Why "osiris" Didn't Exist Before The 5th Dynasty.

[Kenemet]

3 hours ago, cladking said:

Thankyou.  Your links shows I was wrong about at least one thing and possibly others.  I'll have more time to research it later;  But this does support my theory;

"Furthermore, the multivariate analyses showed that the cytoarchitecture of the human brain differs considerably from that of the non-human primates, particularly the gibbon and macaque brains."

We really don't know if any of this applies to ancient people. I wager it does not.  Perhaps the brocas area is just the most natural place for the structure needed to the function that modern languages demand.  

Well, without it, they couldn't speak.

So your dive into Broca's area actually (again) shoots your idea in the foot.  

Organ systems don't devolve but they do evolve.  So any "ancient language" in your scenario would be done by "aliens" with a less developed brain (which you are labeling with the very racist terms of "different race"/"different species").  Less developed brains couldn't have invented a very complicated language and didn't have the capacity for higher level technology.

Therefore the "ancient universal language" doesn't exist, as you yourself have just proved.

[Thanos5150]

9 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

Just more pretending, wriggling and twisting and turning and ducking and diving and looping the loop, and lying about what Egyptologists and others say about AE civilization. Nobody states that they were obsessed with death, only you come up with this nonsense time and again, why, to make yourself feel better in your little bubble of pretend. I challenge you to produce a quote from any Egyptologist, or anybody on this forum who is not playing pretend with you, who states that the AE were obsessed with death. I know for a fact that I have stated multiple times that they were in fact obsessed with life, yet here you are lying about what others say.

It is hard to differentiate between the stupidity and lies. Be that as it may, it is semantics to say the AE were not "obsessed with death" vs "obsessed with life after death". The obsession is with death all the same. Quoting Assmann:

They [AE] did not repress death, but rather devoted a massive amount of care and attention to it. In particular death played a role in their lives in two ways: first as a source of motivation for a host of cultural efforts, and second, as an always present possibility of diminishing life, especially through the dissolution of social relationships. 

Of course they were "obsessed with death", though not being dead or the act of dying, but rather as a continuation of life, a transition, which also gave particular importance and motivation, revelry, to the life they lived on Earth. The average lifespan was 35yrs, death was coming quickly, so it is understandable there would not only be a sense of urgency to prepare for the afterlife, but also in living life itself. 

Edited November 4, 2023 by Thanos5150

[cladking]

4 hours ago, Trelane said:

Sure buddy, sure you can.😂

If I can't understand Ancient Language then how did I know the "Cool is the Crown Path" was on the east side of G1 and then campaign for years to get Egyptology to allow real science that showed it?  

How did I discover that osiris took the place of atum and the w3s-sceptre is the striped sided jackal?  

Real understanding makes real prediction. Egyptology still can't explain anything from empty canopic jars to empty pyramids that are devoid of ramps and infrastructure.  They find empty coffins because their methodology is empty.  

[cladking]

2 hours ago, Kenemet said:

Well, without it, they couldn't speak.

You just showed other species have a brocas area and they don't speak!!!!

2 hours ago, Kenemet said:

So any "ancient language" in your scenario would be done by "aliens" with a less developed brain (which you are labeling with the very racist terms of "different race"/"different species"). 

I don't believe in aliens and don't understand the relevance here.  

 

 

[cormac mac airt]

15 minutes ago, cladking said:

You just showed other species have a brocas area and they don't speak!!!!

I don't believe in aliens and don't understand the relevance here.

And you’ve previously said that the Broca’s Area didn’t exist in humans before 2000 BC. How about addressing your own lie! 
 

BTW, other species’ Broca’s Areas don’t operate under the exact same genetic impetus and constraints as the human Broca’s Area. 
 

cormac

Edited November 4, 2023 by cormac mac airt

[Wepwawet]

2 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

It is hard to differentiate between the stupidity and lies. Be that as it may, it is semantics to say the AE were not "obsessed with death" vs "obsessed with life after death". The obsession is with death all the same. Quoting Assmann:

They [AE] did not repress death, but rather devoted a massive amount of care and attention to it. In particular death played a role in their lives in two ways: first as a source of motivation for a host of cultural efforts, and second, as an always present possibility of diminishing life, especially through the dissolution of social relationships. 

