> 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.

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


If your "The tombs we find at Saqqara with their star motifs" is evidence for a "star cult" at Saqqara, then using the same logic the same stars found at Sneferu's and Khufu's funerary complexes are evidence not so much of a "star cult", but of a stellar aspect to the royal funerary beliefs.

Also in Dyn 4, we have the pyramid of Djedefra, son of Khufu, named: 'Djedefre is a shining star' (Strudwick 2005); ‘Radjedef's star’ (J.P. Allen 1998); 'The Pyramid which is the sehdu-star' (Baines & Malek 1986); 'Djedefre is a sehed-star' (Edwards 1985). Also, probably in Dyn 4, 'Nebka / Neferka is a Star', the name of a pyramid at Zawiyet el-Aryan. (see below)

Djedefra was a traditional Horus king with a Horus name, 'Horus Kheper' (Hrw xpri), adopted at his accession to the throne, and written with the hieroglyphic sign L1 - ideogram xprr, 'dung-beetle', phon. xpr'

Evolver' (xpri) - "a designation of the Sun as he comes into being ('evolves') at dawn; the Egyptian name is also vocalized as Khepri"; 'Beetle' (xprr), the "name for the Sun at dawn, derived from association of the word xprr 'beetle' with the verb xpr 'come into being, evolve'" (Allen 2005: 430; 427)

Djedefra's Horus name, Hrw xpri, may then have a subtle solar meaning, and apparently he was the first to bear the epithet 'son of the Sun'.

Edwards states that Djedefra's explicit stellar name for his pyramid, clearly associates Djedefra with an astral after-life.

Clearly, the royal funerary beliefs in Dyn 4 included both solar and stellar aspects.



> 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???????

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




The evidence is for a stellar aspect to the royal funerary beliefs - not star cults!!!



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

AS: "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."



But the 5-pointed star motif is found from the Early Dynastic period - its found in Sneferu's Dyn 4 funerary complex, its found in Khufu's funerary complex, its found in the Dyn 5 royal funerary complexes - the era of sun temples! Why is it so difficult to understand that solar and stellar aspects of the royal funerary beliefs are not incompatible - they are bound together - they were both part of the celestial afterlife.


No one AFAIK is trying to "whitewash" Giza with a "stellar history" - thats just your smokescreen. The stellar aspect of the royal funerary beliefs is only one part, the solar aspect is another more important part, which is only natural as the sun was the brightest object in their sky. You are the one who is busy whitewashing Giza with an exclusive solar brush.



> 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? -



AS: "Giza is the evidence. You can pretend it isn't true, but we have a king who built a massive, internally distinct pyramid..."


Is this your evidence for an immensely dominant cult of Re - a pyramid!!!!!

Was Khufu's pyramid named 'Glory of Re', or 'Re is Great' etc. - no! - Khufu's pyramid was called Axt-xwfw, 'Khufu's Akhet'. According to Allen, the Akhet was the 'Place of Becoming Akh'. Khufu's pyramid was the place where he became akh. Note, Akhs (Axi, 'effective one') were the deceased, "whose ba has reunited with its ka...."



AS: "named his children "Son of Re" (for the first time in Egyptian history)"


'Son of the Sun' is an epithet not a name, and clearly shows the solar aspect of the royal funerary beliefs, not however, of an exclusive cult of Re at Giza, or an "immensely dominant cult of Re" at Giza. Inscribed statues of Khafra and Menkaura have been discovered - do they have 'Son of the Sun' inscribed on them?


AS: ".....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).


Argument from authority and highly speculative - where is your explicit Dyn 4 evidence the Sphinx was a solar symbol?


It could be argued that over 1000 years later the Sphinx was known as 'Horus in the Akhet'. By this time 'Akhet', from 'Khufu's Akhet', may have become the general designation of the entire site at Giza and 'Horus in the Akhet' gave the Sphinx an explicit designation - it was in the 'Akhet'.



AS: "Quirke sees the name "Akhet Khufu" as being primarily a solar reference"



The sun emerged from the Akhet, yes, but stars / akhs / gods also emerged from the Akhet.
Quirke only has "akh, one of the words for transfiguring sunlight" as his argument, but you should read Allen's 'Cosmology of the PTs' on this for another interpretation.


