Path: Supernews70!Supernews69!not-for-mail
From: nagasiva@yronwode.com (nagasiva)
Newsgroups: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.magick,talk.religion.newage,alt.thelema,alt.mythology,alt.archaeology,sci.archaeology
Subject: Various: Gods and Egyptology
Date: 20 Dec 1997 15:31:57 -0800
Organization: Access Internet Communications, Inc.
Lines: 397
Message-ID: <67hkhd$g55$1@shell.accesscom.com>
Reply-To: nagasiva@yronwode.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 7837@205.226.156.10
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 (NOV)
Xref: Supernews70 alt.magick.tyagi:14514 alt.magick:120881 talk.religion.newage:89830 alt.mythology:44675 alt.archaeology:19668 sci.archaeology:72760

[technical difficulties enforced delay]

[all from thelema93-l@hollyfeld.org]

h-hays@uchicago.edu (Harold M. Hays):

Tim Maroney wrote [about Donald Correll's essay, not included here]:
>>At the same time it has to be said that the essay as history is a total
>>failure. Even when it directly addresses its main figure, known as Horus
>>of Edfu, Heru-Behuti, or Bedheti, it commits many errors. I'm sorry to
>>always have to be the bad guy, but most occult history is so bad that's
>>there's always plenty of work that needs be done.

To which Donald Correll responded:
>  You speak like you were there. Very few of the so called experts can agree
>on anything more refined for Khufu than 2700 to 3500 b.c. Before that any
>valid history does indeed become problematical. Perhaps you might like to
>reveal the source of your wisdom?

It is possible that, as Donald says, "very few of the so called experts can
agree," on dates, but since I don't know to whom he may be referring, I
will have to take his word for it.  On the other hand, among those who can
read hieroglyphs and who have considered the evidence, it is generally
agreed that Dynasty 1 begins circa 3100 BC.
Sources:
Thomas Schneider 1994. Lexikon der Pharaonen.  Zurich:  Artemis.
B. G. Trigger 1983 "The Rise of Egyptian Civilization" in Trigger et al,
Ancient Egypt:  A Social History.  Cambridge:  Cambridge University.
Barry Kemp 1989.  Ancient Egypt:  Anatomy of a Civilization.  London:
Routledge.
Peter F. Dorman 1997.  "Chronology of Egypt:  from Prehistoric Times
through the Second Intermediate Period."  Class handout.
To these may be added the 7 Archaic chronologies listed by W. B. Emery
1961.  Archaic Egypt.  London:  Penguin.

Fixing the beginning of Dynasty 1 at around 3100 is based on comparison of
Sothic cycles to the evidence of radiocarbon dating.

There is some variation among these authorities, but this may be attributed
to, among other things, a lack of continuous dated evidence from the 1st
Intermediate Period and before; it is understood that, prior to the Middle
Kingdom, dates are approximative and could be off by one or two centuries.


Nevertheless, there is not so great a disagreement as 700 years for the
date of Khufu for the simple reason that, knowing most of the kings from
the Archaic Period and the Old Kingdom, and having dated evidence
concerning many of them, as well as the Palermo Stone, whose fragments give
cattle-counts for kings of the first dynasties from which may be calculated
lengths of reigns, not to mention the South Saqqara stone, which augments
the information from the Palermo Stone and other evidence, one may make a
reasonable estimate for Khufu's time-position.  For example, Schneider
gives 2620-2580 while Dorman gives 2579-2556 for Khufu.

I strongly doubt that Jurgen von Beckerath's Chronologie des pharaonischen
Aegypten, which is presently in press, will deviate by anything more than a
century of Schneider and Dorman.

Donald Correll also wrote:
>The Egyptian concept was of a family of gods, Nuteru. It
>is quite impossible in light of the current state of debate upon Egyptian
>antiquities to make any certain detirmination for this Age of the Gods.
>Suffice it to say that after a very great number of years pre- history
>entered the heroic era.

Donald seems to be speaking about the mythical god- and demi-god-kings of
Manetho and the Turin Canon when you write "Age of the Gods."  But what he
means by "heroic era" is not known to me.

