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 

controversial Considerations
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Miscellaneous
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
maat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 266

PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2020 4:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My Correction:

17. If a negative inclusion is the exclusion of a reference (a thing) to force an observer to consider, search for, and try to understand why the reference is missing, then could Amun ('the hidden one') have been made into a negative [inclusion] to force it to be considered as a reference?
Asked more simply, could Amun (the hidden one) have been hidden to force people in time to recognize and question that Amun is missing?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 266

PostPosted: Wed Jun 24, 2020 11:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

18. Was Akhenaten really a heretic or did he perfect Amun (the hidden one) by hiding Amun more perfectly?

It can be considered that Akhenaten referenced and emphasized Amun more perfectly by hiding even the hidden nature of Amun.
Was 'the hidden one' made stronger by being hidden by Akhenaten?

Did Akhenaten hide Amun in the great glare of the Aten?
Was Akhenaten heretic or a devoted adherent to Amun?

Was Amun really missing under Akhenaten or was Amun more perfectly hidden to emphasize Amun as a reference?

Why? What does it mean?
Perhaps it was meant to have the observer to search for Amun in the context of Akhenaten. Look for 'the hidden one' (emphasized).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
karnsculpture
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 27 May 2010
Posts: 334

PostPosted: Thu Jun 25, 2020 11:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

18. Was Akhenaten really a heretic or did he perfect Amun (the hidden one) by hiding Amun more perfectly?


I donít know if heretic is quite the correct term - I think thatís something thatís become easy shorthand to describe the king. He certainly oppressed the cult of Amun in particular, possibly for what may have seemed like astute political reasons.
Since the reign of Tuthmosis I the cult of Amun was very much given prominence, and in the examples of Hatchepsut and Amenhotep III was given credit for putting them on the throne. Both used divine birth scenes as propaganda; Hatchepsut because she was a female king and Amenhotep III as he was the son of a minor wife (named as Great Royal Wife retrospectively). Itís notable that Tuthmosis IV and Amenhotep III throughout their reigns sought to balance the power of Amun by promoting other cults, notably the Aten. Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten then took things further by first proclaiming that he would give prominence to the Aten, and then after his year 9 by actively suppressing the cult of Amun.
Evidence suggests that everyday household gods that people worshipped as well as Ptah and others were not as actively suppressed.
Akhenatenís agents went so far as to remove his fatherís name from monuments, leaving his throne name Nebmaatra, albeit in later examples spelled phonetically to avoid an image of the goddess Maat.

So I donít think he was aiming to make the cult of Amun more hidden and therefore more dominant - that was a consequence of his failure as later kings made Amun more prominent than ever.

I do think in all of this though we have a slightly unbalanced view as some of the cult centres of other gods like Ptah, Thoth and Osiris have not survived due to them being under modern cities. Ptah had a huge temple in Memphis as did Ra (recent finds there include an image of a sphinx of Akhenaten). So while I think Amun was the primary god in Thebes and the South it wasnít the case nationwide. The 18th Dynasty kings were aware the cult maybe had too much power and sure enough after the 19th Dynasty the High Priests again rose in power to threaten the monarchy. In retrospect I think Amenhotep III struck the right balance but given a likely 8 year coregency with his son you have to question what part he played in the religious revolution undertaken by his son. Interesting that the real big changes and proscription of Amun happened from year 9 when his father was dead. [/quote]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 266

PostPosted: Fri Jun 26, 2020 4:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Akhenaten could literally have systematically razed every temple and buried every priest to erase competition to the Aten if his goal had been ideologically drhven to set the Aten as the sole god in political or spiritual terms. But, he did not move to erase other gods. He did raise the Aten to greater prominence and also associate for history his reign and reference with the Aten.

I think that the term 'god' is mistaken today and that it had different significance in ancient Egypt. I think 'god' was in meaning more like to mean a standard (such as of concepts, time, lengths, limits, weights, etc.). That metaphors are ebedded in myths that use mystiical or spiritual language and references to communicate real information is not always recognized today.

