Egyptian Deities in Mesopotamia

[ninurta2008]

Only thing i know of this is in a letter from a king of mesopotamia to a pharaoh, where an ambassador was said to worship both Ishtar and Amun, Any info on others?

[muska]

If it is the reference to the letter of Mitanni king Tushratta to Amenhotep III, Tushratta called Amun "the god of my brother (= my fellow king, pharaon)". In many cases the Ancient Near East people respected the gods of foreign countries, but the actual transition of cult of the foreign deity to another land - is a different case (it also happened; the same king Tushratta sent the statue of Ishtar to pharaon).

[ninurta2008]

Thanks Muska!

[Salmu]

Ideally this belongs in the Meso gods in Egypt feed

Amarna Letter EA 23: British Museum cat no ME 29793 (Mesopotamian collection)

“ To Nimmuria (Amenhotep IV), King of Egypt, my brother whom I love and who loves me.
Thus speaks Tushratta, King of Mitanni who loves you, your father-in-law. For me everything is well. May everything be well for you, for your house, for Tadhukhipa, my daughter, your wife whom you love. May everything be well for your wives, your sons, your noblemen, your chariots, your horses, your soldiers, your country and everything belonging to you. May everything be well, very well!
Thus speaks Šauška of Nineveh (Ištar), Lady of all the lands: I wish to go to Egypt, a land I love and then return from there.
Now I am sending you this letter and She is on the way [...] Then, in the times of my father She was in that country, and just as on other occasions She stayed there and was honoured. May my brother honour Her now ten times more than the other time. May my brother honour Her. May you let Her leave when She pleases, so She may return. May Šauška, Lady of the Heavens, protect us, my brother and myself, one hundred thousand years, and may our Queen grant us both great joy and may we treat each other as friends. Is it because Šauška is my only Mistress? Maybe She is also the Mistress of my brother?

Cuneiform tablet from the archives of the Egyptian king Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV) at Tell el Amarna recording the sending of “the goddess Ištar” (in actuality her cult statue) from Mitanni to the Egyptian capital. The significance of the action to the great kings is the same as the goddess herself going.
Thus in this period, (mid 14th century BCE) Ištar/Šauška was worshiped in the Egyptian court, well, technically this is a given, as in the 18th Dynasty the rulers had a policy of marrying foreign princesses and therefore Levantine, Hurrian, Assyrian, Babylonian and Hittite gods and cults were incorporated into the domestic space of the palaces. But the highly political and public sending of the primary goddess of the northern Syrian pantheon to Egypt infers that the appropriate respects would have been paid by the ruler Amenhotep and his court.

A

[enkur]

Great! Yes, Shaushka was the Hurrian for Ishtar but it's interesting how the monotheist reformer Amenhotep IV (Echnaton) accepted it? Wasn't his wife Nefertiti a princess of Mitanni? Wasn't she Tadhukhipa in fact, Tushratta's daughter? Most probably this letter marks an event before the reform?

[Salmu]

Enkur, the chief great royal wife of Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV) was indeed Nefertiti, but scholarship still favours the very plausible argument by Cyril Aldred that she was from an Egyptian priestly family from Akhmin and the daughter of the priest of Amen, Ay (who later ruled Egypt after the death of Tutankhamen and the end of the royal line).

As to the use of the term monotheism, this is a modern (monotheistic) construct imposed on an inherently polytheistic society, Akhenaten elevated the Sun god as the Aten disk to the position of supreme god, particularly with reference to state cult.

There is no evidence he removed all public cult of lesser deities, especially early in his reign, it is later that he appears to have actively attacked ranking members of the old pantheon, particularly Amen. The cult of Hathor, and her pantheon, for example, was still functioning during the Amarna period and at Amarna.

[enkur]

Yes, I see - I didn't know about Ay, I thought Horemheb was the successor of Tutankhamen but I'm anyway not very familiar with Egypt though at the time I was very fascinated thereby. A friend of mine who is an amateur-Egyptologist, is also very reserved concernig the monotheist reform of Echnaton but I've read mainly popular literature on the matter. My amateur Sumerian research has already showed to me how deluding could be the popular notions.

[Salmu]

Ay is thought to have succeeded to kingship by marrying Tut's wife and likely half-sister, Akhenaten's daughter Ankhesenamen (also perhaps Ay's granddaughter, Egyptians like to keep it in the family). Technically that gave him rule, due to the close familial connection.

Horemheb was a senior military general at this time and took kingship when Ay died.

