Egypt was a Matriarchy according to American Men Soldiers: HUMAN FLESHY QUEENS mislabeled fictitious, page 4

Originally posted by MapMistress
Months later I was doing a little research on Egypt, reading about alleged "brother-sister marriages". Something struck me as odd. Like a quirky feeling that something wasn't right about that assumption.

What do you find odd about it? The lineages of the kings and queens were well known, and brothers and sisters did marry (as did fathers and daughters and so on and so forth.) Some were ceremonial "god's wives" and some were true marriages with offspring.

And all I could think about was what soldier Padilla teaching the sociology class had said. He said something about the Egyptian military covering up the matriarchy of the past by lying about incest marriages.

Actually, the information ALSO comes from ancient Greek and Roman sources, among others.

Matriarchy Type #4: Egypt's type of matriarchy and others. All property is owned by women and passed down from mother to daughter, grandmother to granddaughter. All lineage is traced through the women.

I think that if you will look more deeply at the Egyptian papyri and tomb inscriptions you will find that this is not true. Women did indeed own property, but so did men. Lineage is not traced through women (sometimes it's unclear who the mother is although it's very clear who the father is.)

(this includes the position of Pharoah, who is appointed by the bloodline Queen).

Egyptian queens aren't of a single descent. A number of "foreign queens" and wives had children put on the throne.

You have no biological rights over your own offspring. They belong to the woman you impregnated and her family. However, you do have biological rights over your sister/niece's kids if you are appointed as a godfather to them.

Again, not true in ancient Egypt. There were official titles among the royals to indicate "close family members" (who could be called "son") and a different title ("son of my body") which was for direct offspring.

Similar inscriptions with Queen Nefertari calling Nefertari "Isis" or calling Nefertari "Hathor." It seemed odd and felt like perhaps it was a mistranslation. Why would these Queens claim that they were a fictitious goddess in the sky?

You're looking at it from YOUR viewpoint -- not theirs. These goddesses WERE real, and the king (or queen) was actually seen (and worshiped) as an aspect of the god... and were addressed like this. This is a common practice throughout the Levant (the rulers were seen as divine) and there's lots of letters from client kings and so forth, addressing these pharaohs as though they're real gods.

So if a person wants to trace the bloodline of Egyptian royalty down the appropriate maternal side as it is supposed to be done--then you find the 10,000 names of Asets/Isis/Queens. Those lists of names of "Isis" are the lists of names of HUMAN Egyptian Queens.

I think that if you look at the manuscripts more closely, you will find some problems with this idea.

When looking at particularly the Old Kingdom, or rather Old Queendom of Egypt, Egypt's matriarchy clearly had an animal clan system. Each maternal clan had a clan animal which denoted status in society. There was Scorpion clan which tended to be educated. Scorpion Clan usually held jobs as doctors, nurses, scribes, or other educated positions. There was Hippopotamus Clan which was also educated and held jobs like nurses or birthing midwives. There was Alligator Clan, Dog Clan, Cheetah Clan (foreign), and various other matrilineal clans.

And you'll really have problems there. There wasn't a "cheetah clan" though you may be confusing the Ahket lions with cheetahs. If you look at names, you will find that there's no such thing as a clan name among the Egyptians... and if you look at the pharaohs, you will find that they sometimes had more than five names including the Golden Horus name.

But the two main ruling clans of Egypt of the royal lines were either Lion Clan or Cow Clan. You can tell which clan they were by the crown upon the Old Queendom Queen. Did the Queen/Goddess wear a lion animal mask in statues? If so, she was a Lion Clan Queen. Did the Queen/Goddess wear cow horns on her crown? If so, she was a Cow Clan Queen.

Err... you really might want to read up more on the genealogy and look at the names on the statues. The queens were always depicted as humans. The goddess with the horns on her head isn't a queen -- it's Hathor. The lioness goddess was one of several, including Sekhmet (and occasionally Bast). But you have to read the inscriptions to find out which.