Of course they were "obsessed with death", though not being dead or the act of dying, but rather as a continuation of life, a transition, which also gave particular importance and motivation, revelry, to the life they lived on Earth. The average lifespan was 35yrs, death was coming quickly, so it is understandable there would not only be a sense of urgency to prepare for the afterlife, but also in living life itself. 

The semantics is probably more with us and our culture, for instance, maybe not today, but in the times of our not so distant ancestors in the 19th Century who were obsessed with death in a very morbid way. Bells above graves with a chain to the coffin so you could ring for attention if buried alive, memento mori photographs of the dead, often posed as if they were still alive, the entire Victorian culture of death, funerals and burial that spawned mawkish memorials in cemeteries, maybe seen as picturesque today, but a very visible sign of obsession. I view all of that as a morbid cult of death, a cult that created the environment for Poe, Stoker, M.R. James, Lovecraft and others, even to the present day. What I do not see with the Egyptians is this morbid cult of death, and that is why I say that they were not obsessed with death in the context in which cladking constructs his posts, which is to accuse us of thinking that they were obsessed with death, and it is specifically to him that say what I say about this, a refutation of what he says about us.

However, it is true that they did think about their preperations for death, if they could afford anything more than a reed mat, but were not obsessed with death per se, which, for those who knew the theology, was a continuation of life, as is very clearly and strongly laid out in the PT, for instance the texts that go, "This Unas is not dead" and on in similar vein. Those who could afford a decent burial would of course make preperations, for instance having a tomb built when they were still alive something that we do not do, and a set of coffins and any other items that they could afford. I would not call this an obsession though, for as Assmann says, it is "A source of motivation for a host of cultural efforts". Therefore these preperations for death are a normal part of their culture, no different to us making a will and having a funeral plan, and we would not call having those an obsession, something beyond the cultural norm, something unhealthy, and that is the sense in which I believe cladking makes his erroneous statements about what we, that is anybody who is not cladking, thinks about the Egyptians.

Further, the Victorians made a show of death, I can look out from the upper windows of my house and gaze across ranks of obelisks and weeping angels, death in the midst of the living, and impressive in a thunderstorm, a hangover from Victorian attitudes where we almost expect to see something nasty in the night. The Egyptians hid death, and with the exception of in your face pyramids, the cemeteries were away from the living, and there is evidence, for instance in the VoK, that they wanted nothing more than to get the dead buried and out of sight as soon as they could, not mawkishly make "scenic spots".

Now I know this entire post could be seen as an exercise in semantics, though it is not meant to be, so will emphasize again that when I state that the Egyptians were not obsessed with death, it is in the context of their culture as a whole versus our culture of death, even into the realm of horror stories and films, and in what cladking states in his rants against Egyptologists and reality where he is telling us what he thinks we think, we at least I do not.

Edited November 4, 2023 by Wepwawet

[cladking]

1 hour ago, Thanos5150 said:

Be that as it may, it is semantics to say the AE were not "obsessed with death" vs "obsessed with life after death". The obsession is with death all the same.

They were more alive than anyone today and I never said they were obsessed with life after death.  THERE WAS NO DEATH.  They lived eternally and they said so;

1467a. N. escapes the day of death, as Set escaped his day of death.

 

 

1385b. father Osiris N. verily has not died the death (i.e. really died);

1385c. but father Osiris N. has become a spirit (ȝḫw) a glorified one.

 

810a. Live a life, and thou shalt certainly not die a death,

 

792c. Raise thyself up, N. Thou shalt not die.

 

1464c. N. is the deputy of Rē‘; N. shall not die.

 

They could not have said this more clearly, more often or more consistently.  Over and over they said EXACTLY THE SAME THING.  They build a new body for the king that WE call the pyramid so that he can live forever.  Egyptologists parse the meaning out of the words.  They do not die.  

 

 

1797c. Thou art alive; thou livest a life,

1798a. for thou art -------- thou art healthier than they.

