posted
When I was a kid first learning about ancient Egypt, the thing that amazed me most about the Egyptians was the role animals played in their culture. The Egyptians coexisted with a rich variety of exotic African animals: lions, crocodiles, hippopotamuses, antelopes, baboons, hyenas, ostriches, dung beetles, and cobras, for example. Not only that, they often incorporated these animals into their religious belief system, making totemic deities out of them. It's as if nature was a source of spirituality for them.
I'm not submitting that the ancient Egyptians were some kind of proto-environmentalists who painted with the colors of the wind, but I do wonder if they were perhaps a little more reverent of their natural environment than many other civilizations. You don't see this deification of animals in Greco-Roman or Mesopotamian cultures. Did the Egyptians really feel a stronger spiritual connection to the natural world than other peoples?
Apocalypse Member # 8587
posted
These words from the prophecy of Neferti always struck my attention:
quote:Then perish those delightful things, The fishponds full of fish-eaters, Teeming with fish and fowl. All happiness has vanished,
The diminution of nature is part of an apocalyptic vision.
Also the destructive aspects of nature was acknowledged as being part of a greater whole. It is also divine: Seth.
The Explorer Member # 14778
posted
The trend was inherited by ancient Egyptians. There are parallels with other African cultures in this department, and may well likely have been a common theme in Fertile-Saharan cultures.
sam p Member # 11774
posted
I believe orthodoxy wholly misjudges and misunderstands how the ancient Egyptians interacted and thought about nature. Orthodoxy has overlooked the flavor and the meat of their words in trying to understand their pantheon.
These people were extremely close to nature. They didn't feel separate from it at all. Their world was not the modern antiseptic world where one might never come into contact with the wild or even bare earth. They considered themselves a part of nature rather than its lord or master. When they expressed concepts they put them in terms of what they knew and what they knew was intimately about nature. They even used the term "the dorsal carapace of a grasshopper" to describe an apparent conveyance for the king in the Pyramid Texts.
But this "down to earth" and close to nature went far beyond mere perspective. It was even the way they thought. Their Gods were all aspects of nature such as Nehebkau who was the hydraulic cycle. Rather than think in terms of sterile words they thought in terms of their Gods who were depicted anthropomorpically but with animal heads or bodies reflecting this same closeness to nature.
These people were observers and observation is the root of science. Their understanding of religion was really an understanding of nature. It was really the first science and it arose naturally through observation. We enterred a long dark ages when this science was lost and we still aren't fully out of it.
Whatbox Member # 10819
posted
^Right.
the lioness Member # 17353
posted
Egypt was a transitional step from the earlier African animist polytheistic or henotheist religions going toward monotheistic Abrahamic religion. They deified the human, the living king to the extent of making huge monuments to him, larger than to the Gods themselves. "Civilization" in general is when people are no longer completely dominated by every natural event. Therefore man starts to take a greater control over the environment and nature becomes less powerful. This the result of comparing Egyptian culture to earlier African. This transition is evident also in some Gods portrayed with animal heads on a human body. That is a move closer to mankind as divine or a God with more human qualities
Djehuti Member # 6698
posted
^ I know those words aren't yours so can you at least cite the source.
Can you explain why Egypt or other African cultures are "animist" when the Greeks and Romans also personified every river, lake, spring, and tree as having a deity or spirit??
Also, since when does living in an advanced civilization mean that one is not subjected to or dominated by nature? Even in today's modern world humans have to learn that the hard way as the devastation in Japan shows.
Djehuti Member # 6698
posted
quote:Originally posted by sam p: I believe orthodoxy wholly misjudges and misunderstands how the ancient Egyptians interacted and thought about nature. Orthodoxy has overlooked the flavor and the meat of their words in trying to understand their pantheon.
These people were extremely close to nature. They didn't feel separate from it at all. Their world was not the modern antiseptic world where one might never come into contact with the wild or even bare earth. They considered themselves a part of nature rather than its lord or master. When they expressed concepts they put them in terms of what they knew and what they knew was intimately about nature. They even used the term "the dorsal carapace of a grasshopper" to describe an apparent conveyance for the king in the Pyramid Texts.
But this "down to earth" and close to nature went far beyond mere perspective. It was even the way they thought. Their Gods were all aspects of nature such as Nehebkau who was the hydraulic cycle. Rather than think in terms of sterile words they thought in terms of their Gods who were depicted anthropomorpically but with animal heads or bodies reflecting this same closeness to nature.
These people were observers and observation is the root of science. Their understanding of religion was really an understanding of nature. It was really the first science and it arose naturally through observation. We enterred a long dark ages when this science was lost and we still aren't fully out of it.
I should also point out the very fact that many of their deities are depicted as animals or having animal heads is derived from African totemism where the associated animal and even plant species were considered sacred do to some association or even kinship conceived not only between the deity and the animal or plant but the worshipers.
sam p Member # 11774
posted
quote:I should also point out the very fact that many of their deities are depicted as animals or having animal heads is derived from African totemism where the associated animal and even plant species were considered sacred do to some association or even kinship conceived not only between the deity and the animal or plant but the worshipers.
The positive characteristic natures of species were ascribed to specific deities. The nature of the vulture to care for its young for instance, the strenght of the hippo, or the rainbow worn by the ibis were all assigned to Gods. These traits served to help define the nature and function of these deities as well as how people might understand and "worship" them.
