clem ciamarra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Katherine Griffis-Greenberg Wrote:
>
> > What I am saying is the ancient Egyptians did
> not seem to hold out any specific >religious,
> political or social intent that one land (Upper OR
> Lower) was "more sacred" >than the other.
>
> ----------------------------
>
> when you use the word "seem" it makes it vague.

Not at all: had I said "appear" instead of "seem", all I would have meant is there is nothing in the texts or practices of ancient Egyptians of which I am aware that indicate that one area of the country (north vs. south, or vice versa) was believed to be "more sacred" than the other.

> is this your view or
> can you say with 100 percent certainly that
> the entire Egyptology acadmic world agrees that
> the ancient egyptians
> in there history always felt that upper and lower
> egypt were indeed treated equal
> in terms of being sacred land.

In this, I feel certain that almost all Egyptologists would agree that the "north" was not "more sacred" than the south.

The south held the position of being the Nile source, and for that reason, it was partially more "important" than the north to the ancient Egyptians for that reason. However, being "more sacred" would be a subjective call, I think, for it depends about whether we're talking about the religious significance of the Nile, or whether we're talking about the "south" being very sacred in general.

To the former idea, the south, as Hapy (the Nile Inundation) was religiously significant. To the latter concept of the "south" in general, the south was equally a "sacred" land as the north, depending upon what god/myth/religious concept was being discussed.

Abydos, for example, was probably the most "sacred city" of ancient Egypt: Egyptians made pilgrimages to the area during their lifetime, and it had an almost obligatory nature to the trek (not unlike Muslims having to make hajj to Mecca as part of their religious obligations as Muslims).

Now, Abydos was officially in Upper Egypt, according to the way the nomes were rendered (today, the area is called "Middle Egypt" which actually more accurately describes its position in the geography of Egypt), but it wasn't the location geographically which was important, but what occurred in the city itself (i.e., that it was mythically presumed to be a resting place of Osiris (or his head and/or spine: depends upon the myth)) which was most important to the ancient Egyptians. It was, for its time period, the "Vatican" of ancient Egypt - where the Osirian myth and cult was temporally located.

That, as far as I am aware, and in the minds of all Egyptologists, the most "sacred" piece of real estate in ancient Egypt.

There are some good publications on the concept of what is "special" or "sacred" in terms of landscape and orientation, especially in ancient Egypt, and specifically in relation to Abydos. Here are a few:

Aldhouse-Green, M. 2001. Devotion & Transcendence: Discrepant Function in Sacred Space. In A. T. Smith and A. Brookes, Eds., Holy Ground: Theoretical Issues Relating to the Landscape and Material Culture of Ritual Space Objects. Papers from a session held at the Theoretical Archaeology Group Conference, Cardiff 1999: 61-71. British Archaeological Reports International Series 956. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Arnold, D. 1962. Wandrelief und Raumfunktion in ägyptischen Tempeln des neuen Reiches. Münchner Ägyptologische Studien 2. Berlin: B. Hessling.

Baines, J. 1976. Temple Symbolism. Royal Anthropological Institute News: 10-15.

Brooks Hedstrom, D. L. 2001. 'Your Cell Will Teach You All Things': The Relationship Between Monastic Practice and the Architectural Design of the Cell in Coptic Monasticism. Ph.D. Dissertation (Unpublished). Department of History. Oxford, Ohio: Miami University.

Brunner, H. 1957. Zum Raumbegriff der Ägypter. Studium Generale 10: 612-620.

el-Kordy, Z. 1985. L'Orient, Don Royal À Horus D'Edfou. In P. Posener-Kriéger, Ed.,Mélanges Gamal Eddin Mokhtar,I.: 259-262. Cairo: IFAO.

Fitzenreiter, M. 2003. Richtungbezüge in ägyptischen Sakralanlangen - oder: Warum im ägyptischen Tempel das Sanktuar hinten links in der Ecke liegt (Teil I). SAK 31: 107-151.

(Summary: Direction references in Egyptian sacred planning - or: Why in the Egyptian temple the sanctuary lies at the rear left corner.

Egyptian temples and funerary monuments consist of several structural components. Certain functions in the cult can be attributed to these components (areas and space groups) (cult picture chamber, offering table hall, fixed yard; Grave chamber, food offering place etc.), in succession and arrangement of the components developed in the course of the development of the old-Egyptian sacred architecture standards. Of these standards, the linear and symmetrical combination of the individual functional units is characteristic. However, frequently axle breaks and refractions of the symmetry can be determined within the ecclesiastical building.

In the first part of the investigation, examples of funerary buildings and temples from the Old and New Kingdoms are discussed, with whom such axle breaks can be observed. Shown that these breaks connected usually with a change of direction in the cult process are not coincidental features, but systematically to arise. They mark in each case the transition of a stage in the cult to a next. The historically different requirements of the cult accordingly such transient areas in the sacred construction can be integrated and be led to specific spatial forms (Diagonal transverse hall in the Theben graves of the 18. Dyn. resound in the temples of the king cult, ceremonial palaces in royal mortuary temples, and the hall of appearances). The principles of the combination of the long and transverse axis can be observed also at the wider conception of "sacred landscapes" (Thebes, Amarna)).