1798b. The father of Osiris N. lives. Thou hast put the eye of Horus to thyself.

 

 823e. Thou shalt reclaim N. also for life; he shall not perish.

876a. To say: The double ... Give thine arm to N., that he may live. Utterance 482.

 167b. He lives, N. (also) lives;

2134 (N. 1016). the hand of N. took ... O N., live, thou shalt not die. 

Over and over and over and Over and over and over and Over and over and over and Over and over and over and Over and over and over and Over and over and over and Over and over and over and Over and over and over and Over and over and over and Over and over and over and Over and over and over and Over and over and over and Over and over and over and Over and over and over and Over and over and over and Over and over and over they said the exact same thing but Egyptology parses it to mean the exact opposite.  They said the pyramid is not a tomb and is the king himself.  He never died so why would he need a grave?  

Maybe it's racism to believe Egyptology knows better than the pyramid builders themselves.  

 

[Wepwawet]

1 hour ago, Wepwawet said:

Now I know this entire post could be seen as an exercise in semantics, though it is not meant to be, so will emphasize again that when I state that the Egyptians were not obsessed with death, it is in the context of their culture as a whole versus our culture of death, even into the realm of horror stories and films, and in what cladking states in his rants against Egyptologists and reality where he is telling us what he thinks we think, we at least I do not.

And the bolded text should of course have read, which at least I do not.

[Wepwawet]

1 hour ago, cladking said:

They were more alive than anyone today and I never said they were obsessed with life after death. 

 

 

What you have said though is that "we", which excludes you, state, or at least works on the assumption that the AE were obsessed with death, and so interprets the PT using the BoD.

My reply to Thanos showed that we do in fact have a culture rooted in the 19th Century that had a morbid obsession with death, and not in the concept of a hoped for resurrection, but in the macabre, of photgraphing the dead, of a fear of being buried alive, and ultimately of the rotting dead, or even the "un-dead" rising from the grave to torment us. Therefore it can been seen that "we" could employ some mental projection onto the Egyptians, as in the popular imagination we see tombs and mummies, and indeed have something of a cultural obsession with this aspect of them.

However, there is a difference between popular culture, and Egyptologists and others with a more than general interest in the Egyptians. Therefore, no matter the cultural baggage, mummy films, Dracula etc, it does not follow that we have a desire to see our obsessions, at least at a general cultural level, imposed on the Egyptians, and this is why I have asked you to provide a quote from any Egyptologist who states that the Egyptians were obsessed with death in the way that we are. This may be a matter of degree, and yes, even a degree of semantics, but in the context of your statements, specifically about interpreting the PT by using the BoD, this all needs teasing out, and your statements need to be refuted.

This is not about what you or I think about the Egyptians, and it is clear that we can actually agree that they were not obsessed with death, but with you making bold blanket erroneous statements about Egyptologists, and interested others, believing that they were obsessed with death, when nobody actually says this, including Assmann. All people have a degree of, let's say interest and not obsession as that implies an unhealthy attitude, with death, we all know it's coming, and we all, apart from the likes of Wayne and Waynetta Slob, usually make some degree of preperation for death, not when we are in our twenties of course, but as time goes by. Where is the line between normal interest and obsession, and I drew attention to the Victorians and their morbid obsession, which still lingers, and drew attention to the practice of the Egyptians in hiding actual death, of putting their cemeteries away from habitation, part hygiene and part, IMO, shunting the dead out of sight, and in them never mentioning death, never, except for dead enemies and the aberration of Akhenaten, portraying a dead person before they had become a mummy. Try finding any AE text that mentions anybodies cause of death, you won't, so why would anybody say they were obsessed with death when they wanted to deny death at all costs. If there is an obsession, then it was with denying death, and we could go down a rabbit hole of semantics which is not needed, only your actual reasons for your erroneous statements, and evidence to back them up.

[Antigonos]

3 hours ago, cladking said:

If I can't understand Ancient Language then how did I know the "Cool is the Crown Path" was on the east side of G1 and then campaign for years to get Egyptology to allow real science that showed it?  