I suspect you're also right about plants being directly involved but am aware of no specific examples.
sam p Member # 11774
posted
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: Egypt was a transitional step from the earlier African animist polytheistic or henotheist religions going toward monotheistic Abrahamic religion.
I do believe this was an exceedingly complicated transition. I have no knowledge of the pre-egyptian beliefs but have some doubt all had an "observational" basis, though this is of course possible.
But, I believe there was great change in the Egyptian religion after the great pyramids were built and then further change when the Greeks misunderstood it. Much of the misunderstanding became basic to the more modern religions so these are founded on the ancient religions indirectly.
quote: They deified the human, the living king to the extent of making huge monuments to him, larger than to the Gods themselves.
I strongly disagree with this contention. It does fit orthodox belief but it doesn't seem to fit the evidence. I believe it was much more the king's position which was deified rather than the king himself. The king was merely Horus on earth and was responsible for all of nature. It appears that if he failed to bring in the crops or became too old that there was a practice of regicide. The king ascended to the imperishable stars and a new man was put on the throne.
In the era of the pharoahs the king himself was considered a god but I doubt this applied to the early kings.
the lioness Member # 17353
posted
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ I know those words aren't yours so can you at least cite the source.
If I have to provide the source then you don't know those words aren't mine chump
the lioness Member # 17353
posted
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Can you explain why Egypt or other African cultures are "animist" when the Greeks and Romans also personified every river, lake, spring, and tree as having a deity or spirit??
Because the primary Gods of Greece and Rome were beings who are portrayed as looking human who acted human and had control of natural forces. Animists have primary Gods including many of whom are in animal form such as snakes or fish and others as the natural element form itself such as rain and sky, others vaguely human
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Also, since when does living in an advanced civilization mean that one is not subjected to or dominated by nature? Even in today's modern world humans have to learn that the hard way as the devastation in Japan shows. [/QB]
This is a useless point, argumentation for the sake of argumentation. Obviously humans are not in complete control of nature but in an advanced civilization humans are less dominated by nature you bimbo
Apocalypse Member # 8587
posted
Loiness wrote:
quote:
quote:: Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ I know those words aren't yours so can you at least cite the source. If I have to provide the source then you don't know those words aren't mine chump
Djehuti, you're probably correct. Loiness lifted a few paragrahs from the internet (Ancient Egypt Online) on my "Amenophis and the Lepers" thread with no attribution whatsoever.
Djehuti Member # 6698
posted
^ LOL Just as I suspected. The real bimbo thinks she can put one over me.
quote:Originally posted by sam p: I suspect you're also right about plants being directly involved but am aware of no specific examples.
The only plant example I can think of is the lettuce representing the male fertility god Min, though I'm sure there are others. Lettuce by the way is an aphrodisiac to men especially when eaten raw.
Apocalypse Member # 8587
posted
A reverence for nature was incorporated into everything.
Whatbox Member # 10819
posted
Playing dissident here -- plenty of people today like floral, smooth, curvy, and naturalistic designs that don't too much break from nature in their home, on the outside and in their landscaping today. Palm trees, fake or real, in the house, etc nature appeals to plenty of people i know today. Or at least to an extant. It doesn't mean they're one with the colors of the wind or anything , people go with things they recognize as cool or fresh sometimes and that's it.
Re: same thing with the animal thing -- people go with what they know.
^coat of arms
There are pigs (greedy, gluttons, law enforcement [funny pic 1][funny pic 2]), lions (bravery, strength of character), dogs (real and genuine, degenerates, loyal / reliable, mercenary), cats (autonomous i.e. conscious for better or worse, cool), and snakes (enemies, stealthy folk), rats (people with adverse intentions, outers).
Let's see there's Spider man, Bat man, X-men's Storm, and Wolverine, and even with ancient Kemetians you had Imhotep who was renowned for mathematical innovations and physics / architectural breakthroughs. You can call those aspects of nature but then you'd have to ad the likes of Professor Xavier and Magneto to the list of natural characters who aren't pure magic too. A lot of heros and characters we see who aren't able to do things often seen in the natural world have traits explainable the fiction-science. The one thing that may mark a difference is the magical and supernatural ideas coincide sometimes for us (Westerners), but i'm not sure there was such an idea of seperation between those for them (Kemetians).
Kemetians likely considered humans as as important as we see them today too.
Re: the animism Abrahamic faith contrast -- in the latter, isn't the Spirit supposed to be in everything, to the extent to where, if not for the Spirit nothing would exist? Or is animism more than that? If not then ... ?
Re: modern folks -- I do concede that modern people often see what we've done, can do, and have appeared to have gotten away with and get drunk with big headed ideas about themselves. But even aside from this folks feel superior to such an extent they feel we might have come from another planet, surely we must be alien from this pitiful planet.
^ "I'm o do some'in, and it's gon' hurt!"
Apocalypse Member # 8587
posted
Djehuti wrote:
quote: LOL Just as I suspected. The real bimbo thinks she can put one over me.
DJ, Loiness has been very quiet since this revalation. The fecundity of her posting (which is why I dubbed her loin-ess) has diminished. I thought she had thicker skin than that.
posted ![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
, people go with things they recognize as cool or fresh sometimes and that's it.