Giorgio de Santillana and Joseph Campbell each in their lifelong careers spoke about the often missed nature and capacity of ancient myths to inform. Myths and metaphors have to be upacked of their information. Today, information is plainly given and expected to be read in literal terms. So, to read metaphorical content and constructs can produce serious misunderstandings.

I think Akhenaten simply made prominent a different standard (the Aten - a metaphor like Ra and others) for his constructs. The Aten does not conflict with Amun anymore than using metric measures instead of inches and pounds would conflict with use of metals, glass and brick to build something. Each material and measure involves certain standards and a conceptual construct like a physical one can involve several standards.
I think that conceptually, Akhenaten related himself in the historical record to the Aten to inform that his works emphasized aspects of that standard (god).

What the Aten standard actually involved must then be found out. What does it (the Aten) mean in the context of Akhenaten's constructs (those works associated with his reign) must be learned.

I think the Aten is an informative reference and he did not promote it for spiritual, political ideology or advantage.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 266

PostPosted: Sun Jun 28, 2020 12:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

19. Clearly, there is much that I have to learn. I still have no library access with the virus restrictions but accessed a site with a brief synopsis on the Amduat and Gates.

I now have some clue why Nefertiti is related to both hours seven of day and night in the tomb. I also now have a clue why a lioness is referenced as having its right paw laid on a desert snake, why a hand is referenced as holding a cobra in its grasp, and why Ankhesenamun is referenced with the first hour of day.
I ultimately have to read the proper texts of the various books. The constructs work with the texts.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 266

PostPosted: Mon Jun 29, 2020 2:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

20. Consider sound in the tomb of Tutankhamun and why there were trumpets (Carter object number 050gg) in the tomb.

In one aspect, the trumpets can be regarded to be symbolic of heralds that would announce some event like the arrival of the king, war charge, retreat or other. As symbols of the herald, they virtually might indicate the presence of a herald (an announcer) within the burial.
In another aspect of actual usage, trumpets produced sounds that somebody had to play whether for musical or informative purpose. Any message that was to be sounded had to be learned, known and recognized by both a distant trumpeter and distant listener.

How did an ancient Egyptian learn and know what sequence of sounds to produce?
There must have been a systematic method for trumpet sounds to be noted (recorded) to be learned, produced, played and repeated by any trumpeter.
Consider that a trumpeter could have died at any time and left the urgent need to be replaced. It seems unlikely that complexly trumpeted sounds or known music were memorized and played only from memory or randomly.

Those who sounded or listened for messages had to have an established basis to recognize what was being sounded. It seems obvious that a method of notation to record and from which to learn to produce sounds must have been available in ancient Egypt.

It then seems naturally obvious to expect in the tomb some example of noted sounds that a trumpet could play since trumpets were included in the tomb.

Was any such notation of sound found in the tomb? Why include trumpets without information for how they were to be played?
I think that each item in the tomb was selected, packed and transported to the tomb with perfect knowledge about the limited space in the tomb. There were no accidental inclusions in the controlled space of a pharaoh's tomb.

What the trumpets mean should be considered. The instruments were included. There should be a sample of notes to be played.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
karnsculpture
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 27 May 2010
Posts: 334

PostPosted: Mon Jun 29, 2020 12:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

maat wrote:
Akhenaten could literally have systematically razed every temple and buried every priest to erase competition to the Aten if his goal had been ideologically drhven to set the Aten as the sole god in political or spiritual terms. But, he did not move to erase other gods. He did raise the Aten to greater prominence and also associate for history his reign and reference with the Aten.