If Bastet was once a human Queen (and she was), who was her mother? To that we go to Giza, where a stela was taken that is on display in the Fitzwilliam Museum.

Oh dear. For one thing, Bast's name is Bast. The "Bastet" is an older semi-mistranslation. And Bast is the "Eye of Ra" not the "daughter of (etc)" in the inscriptions.

The "K" is actually an Old Queendom symbol for "S" and there's a "Q" sounding hieroglyph in front of the "I" hieroglyph.

Perhaps you might like to pick up some books on Hieroglyphs? I have a number in my library... the one I always recommend is this one -- Collier's book for beginners The sounds and symbols change through the centuries, but he has a good list of names and dates and sounds and is an excellent resource for beginners.

At the top of the Forum, I also listed links to some of the Gutenberg books on Egyptology. They're sadly out of date (and Budge has far too many errors) but you might like to read those to get a better idea of what the inscriptions say and what other things have been found (including legal documents, wills, and so forth.)

reply to post by Byrd

---

Simple question here: Do you exist only to debunk?

I have yet to read anything on Egypt from you, that is not "defense". That is to say, you are fast to correct things according to your superior knowledge, and yet I never see any thesis or actual work you have done, though I know it must exist?

Byrd, Super Moderator at AboveTopSecret, the world's largest conspiracy domain, where can I read more of your thoughts and work on Egypt? Seriously, anyone with several books on hieroglyphics in their library, must have some ideas or a thesis? Sorry but the only thing I see you do is, "set people straight". But what have you contributed other than that? It is hard to get people to nail down their own beliefs, some "smart people" like to just hide in the bushes and then snipe with their "superior smartness" and I know you don't want to be perceived like that, being one who has the superior knowledge and library, and who is a Super Moderator at AboveTopSecret, the world's largest conspiracy domain, so thanks for any reply.

reply to post by Byrd

---

This seems confusing:

Lineage is not traced through women (sometimes it's unclear who the mother is although it's very clear who the father is.)

If a woman gives birth to a child, shouldn't it be very clear who the mother is?

Originally posted by smallpeeps
reply to post by Byrd

---

Simple question here: Do you exist only to debunk?

I have yet to read anything on Egypt from you, that is not "defense". That is to say, you are fast to correct things according to your superior knowledge, and yet I never see any thesis or actual work you have done, though I know it must exist?

I'm not an Egyptologist, nor am I here to toot my own horn and tell you how wonderful my books are and how you must read my latest one.

I'm an anthropologist and I specialize in online cultures.

Some of the textbooks I wrote chapters for are out of print, however this scholarly book is still in print and a chapter In this book on World of Warcraft I wrote a couple of chapters in a history textbook that's out of print.

I have an early research publication on physician mortality statistics (only available in microfiche) in the Texas Journal of Epidemiology from 1982, an upcoming one on shamanism (publishing date in 2012), and papers (read and distributed at conferences) -- last one was on mapping spaces and Google Earth at an information sciences conference last year. Other conference paper topics have included one on how users search for "unknowns" presented at the Texas Library Association Annual Conference, one on how to code for the Google private search engines to only return results from certain places (like search all the government sites across the world for certain information and not be swamped by 7 million people trying to sell you stupid information) for the NCNMLG-MLGSCA conference, one on feminism and science fiction for the International Conference on the Fantastic in Arts, and a paper on a mathematically based metamodel of conversation flow and user reputation on internet boards for at the American Anthropological Association when I was getting my Masters'.

But what have you contributed other than that?

I'm currently modeling (using math and doing a species survey by hand (i.e., hiking out in the heat and hunting down bugs, mammals, reptiles) heat island effects and plants on the verges of ponds as part of some research on drought here in Texas -- I'll be supplementing this with some game cameras at my research site next week and the data will also continue to document what happens to species when the drought ends (we're in the worst drought in history right now.)