Akhenaten's "monotheism" is sadly a product of early twentieth century (Christian) philosophical and psychological thought. Because it "appeared" to involve the raising of one god to ascendancy in a polytheistic pantheon, Western European scholars saw a cultural ("civilising") evolution occurring from polytheism to monotheism and they were naturally using Biblical texts as a term of reference.

I find it is best to keep an open mind and a degree of scepticism in this game. Popular notions and literature tend to like hard facts and absolutes, but in actuality nothing is an absolute, until the next piece of evidence is dug up, studied and hopefully formally published. Then wait five years while everybody in scholarship argues heatedly on the relative merit of said evidence.

[enkur]

Oh yes, I have some notion of how the scholar and the popular circles function so the SNAFU (situation-normal-all-fucked-up) is the real state of things for the human history as for the any other sphere of the present human civilization ;D

Anyway, what about Ankhesenpaamen's marriage proposal to the Hittite prince Zannaanzas who got murdered on his way to Egypt, so Hatti opened war to Egypt? Any details from the Egyptian side? It's supposed that the murder was ordered by the Egyptian priesthood. Mursilis II wrote:

"...When my father gave them his son and they took him with them, they murdered him there. My father was furious. And he went to Egypt. And he smote the infantry and the chariots of Egypt. And then the Storm-god of Hatti justly raised my father. And he won over the infantry and the chariots of Egypt and he defeated them. But those captured soldiers he took there and while he was taking them away to the land of Hatti there was a plague amongst them and they began to die..."

There was a plague epidemic in Hatti after these events spread by the Egyptian prisoners of war. Seems the Egyptian priesthood was very skilled in cursing the enemy

[Salmu]

We appear to be veering off topic somewhat here, but to answer your question, There is no Egyptian, or indeed elsewhere, evidence that a queen of Egypt requested a marriage with a Hititte prince. Just this extremely subjective piece of potential military propoganda from Hattusha.

No name cited in the document may be accurately matched to any royal individual from the late 18th Dynasty.

Chronology for the document can be tentatively matched to the reign of Akhenaten, Smenkhare or Tutankhamen, which could qualify Nefertiti, Meritaten or Ankhesenamun for the queen mentioned, but the time frame employed in the letters also does not match Egyptian rulers ascensions, by a long shot.

So, in the absence of corroborating evidence, there is every possibility that this document is a Hititte exaggeration, or even a fabrication to justify military action in the region (see modern diplomatic policy for this technique).

[enkur]

First I hope discussing with me isn't unpleasant to you Though I have no specialized education on the matter, I have some feel of history, especially of what concerns me.

Second, though I realize that we are deviating from the thread, I couldn't abandon such a significant moment of the Hittite history as an "exaggeration, or fabrication to justify a military action". Moreover, we cannot project the modern hypocrite politics onto the Bronze Age rulers for whom the honour still meant something. In an epoch where magic was actual the words were not used for demagogue only and for the Hittites especially the oaths were vital.

I'm afraid it's the popular history which have made of the Hittites some unscrupulous imperialistic aggressors. If we are to speak of demagogy, it was Ramesses II who claimed victory in the battle of Kadesh but in fact it was he who was defeated there.

But let's return to those dramatic events which preceded the battle of Kadesh. Unlike the Egyptian side, from the Hittite side there is a comparatively rich documentation of these events survived, containing a correspondence which apparently includes the Egyptian side, because Suppiluliuma addresses the pharaoh in the context of the pharaoh's answer, and that pharaoh was most probably Ay (of whose existence I was not aware till quite recently).

The Egyptian queen under question was known by the Hittite documents as Dakhamunzu and though her Egyptian identity is still not established amongst the candidates Meritaten, Nefertitii Ankhesenpaaten, it's logically to suppose that she was the young widow Ankhesenpaaten who had the choice to marry either Tutankhamun's vizier Ay, or the warlord Horemheb, but preferred to undertake something on her own.

Seems that Suppiluliuma had no trust in Egypt, because his son Mursili II wrote in his "Deeds of Suppiluliuma":

But when it became spring, Hattusa-ziti [came back] from Egypt, and the messenger of Egypt, Lord Hani, came with him. Now since my father had, when he sent Hattusa-ziti to Egypt, given him orders as follows: "Maybe they have a son of their lord! Maybe they deceive me and do not want my son for the kingship!"

