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 

why did the egyptians biuld/carve the sphinx.
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Sphinx
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Ikon
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 491

PostPosted: Sun Nov 14, 2021 9:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

maat wrote:


First, I don't know why Thutmose IV and not someone else installed the stela.


We have been led astray by the Dream Stela, a device to legitimize the reign of Thutmose IV, who may have murdered one or more elder brothers to become king. There's no proof of course, only suspicion, and they may well have died of natural causes, we'll never know unless we find their intact mummies.

However, no matter Thutmose IV stating that it was he who cleared the Sphinx, I do not think this has any credibility because both his father, Amunhotep II, and grandfather, Thutmose I, built temples at the Sphinx. I find it hard to believe that they just built a temple and made no effort to clear the Sphinx, and indeed I believe that it is more probable than not, that the Sphinx was cleared by Thutmose I after many years of neglect during the Hyksos occupation of Lower Egypt.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Priest
Priest


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 520

PostPosted: Mon Nov 15, 2021 7:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think that it is a mistake to read the Dream Stela as political document firstly because it gives mostly details from a supposed dream of a young prince who has the monument talk to him.† The accounts are purely fictional.

Still,† a fictional account can contain factual details.

I think that the Contestings of Horus and Seth inform about this possibility of truthful information in a deceptive package where in the mythical account Seth is made to ingest sperm from Horus that was put on lettuce that Seth later ate.

Of course Seth had acted and thought to denigrate Horus before the court of gods but was deceived in his own scheme.

When the seed of Horus was called forth, it answered from inside Seth, the god of deception (deceipt). The moral of that account is in part that truth (epitomized by Horus) can be found in a deception but there is no deception inside truth.

This concept can be extended to the Dream Stela that has a fictional account of the young prince Thutmose IV having had a dream that led to his installation of the stela.

As a political document to raise his status and legitimize his reign,† it makes little sense because he was already king when the stela was supposedly installed (if he in fact had it installed).

One would have to think that Thutmose IV himself really believed that the sphinx had actually spoken to him or that he installed the stela as a political ploy.

The stela informs that the sphinx was buried.† It's physical condition when excavated (no easy task) in our modern times informs that it was buried for much of its existence. So,† for political† purpose,† the Dream Stela under sand makes no rational sense.

Now,† as a narrative that informs about relative positions in relation to the pyramids on the Giza Plateau,† the text of the Dream Stela can be deciphered to expose and find relationships.

Whether Thutmose IV cleared the sphinx from the† sand† is possible whether anyone before him had previously also excavated the sphinx.† But, the involvement of the name of Thutmose IV can and might also be a reference about time for something that is significantly to be recognized as being within the period it involving the period of his reign.

I seriously doubt the Dream stela is a political document in the sense that many people think it is.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Priest
Priest


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 520

PostPosted: Mon Nov 15, 2021 7:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Correction:
I noted "Contestings of Horus and Seth" where I meant to write "Contendings of Horus and Seth".

This system won't let me preview some posts and I don't know why.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
karnsculpture
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 27 May 2010
Posts: 479

PostPosted: Tue Nov 16, 2021 10:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Clearing the sphinx may have been a ritual practiced by princes in the 18th Dynasty as part of their route to being king; it may have been as little as sweeping a small amount of sand away, we just don't know. Other princes also venerated the sphinx, although their stela were defaced. The temple of Amenhotep II is so close to the sphinx that there must be a relationship between Tuthmose IV's actions as a prince and worship at the site.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Priest
Priest


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 520

PostPosted: Tue Nov 16, 2021 7:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whether clearing the sphinx was ritual or not, the structure was buried.

I don't think any of it has to do with veneration of the sphinx.

I'm not familiar with other stela at the sphinx.
Can you clue me in so that I can look into them.

Also, what were the actions of Thutmose IV as a prince?

Do you mean the actions noted in the Dream Stela?
That seems to me to be a fictional account in similarity with that of Akhenaten having been informed by the Aten where to establish Akhetaten.

If there is some truth in the accounts, I doubt it is that the gods spoke to these figures in reality or that those kings in life really believed they each had a mystical experience.

So, to explore a technical aspect seems like a reasonable course to pursue.

I can't (except as they may contain references to something real) consider the magical or spiritual narratives to be serious as if they were actually believed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
karnsculpture
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 27 May 2010
Posts: 479

PostPosted: Tue Nov 16, 2021 8:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Several kings from the 18th Dynasty promoted a relationship with a god to justify their rule. Hatchepsut and Amenhotep III carved divine conception scenes, Horemheb used a text saying he was identified as a future king by a divine oracle, while Amenhotep II and Tuthmosis IV were selected by the god of the Sphinx. Akhenaten was chosen and instructed by the Aten. Itís all propaganda, most likely all kings published such proclamations in one form or another. The next dynasty chose to be a bit more literal and show that they were selected by the previous king (Ramesses II at Abydos). I donít think thereís much hidden meaning or mystery. Yes Tuthmosis IVís stela is the dream stela, which is a good example of this kind of propaganda justifying rule. It was highly political - Hatchepsut was not the intended ruler, Amenhotep III a child king (albeit not a really young one), Horemheb a commander while Amenhotep II and Tuthmosis IV were not the only princes alive when their fathers were alive.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Priest
Priest


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 520

PostPosted: Thu Nov 18, 2021 1:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

karnsculpture wrote:
Several kings from the 18th Dynasty promoted a relationship with a god to justify their rule.


I disagree with the statement that the king "promoted a relationship with a god to justify their rule", but not because it is incorrect or implausible.