This fall, I'll be defending my dissertation proposal at the University of North Texas. If you're truly interested, you can come -- however I'll be discussing metamodels and N-P complete information networks and information grounds. Nonfiction includes a series of over 100 articles on wildscaping (done in the 1990's, which will be republished as a book when I get time to go back and scan them in and edit them

In addition, I'm doing insect surveys for several Audubon properties (adding data to a site that's concerned for the decline in numbers of monarch butterflies) and working with an international group to get Chalk Mountain designated as an Important Birding Area (which will prevent a contractor from basically blasting away a limestone mountain into a gravel pit.) My GPS data and information mapping is part of the presentation -- the landowners have been fighting this gravel company for well over 10 years, and an IBA designation (it's habitat for endangered species) will enable them to keep the gravel pit guys off their land. I will also be working with Audubon to map the "spoil islands" on the coast.

My findings as a fossil preparator for the Alamosaurus Sanjuanensis are going to be presented in a paper after we get the darn thing finished. The bones I worked on will become part of the first full-scale model of this dinosaur. I also teach classes in ecology and have taught human anatomy (at the university.) Research done for the Dallas Museum of Nature and Science included cultural attitudes toward certain display types as well as documenting the ways that doctors and nurses interacted with the specimens at the "Body Worlds" exhibit. But that was done for the museums, and not published.

Oh. I'm a moderator at Hall of Ma'at, so I have contact with several real Egyptologists and always ask them for recommendations for further reading.

It is hard to get people to nail down their own beliefs, some "smart people" like to just hide in the bushes and then snipe with their "superior smartness" and I know you don't want to be perceived like that, being one who has the superior knowledge and library, and who is a Super Moderator at AboveTopSecret, the world's largest conspiracy domain, so thanks for any reply.

...which is why I'm limiting my reply to "what have you done in the past 10 years."

I could list digs, tours, and a lot of other things (I'm a published science fiction author) but that's long and boring and not relevant.

And for the rest of you, sorry for the info dump. I really tried to keep it short.

Originally posted by jest3r
reply to post by Byrd

---

This seems confusing:

Lineage is not traced through women (sometimes it's unclear who the mother is although it's very clear who the father is.)

If a woman gives birth to a child, shouldn't it be very clear who the mother is?

Except that they weren't always considered important enough to list. For instance, they're not sure who Tut's mom was -- we've never found any funerary inscriptions (which would be "an offering given by the king for the ka of someone") for his mother, and there are no monuments where he's shown as a child with a specific mother. As far as is known, it's one of Ahkenaten's sisters (Ahkenaten is his father) -- but there are no inscriptions saying which one (he had five wives, including Nefertiti and quite a few consorts.)

reply to post by Byrd

---

I bet that felt good.


OP - I think your ideas are very interesting. Perhaps you could try the same thing as Byrd has for her work, and develop those ideas.

You could also do what I do, and go find people who are more interested in developing the idea. I find people like Byrd, who is a bit bored, and I drop an idea in their ear and if they are interested I later get to read about it.

The problem here is that you may be presenting your idea as an either-or idea. And in isolation, or as a mutually exclusive concept, your idea really doesn't fit all the facts that are known. You can't exclude known facts to make your ideas work.

Now sometimes this same effect surely happens in academia. If this is frustrating to the non-academic in these fields, imagine what it must be like to ram your head up against it when you are challenging lovingly held theories.

Anyways - that's my two cents.

reply to post by awareness10

---

I know that this idea that Tut is Western European is very popular here right now.

DNA is suggestive of common ancestry and not conclusive as to what ethnicity you are.

Lines sometimes die out in areas too. There are samples on record in Europe from ancient times, and no one in Europe seems to match them anymore. Applying your modern findings to assume that a group with that line NEVER lived at any time in an area is illogical.

Please let me give you a personal example. I'm a white, freckled, red-brown haired caucasian of mixed European ancestry. However, if you were to go by my somewhat unique mtDNA line in a general manner....you'd probably be claiming I was Chinese. Maybe Mongolian. If you went very general, and based it on the last ancestor we can trace on that line, you might even think I was Native American.