Then Mursili II quotes the answer of the Egyptian queen (probably brought by the Egyptian emissary lord Hani:

-- therefore the queen of Egypt wrote back to my father in a letter thus: "Why didst thou say 'they deceive me' in that way? Had I a son, would I have written about my own and my country's shame to a foreign land? Thou didst not believe me and has even spoken this to me! He who was my husband has died. A son I have not! Never shall I take a servant of mine and make him my husband! I have written to no other country, only to thee have I written! They say thy sons are many: so give me one of thine! To me he will be my husband, but in Egypt he will be king."

Seems that the Egyptian court had different plans than that of the widowed queen and a Hittite pharaoh was the last thing they would allow to happen (though it could assure them a lasting peace with their mighty northern rival), so they caused some accident to prince Zannanza on his way to Egypt.

["The people of Egypt(?)] killed [Zannanza] and brought word: 'Zannanza [died (?)!'" And when] my father he[ard] of the slaying of Zannanza, he began to lament for [Zanna]nza, [and] to the god he spoke: "Oh gods! I did [no ev]il, [yet] the people of Egy[pt d]id [this to me], and they (also)[attacked] the frontier of my country!" [4]

(This quote is also from the "Deeds of Suppiluliuma".)

Seems that's a tragedy rather than an "exaggeration, or fabrication to justify a military action". Nevertheless, Suppiluliuma didn't immediatelly undertake military actions, and despite of his sorrow and anger, he entered a correspondency with Egypt, most probably with Ay, who just came to power, to demand an explanation.

Here it is what survived from the letter from Suppiluliumi to Ay containing some quotes from the pharaoh's previous letter:

(recto)
"{snip} Also Kargamis have I [conquered]. Now shall I address(?)
[the dead?] of my son and his [...].
[Concerning that what you wrote:] "Your [so]n (for?) you not [..]
I did not know at all [..] ...not yet [...But now] you write again
and again as King of Egypt ...[However when one] asked [me he]re
for a son as hu[sband...] I kne[w] not. I was willing to send my son
for the [kin]gship, [but that you already were se]ated [on the throne],
that not.
[Concerning that what you] wrote: "Your son has died [but]
I have done [him no ha]rm" .
[....]"

(verso)
"[When the queen of E]gypt wrote again and again, you(?) not [...]
was you/she(?). But if you [in the meanwhile? had seated yourself
on the throne, then] you could have sent my son back home. [...]
Your [serva]nt Chani held us responsible [...] What [have you done]
with my son?!"

"Concerning that (what you wrote) that bloodshedding [in the past
between us] did not occure: to shed bl[ood among us], that was not
right. By bloodshed it [becomes a capital crime?]. If you now perhaps
also have [done harm to my son?] then perhaps you have also killed
my son! You continuously praise [your troop]s and charioteers,
but I shall [praise?/mobilize?] my troops and [charioteers], everything
I have as army. For me the Stormgod, my Lord, is [the king of all lands
and the Sungoddess of A]rinna, my Mistress, is the queen of all lands.
They will come and the Stormgod, my Lord, and the Sungoddess of Arinna,
my Mistress, shall execute [judgement]! [....] everytime you boast. As
many pitturi as there are in heaven [for me], [so l]arge [will not] be
for you [your army?]. What shall we do about it (?) [...]
Because the falcon has [seized] one young chicken [, a whole army]
shall not be chased away by one falcon!"

"[Concerning that what you w]rite: "Should you come for revenge,
then shall I tak[e away that lust for revenge] from you!" [But you
must not take] that lust for revenge from me, but from the Stormgod,
my lord, you must take it! [...] Those who denied him (i.e. Zannanza)
the rulership, those ones should [...] en who for you [...] those ones
shall [...]. [Concerning that what you write to me: "If] you
write to me in brotherhood, then I will make [peace? / alliance?] with
you" , [....wh]y would I write about brotherhood? [....]"


The astute reader could grasp what the situation was.
Here is the link for this letter with the comments thereon:

www.webcitation.org/query?url=http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Alley/4482/Ay.html&date=2009-10-25+11:24:47

(Please, copy and paste the whole link on your browser because clicking on it doesn't work.)