However, Quirke continues with: ".....The single king is always an aspect of the the one solar disk, whereas the many kings of history find a more persuasive celestial metaphor in the myriad stars, above all the circumpolar stars that never set - 'never perishing' as the inscriptions within the late OK pyramids describe them. Each king is singular in space, plural across time. This reconciles the alignment of the greatest pyramids to the north star with the use of sunshine to name the pyramid capstone...........A double destiny awaits the king - single still, but not alone, as one star among many, but continuing like the stars to be an aspect of, and to reflect, the supreme celestial body, the sun."


Quirke (as indeed most professional Egyptologists), obviously has no problem with solar and stellar aspects in the royal afterlife beliefs - he is not joining you on your mission to whitewash Giza with an exclusive solar brush.



AS: "... 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.


Please, no more spin, we all know the royal funerary beliefs had a strong solar theme - just come up with some real evidence that clearly shows an exclusive cult of Re at Giza, or an "immensely dominant cult of Re" at Giza.



AS: "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."



Iunu means 'pillars' not 'City of the Sun' which is a Greek name. When do the first obelisks appear in Iunu - do you know?


Where is your evidence that Iunu was a exclusive cult center of the sun in Dyn 4?


Giza is about 23 km to the SW of Iunu, and I hate to take the jam out of your doughnut, but Giza is actually closer to Ineb-Hedji, 'The White Wall' (Gr. Memphis), about 18 km to the SE on the other side of the river.


"The city of Memphis which has now disappeared almost completely, was the administrative and religious center of the 1st Lower Egyptian nome. It was the royal residence and capital of Egypt during the Early Dynastic Period and the Old Kingdom, and many later kings maintained a palace there. The city’s temples were among the most important in the land." (Baines & Malek 1986 (1984):134)


So by your logic that claims proximity to a religious centre means a dominating influence by that centre - as Giza is closer to the then capitol of Egypt, Ineb-Hedji, whose temples "were among the most important in the land", this might suggest more of a connection with Ineb-Hedji, rather than with Iunu.


Its not known what cults / shrines / temples were in Iunu in Dyn 4, but the earliest Pyramid Texts at the end of Dyn 5 have references to Iunu and its deities. The Sun in its many aspects was associated with Iunu as were many other important deities - it was not an exclusive cult center of Re as you imply.






> 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.


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



I'm not asking for "high priests", just priests of Re during Khufu's reign. Priests of the Sun are attested in Dyn 5, so surely your "immensely dominant cult of Re" at Giza should have priests of Re - 'Followers of Re' etc.


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


There's plenty of evidence that Horus was the god of kingship in Dyn 4:

Khufu was a traditional Horus king - the living embodiment of the god Horus, his Horus name adopted at his accession and subsequently used throughout his reign. Khufu's Horus name was Horus Medjedju (Hrw mDdw), "used, for example, on royal decrees and in formal rock inscriptions in preference to the other names." (Strudwick 2005: 14)


An estate that served the royal funerary cult was named: 'Established is Khufu on the throne of Horus' (mn xwfw Hrw st Hrw). The name of this estate clearly identifies Khufu as a traditional Horus king.

A priest of 'Horus, strong of arm' (Hrw qmA) or 'Horus with a raised arm' is attested at Giza, Dyn 4.

Horus titles held by members of Khufu's family, probably referred to the reigning Horus king: 'Companion of Horus', beloved of him, 'Follower of Horus'; 'Beloved of Thoth and Horus'; 'Beholder of Horus and Seth'; 'Intimate of Horus' etc.


Now once again, give similar evidence to back up your claims for an "immensely dominant" cult of Re at Giza.


There were plenty of priests at Giza - priests of Khufu, Horus, Selket, Hathor etc so surely you can find a Dyn 4 priest of Re at Giza.


In Dyn 5, Ptahshepses was a priest of Ra in at least two sun temples, so if there was an "immensely dominant" cult of Re during Khufu's reign where are all the priests - there must be hundreds of them in your immense cult - so can you name just three or four?


> 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 -

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


You just moved the goal posts - you now write "at Giza", before it was simply Dyn 4.