How did I discover that osiris took the place of atum and the w3s-sceptre is the striped sided jackal?  

You haven’t done any of these things. Nothing like this happened. They are solely the products of your fever addled imagination. You are violently delusional. 

Edited November 4, 2023 by Antigonos

[cormac mac airt]

33 minutes ago, Antigonos said:

You haven’t done any of these things. Nothing like this happened. They are solely the products of your fever addled imagination. You are violently delusional. 

He doesn’t get that. 
 

He made up his own story. He fell for his own BS. Then he uses his BS to validate itself. That’s circular reasoning at its finest. 
 

cormac

[Kenemet]

12 hours ago, cladking said:

You just showed other species have a brocas area and they don't speak!!!!

I don't believe in aliens and don't understand the relevance here.  

Remember... you described the people who spoke Universal Language as being a different race/species (depending on which you're hammering on now.)  As I've said, that's racist (since we know from genetics that they weren't different from modern humans) - and you have no mechanic (other than Universal Stupidity Field) to explain how this "loss of Imaginary Language" flowed through the population until no one could speak it.  The only mechanism you've referred to is "Tower of Babel" ...

And that's basically "aliens,"   Then you explain the "loss of miracle language" by Tower of Babel -- and the only mechanic by which that can work is that there must have been a "Protective Brain Field" created by the Tower of Babel that somehow actually encloses the whole world... and that the fall of this tower caused the "Universal Stupidity Field" to overtake humanity. 

 

[Thanos5150]

On 11/3/2023 at 11:48 AM, Piney said:

A lathe isn't that far of a jump from a potter's wheel. If you think about it a NA reed and sand bow drill for drilling out pipes and bannerstones is a simple lathe. Thinking about it now, the AE probably had them. 

It is a strange thing that the end result of their efforts are so sophisticated and complex in their own right yet they are only ever afforded the most primitive tools, materials, and methods to accomplish the tasks regardless of the fact their existence if not evidence implies the opposite. Carpentry. I'll pick this one again:

The early DE since the beginnings of Dynastic Egypt were master carpenters and wood workers. All of the foundations of modern carpentry are found there at an unusually high level-mortise and tenon, rebate, half lap, dovetail jointing etc . An overlooked mystery in my opinion is where did this skill come from and apparently develop to such a high level so abruptly. They were also skilled in using lumber for architecture with many 1st Dynasty mastabas employing large amounts of wood, even later for pyramids, for formwork, framework and structural support. Regardless, if they can master woodworking for ship building, furniture, and the like-the only limit when turning these skills to an industrial purpose, say like building simple trusses, formwork, lifting devices, drill housing, lathes, etc i.e simple machines would be their imagination. 

The DE were not only master rope makers as well, like their carpentry unparalleled in the ancient world, but also at employing rope in unique technical applications, like Khufu's ship for example:

As complex as the architecture is and stupefying the labor and logistics, a science unto itself, there is no reason to create this impossible paradox by insisting the DE used the most primitive tools and materials possible to do this work when clearly they were capable of so much more. 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

The same applies to the stoneware. 

[cladking]

17 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

However, there is a difference between popular culture, and Egyptologists and others with a more than general interest in the Egyptians. Therefore, no matter the cultural baggage, mummy films, Dracula etc, it does not follow that we have a desire to see our obsessions, at least at a general cultural level, imposed on the Egyptians, and this is why I have asked you to provide a quote from any Egyptologist who states that the Egyptians were obsessed with death in the way that we are. This may be a matter of degree, and yes, even a degree of semantics, but in the context of your statements, specifically about interpreting the PT by using the BoD, this all needs teasing out, and your statements need to be refuted.

I can't really disagree with such reasonable statements.  

From my perspective I'm seeing a definite obsession with death among the authors of the "book of the dead".  And lest we forget every single Egyptologist believes that the great pyramids were tombs (death) and they used very primitive and highly labor intensive means to build them that would require thousands and thousands of men to slave away most of their lives to construct them at enormous cost to the commonwealth and the commonweal.  This cost would include many killed during construction and the inability of the economy to support a far larger population.    If Egyptologists are correct about these things then I believe this alone constitutes a very unhealthy obsession with death at least as it applies to kings.  This required an entire culture to build these with primitive means so by extrapolation the entire society had an obsession with death.  