Based on excavations in Egypt at the end of last century and in the present
one, on radiocarbon dating, and on seriation of pottery types, the
prehistoric timeline has been pretty well worked out:
Badarian ca. 6000-4000 BC
Amratian/Naqada I 4000-3600
Early Gerzean/Naqada II 3600-3200
Late Gerzean/Naqada III 3200-3028, in which reign kings of "Dynasty 0"
Dynasty I:  3028-2835
All of these figures are approximations, with degrees of error increasing
the farther back one goes.

Where is "the heroic era" in this scheme?

Donald seems to be implying that some kind of alien population group
entered the Nile Valley with iron weapons and thereafter established
Egyptian civilization.  But this supposed invasion or the whatever-you-like
has so far escaped archeological recovery.  According to Trigger, in the
article cited above, there is no prehistoric evidence to support this kind
of theory, which has incidentally (sans iron and without reference to the
Edfu texts) been entertained by no less an authority than Emery, cited
above.  An examination of the prehistoric material culture of the
Badarians, Amratians, and Gerzeans shows a cultural continuity alongside
technological and artistic innovations.  The only noticeable alien element
to appear in the Nile Valley comes just before and into Dynasty 1, when
artistic motifs already present in Mesopotamia appear on, for example, a
knife handle made of hippoppotamus ivory and upon the wall of Tomb 100 in
Hierakonpolis.  But, following Djoser of Dynasty 3, the Mesopotamian
influence effectively disappears.  Further, iron implements remain scarce
in Egypt for a good thousand years or so.  Copper is the metal being used
in the prehistoric period.

Donald Correll also wrote:
>  Mister Marronney, the purpose of all powerful transcendant Gods is to
>legitimize the power of the Pharoh, King, or Emperor.

I have difficulty with this statement, simply because there is no Egyptian
text that describes the _purpose_ of any Egyptian god as one of
legitimization.  On the other hand, it is true that divinity in a sense
legitimizes the king upon accession to the throne, as when the god Amun
confers the titulary upon Thutmosis III:  "He [Amun] affixed my crowns
while he himself officially recorded the titulary for me, establishing my
falcon atop the serekh."  (Urkunden IV 160, 10-15, from an inscription at
Karnak.)

It is the titulary which legitimizes the king as such.  The Egyptian term
for "titulary" is nekhbet, and literally means "that which is fixed"
(Kaplony 1980 "Koenigstitular" in Lexikon der Aegyptologie III col.
641-659.) and is first documented in the Middle Kingdom (Woerterbuch der
aegyptischen Sprache ii 308); however, an earlier noun with the same
spelling as nekhbet less the flexional -t appears with the sense of
"direction/regulation (Vorschrift, Bestimmung; Wb ii 307) or "stipulation"
(Faulkner, Concise Dictionary, 138), both senses of which partake of the
notion of government by word (direction/regulation) or even agreement and
contract (stipulation).

One may further suppose that legitimacy, besides coming indirectly through,
for example, Amun, comes also through certain elements of the titulary,
namely the designation of the king as Horus and as Son of Re.  (On this see
Lanny Bell 1985 "Luxor Temple and the Cult of the Royal Ka." in JNES 44, p.
256.)

One might easily make an argument that the king, himself a god, has in fact
for his purpose to serve the gods; hence his title "hm ("dot h")," which is
conventionally translated "Majesty" but which in fact appears in identical
spelling in the mundane expression "servant."  The Thutmosis III accession
text cited above explicitly states that the king is to work the will of the
Ka of Amun, even while Amun puts victory in his hands, causes that the
foreign lands come in obeisance, puts foreign lands under his sandals, etc.
Thus according to the Egyptians, it could be said that, far from the gods
existing to legitimize the king, the king exists to serve the gods.

But there is nothing in any Egyptian text declaring that the _purpose_ of
the gods was/is to legitimize the king.

