Well, I can certainly confirm that there has been an underlying tendency in Egyptology to superimpose later traditions onto earlier times. It is very challenging to tell which ones, however, are right and which ones are wrong.

To do it right we have to look at the oldest traditions of which we now have record (and things are being discovered every year that help us understand the older ways better) and we have to look at them with all the plausible traditions and references from later times in mind... not just the ones that were linked by somebody fifty years ago and have become virtual dogma since then.

The details of Old Kingdom beliefs and customs are not settled, to be sure. We have more evidence now than at any time since we started researching the topic, so it is only rational, and scientific, to re-question old conclusions and see if they still fit with all the new data.

we may not find a "smoking gun" that clearly demonstrates that sAH was not the belstars of Orion in the Old Kingdom, but we may find that there is simply a better answer that fits more of the evidence that we have available now.

For example, here's a simple observation: The king becomes one with just about every god and his brother, according to the PTs. The king joins the Imperishable Ones.

Other than that reference ("Imperishable Ones), can anybody point to another pluralized reference to a star/god relationship in the Pyramid Texts of Dynasty V and VI?

This is probably not accidental. Based on the ceilings in the tombs from Dynasty III, V and VI, there is no evidence for the importance of star group, or asterisms. None. Zero. Zip. (see: [www.gizabuildingproject.com] )

This isn't some radical challenge to "orthodoxy", as some would have it labeled. I've had very serious discussions with Old Kingdom Egyptologists, and not one of them has called me a heretic, that's for sure.


Now, I see Morph has made the formal request for evidence of Dynasty VI sAH=Orion ( [www.hallofmaat.com] ). I also see that the conversation stopped right there.

We await the facts that support the contention. If it's so obvious to so many, how come in a week of discussing this subject, nobody has been able to demonstrate it clearly yet? Why are we still having to ask for the answer? (and being berated for doing so?) I certainly understand the nature of complex evidence, and how it is difficult to summarize or present the "silver bullet" that kills all other hypotheses, but it is getting tiring listening to people say "because real Egyptologists say so" as an answer to a complex, seemingly reasonable question. Even the attribution of the pyramid to Khufu can be answered in four or five quick bullet points.)


Anthony

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/12/2007 09:27AM by Anthony.