said:

Mentioned by who-Manetho? 

Not sure I am following you.  

This thread is about the abrupt change in stone working ability and all that entails from one pharaoh to the next that is not explained in the archeological record. Or by religion. What is baffling to me is that you'd think this would be a subject of interest to students of history, a real "mystery" as it were, and yet other than you and one other in response to you there has been no participation here and even then it has not actually been about the point of the OP. Par for the course. Yet in the meantime, since this thread was started, several pages of the same BS has continued in the Atlantis thread by the same participants saying the same things over and over again. 43 f-ing pages and counting and this is just one of these moronic Atlantis threads that have come and gone since I have been here. How do we explain this? 

Hi Thanos

No matter what you think, as an observer of the interactions of your comments and Wepawets informed rebuttals I have had a learning experience, thanks.

Atlantis and several other subjects of fantasy always come back no matter what and depending on how one responds it can still be fun. We have had years of experience with many of the wooisms that come along and one has to try to keep in mind that some of them are just starting out and do not have much information in the practical sense. Yes we do have more experienced professors of woo that keep preaching their bias and they are relentlessly confronted by those less wooful, it doesn't have to be irritating  and really can be quite a bit of fun if one has a sense of humor.

I grew up in a world where if there wasn't boobs, booze or wheels involved and lots of sarcastic humor nobody knew what you were on about when talking about the subjects I lately in life discovered. I worked designed and built things all of my life and it was busy then I got older and moved to another city and found that I had time to look into different subjects and explore.

[Wepwawet]

10 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

Drrt. Yeah, forgot about the Famine Stele. Which also tells us it was Khufu who came upon the Sphinx already buried in sand. 

What stories? That he was a great physician? Author? Where are the ones about him being an architect, construction manger, builder, or the like? Again, the only person saying this is Manetho. How many have I said this? His name on a statue of a king does not change this.

You keep saying this yet, again, where are the 1st references to Ptah? What is the context? Or how about 3rd Dynasty? What was Ptah in Imhotep's time? What evidence is there that relates that Ptah to this much later Memphite Theology throughout the intervening years to support the idea that it did exist before? It stands to reason it did in some form or another but how do you get this back another 2,000yrs or more? The Ptah then may have been unrecognizable to those that came later. This all reminds me of Osiris as regardless of how important he became later, no matter how some want it to be otherwise, there is a time archeologically that he did not exist. This notion of what is has always been when it comes to Egyptian religion so therefore its ok to impose later ideology on periods millennia before is foolish. More time has passed between 1st Dynasty and the 25th than the "birth" of Jesus to today yet for some reason only Egyptian religion remained the same?  

 

Regarding Ptah I'll quote from page 123 of Wilkinson's The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt

Quote

Ptah appears to be one of the oldest of Egypt's gods and attested representationally from the 1st Dynasty onward

As for stories about Imhotep, it matters not what the content is, what does matter though is why there are stories about him at all, why is he unique in this regard. There is still the fact that he is mentioned on a statue of his king, a unique honour, and millenia later is still closely associated with Djoser on the Famine Stela. On the stela, and not noted on the wiki or any other reference that I have read, we have the extraordinary occurence of a man not the king interceding with a god. Only the king can do this, it is a fundamental aspect of their religion that lasted for millenia. So what did Imhotep do to be associated with Djoser in such a unique manner. You clearly want nothing less than an inscription stating that Imhotep was the architect of the Step Pyramid, yet, as stated before, it was not their practice to give any credit to anybody except the king, so we should not expect to find such an inscription. So it comes back to, yet again, to the question of what on earth did Imhotep do to get on a stautue of his king, and to be associated with him to such an extent that, on the Famine Stela, he is carrying out a function that only a king should have done. If he were not the architect of the Step Pyramid, what then do you think he did to be so honoured.

[Wepwawet]

9 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

This thread is about the abrupt change in stone working ability and all that entails from one pharaoh to the next that is not explained in the archeological record. Or by religion. What is baffling to me is that you'd think this would be a subject of interest to students of history, a real "mystery" as it were, and yet other than you and one other in response to you there has been no participation here and even then it has not actually been about the point of the OP. Par for the course. Yet in the meantime, since this thread was started, several pages of the same BS has continued in the Atlantis thread by the same participants saying the same things over and over again. 43 f-ing pages and counting and this is just one of these moronic Atlantis threads that have come and gone since I have been here. How do we explain this? 

Well it's intereresting that you mention this abrupt change that cannot be explained in the archeological record, and I readlily accept that something occured to cause this change, a step change as it were. I understand the OP, because a change in building materials and the issue of tools is important and worthy of discussion, but what is being built and why is just as important, in fact more so, therefore I cannot accept your position that religion cannot explain this change. To me, religion is the overiding impulse for this change, and the precise nature of this change in religion, and who originated this change, is the real mystery.

The placing of one block of stone on top of another to create a monument for a king is entirely a matter of religious belief, so when the design and construction of a royal tomb occurs, it must signify a change in belief, and the Step Pyramid must signify a major change in beliefs concerning the nature of the king and what happens to him after death. The pyramid is a solar symbol with the primal mound as it's foundation, and it is noted that the shape of the Step Pyramid is the same as the hieroglyph for mound, and this was a major element to royal tombs before the Step Pyramid.

While Horus was always the "god of kingship", there is a change in emphasis to Atum and Ra, culminating in the king being the Son of Ra. Now while this is not attested until after Djoser, the solar symbolism of the pyramid is a step towards this. The falcon was on the primal mound, but now the mound has become a pyramid, it is Atum sitting on the top of the pyramid, and may be the entire pyramid, and this could be what is meant by the PT stating that the king is the Pyramid, as he is now joined with Atum. But I'm not going to go further into what a pyramid is, or could be, as the point I want to make is that moving from mastaba, no matter how fancy, to pyramid, no matter it initially does not have smooth sides, shows a fundamental shift in religious belief, and perhaps in more modern terms, the political rise of Heliopolis. Whose was the mind behind this, why the king's of course, it cannot be otherwise in their conventions, but oh dear, there's that statue of the king with Imhotep's name and titles inscribed on it, what could it mean, I wonder.

[Wepwawet]

4 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

Regarding Ptah I'll quote from page 123 of Wilkinson's The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt

Quote

Ptah appears to be one of the oldest of Egypt's gods and attested representationally from the 1st Dynasty onward

 

To be precise, a calcite vase was found in tomb 231, dated to the 1st Dynasty, at Tarkhan by Petrie. The vase has the image of Ptah. Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, inventory number 1912.574

Edited December 1, 2021 by Wepwawet