I also have difficulty understanding what is meant by "all powerful
transcendant Gods," as a god who is transcendent of manifest existence is
logically powerless in the sphere of manifest existence.  On the
philosophical development of transcendence and definitions of the varieties
of transcendence, see John Peter Kenney 1991.  Mystical Monotheism.
Hanover:  Brown University.

According to Erik Hornung, who is a recognized expert on Egyptian religion,
the Egyptians did not entertain notions of a transcendent god.  See Erik
Hornung 1971.  Der Eine und die Vielen.  Darmstadt:  Wissenschaftliche.
However, his argument is based upon a definition of transcendence derived
from a Christian encyclopedia and upon a single epithet of the god Atum;
such a cursory treatment begs more detailed analysis:  a closer examination
of what transcendence is and a more thorough analysis of the Egyptian
material.

Donald also wrote:
>The priests of Edfu while recognizing a supreme transcendant god Ra -Hoor
>-Khuit ...

Justify "supreme transcendant" for Re-Har-Akhty bzw. Ra-Hoor-Khuit.

Har-akhty is the god of the morning sun and his import merges with that of
Re as the same and as Re-Har-Akhty.  "Akht" of "Akhty" means "horizon";
originally, the eastern horizon, but at least by the Book of Going Forth,
it can refer to either the eastern or western horizon.  "Akhty" may be
understood in two ways; first, it may be a nisba (i.e. relational
adjective) here used as substantive appositive meaning "the horizoner" or
"he of the horizon," in which case "Re-Har-Akhty" means "Re-Horus, He of
the Horizon."  Second, it may be understood as the dual form of "Akht,"
meaning "the two horizons," here used as a direct genitive of Re-Har, in
which case the meaning is "Re-Horus of the Two Horizons."  (See Hans Bonnet
1971.  Reallexikon der aegyptischen Religionsgeschichte.  Berlin:  Walter
de Gruyter, p. 269.)  As a sun-god of either horizon or both, Re-Har-Akhty
is one appearing in the east, setting in the west, or one who is of both
east and west.  As one appearing and/or setting, he is a manifest god.  A
manifest god is not a transcendent god.

Donald Correll also wrote:
>No history of Egypt is
>complete without concordance to Liber Al vel Legis.

He is high.

And he wrote:
>The Gods live for ever.

That the gods live for ever is not an Egyptian idea.  See Utterance 17 of
the Book of Going Forth; "This is it:  to it [the West, the land of the
dead] is where Re caused that every god should go."  (Text Edouard Naville
1971.  Das aeygptische Todtenbuch der XVIII. bis XX. Dynastie.  Graz,
Austria:  Akademische, pl. 23, ll. 11-12.  The version is "Aa" = Nebseni,
Dynasty 18.)  Re, who in this context is the manifestation of the creator
god Atum, who is the self-begotten and sole-begetting god coming forth from
Nun, has made it so that all gods die.

Significantly, Re himself dies as well, and daily. On the concept, see the
Hornung work cited above.

The sun god, going over to the West and into the Dwat, or Netherworld, does
so in order to rejuvenate his physical being:  Says the sun-god:  "... So
that I may I cause [my] flesh to breathe so that it may stand is why I have
come [to the Dwat.]  (From the 1st Hour of the Long Version of The Book of
That Which Is in the Netherworld; version of Thutmosis III; text Paul
Bucher 1932.  Les textes des tombes de Thoutmosis III et d'Aminophis II, 1.
Cairo:  l'Institut frangais d'Archiologie orientale, l. 232.)  
The gods die in order that they may be rejuvenated, and then reborn.

Donald Correll also wrote:
> Great scholarly debate
>has failed to reveal an origin for iron and metal working

What debate?  No one has challenged J. R. Harris 1961.  Lexicographical
Studies in Ancient Egyptian Minerals.  Berlin:  Akademie, p. 60:  "Although
[bia n p.t] means literally 'iron from heaven', and should logically refer
to meteoric iron alone, it is clear that it has a wider significance and
includes all iron" as the term is also used in reference to iron imported
from Retjenu, i.e. from the vicinity of the Levant.  Ibid, 59, notes that
this particular expression first appears in Dynasty 19.