However, I'm just part of a small group that seems to be unique in Europe, and then ended up over in North America in the very early diaspora by some happenstance. I'm not Chinese. No one in my family has been related to someone who might have a common ancestor with the closely related line for possibly thousands of years.

People are reading more into finding of common genetic lines than is really there.

Not an expert - just an interested bystander, suggesting that you might want to dial it back and take a better look at what you are looking at. I like taking big ideas and making them into understandable stories. I hope my story helps illuminate why cherishing this idea of Tut as Western European is an over reaction even if your data were perfect.

reply to post by MapMistress

---

Thanks for this, dynamite stuff and very well presented! It's funny because I was just reading something odd which this seems to illuminate. (Can't remember where exactly but I think maybe one of Joyce Tyldesley's books.)
Basically the "missing princes" problem... Apparently for large chunks of Egyptian history it is impossible to locate any names or images of the princes that the Pharaoh as supposed king would supposedly be having with his supposed queen and harem (also, ancient Egypt didn't have "harems," that is a concept imported from the later Turkish harems, the "women's house" in Egypt was something completely different) ... But it seems this may be one of those "problems" that's actually telling you you have a mistaken understanding of the overall situation. The "princes" can't be found in the record, because they never even existed!

reply to post by Byrd

---

I'm a moderator at Hall of Ma'at,

Boy it's is a small web, I sure would like to read that book on Shamanism.

Originally posted by smallpeeps
reply to post by Byrd

---

Simple question here: Do you exist only to debunk?

I have yet to read anything on Egypt from you, that is not "defense". That is to say, you are fast to correct things according to your superior knowledge, and yet I never see any thesis or actual work you have done, though I know it must exist?

You know, when I first read Byrd's post I took it that way too. And then I re-read it a few times and realized that I was mis-reading her tone in her post. For example, in her last paragraph-- at first I read it and I thought that she was 'belittling' me. And then when I went back and re-read it a few times-- I realized that she wasn't belittling me-- she was genuinely trying to be helpful.

Maybe you are making the same mistake that I made on first read of Byrd. Look at it as her trying to be helpful rather than belittling. Not sure why I misread her post that way at first, but I did.

Byrd probably just got heavy into studying the "official" publications and assumptions about Egypt and she probably feels that she is helping people with her knowledge. And I'm going to try and help her think about things...maybe things she never thought of before. Don't know if it will work. But I sure am going to try.

Originally posted by Byrd
What do you find odd about it? The lineages of the kings and queens were well known, and brothers and sisters did marry (as did fathers and daughters and so on and so forth.) Some were ceremonial "god's wives" and some were true marriages with offspring.

A Pharoah really is not the equivalent of a "King".

THE DEFINITION OF A KING is a man who rules by divine right (no matter what religion), born into the position, who's eldest male offsping inherits the throne.

That's just not the definition of a Pharoah. Whenever someone claims that the Pharoahs of Egypt had to "marry" their sisters to keep the throne...that's NOT a king. The throne in Egypt was determined by the female lineage. It was the Queens eldest daughter who became the next Queen. Whether or not the Queen appointed her brother as Pharoah is irrelevant. A Queen could appoint anyone she wanted to be Pharoah. A Queen could appoint her brother, her uncle, HER SISTER, her lover. A Queen could even appoint a foreigner as Pharoah. And if the Queen wanted to, she could appoint herself Pharoah while still being the Queen.

Therefore, Pharoahs are not and never have been "kings" by the standard definition of a king. The Pharoahs position is appointed by the FEMALE BLOODLINE, not necessarily his own bloodline. Technically a Pharoah would be the equivalent of a judge--but less than the position of a US Supreme Court Justice. A Supreme Court Justice is appointed like a Pharoah, but a Supreme Court Justice is appointed for life. If a Queen and her Pharoah did not get along or if the Queen felt that a Pharoah was damaging Egypt--she could strip the Pharoah of his title and appoint a new and different Pharoah. In otherwords--a Pharoah didn't have the position for life. That's less power than a Supreme Court Justice.

