Originally posted by thePharaoh
Originally posted by Byrd
Horus didn't need any protection, Hathor is the daughter (in some stories) of Ra (but not Amon Ra), and she's not the singer of the gods. Although her name means "House of Horus" it appears in relation to being goddess of the sky and not a protector of Horus (who didn't really need any protecting. She's not the one who protects the infant Horus)
hathor, was known as the goddess of many faces....she took on the role of the fiery eye of Re as sekhmet.
she was also known as the sistirum player....who played music for the gods......also the coffin mentions Bast....as sekhmet is the aggressive hathor...bast would be the passive hathor.
It's Bast who has the sistrum as her emblem, and Bast is at least as old (earliest mention) as Hathor.
IF the texts claim that its the daughter of "AMUN ra"....then its from the 22nd/rammesside period when the gods amun and ra were stronlgy merged....
Yes. The article cited after the Huffpo one said it was from that era.
and how can you say horus didnt need protection?....when he was young he needed protection from his uncle seth... hathor raised him hidden in the marshes......untill he was strong and old enough to battle seth
If you'll doublecheck that, I think you'll find it was Isis who protected him, not Hathor.
she was buried as hathor...to fulfill her role in the afterlife....
What are you basing your statement on? The coffin doesn't have any of the emblems of Hathor on it. Can you show archaeological evidence about that grave (the inscriptions, perhaps) so that we can look at it and determine this? Standard titles for singers don't include Hathor (at least, not in the examples that I see).
.
she would of been a mother of someone important........
Most women's names were not mentioned in lineages (the exception being wives and queens.) If she was the mother of someone important, her titles would have included "beloved mother of (yaddayadda)" -- it's part of the standard funerary inscriptions. So I don't see why you'd say this, either, unless you had copies of the inscriptions on the coffin and with the mummy (if any) and on the tomb. If so, I'd love to see pictures of them (I adore this kind of stuff!)
that was my first impression....
If I am understanding this correctly, you're basing your idea that she was a mother simply on looking at the picture and not on any inscriptions or artifacts found with her? Because, frankly, looking at the coffin and the fact that it was reused indicates that whoever was responsible for burying her did not have a lot of money and power (otherwise it would have been a coffin for her and not a hand-me-down) and would have been engraved and decorated better -- and the names of her children would have been clearly stated.
