Ritva Kurittu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi Anthony,
>
>
> > Good point... but could this be the result of
> the
> > overshadowing importance of the mortuary
> temples
> > as opposed to the tomb itself?
>
>
> Could be, but then was the MT ever less important.
> Or what it represented i.e. the deceased as a god.
> The sedabs in the mastabas have, IMO, the same
> function.
>
I do not see how it became less important ... that reference is lost on me.
But I do agree the MT is analogous to a huge, complicated version of the serdab.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Actually, I don't need to pull back Osiris either.
> Orisis is not the important factor, but sAH.
Quite likely. Have you been following some of Morph's posts here on Dynasty II glyphs? Fascinating stuff.
> I
> don't think sAH is one of Osiris' aspects, I think
> it is the other way around.
Especially in his earliest appearances. I have no problem with that logic.
> Are you familiar with
> Lorton's suggestion of Osiris being the mummified
> body?
That was Lorton? You know how I am with names. Do you have his work in e-format?
>
> >
>
>
> Yeh, we have been through this so many times. And
> yet, I still can't see why you'd choose to divide
> between solar and stellar, while they are the two
> aspects of the same: one is day and the living,
I'll ask you to just accept the fact that
I think I have a reason that justifies it. It's all I can say at this point. I'm not saying it is a fact that they are separated, but it is a fact that I think I have a reason for it.
> and the other is night and the deceased. You do
> know that the AEs had two different conceptions of
> time, right? Where do you think those conceptions
> come from?
Same place all their mythology/philosophy came from: Their perception of reality filtered through the paradigms of their worldview.
The problem we face in these translations is that, as I see it, they had more than one competing world view.
Anthony
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.