Your statement might be valid in some or all cases.

I disagree with the statement because it ascribes a motive that may or may not be true or accurate, whether that might be sometimes or always.

The reason that each king publicized or promoted a relationship with a god could have been for purposes other than to justify their rule.

Such purposes could have been solely to promote their rule.
Or, for purpose that was in addition to promoting their rule.
Or, for purpose that was completely other than to promote their rule.

The involvement of a god could simply be a reference to mask a different purpose.

The most obvious conclusion with things of ancient Egypt is not always the only valid conclusion that is available, possible or even final.

There can be more than one truth and many ancient Egyptian references (in my findings) are structured to have multiple aspects.†

Material (political propsganda?) that might appear to promote the king, his status or reign might in fact be for other purpose.

My other concern about your statement involves considering, to whom was the king in need to justify his rule?†

Who threatened the reign of a king that the king would have had a need to use such propaganda for appeasement? The people?†

Did the people fear or respect the gods more than the military might of the king? Would the people have risen against the kingdom?

The use of gods for propaganda to support a reign seems like a losing proposition as the king would have been better politically positioned if he either favored all gods or favored none (avoided to entertain a favorite).

But,† to support one god over another as seems to be considered† seems like a recipe for disaster.

Akhenaten naturally comes to mind because his story is held up as an extreme example in† which a king promoted a god that seems to have disfavored him with (the cult leaders?† Populace? ).

I say "seems to" because the Restoration Stela of Tutankhamun is the fundamental testimony that is relied upon to claim that Akhenaten oppressed and suppressed† ("neglected") the cults, priests and temples of the gods.

This is not to say that there was not or could not have been propaganda especially to unite people to the kingdom or to a cause.

I just question if aligning with a god would have been expedient to any Pharaoh's hold on the kingship.

Would support of a god have trumped hereditary claim?

There really is so much involved within the different layers or aspects an ancient Egyptian references.

I will use here a cliche and say that the ancient Egyptians designed references as if they were playing three-dimensional chess, while most people today are still reading their works with tic-tac-toe rules.



The wooden sculpture, bust head of the king, Tutankhamun

You note that
Quote:

Hatchepsut and Amenhotep III carved divine conception scenes, Horemheb used a text saying he was identified as a future king by a divine oracle, while Amenhotep II and Tuthmosis IV were selected by the god of the Sphinx. Akhenaten was chosen and instructed by the Aten. Itís all propaganda, most likely all kings published such proclamations in one form or another.


I disagree only because one aspect might be propaganda while other aspects might be for different purposes. The seeming propaganda aspect might be for diversionary purposes.

[quote]The next dynasty chose to be a bit more literal and show that they were selected by the previous king (Ramesses II at Abydos). [quote]
Ramesses II is an interesting reference as the name happens to be the first of nineteen (or twenty if Siamun is not Setepenamun) kings whose throne names include "Setepenre".

The name Setepenre of course was first used (if I am not mistaken) by the youngest daughter of Akhenaten and Nefertiti in dynasty 18. A structured reference from that daughter spans over 600 years.

I'm still studying and noting the structure, really mazing stuff as it spans across dynasties. The ancient Egyptians worked and designed on time scales that we today simply don't consider.

They claim that their works would be for thousands or even a million years and we today thought it was hyperbole, but their works are structured to have such longevity.

A work that spans across six or seven centuries is effectively invisible to those looking only at segments that each are only 30 to 90 years.

Quote:
I donít think thereís much hidden meaning or mystery.

This is reasonably understandable.

Quote:
Yes Tuthmosis IVís stela is the dream stela, which is a good example of this kind of propaganda justifying rule. It was highly political - Hatchepsut was not the intended ruler, Amenhotep III a child king (albeit not a really young one), Horemheb a commander while Amenhotep II and Tuthmosis IV were not the only princes alive when their fathers were alive.

There is more beyond the speculations about political motivations.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Priest
Priest


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 520

PostPosted: Thu Nov 18, 2021 2:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I can't seem to preview my posts, so I will catch fewer of my errors.

In the preceding post, ignore the line where I noted
"The wooden sculpture, bust head of the king, Tutankhamun".
I had meant to delete it. The other errors are typographical, obvious and I won't bother to note corrections here.

karnsculpture wrote:
It was highly political - Hatchepsut was not the intended ruler, Amenhotep III a child king (albeit not a really young one), Horemheb a commander while Amenhotep II and Tuthmosis IV were not the only princes alive when their fathers were alive.

Where you note that "Hatchepsut was not the intended ruler", I again have to disagree because I found a relationship that involves the reign of Hatshepsut as a key reference with the reign of Akhenaten.

Together, they form a structured reference that exposes information about Khufu.

That both Hatchepsut and Akhenaten had statues that present gender-ambiguity is something like terminus references in time (like virtual bookends that mark a start and an end position).

The structured reference they effectively mark pertains directly to Khufu's pyramid in no uncertain way.

So, the idea that Hatchepsut was not meant to reign as the historical record informs she did must be reconsidered because there is a structured reference that involves her as a necessary reference element in the historical record of ancient Egypt.

You could be correct that she was not meant to reign and the use of her as a key reference was later adopted and adapted.

Or, it could be that the structured reference that involves her and Akhenaten was planned ahead such that Akhenaten was required to produce the gender- ambiguous statues (or some similar references) that would expose the structured reference.

Again, the reference spans across a long period of time for which few people would consider to look for any kind of designed relationships.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Sphinx All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

 
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