You can't argue with this. After all, if you claim that the Pharoahs were "marrying their sisters" to keep the throne--to keep with the bloodline--THEN YOU ADMIT THE POSITION OF PHAROAH IS DETERMINED BY THE FEMALE BLOODLINE. A Pharoah isn't necessarily born into the position, like a king would be. A Pharoah's eldest son doesn't necessarily become the next Pharoah. The next Queen appoints whomever she sees fit as best for the job. A Pharoah just doesn't fit the western idea of what a king is.

As for brothers and sisters allegedly having sex if the Queen appointed her brother as Pharoah--by all means...COUGH UP SOME DNA EVIDENCE. If it allegedly happened all the time...then it should be easy for you to produce some DNA evidence to back your statement. But you won't find such DNA evidence. What you will find is all kinds of DNA evidence that Pharoahs named as suceeding Pharoahs weren't father-and-son. That when a Queen's brother is named Pharoah (allegedly a brother-sister marriage), that the succeeding Pharoah who was claimed to be the son of the Queen was not the offspring of the Pharoah.

If these alleged brother-sister marriages occured with incest children--then you should have no problem coughing up DNA evidence to back your statement. There's plenty of Pharoahs accused of marrying their sisters...plenty of brothers-sister Queens and Pharoahs accused of having incest children...so this shouldn't be a problem for you. Link to some DNA evidence if it's allegedly true.

Originally posted by Byrd
You're looking at it from YOUR viewpoint -- not theirs. These goddesses WERE real, and the king (or queen) was actually seen (and worshiped) as an aspect of the god... and were addressed like this. This is a common practice throughout the Levant (the rulers were seen as divine) and there's lots of letters from client kings and so forth, addressing these pharaohs as though they're real gods.

I guess you aren't following my logic about how humans examining an ancient civilization could make some very big mistakes about ideas of another's religion. I'll help you understand what I'm trying to illustrate in some examples.

A theorectical example of how archeologists could misinterpet ancient religion would be Abraham Lincoln. Imagine that the year is 5697 and future archeologists don't understand and can't read early 2000's English--they only know bits, pieces and fragments of early 2000s English. They are examining America and all its statues of Abraham Lincoln, Mount Rushmore, monuments, how Lincoln's face is on every penny. And how those statues and pennies have the word "god" in it. The future archeologists understand that the word "god" means some deity. So they come to the conclusion that Ancient Americans worshipped the god Abraham Lincoln. Each penny with Lincoln's face says "In God We Trust". And the future archeologists give as proof a bunch of pennies with Lincoln's face stamped with "In God We Trust". It's his face with the words.

Does the evidence of seeing Lincoln's face with the words "In God We Trust"--does that mean that Americans worshipped Abraham Lincoln as a god? No. He was just a beloved forefather-- a beloved leader. And shrines everywhere, Mount Rushmore, monuments for Lincoln don't mean that Americans worshipped him as a god. Americans holding pennies with Lincoln's face saying the words "In God We Trust"-- their religions would be Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and some could be Deists, Atheists, and Agnostics. What it says on a penny with Lincoln's face doesn't mean that Americans worshipped him nor the religion stamped on the coin. And if a penny were found in the coffin of an Ancient American-- that doesn't indicate what religion they are at all. It could be the coffin of an Ancient Atheist-American. To say that the Atheist in the coffin worshipped the Ancient American god Abraham Lincoln because of the penny-artifact found in his burial suit--that could be a big mistake.

Another theoretical example of how archeologists could misinterpret the religious beliefs of an ancient civilization. Imagine the year is 3468 and archeologists come across the "ancient city of Memphis, Tennessee". They find museums and statues of musicians. And they keep finding all these statues/manikins, books, records of Elvis Presley. So these future archeologists seeing all these Elvis-shrines everywhere assume that there was a religion and Elvis was a god worshipped by the Ancient Americans of Memphis.