He probably didn't have the time or resources to complete the task. What is clear from the later proclaimations by Tutankhamun and Horemheb is that Akhenaten stripped the temples of other gods of their resources and they were left to get overgrown with weeds and decline. Tutankhamun and Horemheb in particular also talk of corruption in the priesthood which he had to stamp out. So clearly there were some very human agendas at play as well as religious ones. Ultimately, as well as being a religious change the shift of resources from Amun and other gods to Akhetaten and the Aten temples will have been huge. You don't have the same priests / prophets in charge of the temples after Akhenaten's reign so if they hadn't died anyway what happened to them? Killed, or converted to the new religion? Or just left to live in poverty?

maat wrote:

I think that the term 'god' is mistaken today and that it had different significance in ancient Egypt. I think 'god' was in meaning more like to mean a standard (such as of concepts, time, lengths, limits, weights, etc.). That metaphors are ebedded in myths that use mystiical or spiritual language and references to communicate real information is not always recognized today.

Giorgio de Santillana and Joseph Campbell each in their lifelong careers spoke about the often missed nature and capacity of ancient myths to inform. Myths and metaphors have to be upacked of their information. Today, information is plainly given and expected to be read in literal terms. So, to read metaphorical content and constructs can produce serious misunderstandings.


It is totally possible for literal interpretations and deeper metaphors to exist at the same time. Archaeological research has proven that the constructions shown in the Amarna tombs really existed. This should not be so surprising as Akhenaten emphasised "living in truth". The funerary myths of the Amarna period are definitely more complex however, as the King needed to establish alternatives for 2000+ years of funerary practice. The solution does seem to have been members of the royal family taking the place of key gods - the most obvious example being queens replacing protective goddesses on sarcophagi and in the tombs of the royals. On Tiye's funerary shrine you have Akhenaten leading his mother in the place of gods.

maat wrote:
I think Akhenaten simply made prominent a different standard (the Aten - a metaphor like Ra and others) for his constructs. The Aten does not conflict with Amun anymore than using metric measures instead of inches and pounds would conflict with use of metals, glass and brick to build something. Each material and measure involves certain standards and a conceptual construct like a physical one can involve several standards.
I think that conceptually, Akhenaten related himself in the historical record to the Aten to inform that his works emphasized aspects of that standard (god).

Have to disagree to a point, there is extensive evidence that worship of the Aten was supposed to replace that of Amun. Images and the name of Amun were removed at temple sites, in funerary temples and on statues. Those that survived were in many cases later restored (particularly the name of the god). The fact that several surviving images of Amun have the face of Tutankhamun backs up the statement from his restoration stela that he was going to have to re-create what was previously destroyed or damaged. However yes, to an extent Akenaten was replacing one set of standards with new ones for people to follow. He must have also made a differenciation between main state gods and smaller deities that people had in the home - as those definitely still existed in Amarna itself.

[/quote]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 266

PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2020 6:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

karnsculpture wrote:
maat wrote:
Akhenaten could literally have systematically razed every temple and buried every priest to erase competition to the Aten if his goal had been ideologically drhven to set the Aten as the sole god in political or spiritual terms. But, he did not move to erase other gods. He did raise the Aten to greater prominence and also associate for history his reign and reference with the Aten.


He probably didn't have the time or resources to complete the task. What is clear from the later proclaimations by Tutankhamun and Horemheb is that Akhenaten stripped the temples of other gods of their resources and they were left to get overgrown with weeds and decline.

That Akhenaten did any such thing is not clear, especially not from the Restoration Stele of Tutankhamun.
I did not know why years ago the stele always puzzled me, but something seemed wrong about it. Your post made me take another look.

The stele is dated for Year 1 Month 4 Day 19, inscribed for Tutankhamun. Then, Horemheb inscribed his names over two of Tut's names. People thnk it means Horemheb tried to usurp the acts and honor of Tutankhamun. These are problematic.

It first seems unlikely that Tut (made king at age 9) moved by age 10 or 11 to solve challenging socio-political problems with religous tones that would daunt even the most adept of kings.
Imagination seems stretched thin to think he did it as a boy with no heirs in a 'dynamic' political arena and commissioned a stele to be erected.
So, was it him, his advisors, regent or neither?
Then, Horemheb's names over the still discernible name of one he supposedly tried to usurp would make him look like a petty, weak, dishonest king.

