Ritva Kurittu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi Anthony,
>
>
>
> >
> > I don't see the logical connection between a
> group
> > of gods being honored and that group of gods
> > including a god that isn't attested for
> centuries
> > after Djoser. Did you mean to type "Geb" or
> > "Shu", and mistakingly typed "Osiris"?
>
>
> Osiris is part of the Great Ennead of Iunu, isn't
> he?


300 years after the inscription we are discussing here.


> The living king was identified with Geb, not
> the deceased one.
>
>


No bearing on the discussion at hand.



>
> There's no
> > logical reason to shove Osiris into the line
> up
> > just because he appears in that line up
> centuries
> > later. The ennead is a fictitious, mythical
> > creation, and as such, could be changed at
> the
> > whim of a single king. In fact, it is far
> more
> > likely that Khentiamentu was included in the
> > ennead... not Osiris.
>
>
> You should know that the Great Ennead of Iunu
> remained the same throughout the dynatsic times,


Apparently not... that or it didn't exist in prior to late Dynasty V.




> and no "whims of the king" could change that.


Obviously it did. How else was it created in the first place?



> Had
> Khentiamentiu been included in that Ennead, then
> we would know about it in the PTs, where he is
> present,

Not if he had been replaced by Osiris in that role. Then we would see exactly what we see. Well, not quite, because the parts of the PTs that include Osiris were all written in Dynasty V.


> wouldn't we. But no, he is not included
> in it, is he? Because with Khentiamentiu present,
> the PTs still tell us that the Great Ennead of
> Iunu is: Atum, Shu, Tefnut, Osiris, Horus, Seth,
> Isis and Nephthys.

The PTs are a melding of old and new texts. The parts with Osiris are new... clearly. The parts with Khentiementu are old... just as clearly. It is very easy to not get the two confused when transcribing new texts. Rosalie David has an excellent summation of this time frame (Dynasty 5) and how there was a great "fusion" of old and new beliefs that ended up being cross-represented in the corpus we call "The Pyramid Texts".

The Ennead of Iunu was, in all likelihood, unheard of before Dynasty V.


>
> Why aren't you protesting about Isis turning up in
> the Ennead, after all, she makes her first written
> appearance in the Pts also, hmmm?
>


Because I was talking about Osiris. I don't have as much background info on Isis, either. Don't really care that much, since neither of them were of the least bit importance to the Dynasty IV pyramid builders.




>
>
> >

>
>
> I agree. So much wor the great cult of Ra before
> the 5th dyansty!
>
>



Iunu is not the same as the cult of Re. You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. In my attempted research of this timeframe, I have really tried to differentiate between what is fact and what is interpretation of disparate evidence, sometimes based on erroneous assumptions. Iunu is one of those things that has been surprisingly represented in most texts on the subject.

However, the fact that Iunu may not have existed prior to Dynasty V is completely irrelevant, since we know the cult of Re most certainly existed.

DjedefRE is irrefutable.


>
> The only "hard" evidence is the shrine
> > of Djoser that you discuss in your article...
> but
> > that could have been moved to Iunu at a
> later
> > date.
>
>
> On the other hand, why would they move it? I don't
> find this very plausible, actually.



They would move it to help capture the legitimacy of it and grant it to the new location. I guess the question should be asked, why wouldn't they?

Anthony

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