Hi Hermione,


Heheh, I don't know if you could have complicated the more if you wanted to (did you?) with your "unanswered questions". I'm not sure if it is a good idea, but I'll start by giving my views and hopefully others will join and insert theirs/correct me where needed.


> The discussion, which centred on the question of
> the dating of the first attestation of Osiris, was
> complex and complicated. What, for instance, is
> to be understood by the term “Osiris”?

Osiris is the god Osiris and that is what is without exception meant by his written name. The context it appears here (Hemet-Ra's tomb) is the contex of Osiris. Questioning if the name Osiris here means Osiris is like questioning if the name Anubis means Anubis or maybe something else. See?



If an
> early reference is made to powers, or
> characteristics, or attributes, or important
> elements of a name, that were associated solely
> with Osiris in later times, does that constitute
> an early reference to the deity Osiris: or does it
> not?


It does not. Osiris is Osiris in Egyptology books only when named so. However, suggestions have been made by a few Egyptologists of Osiris having been the greatly feared god whose name could not be spoken (well, he was linked to death!) and hence names such as Andjety and Khentiamentiu having been his epiteths.




>
> Next, given the fact that dating forms such a
> significant part of this discussion, there is the
> question of how any dating is to be expressed: is
> Manetho’s system of organising AE history into
> dynasties still relevant, or should it be
> substituted by some other system, perhaps the
> years-BC or BP system?


Manetho invented the dynasty system and divided the rules to dynasties solely based on his personal preferences. Manetho's system is still as relevant as it ever was (was it ever relevant?) and is probably here to stay, after all he is part of the AE history now and we are not going to change that eh?
Using the dyanstic measure does not alter anything in the context of dating as such, but at times the issues would be much clearer if the differences were expressed in years and not dynasties. For example saying that "Hemet-Ra belongs to the sixth dynasty" does not sound half that bad, but seen in years, if she was Kahfre's daughter as suggested by most, it makes her 200 years old!! In other words, getting rid of the dynasties in discussion would greatly simplify the issues.



>
> On the specific question of dating an alleged
> earliest appearance of a reference to Osiris, what
> criteria are to be applied, and what is their
> validity and relevance?

The same as with anything else, of course. Still, the earliest example of something has the "history" against it, exactly like Osiris here. The strongest claim against is the non-existence of Osiris at that time (Bolshakovs strongest claim)! Talk about circular reasoning.



It was argued that an
> isolated instance of such an appearance is to be
> found in the tomb of Princess Hemet-Ra. Was this
> princess a sister of Menkaure, and daughter of
> Khufu?


Daughter of Khafre and hence sister of Menkaure.



Is she therefore to be dated to some time
> in the 4th or 5th Dynasties (if the dynastic
> system is to be applied)?


She is mainly dated to those by the location of her tomb and her being "eldest daughter of the king from his body". Khufu is too early and Menkaure is too late. Of course, she could be Djedefre's daughter... has anybody suggested that?



Is it safe to accept
> that various stylistic elements in her tomb
> indicate a later 5th Dynasty date; and is this
> then also a date for the earliest appearance of
> Osiris?

No, dating her tomb to late 5th or 6th dynasty on stylistic grounds (like Bolshakov did) is erroneous. As Baud has shown, all of thse stylistic details referred to by Bolshakov can already be found in the 4th dynasty tombs and hence the claim that they belong to the 5th falls flat on it's face.

So far, her tomb is the earliest appearance of Osiris.
Next is that of Ptahshepses, buried during the 5th dynasty (in the vincity of Sahure and Niuserre, him being the priest of Niuserre's solar temple!
), but born and educated already during the reign of Menkaure.
And then there is Djedkare Izezi, eigth ruler of the 5th dynasty.






But, if those stylistic elements also
> appeared in earlier times, could the tomb (and
> thus the reference to Osiris) be earlier?



No, it couldn't, due to it's location. There is no way it can be earlier than Khufu since the necropolis didn't exist before him.



It was
> argued that, in fact, the placement of her tomb
> should form a more important secure dating
> criterion than stylistic elements.


Yes. Due to it's location it cannot have been inserted later. And the stylistic grounds have been dealt with...

However, one thing to remeber is, that the tomb only dates to the time of death of the person. It is during the lifetime people form their beliefs of the afterlife and I am rather sure that it is true for the three persons mentioned here. Therefore the existence of Hemet-Ra and Ptahshepses is pointing towards Osiris being around at least during the later part of the 4th dynasty, doesn't it?



>
> Disappointingly, no definite conclusion seemed
> possible on any of these questions ...


Really?






Ritva