Go to the Egyptian Dreams shop
Egyptian Dreams
Ancient Egypt Discussion Board
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Royal Mummies in Cairo are Moving
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Pharaohs and Queens
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Ikon
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 234

PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 11:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

imnhtp wrote:

Read again what I wrote. The three of you appear to misconstrue what I say and ignore anything anything of substance. Is this in part why this once vibrant and lively forum is now a ghost town?

We seem anyway to have cleared up conclusively, judging by your silence, i.e. that I was not projecting alien modern ethics into Ancient Egypt nor the early 20th century and indeed it is you who are doing it. That the sacred bodies of the Kings of Egypt can be described as merely “organic remains” says a lot about you.


Well, you charge in with a belligerent holier than thou attitude and ignore what others have written except to cherry pick those parts, and misconstrue them, that you can use to attack. You accuse us of ignoring some of what you have written, yet I still await your opinion on the condition of the "secure" caches KV35 and TT320. When you make such statements it's rather like the pot calling the kettle black, isn't it.

You also sidestepped my question on the relevance of magical protection. I'm sure you are aware that the preservation of the body, wrapped or unwrapped, and it's magical protection, to at least a minimal level, was of paramount importance to them. If, as you want to happen, they were reburied in the VoK, would you have them magically protected? could you even do that as the living beliefs and culture are long gone. Surely any such attempt would be imposing modern romantic desires onto them, and any form of recreating the old magic would simply be a pose, such as modern "Atenists" doing an Om at the Great Pyramid.

I have never described the bodies of the kings as "merely organic remains", and were the word organic has been used by another poster, it's context was of a matter of fact nature, as the remains are organic.

That you use a phrase such as "The sacred bodies of the Kings of Egypt" shows a rather odd view of this, and strikes me as being not far removed from Edgar Cayce. I have no issue with how you may view ancient Egypt and it's kings, but it's a bit off for you to expect anybody else to have the same over romanticized opinions.

And btw, you do not enliven a moribund forum by insulting the few posters who still contribute, particularly Lutz, who has kept this forum afloat. The last time someone thought this forum needed "enlivening", only a few months ago, did not exactly go well.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Montuhotep88
Priest
Priest


Joined: 12 Dec 2008
Posts: 516
Location: Central Ohio

PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 1:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

imnhtp wrote:
That the sacred bodies of the Kings of Egypt can be described as merely “organic remains” says a lot about you.


Are you suggesting that they are inorganic?
Idea

Who the heck is EAWB?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
imnhtp
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 17 May 2019
Posts: 7

PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 5:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

@ Ikon I made it clear the issue was about respect for the dead and that which is sacred. This is a common to many cultures - even those who cremate. The written testimonies of people who objected strongly to what was happening did so not because of issues relating to heka but drawing from the store of our common humanity. I stressed this was the context in a previous post as I didn't want to get into esoteric discussions about the efficacy of heka which, to repeat, I never raised.

The use of the word sacred is not me applying retrospectively a concept to Ancient Egypt. I pointed out in a previous post the use of the word ḏsr and related words which deal with the sacred and holy. This is Ancient Egyptian terminology and not my own. Perhaps you can find online James K. Hoffmeier dissertation which covers the usage of this word (“Sacred in the Vocabulary of Ancient Egypt: the term ḏsr with special reference to dynasties I-XX”). The idea of sacredness extends even to those who handled the mummy and he notes “To call these gods or priests ḏsrw is consistent with the high regard the Egyptians had for the dead and the necropolis” (p. 119).

Perhaps I can pick out two examples because they relate to one of places alluded to above i.e. Deir el Bahri cache and Mentuhotep, the namesake of one of the responders. The ḏsr ḏsrw is “Holy of Holies” in the Temple of Deir el Bahri. Deir El Bahri itself has names like ḏsrt “Holy ground, sacred area”. Jadwiga Iwasczuk “The temple of Mentuhotep II Nebhepetra was built in the valley of Deir el-Bahari. This location is accounted for with a variety of reasons. Above all, it seems that the valley was regarded as a sacred ground already in the Old Kingdom and was closely related to the cult of Hathor. The valley was called Jnt Nb-ḥpt-Rʿ in the times of Mentuhotep II and after his reign, in a later period, it bore the name of Ḏsrt” (SACRED LANDSCAPE OF THEBES DURING THE REIGN OF HATSHEPSUT, ROYAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS, VOLUME 1 TOPOGRAPHY OF THE WEST BANK, p. 53).