As for metallurgy, copper was being cast in Upper Egypt no later than the
Gerzean period.  The only question is whether the technique was transmitted
to Egypt from Palestine, where smelting appears earlier, or whether it
developed independently in Egypt, as cast copper does not appear in
contemporaneous population sites in Lower Egypt.  See the Trigger article
cited above and H. Kantor 1965 "The Relative Chronology of Egypt and Its
Foreign Correlations before the Late Bronze Age" in R. W. Ehrich, ed.
Chronologies in Old World Archeology.  Chicago:  University of Chicago.

Donald Correll also wrote.
>The
>point is that the Mesneti possesed iron. It says so on the walls of their
>temple, Edfu. Perhaps you think these heiroglyphs forged?

But the Egyptian religious texts, such as the "Myth of the Triumph of
Horus" are cultic in import, not historic.  Such texts do not refer to
physical events nor even can it be proven to satisfaction that they are at
all resonant of historic events; they are image-laden texts of
non-corporeal sense.  (For an early interpretation of Egyptian religious
texts as supplying grounds for the reconstruction of history, see Kurt
Sethe 1930. Urgeschichte und aelteste Religion der Aegypter.  Wiesbaden:
Lessing.  For a rejection of this kind of reconstruction, see Henri
Frankfort 1948.  Kingship and the Gods.  Chicago:  University of Chicago.)

The account of Horus Behedite given by Donald Correll, even more fantastic
than other statements made on this list concerning ancient Egypt, was
rightly challenged by Tim Maroney.

===========================================================

catzlaff@95net.com (Michelle/Tom Catlett-Tetzlaff):

>>>>  In fact, if the source text actually translates the weapons as
>>>>being of 'divine iron,' then it's almost certain to have been meteoric
>>>>iron.  It's no mystery.  Modern archaologists are not at all confused on
>>>>this point!
>
Tim answers:
>I guess someone forgot to tell Harold Hays' sources what their consensus
>was.

Harold's source was specifically referring to an Egyptian translation of a
word apparently meaning 'iron from heaven.'  I'm referring to the fact that
in Hittite texts AND in other Egyptian texts, AND from what I understand,
in other ancient Near Eastern texts as well, "divine iron" does in fact
refer to meteoric iron.  Dynasty 19 was a New Kingdom dynasty, about
1300-1200 BC, while the earliest references to meteroic iron as 'divine' of
which I'm aware are Hittite and about a thousand years earlier. If perhaps
the Egyptian term was later expanded to include iron imported from other
sources, that's interesting.  I find that useful and will 'file it away'
for the future.  My original point was that Tim's mockery of the idea of
'divine iron' being of "star metal" was misplaced, though making the remark
was understandable, I suppose, considering his personal exasperation with
the nature of Donald's essay.

Thelema is a religion.  Religions are not scientific.  To confuse the two
is the commonest New Age fallacy.  The Thelemite Horus and the Egyptian
Horus are not precisely the same god, and the manner in which He is
experienced and understood will differ according to the understanding and
needs of each individual, as with any god.
One might as well not worry about alerting religious readers to "bad
history." Nobody who understands a scientific discipline is going to
confuse religious historical research with scientific investigation.

The Law itself is for ALL, without regard to academic attainments or point
of view.

=============================================================

h-hays@uchicago.edu (Harold M. Hays):

Quoting me, Donald Correll pasted,
>>But the Egyptian religious texts, such as the "Myth of the Triumph of
>>Horus" are cultic in import, not historic.  Such texts do not refer to
>>physical events nor even can it be proven to satisfaction that they are at
>>all resonant of historic events; they are image-laden texts of
>>non-corporeal sense.  (For an early interpretation of Egyptian religious
>>texts as supplying grounds for the reconstruction of history, see Kurt
>>Sethe 1930. Urgeschichte und aelteste Religion der Aegypter.  Wiesbaden:
>>Lessing.  For a rejection of this kind of reconstruction, see Henri
>>Frankfort 1948.  Kingship and the Gods.  Chicago:  University of Chicago.)