Many people who "immortalize" Elvis-- they are Christian. They worship God and Jesus. Christianity is their religion. So seeing Elvis memorabilia everywhere doesn't mean that Elvis was a religion equivalent to Christianity, nor does it mean that Elvis memorabilia is evidence that those collectors worshipped Elvis as a god and weren't Christian.Their religion would be Christianity, irregardless of Elvis-shrines The absence of Christian-god statues and the absence of Jesus-statues doesn't mean that Elvis collectors worshipped Elvis instead of God/Jesus. Elvis would be something they collect. A shrine to a loved one--not a religion.

And the same would be true of Egypt. To put out shrines for ancient and beloved Queens and Pharoahs doesn't mean that the ancient people of Egypt worshipped them anymore than Americans viewing statues of Lincoln and holding Lincoln pennies alleged worshipped the god Abraham Lincoln. Not even the words "In God We Trust" on the face of each coin--that doesn't indicate the personal religious beliefs of each American holding those pennies. Shrines for Egyptian leaders, Queens, Pharoahs, or other important ruling positions--doesn't necessarily mean those Egyptians worshipped those leaders.

Since each Egyptian Queen would have on some stela, some scroll, some sculpture/statute--either the word for Aset/Iset/Isis and/or the word Ht-Hr/Hathor--it's far more plausable that they were additional titles of the Queen. It would be illogical to conclude that each Queen claimed to be the "goddess Isis herself" or the "goddess Hathor herself." It is illogical to assume that each Queen would claim to be the very goddesses that they were said to have worshipped themselves. Either those Queens didn't worship Isis and Hathor and they were arrogant women claiming to be goddesses themselves...or...those words were additional titles to each Queen...or...words legitimizing those Queen's rule. Which is it? They can't worship a deity and then claim to be the very deity that they are said to worship.

Originally posted by Byrd
Err... you really might want to read up more on the genealogy and look at the names on the statues. The queens were always depicted as humans. The goddess with the horns on her head isn't a queen -- it's Hathor.

{snip to shorten}

Perhaps you might like to pick up some books on Hieroglyphs? I have a number in my library... the one I always recommend is this one -- Collier's book for beginners The sounds and symbols change through the centuries, but he has a good list of names and dates and sounds and is an excellent resource for beginners.

I ask you to think about something simple about human behavior: Do MEN in ruling positions order a bunch of statues to be made of themselves and ask the sculptor to put a fictitious FEMALE floating-spirit deity in every statue of themself?

Has this ever been something indicative of behavior of any RULING MAN, any country, any timeframe--anywhere? (other than allegedly Egypt) ? Do ruling MEN (such as Kings) order a sculptor to make a bunch of statues of them and tell the sculptor to put a FEMALE floating deity in every statue with them? There's kings in France-- did any of them make a bunch of statues of themselves with fictitious floating female goddesses? No. Did any king of England ever make a bunch of statues of themselves with fictitious floating FEMALE deities in each statue? No. How about Ancient Greece? Did any king of any tribe anywhere in Ancient Greece make a bunch of statues of themselves with fictitious floating female deities in each statue with them? No. How about anywhere in the Mesopotamia region or even China? Did any king of any group of people make a bunch of statues of themselves and in each statue they put fictitious FEMALE deity in each statue with them? No.

Ruling Men don't do that. Kings don't do that. Pharoahs don't do it either. It is not the behavior of any ruling MAN of any time frame to order a sculptor to make a bunch of statues of himself and order the sculptor to put a fictitious floating FEMALE deity in each statue with him. That means the woman in each statue isn't some fictitious floating goddess. She's a real and fleshy human being wearing a crown--a Queen. And each Queen has a name.



In the case of Pharoah Menkaure, the Queens name is at her feet in each of the three statues. If she is on the left of the statue, her name is below her feet.



When she is seated on the throne, her name is at the base of the statue just to the right of her feet.



All 3 Statues at the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston.