Then to add insult to this injury Egyptologists parse the Pyramid Texts to be about death and the means of the dead king to live after death and ironically flying up to heaven each day as a sort of reoccurring death.  

I agree it's very easy to slip into semantics and from your point of view I probably have But from my point of view these people are virtually more alive  than some of their descendants today.   I believe each individual strove to improve the lot of all people and those who were most successful were remembered by a pyramid (or mastaba) and a star.  We simply assume that it was a matter of wealth or power but there is little basis for this other than the high status of some of the individuals with large tombs.  If I'm right though power wasn't inherited so much determined by individual competence and knowledge because of the nature of Ancient Language to literally be Words of the Gods/ Word of Power.  Competence and knowledge were apparent with every utterance.  

 

Outta time.... will return... 

[cormac mac airt]

31 minutes ago, cladking said:

If I'm right though power wasn't inherited so much determined by individual competence and knowledge because of the nature of Ancient Language to literally be Words of the Gods/ Word of Power.  Competence and knowledge were apparent with every utterance.  

Except there was no Ancient Language, you’ve neither shown that to be true nor proven your contention about an alleged mutation and the origin of the Broca’s Area. That makes you 0 for 3. 
 

Time for you to fabricate another non-evidenced and non-existent idea. 
 

cormac

[Antigonos]

1 hour ago, cladking said:

 

Outta time.... will return... 

That Thorazine won’t inject itself.

[Thanos5150]

19 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

I would not call this an obsession though, for as Assmann says, it is "A source of motivation for a host of cultural efforts". Therefore these preperations for death are a normal part of their culture, no different to us making a will and having a funeral plan, and we would not call having those an obsession, something beyond the cultural norm, something unhealthy, and that is the sense in which I believe cladking makes his erroneous statements about what we, that is anybody who is not cladking, thinks about the Egyptians.

He is erroneous. This is not a sane empathetic human being which for 20yrs down to a poster all fringe and ortho alike have completely rejected his quackpottery. Yet he keeps doing it every day day after day saying the same things:

Quote

Over and over and over and Over and over and over and Over and over and over and Over and over and over and Over and over and over and Over and over and over and Over and over and over and Over and over and over and Over and over and over and Over and over and over and Over and over and over and Over and over and over and Over and over and over and Over and over and over and Over and over and over and Over and over and over

He does not care one whit what anyone says about anything-it is all nothing more than a means to an end that allows him to keep doing it. 

Quote

The Egyptians hid death, and with the exception of in your face pyramids, the cemeteries were away from the living, and there is evidence, for instance in the VoK, that they wanted nothing more than to get the dead buried and out of sight as soon as they could, not mawkishly make "scenic spots".

....This is not true. Since the beginnings of Dynasty Egypt royal/noble tombs were meant to be monuments of wonder for all to see. At Saqqara the massive serekh mastabas were strategically perched on a high cliff side to lord over the new capital of Memphis.

The pyramids that came after, collectively known as the Memphite Necropolis, were obviously no different. They were not made to be out of sight but rather a constant reminder to the people, among other things, of the life that awaited them after the death of the physical body. They were not meant to be hidden or secluded but rather the opposite being an integral part of daily life not just to be seen by all travelling the Nile, but maintained and administered for centuries by cults and family specifically designed for the people to visit and give offerings. Since at least the OK lasting through the Late Period it was apparently common practice (implied) for usually family to visit these tombs, often built with areas specifically for them to come to as could be afforded, and leave letters for them inscribed on various medium.   