I have never read works by Edward Cayce so I cannot comment. I heard he influenced the young Mark Lehner to take up Egyptology but not much else. Respect for the dead is not a romantic modern notion. Neither is respect for sacred spaces or objects of piety but obviously there are people who appear to have a different “spirit” at work but that can change as with Rider Haggard who was a hugely popular writer in the late 19th and early 20th centuries:

“I had an introduction to Brugsch Bey,
who was then, I think, the head of the Boulak Museum. He took
me round that heavenly place. He showed me the mummies of
Seti, Rameses, and the rest, and oh! with what veneration did I
look upon them. He told me, trembling with emotion, of the
discovery, then recent, of the great Deir-el-Behari cache of
Pharaohs and their treasures. He said when he got to the
bottom of that well and entered the long passage where for
tens of centuries had slept the mighty dead, huddled together
there to save them from the wicked hands of robbers or
enemies, and by the light of torches had read a few of the
names upon the coffins, that he nearly fainted with joy, as well
he might. Also he described to me how, when the royal bodies
were borne from this resting-place and shipped for conveyance
to Cairo, there to find a new tomb in the glass cases of a
museum, the fellaheen women ran along the banks wailing
because their ancient kings were being taken from among
them. They cast dust upon their hair, still dressed in a hundred
plaits, as was that of those far-off mothers of theirs who had
wailed when these Pharaohs were borne with solemn pomp to
the homes they called eternal. Poor kings! who dreamed not of
the glass cases of the Cairo Museum, and the gibes of tourists
who find the awful majesty of their whithered brows a matter
for jest and smiles. Often I wonder how we dare to meddle with
these hallowed relics, especially now in my age. Then I did not
think so much of it; indeed I have taken a hand at the business
myself”. (The Days of My Life, Chapter 11)

I was referencing the Deir el Bahri cache as demonstrating the effort that was made to hide the cache of royal mummies which was indeed preserved for 3,000 years. If you wish to show that Ancient Egyptian burials lacked the sacredness which you think I am unjustly applying then by all means present your case but to pick out that which has been subject to desecration as being the norm is not going to impress when I can give voluminous evidence that contradicts when it comes to establishing the norm rather than the exception such as in times of civil war and especially in the last millennium bce.

I do not think it right that royal mummies be subject to the treatment they have sustained in the past and do not care if it means “science” is prevented from finding out this or that. The basis of my revulsion is nothing to do with heka but to do with respect for the dead and what is sacred. Neither is it to do with modern romantic notions but rather something which appears very earlier in the history of mankind and if you wish to debate these subjects (which I never raised in my original post) then you will have to find somebody else.

One final point. My original post made explicit mention of desecration (a kind of mixed language de-ḏsrt). Ancient Egyptians also clearly had such notions regarding profanation of tombs, temples and sacred land by unclean people. The dissertation mentioned above has several passages dealing with “desecration”.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ikon
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 234

PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 6:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

imnhtp wrote:
@ Ikon I made it clear the issue was about respect for the dead and that which is sacred.

You used the phrase "The sacred Kings" in the context of normal speech, not a quote. You also sound as if you putting yourself in the position of speaking for the dead from the point of view of someone who was there, or at least understands them in a way that the rest of us cannot, and I'm a bit tired of that sort of thing due to nonsense about the Pyramid Texts on this forum, and many many others. Using such phraseology comes across as a bit "Edgar Cayce". That is, it sounds a bit fringe, a bit pretentious, a bit reincarnation, a bit Ra Ta, who was Cayce's "spirit guide" from ancient Egypt. Now, I'm not pilling all of that on you, but your phraseology and stance don't seem a million miles away from all that to me.

My first two posts in this thread were innocuous, and I hardly even expected a reply, yet you jumped all over me with a bit of a rant, and have continued in the same vein, and against two other posters. Don't you think it comes across as rather impolite. I can in fact see your point of view, and I doubt anybody here is actually in favour of any desecration, but we are where we are and cannot put the genie back in the bottle, or the kings back in their tombs. What are we supposed to do, send angry emails to the SCA or picket their offices with chants and banners.

Did not my post, which I repeated, about what would happen to the mummies of Ramesses XI or Nefertiti if found in intact tombs, strongly suggest that I see an ethical issue occurring over whether to unwrap them or not, and particularly Nefertiti, if her intact sah is still out there.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Montuhotep88
Priest
Priest


Joined: 12 Dec 2008
Posts: 516
Location: Central Ohio

PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 7:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Montuhotep88 wrote:
Who the heck is EAWB?


Wait... you're quoting Wallis Budge??!?!?

I think that brings your stock down to a flat zero.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3920
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2019 6:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

imnhtp wrote:
What is that to do with what I wrote? ...

You make connections, completely free of documents (murder of Ramses III / alleged incipient Seth worship and the tomb robbery in the Valley of the Kings). Of course you are free do so, just like me to comment on that mischief. An unbiased third party may judge for himself ...

imnhtp wrote:
Lutz “With which they probably were lost forever, and for anyone, at least since the unrest during the power changes Mubarak - Mursi - Sisi ....”
The mummies have already been despoiled of all that that is valuable to a thief. Cairo museum was robbed in 2011 so I am not sure the point you are making.

The statement "despoiled of all that that is valuable" is simply wrong and shows me, that you obviously have little / not dealt with the results of modern research. There is more than tv shows ...

Cairo Museum, yes ... But mostly in the "modern" part, the tourism shop, and comparatively little in the Amarna / Tutankhamun section. But they were not in the seperate and modern secured mummy room ...

Amenhotep II was left in his tomb (KV 35) by Victor Loret in 1898 ... With the result that the mummy was looted again shortly thereafter. During WW II in the Valley of the Kings was only one royal mummy to secure. The failure, since then, the last remains of a breast collar (along with parts of the chest?) and the royal hood on the head of Tutankhamun have disappeared.
_________________
Ägyptologie - Forum (German)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Pharaohs and Queens All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group