Chris Tedder Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> AS: "When we see the star religion start to
> appear in the private tombs and such, we explain
> it away by claiming the religion was being
> "democracized". I'm not sure that's an entirely
> defendable position, in light of recent
> discoveries."
>
>
> The royal afterlife ideology had an important
> celestial theme with both solar and stellar
> aspects. The stellar aspect (note, NOT 'star
> cult' or 'star worship') is attested from the
> early dynastic period right through the OK,
> including Dyn 4.

No, it really isn't. Please provide a Dynasty IV reference.



>
>
> AS: "I contend that we should be making no such
> forced differentiations, and consider the simple
> thesis that the star cult was nowhere near as
> pervasive as most people imagine it was."
>
>
> What star cult???????


The one that operated in areas of Egypt away from Giza/Iunu.


>
> You once claimed there was a "star cult" at
> Saqqara - but you gave no evidence for a "cult" -
> temples and priests etc.

The tombs we find at Saqqara with their star motifs are the evidence. The star-laden funerary texts that do not appear anywhere until they show up at Saqqara at the end of Dynasty Five are the evidence. We do not find such tombs anywhere at Giza. The whitewashed "stellar history" of Giza cannot explain this.


>
>
> AS: "Also, that indeed there might have been an
> entirely different cult at operation in Egypt that
> took the fore during the reigns of Khufu, Sneferu,
> and on until Djedkare-Izezi. The cult of Re was
> relatively new, and clearly became immensely
> dominant just as the smooth-sided mega-pyramids
> were introduced into the cultural landscape."
>
>
> The solar aspect of the royal funerary beliefs is
> attested from the Early Dynastic Period, as is the
> stellar aspect. Sun temples were a Dyn 5
> phenomena at Abusir. AFAIK, there is very little
> evidence for an exclusive cult of Re at Giza or in
> Dyn 4 as you have previously claimed, so how can
> you assert it "clearly became immensely dominant"
> already at the beginning of Dyn 4 - what clear
> evidence do you have for this immense dominance? -


Giza is the evidence. You can pretend it isn't true, but we have a king who built a massive, internally distinct pyramid, named his children "Son of Re" (for the first time in Egyptian history), had a solar symbol carved out of bedrock (the Sphinx, see Lehner, TCP, p. 127), and a temple built with dual sanctuaries, probably associated with the rising and setting suns (again, Lehner, p. 129). Quirke sees the name "Akhet Khufu" as being primarily a solar reference, and beyond that, some very clear evidence ... well, it's pretty obvious that Giza was a solar site even without anything more. But there is more.

And, to top it off, Giza existed on the other side of the river from Iunu... the sun cult center of Lower Egypt. It is in Iunu that we find the first obelisks, always considered solar symbols. As Quirke says:

Quote

"Across three millennia of ancient Egyptian history, the cult of the sun was centred on the city named in Egyptian as Iunu, now to the Greeks as Heliopolis 'city of the sun'. Its name recurs more frequently than that of any other earthly place in the religious literature of ancient Egypt, and it became the model for New Kingdom Thebes, and probably too for Amarna. Yet few know its ancient name, or its importance in pharaonic civilization, for history has not been gentle with the place where time was once so assiduously measured for the worship of the sun. Today the main enclosure of the Ra temple is an uncharted field containing few visible remains, and hemmed in on all sides by the urban and industrial expanse of the northeastern Cairo districts Ain Shams and Matariya. This and the very scale of the site have so far prevented any systematic modern survey to underpin our study of the solar city."

Stephen Quirke, The Cult of Ra, p. 73

> can you list the priests of Re during Khufu's
> reign, the temples to Re, the 'Followers of Re'
> etc - these would be clear indications of an
> "immensely dominant" cult of Re at this time as
> you claim.
>


Trick question.

"There are no high priests in local cult centers before the Middle Kingdom". Quirke, p. 106


>
> There is evidence of a solar ASPECT to the royal
> funerary beliefs in Dyn 4 however, and the stellar
> aspect is also evident as you should well know -



I know nothing of the sort. There is absolutely no evidence from Dynasty IV to suggest a stellar aspect in operation at Giza. Period.


> hint, two Dyn 4 pyramids with explicit stellar
> names,

Which two are those again?

You mean the one that says "The Starry Firmament", with the focus on "Firmament"?

Here's the list from Dynasty IV, as provided by Lehner:

Sneferu Endures
The Southern Shining Pyramid
The Shining Pyramid
Akhet Khufu
Djedefre is a Sehed-star (or probably more accurately, "the Starry Firmament of Djedefre")
Great is Khafre
Menkaure is Divine
The Purified Pyramid

No stars really... just one used as an adjective. Are you going to pull out the "star name" for Nebka's pyramid? While you're at it, can you then please provide the correct name of the king for whom the pyramid was actually built?



> stars in Sneferu's funerary complex,


In what form are they?



> similar stars discovered in Khufu's funerary
> complex......

Oh, you mean a band of stars, used as a decoration or border. At most, they might be the plural of the word "star". You are correct: that is the only star that has survived at Giza from the Fourth Dynasty. One single tiny piece of decorative border. Please compare that with the profusion of solar references we have from the site, and you'll see what was considered more important, if not all important, at the necropolis near Iunu.

The evidence is clear and the logic, if followed systematically, leads to no other reasonable conclusion. I can't help it. Don't shoot the messenger.

Anthony

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