Thebes was the capital of Egypt during part of the MK and most of the NK which royal/noble necropoli were now largely located. The geography of this area presented different opportunities to build necropoli, namely rock cut tombs which were also cheaper and easier to build. This no doubt offered an extra level of protection and seclusion, but the motivation for this was not to ideologically make the dead/tombs "out of sight out of mind", but rather to protect against the wonton systematic looting that had been rampant for centuries none more so than in the NK. Tut's tomb was supposedly robbed twice just within a few years after his death. Hatshepsut ( Deir el-Bahari) certainly had no interest in being out of sight out of mind:

The VoK obviously was not spared from this which was so bad that at some point after the 10th century the burials of 50 previous kings, queens, and nobles including several from the VoK were "rescued" and reburied in one large tomb near Deir el-Bahari.   

At any rate, this change was not one of ideology but rather the opportunity of the geology of the area which further afforded, so they hoped which didn't work out very well, at least some level of protection against looting. 

They are separated because the west of the Nile was the land of the dead and the east the land of the living.  

[cladking]

20 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

This is not about what you or I think about the Egyptians, and it is clear that we can actually agree that they were not obsessed with death, but with you making bold blanket erroneous statements about Egyptologists, and interested others, believing that they were obsessed with death, when nobody actually says this, including Assmann.

I'm fully aware, of course, that most of the words I attribute to Egyptologists would never be stated by an Egyptologist in such a way.  I say Egyptologists believe ancient people were wholly ignorant of modern science and highly superstitious and this is literally true but they would use various flowery language to say everything else.  Obviously ancient people had no experimental science at all and they believed their lives were controlled by many gods.  I simply don't agree.  I believe they had a different science and they had no beliefs at all and this accounts for the lack of words like "experiment" and "belief".  Egyptologists simply can't understand a people who were not like us or a language that was not formatted like any existing language other than computer codes and bird songs.  

When Egyptologists talk about ancients they present a very different people than who actually lived and built the pyramids.  They present a people like us with different dreams and desires as well as different ways to think and vastly different beliefs.  Ancient people were apparently very similar to one another but vastly different than anyone alive today. They were a different or inferior race; they were an entirely different species.  They worked together and pulled together for the same things.  They were very very much alive though and only thought about death when they mourned.  They didn't think about death even while building tombs even for their beloved kings because of several factors.  Chief among these factors is that very very few people were even allowed to build pyramids.  Indeed, just like ancient sources tell us "the gods built the pyramids".  Also very importantly they didn't think about death building pyramids because pyramids were a means for the king to live forever.  Pyramid building was a 20 year long party eight months a year for the men, women, and children, who sipped cold Perrier in the shade watching the gods build pyramids.  These people were hard workers and there was ample work for the few people to keep everything running on schedule and to work safely and efficiently.  

No, they were not obsessed with death because they believed that any man who lived a life would not die the death which is exactly what they said many many times.  

They were each obsessed with life and making life better for everyone and especially it better for the future which is why G1 is also a time capsule.  

[cladking]

21 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

Try finding any AE text that mentions anybodies cause of death, you won't, so why would anybody say they were obsessed with death when they wanted to deny death at all costs.

I hadn't noticed this. 

Perhaps it goes back to "live your life and you won't die the death".  Listing a cause of death like having one's head crushed by a falling cladding stone certainly sounds final.  Better to cremate the victim and remember him as he was in life by means of a pyramid and a star.  

[cladking]

2 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

Except there was no Ancient Language, you’ve neither shown that to be true nor proven your contention about an alleged mutation and the origin of the Broca’s Area.

According to the source (remember?) there is a huge difference between animal and human brocas areas.  

Off the top of my head I can't think of a single other physical characteristic of the human brain much different than that of animals.  

Perhaps this evidence that virtually proves my theory.  

[cladking]

1 hour ago, Thanos5150 said:

He does not care one whit what anyone says about anything-

I primarily care what the pyramid builders said. My opinion doesn't add up to a hill of beans but the pyramid builders will always have the final say about what they believed and why.  

Did I ever mention that my only belief is that all people make sense all the time in terms of their premises.  

I believe that the pyramid builders made perfect sense too, and their premises were nothing like the premises of any Egyptologist living or dead. 

[cormac mac airt]

18 minutes ago, cladking said:

According to the source (remember?) there is a huge difference between animal and human brocas areas.  