So, I rule out usurpation and propose the stele informs about Tut's tomb as I noted its theme of a procession through a natural landscape.
The stele date marks time after his death and 'restoration' occurs in his tomb where shrines were installed and staffed anew. The stele informs about his tomb.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 266

PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2020 6:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The addition of Horemheb's names to the stele is then not an attempt to usurp Tutankhamun in any way. It is Horemheb acknowledging Tutankhamun, giving him greater honor by allowing his name to be attached to a design created for Tutankhamun.

Instead of creating a wholly new design (construct), Horemheb linked his name to that of Tutankhamun on the stele to inform that Horemheb has employed equal or similar constructs for his own tomb or burial as were designed for that of Tutankhamun.

Then, Horemheb could use the same stele date as Tutankhamun because it marks a date after each of their deaths.

Here again, there is much that the stele informs about the tomb of Tutankhamun but it is necessary to know about constructs (informative schemes, orders and concepts) in the tomb to recognize relationships.

I did not know enough about the tomb's constructs to understand the stele years ago. I have a better understanding now and recognize some key constructs I had not recognized before.
The stele informs about the tomb of Tutankhamun and I suspect it will also inform about a tomb of Horemheb.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 266

PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2020 7:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

karnsculpture wrote:
It is totally possible for literal interpretations and deeper metaphors to exist at the same time.
...

Yes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 266

PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2020 2:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ikon wrote:

...
Maat wrote:
I offer a lead that I will not explain

That's not helpful, is it, and is a reason for skepticism about your posts. Personally I would never even consider posting anything that I was not prepared to explain. Anyhoo, it's not a secret that Ra is within the tomb, Tutankhamun is a "Son of Ra" as king, the entire Amduat, even though there is only part of the first hour in KV62, is all about the journey of Ra, and Tutankhamun, through the Duat and how Ra is resurrected in the sixth hour and reborn as the new Sun at the end of the twelfth.

I would like to simply answer about Ra and Osiris but it is best that readers should consider and learn how the constructed references work because the process to understand the references has later application.
Ikon notes 'part of the first hour' and that Tutankhamun is the son of Ra in the tomb. These are also informative elements.
Ra and Osiris are metaphors. The construct with (Carter 007) reveals what they actually represent. [The sarcophagus and lid also can be added as a clue since you noted Tut as son of Ra.

Quote:

...
If you look at any of the Netherworld Books, Osiris is not very noticable, but Ra is in every scene, and it is to be read that the king for whom the tomb is, is with Ra, as are all his predecessors. So this tomb for the dead is in fact a resurrection machine of light, with Osiris as the re-generating force, but as the king and Ra as otherwise the main players. So yes, Ra is certainly in the tomb, and it is no secret.


Your 'metaphors' from texts about the tomb as a (virtual) machine of light make sense to me. I was not sure how to respond because it has extensions. Here, I offer a hint for some of what I am withholding that I think is more important before a king's corpse is found.

Divide by 1 073 741 824 the cubic volumes in metric units of each of the burial shrines. Include the wooden frame in the set.

Identify the results.
How and why are they in ancient Egypt?
Does it extend the metaphor?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 266

PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2020 4:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

21. Reality, Imagery, Myths and Metaphors in concept are merged seamlessly within the (tomb?) of Tutankhamun. This merger of reality myth and imagery seems to extend even to Karnak in my understanding of the involvement of the stele with the tomb of Tutankhamun.
As I noted in earlier posts, the imaginary procession into the tomb left a trail of debris, entered the images, objects and (other world?). This is the major theme and thematic construct within the tomb.
The merger of reality and imagery suggests that reality, myth and imagery conceptually are not separate although translation or transmutation are needed to transition between the aspects.
For example, a myth presents metaphorical references about the tomb as a 'machine of light' and a representative construct is established to translate metaphorical aspects of myth to reality.

