> Sorry if I seem to be dense, but I'm really trying
> hard to understand what you have offered in this
> discussion, which in the beginning was about a
> connection between Osiris and Orion and the
> association of the face (the front of the head)
> with the south. Now why would Robert combine
> Osiris, Orion and facing south in a single thread
> topic? More on that later.
>
> Ritva posted,
>
> >You look at sAH as being an asterism seen
> >in 2D, which it by no means was to the AEs.
>
> In response to this I asked you if you could
> provide any evidence that the AEs thought of stars
> being in a 3D relationship to each other. Maybe
> you are either unable, unwilling, or perhaps
> pressed for time to do so. Please recall that
> this is in the context of Dave L's objection to my
> simple graphic.



And just maybe if you read everything I wrote, it would make more sence to you! I wrote: You look at sAH as being an asterism seen in 2D, which it by no means was to the AEs. He was a living, divine entity, just like all other heavenly objects.
Does this make better sence to you now? Or are you contesting the fact that the AEs' conception of asterisms and stars was not a constellation as seen in 2D from the earth, but a living entity with personality (such as Osiris, Isis etc)?



>
> My illustration (linked to on this thread topic)
> consists of a tracing of the Orion star group at
> the eastern and western horizon c. 2500 BC based
> on computer images kindly provided to me by Chris
> Tedder a few years ago with the additional layer
> of a Sah personificaion figure and some text.
> Bauval and Egyptologists such as R. A. Wells have
> used similar images to make their points, and I
> don't recall either you or Dave L complaining
> about this style of illustration to explain their
> work.


Can you show me where exactly I was complaining about your illustration?




> You also posted,
>
> > Robert's theory does not need
> >sAH to be mentioned in the southern sky.
>
> But in another post you wrote,
>
> >You need to imagine sAH standing in the
> >southern sky... facing south, not north.
> >His "up" would be south.



I don't know why you need to take sentences out of their context, is that a new kind of discussion technique or what?
What I mean is, that Robert's theory does not need sAH mentioned in the southern sky (from an Eyptian source), since we do know where sAH is situated in the ancinet Egyptian sky. It was on the southern sky!!
The part where I said "you need to imagine sAH standingin the southern sky" was to aid you to grab the idea of sAH facing south. It was not an argument for sAH being in the southern sky, because I don't see the necessity of such argument since we know where the sAH is. And that is in the southern sky!!

>
>
> What ho? Bauval's contentions concerning Orion
> are primarily based on an observer looking at the
> southern sky. According to your posts, on one
> hand, I'm supposed to imagine Sah standing in the
> southern sky but on the other hand 'Robert's
> theory' (the OCT?) does not need Sah to be
> mentioned in the southern sky. This seems to me
> to be an exercise in imagination and not sound
> Egyptology.


See above. I don't see why my meaning would be so difficult to understand, unless you just simply don't want to recognize Robert right about something.



> Bauval wrote on this thread,
>
> >Btw, this thread which I started was
> >not to re-open this truly waste-of-time
> >non-debate that Krupp launched, but to
> >highlight that J. Gwyn Griffiths is
> >very much open to a pre-5th Dynasty
> >Osiris, and both he and Lehner saw Orion
> >as central to the Duat, which can
> >only be seen when facing south.
>
> The simple fact that the head of a Sah
> personification figure is oriented toward the
> north at the eastern and western horizons -- which
> is what the Old Kingdom texts primarily connect
> Sah with -- is independent from Krupp's
> modern-day, astronomically based argument. The
> injection of the Krupp objection into this thread
> is a strawman.


No, it is not a strawman. The idea that sAH's head was oriented towards north is Krupp's main argument. The very one that allows him to say that the image on Giza is uppside-down and needs two different orientations to work.


>
> Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for Robert to 'splain
> why the Duat can only be seen when facing south.


Maybe because dwat is the realm of Osiris and he can only be seen in the southern sky...??



>
> Ken
>
> PS: I'm also still waiting to see all those
> ancient Egyptian maps that show south to be up.


Why would we need maps for that? If "east" in ancient Egyptian language is the same as "left", "west" is the same as "right", and "south" is the same as "before your face", then the math is easily done. Again, I refer you to Katherine's posting.


I am very sorry that you imagined the sAH having his head pointing towards north being your idea, and it actually being Krupp who voiced it first and hence being the one always quoted.
I am also very sorry, that you feel the need to try to shoot down everything in Robert's theory, instead of recognizing the parts where he is right. This part just happens to be one of those.













Ritva