<HTML>Greg Reeder wrote:
> That is an interesting quote.
Thanks:-) It's a good book - quite large format; nice pictures, text from one of the finest Egyptologists around imho !
> BUT on the north of Djoser is
> a "cult palace" not a mortuary temple as such. So the "small
> chapel" may be a take off of that.
There's a lot of arguing about these things; I'm currently reading the final edition of Edwards "Pyramids of Egypt" and he does, imho, quite a good - and fair - job of summarising some of the differences in "interpretation" between the various authorities.
> I fail to see however what you are getting at. How does any
> of that negate some stellar significance to the mortuary temple?
If Malek is correct it seems that they might well have "separated" things within the pyramid complex even though the beliefs may well have syncretised - I've seen several explanations for the "five niches" !
> Would not the cult of the dead be about solar and stellar ?
Absolutely ! There's a quote from Paul Jordan to the effect that there was nothing incongrous with the dead pharaoh sailing East-West in his solar boat whilst dwelling with the gods in the circumpolar stars.
> And what Malek says at the beginning of your quote
> only confirms that the old star religion would be
> incorporated into the newer solar religion. But remeber that
> this dividing line is purely our assesment.
Agreed - but why two temples/chapels ?
John</HTML>