Here is another link to the book presented online "Letters of the great kings of the ancient Near East: the royal correspondence of the late Bronze Age" by Trevor Bryce wherein he comments this affair taking the Egyptian side as far as I feel, but anyway the Zannanza's affair wasn't an event fabricated by the Hittites.


books.google.bg/books?id=NbN4qRzw6EAC&pg=PA184&lpg=PA184&dq=letter+from+Suppiluliuma+to&source=bl&ots=O41O87GKAV&sig=4VSJ6S1llGmbXNXcKmscOdgL-O0&hl=bg&ei=qIBTTtnPMuKE4gTox4CiBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&sqi=2&ved=0CDwQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=letter%20from%20Suppiluliuma%20to&f=false

In the ensuing war the Hittites attacked the Egyptian vassals in the North Syria and Canaan, defeated the Egyptian armies sent there, and occupied much territory. However the plague spread by the Egyptian prisoners lasted about 20 years and took away the lives of both Suppiluliuma and his son Arnuwadna II, Mursili's older brother.

It was from Mursili's "Second Plague Prayer" what I quoted in my previous post. Here there is some continuation of the same text but in a different transaltion:


"...My father was enraged. He went into the land of Egypt, and he struck the land of Egypt. He killed the troops and chariotry of the land of Egypt. Then, too, the Storm God of Ḫatti, my lord, judged in favor of my father in the case. He conquered the troops and chariotry of the land of Egypt, and he killed them. But then, when they brought back into the land of Ḫatti the men whom he took, a plague broke out in the midst of the prisoners, and they began to die.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


§5

When the prisoners arrived in the midst of the land of Ḫatti, the prisoners brought a plague into the land of Ḫatti. From that day there has been a dying in the midst of the land of Ḫatti. When I found this tablet of the land of Egypt, I investigated it by oracle by means of the god: "Why is this matter proceeding from the Storm God of Ḫatti?" Because the men of Egypt and the men of Ḫatti are in an obligation from the Storm God of Ḫatti, and because the domestic goddesses are in the midst of the temple of the Storm God of Ḫatti, my lord. Verily the men of Ḫatti quickly transgressed the matter; "How did he bring anger to the Storm God of Ḫatti, my lord?"


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


§6

I investigated the ritual of the [River Mala] by oracle for the plague. Then, too, it was established for me to step before the Storm God of Ḫatti, my lord. So I have now turned the sin [from before the Storm God.] It is so! We did [it!] [. . . it] is [not] occurring in my time, [it is] occurring from the time of my father [. . .] on the contrary I know. [. . .] the matter. The Storm God of Ḫatti [. . .] angry [. . .] a dying is going on. [. . .]

(Break)


§7'

[. . .] obey! Expel the plague [from the land of Ḫatti!]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok I will write no more about this affair in this thread - it needs a separate thread if there is some interest therein.

[sheshki]

Aug 23, 2011 6:19:25 GMT -5 enkur said:

Moreover, we cannot project the modern hypocrite politics onto the Bronze Age rulers for whom the honour still meant something.

Why cant we? These people back then where humans, humans with alot of power. And power corrupts. Or would you say that, for example, killing your brothers/father to sit on a throne has anything to do with honour? And im not talking about the Hittites in special, but about all ancient people and their ruling elite.

[enkur]

We could, of course, but if we insist on that projection only, we would lose any fascination with the antiquity, and it's the fascination which is our magical link with the past aeons. After all, it's the fascination which causes both the magical and the scholar interest in the matter, though the scholars tend not to recognize it.

Yet despite of all these regular and common human defects, the people of the Bronze Age had a different perception of the world than ours. The Bronze Age, or to call it magically, the Bronze Aeon was an epoch wherein magic, though already put into the frame of religion, was still a vital factor and its effectiveness depended on the word, on the given word: "a word said - a stone thrown", the ability to be true to one's word was a sign of divinity and the rulers as divine deputies still considered it, especially in their relations with other rulers. That's what I meant by honour - the ability to keep one's word. Word + Will = Magic. True, it was their failing to maintain that moral which brought them closer, and closer to the present rulers as well as farer and farer from the numinous they should present on this world.

In other words, it was the growing inability of the pagan rulers and the pagan priesthood in general to present the numinous (to be magical) which caused the crisis in the pagan religions of the Iron Age, and it led to the invention of the political ideology of the monotheism as a means to extinguish the human responsibilty and to put an absolute power in the hands of the monarch, which on its own turn led to the revolutions, to the atheism and the scientific progress. True, the lose of the personal contact with the numinous unleashed the human technologic inventiveness as a compensation for that lose, but again these most powerful inventions serve mostly the irresponsible rulers rather than the rest of humanity.