Nowhere on that statue does it say "King/Pharoah Menkaure with the fictitious goddess Hathor". It just doesn't say that at all. Take a good look at the clearly visible hieroglyphs on all three statues. And anyone is welcome to google hieroglyphic alphabet charts online to take a stab and translating themselves. (The only argument I would expect is the Old Kingdom "S" symbol which is translated into the "K" symbol in the 12th dynasty) It's not difficult to read these statues. ANYONE CAN DO IT. Google a hieroglyph chart...take a stab at it..

I apologize.. I had a much longer response written and the Internet burped and lost it all. Right now I don't have time to rewrite the whole thing, so let me address a few points and come back later on.

A Pharoah really is not the equivalent of a "King".

I'm not sure we agree on this. The dictionary definition of king is someone who is the authoritative ruler over a large area of land. Nothing is in there about oldest male offspring and divine right of rule.

Pharonic rulers are different than Chinese rulers, European rulers, rulers of the Aztecs, etc, etc. Each culture has its own differences. "King" is sort of a common lump term (as used by the dictionary, in standard American English only. My idioms, alas, are American because... that's my culture.)

Whenever someone claims that the Pharoahs of Egypt had to "marry" their sisters to keep the throne...that's NOT a king.

To the best of my knowledge they had to "seal" their position by marrying a woman of Egypt of royal blood. This limited them to their sisters and cousins for their first wife -- other wives could come from elsewhere or even be non-royals. There were, I believe, several pharaohs who had non-royal mothers.

And if the Queen wanted to, she could appoint herself Pharoah while still being the Queen.

The only ancient cases I know of this was where the queen (like Hatshepsut) was a co-regent. Cleopatra also did this. I know of only one case (Berenice IV) who had the pharaoh strangled shortly after her marriage to him and acquired a new husband/pharaoh. If you have other examples, I'd be interested to read them.

As for brothers and sisters allegedly having sex if the Queen appointed her brother as Pharoah--by all means...COUGH UP SOME DNA EVIDENCE.

Tut's lineage (most accessible example online.) Great-grandparents on left, see brother-sister marriage in the middle. article and images here

And the same would be true of Egypt. To put out shrines for ancient and beloved Queens and Pharoahs doesn't mean that the ancient people of Egypt worshipped them anymore than Americans viewing statues of Lincoln and holding Lincoln pennies alleged worshipped the god Abraham Lincoln. Not even the words "In God We Trust" on the face of each coin--that doesn't indicate the personal religious beliefs of each American holding those pennies.

Each of those shrines had priests (heb priests and wab priests (offeratory and purification priests) just like temples to the gods, the dead pharaoh was referred to as "the Osiris" and his name was preceded by the formulaic words "the beautiful god." There's an image of a ring of the high priest of the cult of Tutankhamen around the boards somewhere which clearly show "beautiful god Tutankhamen" on the seal.

This is just one item of many similar ones involving many pharaohs.

Since each Egyptian Queen would have on some stela, some scroll, some sculpture/statute--either the word for Aset/Iset/Isis and/or the word Ht-Hr/Hathor--it's far more plausable that they were additional titles of the Queen. It would be illogical to conclude that each Queen claimed to be the "goddess Isis herself" or the "goddess Hathor herself."

Actually, we know the names and titles of the goddesses AND the titles of the queens. Cleopatra (as pharaoh) claimed to be Isis but other queens did not claim to be deities -- exactly as you say here.

Either those Queens didn't worship Isis and Hathor and they were arrogant women claiming to be goddesses themselves...or...those words were additional titles to each Queen...or...words legitimizing those Queen's rule. Which is it?

There's a third option -- you were given pictures with what you were told were translations. The pictures don't show the WHOLE inscription and one of the images has the name of a queen that is not on any queen's list (this is because whoever did this knew how to read letters but did NOT know how to read hieroglyphs and has taken letters from three different words and created a name.)

I ask you to think about something simple about human behavior: Do MEN in ruling positions order a bunch of statues to be made of themselves and ask the sculptor to put a fictitious FEMALE floating-spirit deity in every statue of themself?

