posted on Jan, 21 2004 @ 04:51 PM
Originally posted by John bull 1
It is quite interesting that lions don't have a bigger role in egyptology.
It is. Actually, the evidence isn't complete on this, which is why there's lots of argument on it. We do know that they kept lions as pets. We
also know that they were emblems of the Pharoah and that they and other large cats (cheetahs) were used for hunting.
The most famous mummified animals were the Apis Bulls.
It's kind of mind-boggling to contemplate mummifying something that big, y'know?
You'd think that lions,with their obvious strength would be more prominent. And why entombed with the nanny?
That's the $64,000,000 question. It seems to be a LATER burial, and there were a lot (thousands, I think one site said) of other mummies in the tomb
area, some of cats and some of dogs and some of humans. The lion is buried in a part of the tomb that was a temple to Bast, the cat-headed goddess
who had a son who was lionheaded.
It's more likely that the lion was put there because of the Bast association than because of the nanny.
I'm not big on egyptology.Did the ancient Egyptians kill those close to the king when he died?
His pet,his nanny to look after him in the afterlife?
Italian operas ("Aida") and films ("The Mummy") to the contrary, no they didn't.