I think such constructs (constructed references, designs or representations) then serve as the media through which transmutation and translation are facilitated.

Only myth is known if only the aspect of myth is observed. The same is true for the aspect of reality. But, the two aspects are united for translation via constructs.
The Imiut fetish objects in the burial chamber of KV62 represent the concept of a known start and end united by an inttermediate aspect that the animal skin represents.

The real objects found in the tomb have some relationship to the images and myths. Images and myths then can also be traced back into the tomb space.
Information is transmuted into various forms into things, images, stories, concepts and even constructs of multiple elements. And, elements can be ideas.

The tomb (perhaps all ancient Egypt) is a complex space because constructs are abstract representations of things that are in reality.

I think it is necessary to recognize such concepts that are involved in most aspects of the tomb. It can be a challenge to adjust to a different way to think about Egypt than is now normal.
KV62 informs by many constructs such perspective is correct.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 266

PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2020 5:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

22. The tomb of Tutankhamun includes the gods and myth about Iaqs and Hemwy. The two sentinel king statues painted black in the antechamber of the tomb are involved in a representation of their myth.

The two figures are in the thematic procession into the tomb that proceeds into the burial chamber.
An observer who enters the burial chamber will find that that the two statue figures (conceptually) did proceed into the chamber where their representative forms are transmuted from statues to figures painted in mural image on the north wall of the burial chamber. They are the two male figures wio greet the 'X' mummy (Osiris).
The general understanding about that scene has been that the two figures are forms of Tutankhamun that greet Osiris. I recognize Iaqs and Hemwy who are protectors of the Horus child (in my little knowledge of the myth).

Look between the two figures in the mural (shrink and dim the image, shift your view for better perspective if needed) because a third figure is outlined between the two. It represents Tutankhamun (as the Horus child) where he is protected between Iaqs and Hemwy.

Also, while you are looking, see that a hooded figure sits with back against legs of the 'X' mummy (better viewed small or from a distance).

Next, in the middle scene with the goddess Nut, look for a figure who stands behind the male. He wears a 'hat' that is also the white crown of the mummy in the 'opening of the mouth' scene. He wears a broad collar that is also the right shoulder/elbow of the same mummy. Block out the 'opening of the mouth' scene if it distracts.
It is a faintly composed image of the king Tutankhamun. Consider it was designed to be viewed by lamp or flame. Brighter is not always better and is sometimes worse.

My objective here is to help the reader understand that ancient Egypt has layers of references that are still generally unknown and await to be recognized and studied.
I think a royal figure in burial should not be found until what is at hand is recognized and much better understood.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 266

PostPosted: Wed Jul 08, 2020 5:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I responded earlier that I understand the metaphor about the tomb as a virtual 'machine of light' then I noted the burial shrines (of Tutankhamun).

I should make clear that I do not suggest that an actual machine is involved.
I had long ago observed in study that the burial shrines form a construct that demonstrates scalar aspects of light. So, the observation from texts that Ikon noted to me make sense in this context.

The burial shrines form a construct (a medium) through or with which the metaphors from the myths can translate to be known and understood in physical reality.
The shrines represent scalar aspects of light, increase, decrease, distribution, intensity, magnification, and more. Skeptical? Consider their nested order. Divide the cubic volumes of each shrine. Identify the results (hint is nanometers) and ask to consider. How and why are those references in ancient Egypt?

One answer is that human civilizations normally record to preserve their achievements and advancements. The burial shrines strongly suggest achievements were amidst in Egypt that were more advanced than accurately measuring stones.

More constructs also inform that Egypt was truly amazing in ways that historians could not have imagined. To find the pharaohs before available informative constructs are recognized, studied and better known could lead to great losses of human history.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Miscellaneous All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Page 10 of 10

 
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