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

AS: "Which two are those again? You mean the one that says "The Starry Firmament", with the focus on "Firmament"?"



Why are you still using a 30 year old translation, and ignoring the latest translations by acknowledged experts.

The Dyn 4 pyramid of Djedefra, son of Khufu, was named: 'Djedefre is a shining star' (Strudwick 2005); ‘Radjedef's star’ (J.P. Allen 1998); 'The Pyramid which is the sehdu-star' (Baines & Malek 1986); 'Djedefre is a sehed-star' (Edwards 1985)




AS: "... 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?"

[www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk]


According to Edwards Nebka was a Dyn 4 king. He also states that 'Djedefre is a sehed-star' and 'Nebka is a star' that "clearly associate their owners with an astral after-life."


But you disagree with Edwards right? - so according to you, these explicit stellar names clearly do not associate their owners with stars? - perhaps they associate their owners with the sun then? - in that case they must have thought the sun was a star.


Nebka's name within the cartouche is known from builders 'marks' similar to those found in Khufu's pyramid. They were found at the site of the 'Unfinished Pyramid' at Zawyet el-Aryan, dated to Dyn 4 by its advanced architectural features - Baines & Malek state the owner is probably the successor of Khafra. The builder's 'marks' in red pigment, possibly read 'Neb-ka' and / or 'Nefer-ka', but other possible translations have been suggested: Wehem-ka, Ba-ka, Hor-ka, Bik-ka and Set-ka. The problem is with the sign before -ka. Set-ka is a valid possibility as the unusual sign resembles the Set animal, E20. Set-ka is the name of a son of Djedefra, known from a scribal statue discovered at Djedefra's funerary complex.

The layout of the pyramids of Djedefra and Nebka / Neferka are very similar, and the oval sarcophagus is very similar to a presumed piece of Djedefra's oval sarcophagus found by Petrie. A plaque with Djedefra's name was discovered at Zawiyet el-Aryan, all suggesting a Dyn 4 time frame for this pyramid. This king most likely had a very short reign however, either immediately before or after Khafra - so it may have been overlooked in the lists - an early king list from the Dyn 5 tomb of Netjerpunesut, has the order Djedefra, Khafra, Menkaura, Shepseskaf, Userkaf and Sahura.


Whatever the correct translation of the name of the owner, all the evidence points to a Dyn 4 pyramid similar to Djedefra's pyramid, and the name of the pyramid, like Djedefra's pyramid is explicitly stellar - it has the N14 'star' ideogram - sbA

The identification of Sanakht with the Nebka mentioned in some King-lists is very tentative.




> stars in Sneferu's funerary complex,

AS: "In what form are they?"



Traditional 5-pointed stars attested from the Early Dynastic period. They are arranged in neat rows, or borders - standard practice for OK royal funerary complexes.


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

AS: "Oh, you mean a band of stars, used as a decoration or border. At most, they might be the plural of the word "star".



If the three stars are indicating plural in a line of text as you seem to think, this clearly indicates the text is talking about stars - stars in the funerary complex of Khufu. If its not a text but simply part of a row of stars, then its the same star motif used in Sneferu's funerary complex and in the Dyn 5 funerary complexes - the era of the sun temples! Either way, what were stars doing in Khufu's funerary complex? You earlier claimed, "......any time a pharaoh wanted to name his pyramid with a stellar representation, he had to LEAVE Giza to do it."


So Djedef-ra, 'son of the Sun' had to "LEAVE" Giza because he wanted to name his pyramid with a stellar representation??????


AS: "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."


At last you acknowledge that I am correct when I point out that three stars were discovered in Khufu's funerary complex.


Your evidence for an "immensely dominant cult of Re" at Giza is nothing more than your usual profusion of obscuration.


No one here is arguing that there was no solar aspect to the royal funerary beliefs in Dyn 4, the issue here, is that YOU are trying to whitewash Giza exclusively with a solar brush and ignore the stellar aspect of the royal funerary beliefs.


AS: "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."


No need to shoot the messenger, he shot himself in the foot so many times one has to wonder if he has any foot left!

CT




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/28/2007 01:08PM by Chris Tedder.