As for the Hittites family moral, there is there a little studied particular problem which if studied well could help us in understanding some hidden factors in the human history in general. The Hittite state had an acute problem from its very beginning which destabilized it periodically throughout its history.
That was the conflict between the matriarchal and the patriarchal successions of the kingship. There was a terrible civil war in Hatti during the reign of Hattusili I (1650 - 1620 BCE) - between him and his daughter wherein the adherents of the matriarchal succession were defeated and the repressions were atrocious beyond the imagination. Yet the matriarchal party was never fully destroyed and it acted subversively whenever it was possible. There followed a new a dark period of civil wars for 70 years immediately after the seize of Babylon in 1595 BCE which probably was the main reason that instead of the Hittites their allied Kassites ruled there for the next centuries. Despite of the laws of Telepinu in the XV century BCE which confirmed again the patriarchal succession and even made some compromises with the mathriarchal party, the latter continued to claim their ancient right on the kingship succession. There were civil wars prior to Hatussili I as well - his father Labarnas (1680 - 1650 BCE) had to deal with the same problem - the claim of matriarchal succession coming from the old noble families and the old priesthood as keepers of the old traditions. In fact, Hatussili I was Labarnas II and he adopted the name Hatussili (the man of Hatussa) after moving his capital from the rebelious Kussar to Hattusa.

In "The Ancient Oriental Civilization" N. Nedelchev writes:

"Some representatives of certain historic schools in the USA, the UK, Russia and even in Bulgaria by not accepting the idea of the family social system, argue against the existence of the very matriarchal relations often without pointing any evidences. They prefer to investigate some later fairy-tale folklore materials as well as earlier archaeological and religious ones but ignore such wealthy of information texts like "The Will of Hattusili I" from the early Hittite kingdom."

I suppose there were also such problems in other kingdoms during the Bronze Age but it seems that in the Hittie kingdom it was felt exceptionally acute. Maybe this explains to certain degree the Hittite outer aggression as a compensation for their inner instability. Yet they weren't what the popular literature made of them (like the best-selling historical novel "The Egyptian" by Mika Waltari) and what later the Assyrians really turned into. The Bronze Age was an epoch wherein the general change from the matriarchal to the patriarchal social order took place, a social revolution of which Robert Graves has also written very interesting stuff ("The White Goddess", "The Golden Fleece") which the official historic science tend to argue, but on a magical point of view it was again the Bronze Aeon wherein magic was still a social factor sustained by the old matriarchal order which started to lose its power with the development of the patriarchal society.

[Salmu]

We could and we do, yet I myself do not lose my fascination for the past.

I study antiquity for my own passion and because a good university seems to think I am qualified to write on Near Eastern themes. (my bias is not just with Egypt, it is with the entire region for the Late Bronze Age). Therefore, Enkur, one, I prefer not to appreciate veiled criticisms of scholars and, two, I have no place in the work I do for emotive and subjective language. You may impose romantic notions and associations onto people and civilizations that are long gone. I, however, shall not. I deal with facts and archaeological evidence.

You asked me a small dissertation ago if there is any evidence for the letter from an Egyptian queen requesting a foriegn prince to marry from beyond Hatti, and I answered....there is none. Now that is not empirical evidence without corroberation. You may cite Egyptian political propaganda from, say the 19th Dynasty, feel free, they all indulged in such practices.

All kingship in the Late Bronze Age was based on a direct connection with royal ideology, religious dogma and divine sanction. The king was the lynchpin in society that kept the forces of chaos at bay, both privately and publically. I too would have claimed victory everytime I took my chariots out for an airing, if I were such a divinely appointed sovereign.

It is unnecessary to cite the entire Hittite back catalogue for the event in reputed support of their veracity.

As to the discussion immediately above, thanks Sheshki, you saved me at least one obvious point of discussion.

And regarding the usage of the terms magic, matriarchy and patriarchy in an examination of social collapse in the Bronze Age, I waive my right to an opinion in case this discussion gets ugly.

[enkur]

Nobody could escape subjectivity, Andrea. The scholars too. The very research effects the subject of research. One discovers what one is predisposed unconsciously to discover. Science is based on the rational thinking which pretends objectivity but in fact the very faculty of thinking is as partial as any other human faculty. It serves to interprete our sensory data in certain logic sequences thus creating another model of perception, paradigm or ideology. Let's not forget that human is a measure of everything and that measure cannot be absolute.

After all, "Know yourself!" is the only thing which really matters.

Why veiled criticism? I do openly criticize both science and religion. The rational thought has turned into the same tyrant as "God". The Western thinkers tend to treat the emotionality as weakness and the ego as a devil, they try to put everything under rational control and "political correctness". I'm neither a scholar, nor a religionist though I have a solid academic education as well as some religious certificates. I'm of a third view which uses both the religionist and scholar approach as far as they serve the goal of magic. I posted a thread about the Psychohistoric Model which describes the three basic human paradigms: Magic, Religion and Science - a model as eccentric as insightful but there was no feedback from enenuru.