Off the top of my head I can't think of a single other physical characteristic of the human brain much different than that of animals.  

Perhaps this evidence that virtually proves my theory.  

Yet they’re STILL Broca’s Areas or analogous to same for animals, the human versions of which you claimed didn’t exist prior to 2000 BC. You were wrong. 
 

cormac

Edited November 5, 2023 by cormac mac airt
Clarification

[cladking]

53 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

You were wrong. 

You mustta missed the part where i already said I was wrong.

The important part is the actual evidence; the human brocas area is very different than in animals.  There's no evidence that ancient people had "human" brocas areas.  

[cormac mac airt]

1 minute ago, cladking said:

You mustta missed the part where i already said I was wrong.

The important part is the actual evidence; the human brocas area is very different than in animals.  There's no evidence that ancient people had "human" brocas areas.  

Ancient people WERE HUMANS. The Broca’s Area has existed in humans for at least the last 1.9 million years. That shouldn’t have to be said to you AGAIN. Find something else to lie about. 
 

cormac

[Wepwawet]

3 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

....This is not true. Since the beginnings of Dynasty Egypt royal/noble tombs were meant to be monuments of wonder for all to see.

 

Of course tombs are visible, except in the VoK for the reasons you stated, but the cemeteries are kept separate from the living, unlike with us where we have cemeteries among the living, I live by one, I need to walk through it if I want to get to the town center and not drive. Then there are churches, where, depending on the age of the church, you will be sitting on a pew above the dead, and may have the dead by you in an elaborate tomb, and in some Catholic churches you may have a dessicated corpse in view in glass case. The AE would I think have found this disgusting, maybe even a mental aberration, and some think this today. This was why I drew attention to what they did and what we do in order to provide some illumination as to why I say that they hid death, but perhaps I should have used a more powerful light.  However, there is still the fact that they never even mentioned death, nobody has a cause of death or date of death. We may, if they have a decorated tomb, or a BoD scroll, see them as a mummy, but how they get from being alive in the normal sense to having another existance as a mummy is never mentioned, and the reason is because to them they have not died, they have moved almost seamlessly from one state of existance to another.

So you might have the opinion that they did not hide death, but that is based on tombs having some degree of visibility, and I don't dispute this as it's the bleedin' obvious, but this is only part of the equation as they hid actual death to the extent of never, ever, (TA21 aside) depicting death (enemies aside), or described anybody as dying. A prime example is with the Turin Papyrus which deals with the trial of the harem conspiritors. Not once in the papyrus is a there a single mention that Ramesess III was in fact killed, they completely ignore this and do not even allude to this, and it is only in this century that the truth has been revealed. That is hiding death to quite a high degree. The large "mortuary" temples at Thebes, Medinet Habu for instance, are not "monuments for the dead", they were built when the king was still alive and, to provide a modern analogy, served a similar function to an American presidential library in that they document the life and achievements of the king. Were offerings made for the king when he was dead, of course, but they were monuments to life, not death, for according to them the king was not dead.

Edit: I'll put this to you. While I can understand your stance on this, is this not informed by, and I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, your primary interest in Egypt being their structures, particularly those from the Old Kingdom, well of course it cannot just be that, but from reading your posts over the last several years that is the impression I get. On the other hand, my primary interest in Egypt is in what they said, what they believed, and particulalry, but not wholly, in the New Kingdom. Therefore we may be coming at this this from two different directions, and coming to two different conclusions, both of which are essentially opinions, though with facts putting in an appearance, for instance, from your PoV the visibility of tombs, and from mine, not so much a visible tangible fact, but that they never mentioned or depicted death. So while death in the form of a tomb is present, everything else connected with death is hidden. Or to put it another way, physically present, but metaphisically invisible, which could lead into discussion about why they liked to wrap, to hide, cult objects, statues of gods for instance, and why these statues, the temple cult statues, were hidden away in the "holy of holies" except for festivals, when they were still hidden in their shrine anyway. Amun, the hidden one, why. That all probably seemed way too nerdy and esoteric, but to me it's all connected.

Edited November 5, 2023 by Wepwawet