And then asked me,
>I supose that you might care to pass judgement on the Pyramid texts as well?

Why yes, I would.  They are also ritual texts.  See Hartwig Altenmueller
1972.  Die Texte zum Begraebnisritual in den Pyramiden des Alten Reiches.
Wiesbaden:  Harrassowitz.

In point of fact, the Sethe work I mentioned in the above-pasted post draws
almost exclusively upon the Pyramid Texts for his never-believed
reconstruction of history.  (At the same time, Sethe also recognizes that
they are really ritual and not historical texts.)

That the Pyramid Texts are ritual texts may be seen by the formulaic
introduction to virtually all of the utterances to the same:  d_d mdw
"Words to be recited."

Examples:  PT 383a:  "Words to be recited.  You will awaken in peace, o you
whose sight is behind himself, in peace."  Is this history, or is this
performative, i.e. magical, utterance?

PT 388a:  "Words to be recited.  Wenis is he who filled the land which came
forth from the pool.  Wenis is he who plucks the papyrus."  Is this a
historical event?

PT 392a:  "Words to be recited.  O height which is not pierced, o gate of
the primeval waters, it is to you that Wenis has come; let this be opened
to him!"  Is the jussive "let this be opened" a historical statement?

PT 150a:  "Words to be recited.  It is before you that I have come, o
Nephthys.  It is before you that I have come, o night bark."  Is the night
bark a historical conveyance?

PT 152a:  "Words to be recited.  O Atum-Re, this Wenis come to you, he an
akh, an indestructible star, a lord of the affairs of the place of the 4
papyriform columns."  Was Wenis historically a star?  Or is something other
than a physical event or condition, that is, a historical event or
condition, being discussed here?

PT 161a:  "Words to be recited.  O Osiris, this Wenis comes indeed, a calf
of the Nine Bows."  Was Wenis, the last king of Dynasty 4, also really a
little bull?

Text:  Kurt Sethe 1908-1910.  Die altaegyptischen Pyramidentexte, 2 vols.
Leipzig:  J. C. Hinrichs.

The fact is, this same expression "words to be recited," appears also in
the Book of Going Forth.

Examples:

BD 2:  "Utterance of going forth into/from day and of living after dying.
Words to be recited by the overseer of the house of the chancellor, Nu."

BD 3:  "Another like it.  Words to be recited by the overseer...Nu."

BD 4:  "Utterance of passing over the Upper-Road/sky of Rasetjew.  Words to
be recited by .... Nu."

BD 5:  "Utterance of preventing that a man should do work in the
'necropolis.'  Words to be recited by ... Nu."

BD 6:  "Utterance of causing that a shubty do work in the 'necropolis.'
Words to be recited by ... Nu."

Text:  Guenther Lapp 1997.  The Papyrus of Nu (BM EA 10477).  London:
British Museum.


See the following works on the ritual formula d_d mdw:

Gustave Lefebvre 1955. Grammaire de l'Igyptien classique, 2d corrected and
revised edition.  Cairo:  l'Institut frangais d'Archiologie orientale.
Section 401b, where d_d mdw is parsed as infinitive plus objective
genitive.

Patrick Boylan 1979.  Thoth:  the Hermes of Egypt.  Chicago:  Ares, p. 94:
it is a stereotyped rubric preceding every ritual phrase.

Robert K. Ritner 1993.  The Mechanics of Ancient Egyptian Magical Practice.
Chicago:  The Oriental Institute, p. 50, translates "(magical) words to be
said."

I really don't know why you asked whether I should like to pass judgment on
the Pyramid Texts, Donald.  Anyone who is at all familiar with them knows
that they are ritual texts, not historical records.

=========================================================

EOF
-- 
(emailed replies may be posted); http://www.hollyfeld.org/~tyagi; 408/2-666-SLUG
  join the esoteric syncretism in alt.magick.tyagi; http://www.abyss.com/tokus