Now while I afford myself to be emotive as regards certain topics, I do not afford myself to be emotive towards persons I don't know. You say "... I waive my right to an opinion in case this discussion gets ugly" but I asked you and you've already answered to me indirectly, so what I felt from you is personal dislike and distrust, and that's your own emotive right I cannot deny but I prefer not to discuss anymore - moreover we deviated too much from the thread.

[nininimzue]

We could and we do, yet I myself do not lose my fascination for the past.

I study antiquity for my own passion [...] Therefore, Enkur, one, I prefer not to appreciate veiled criticisms of scholars and, two, I have no place in the work I do for emotive and subjective language. You may impose romantic notions and associations onto people and civilizations that are long gone. I, however, shall not. I deal with facts and archaeological evidence.

I definitely have to agree with Andrea here.

However:

Why veiled criticism? I do openly criticize both science and religion. The rational thought has turned into the same tyrant as "God". The Western thinkers tend to treat the emotionality as weakness and the ego as a devil, they try to put everything under rational control and "political correctness". I'm neither a scholar, nor a religionist though I have a solid academic education as well as some religious certificates. I'm of a third view which uses both the religionist and scholar approach as far as they serve the goal of magic.

Enkur - it is clear to everyone of, eh, a 'scholarly disposition' that you are often using your feeling for history as a valid source of information, and that you are not a scholar of the ANE. This is fine (at least by me) - however, when you start to state that academia is a tyrant such as the christian deity in the OT, you come across as one of those people who inherently distrust the people who actually studied the topic(s) we're talking about here. This leaves quite a bad taste in the mouths of those of us who spend most of their waking time doing nothing else but researching these topics - based on <actual data>, whether that is archaeological, philological or iconographic [I'm never sure whether to classify iconography as its own field or subsume it under archaeology... Andrea? Any suggestions?].
Do not bash those who are scientists at heart. I am a scientist, and I would rather cut my right arm off than put some of my "religious"/magickal ideas into a paper. The matter at hand is distinguishing between what counts as "real" evidence (aka, stuff we can test, look at, judge, experiment with, make hypotheses about) and that which counts as... well, something different. I am writing a paper on Nergal and Ereshkigala, and one on Enkig - wonderful, all of my main deities gathered. However, I will not write anything other than what is provable by science. Ideas, feelings and emotions are a wonderful thing and make us human (more or less) - but emotion and intuition, whilst having a place in some strata of the field (see for example the interpretations of myths from various scholars), are a bit out of place when it comes to hard historical facts.

Just wanted to voice my € 0.20...

[us4-he2-gal2]

Well expressively expressed opinions all around - basically this is coming down to the question of occult and academics on the board. As this subject is currently in progress on another thread, I would like to direct this conversation there.


On the Psychohistory Model thread, Enkur, you have broached this subject and want response, so I will do my best - certainly it will take much contemplation. However if all concerned will await my forthcoming post there --- >


enenuru.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=357&page=1#4086

[Salmu]

Bill, I think the assumption that there is a dichotomy of conflict occurring on the board is a facile generalisation. As I see it, this is a public forum for the discussion of Near Eastern subjects. As such, a degree of debate is bound to occur if data is presented that is incorrect or out of date. Someone is bound to point such errors out and ruffle feathers.

A specific conflict between occultists and academics assumes that there is a clearly defined separation between these and I would question this model. My personal biases are not imposed on my academic research, as that would undermine their veracity, but studies of the occult share equal footing in my library (my religious views are my own concern, I recommend one does not assume I am a monotheist). In addition I can cite at least one brilliant academic (archaeological) researcher who is equally a prominent pagan and a close friend. She has a clear analytical approach to her work and researches all her data to the max. The 'them and us' assumption is comparable to amateur researchers feeling threatened by scholars, if the research is methodical and properly cited it still has validity for discussion here or in the wider sphere. Intelligence and dedication are not measurable by tertiary qualifications.

In response to Nininimzue on the issue of where to plonk iconography, I would answer, urm in Archaeology. But some universities consider the topic is within Art History/History/Antiquity studies. As I am incidentally primarily an iconographer/semiologist, I think that archaeology is the only appropriate term, as material culture is where one finds iconographic forms.

Can we go back to a discussion of Egyptian gods in Meso now?