_____________. 2004. Richtungbezüge in ägyptischen Sakralanlangen - oder: Warum im ägyptischen Tempel das Sanktuar hinten links in der Ecke liegt (Teil II). SAK 32: 119-148.

(Summary: Direction references in Egyptian sacred planning - or: Why in the Egyptian temple the sanctuary lies at the rear left corner.

Egyptian temples and more funerary monuments consist of several structural components. These components (room and space groups) indicate certain functions in the cult to be attributed (cult picture chamber, offering table hall. Festival house; grave chamber, food offering points etc.). In succession and arrangement of the components in the course of the development the ancient Egyptian sacred architectures standards developed. Characteristic of these standards is the linear and symmetrical combination of the individual functional units. It is to be known however how in the axle breaks and refractions of the symmetry within the sacred structures can be determined.

In the first part of this article, past examples with direction reorganizations in the space sequence were discussed; in second part, temple chambers are more discussed, with the creation of linear and more accessible scene rooms, as in the example of the Horus temple at Edfu through the type of temple structures of the Ptolemaic period. Also in these classical examples is discussed how the linear and symmetrical sacred constructiondeveloped directional breaks and transverse movements, with the respect to the function of the constructed units in connection to cult.

Concluding this theoretical review, the design plans which constitute the main and transverse axes of sacred construction are discussed. The basic principle with the constitution of sacred construction is always to the logic of the ritual action. With the organization of the concrete monument construction, however, there is a close reciprocal effect with the development architectural standards, which led to the organisational groundwork of the dominance purposeful plane and axial symmetry. Related to these aspects, function and form plays an important role in the sacred construction, by referring to external earthly symbols of area and direction, which are based on common Egyptian conceptions of the space organization (South = "in front", north = "in the back ", the "west = "right"; east = "left". The river direction of the Nile and the course of the sun)).

Frankfurter, D., Ed. 1998. Pilgrimage and Holy Space in Late Antique Egypt. Religions in the Graceo-Roman World. R. v. d. Broek, H. J. W. Drijvers and H. S. Versnel. Leiden, Brill.

Gordon, B. L. 1971. Sacred Directions, Orientation, and the Top of the Map. History of Religions 10 (February): 211-227.

Gray, M. 2001. The pilgrimage as ritual space.In A. T. Smith and A. Brookes, Eds., Holy Ground: Theoretical Issues Relating to the Landscape and Material Culture of Ritual Space Objects. Papers from a session held at the Theoretical Archaeology Group Conference, Cardiff 1999: 91-97. British Archaeological Reports International Series 956. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Jánosi, P., Ed. 2005. Structure and Significance: Thoughts on Ancient Egyptian Architecture. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie XXXIII. M. Bietak. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Jones, L. 2000. The Hermeneutics of Sacred Architecture. Experience, Interpretation, Comparison. Volume Two: Hermeneutical Calisthenics: A Morphology of Ritual-Architectural Priorities. World Religions. L. E. Sullivan. Cambridge: Harvard University Press/Harvard University Center for the Study of World Religions.

Klimkeit, H.-J. 1974. Spatial Orientation in Mythical Thinking as Exemplified in Ancient Egypt: Considerations toward a Geography of Religions. History of Religions 14: 266-281.

Mekhitarian, A., M. Kunnen, et al. 1998. Abydos: Sacred Precinct of Osiris. Knokke: Mappamundi.

Richards, J. E. 1999. Conceptual Landscapes in the Egyptian Nile Valley.In W. Ashmore and A. B. Knapp, Eds., Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives: 83-100. Social Archaeology. I. Hodder. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Spence, K. E. 1997. Orientation in Ancient Egyptian Royal Architecture. D. Phil. Dissertation (Unpublished). Asian and Middle Eastern Studies. Cambridge:University of Cambridge.

Tilley, C. 1994. Phenomenology of Landscape. Oxford: Berg.

Trello, J. 1996. Abidos: Escenario del drama divino. Boletín de la Asociación Española de Egiptología [Madrid] 6: 153-169.

Tuan, Y.-F. 1974. Topophilia: A Study of Environmental Perception, Attitudes, and Values. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

__________. 1975. Images and Mental Maps. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 65(2): 205-213.

__________. 1977. Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Webb, R. 1999. The Aesthetics of Sacred Space: Narrative, Metaphor, and Motion in "Ekphraseis" of Church Buildings. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 53: 59-74.

Wegner, M.-A. P. 2002. The Cult of Osiris at Abydos: An Archaeological Investigation of the Development of an Ancient Egyptian Sacred Center during the Eighteenth Dynasty. PhD Dissertation (Unpubl.). Asian and Middle Eastern Studies. Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania.

Weightman, B. A. 1996. Sacred Landscapes and the Phenomenon of Light. Geographical Review 86/1 (January 1996)): 59-71.

Wilkinson, R. H. 1994. Symbolic Location and Alignment in New Kingdom Royal Tombs and their Decoration. JARCE 31: 79-86.

HTH.

Katherine Griffis-Greenberg

Doctoral Candidate
Oriental Institute
Doctoral Programme in Oriental Studies [Egyptology]
Oxford University
Oxford, United Kingdom