Speaking as a cultural anthropologist, I can say that you would be darned surprised at some of the things the rulers do and symbols they use to legitimize themselves. And, by the way, it's not "every statue." The three examples you give were commemorative statues showing that the nome had given tributes to the Pharaoh and to Isis -- they're not portrait statues. They had a political agenda.

In the case of Pharoah Menkaure, the Queens name is at her feet in each of the three statues. If she is on the left of the statue, her name is below her feet. Nowhere on that statue does it say "King/Pharoah Menkaure with the fictitious goddess Hathor". It just doesn't say that at all.

It says (under his feet) King of upper and lower Egypt Menkaure, Horus name Kakahet (his full name)
Next to his name (in the center) is the Hathor inscription which starts at the right and runs left (and down in columns)... without my books at hand I can't translate further except to note that the names of both Horus and Osiris appear. To the right of Menkaure's name is a set of columns that start at the left and run right (so we have mirror writing. Very common in Egyptian art) The goddess with the headdress is Bat, chief goddess of an important nome (district) -- again, without my books all I can tell is that I see the inscription of the king's name but no titles in this inscription and that an offering is being given (the pyramid shaped thing means "offering" -- it's the shape of the offeratory bread loaves.) Menkaure is referred to on this side as "The Horus, King of upper and Lower Egypt"

...and I hope you'll forgive the poor translation. I'm away from my house and my books.
en.wikipedia.org...:Menkaura.jpg

Take a good look at the clearly visible hieroglyphs on all three statues. And anyone is welcome to google hieroglyphic alphabet charts online to take a stab and translating themselves. (The only argument I would expect is the Old Kingdom "S" symbol which is translated into the "K" symbol in the 12th dynasty) It's not difficult to read these statues. ANYONE CAN DO IT. Google a hieroglyph chart...take a stab at it..

The person who did this gave only a part of the evidence (like reaching into a newspaper, pinching a piece of the paper between thumb and finger and tearing out that small section and handing it to you as evidence.) The statues can be seen here on the Wikipedia articles, so a better view of some of the inscriptions is possible.

Here's the full one: from wikipedia and you can see that much of the inscription is left off. It's similar to the other one, with Menukaure's name and his Horus name there, and Hathor and her titles ("Beautiful" is one of them) and the nome goddess. Again, we see that an offering is being given to the king and I'm sure it records what was being given somewhere.

I'll write more later.

The "female lineage" had been considered a viable one for many years -- until the 1980's, when more evidence of family links and relationships moved it out of favor.

UPDATE...


hint.. it wasn't Obama ..

When in reality, there's not a single Archeologist and not a single Forensics Expert that considers Egyptology a "real" science.

I did when I was an Archaeologist - so that false claim collapses, LOL care to provide evidence for that statement...not a single one? You sure about that? LOL

They claim to have "translated" the Egyptian language from a cattle census--the Rosetta Stone and thought it was a list of "kings" when it was a list of cattle owners and how many cattle they owned.

Ah, no they translated the Rosetta stone using a language they already knew, ancient Greek - and its a royal decree

Rosetta Stone translation

No idea where you're getting this 'cattle owners' idea from......but you may be confusing the RS with some other document

Amazing, X-Ray probe of Antikythera Mechanism (Video)
  Posted 19 days ago with 58 member flags

Eye of Horus is actually an early math system?
  Posted 16 days ago with 45 member flags

Pi, Golden Ratio and Speed of Light encoded into Great Pyramid
  Posted 9 days ago with 33 member flags

Why is the Ancient Alien Theory difficult to accept?
  Posted 14 days ago with 26 member flags

Unknown ancient language found on unearthed Assyrian tablets
  Posted 18 days ago with 21 member flags

"The Venus Blueprint"
  Posted 13 days ago with 16 member flags

The Lost City of Vilcabamba
  Posted 10 days ago with 14 member flags

The Istanbul Shem rocket-ship
  Posted 11 days ago with 11 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: