Peribsen’s royal name is a subject of curiosity for Egyptologists because it is connected to the deity Seth rather than Horus, as was traditional for the name of a pharaoh. The debate continues over why Peribsen chose this name. Earlier theories have favoured the idea that Egypt was split in two realms during Peribsen’s time or that he was a heretic, who sought to start a new monotheistic religion with Seth as the only worshipped god. However, newer evidence and evaluations tend to show that the Egyptian kingdom was unified, but witnessed a vast and profound reform during the second dynasty. Seal impressions from tombs of this era reveal great changes in the titles held by high officials, pointing to a reduction of their power. Further seal impressions show that several deities were worshipped under Peribsen, refuting the monotheism theory, with other contemporary inscriptions indicating that the Egyptian grammar was perfected during his reign: In particular, the earliest seal impressions with complete sentences date back to Peribsen’s reign. Thus, Peribsen’s reign was in fact a time of cultural and religious advancement.
Ha! Take tha- I mean, it’s a ~totally~ relevant history post.
Here’s his serekh, btw:
D’aww.
According to the Egyptologists Jean Sainte Fare Garnot and Herman te Velde, the name of “Peribsen” accords religious meaning, even before association with a deity. The name “Peribsen” literally means “He who comes forth by their will” or “His heart and will comes forth for them.” The Egyptian syllable sn means “them, their, those”, revealing a clear plural writing. Te Velde and Garnot are convinced that Peribsen used the heraldic Seth animal as a serekh patron, but also linked his name to Horus. If true, it would prove that Peribsen worshipped Horus and Seth on an equal footing during his lifetime. <…>
Therefore, Peribsen’s name may actually show no break in the sacred tradition; he added the power of Seth to Horus. <…>
Egyptologists Ludwig David Morenz and Wolfgang Helck remark that the targeted gouging of Seth-animals did not occur until the New Kingdom of Egypt.
I think that Old-to-Middle Kingdom Egypt might actually be my favorite.
(I don’t have any more books to read atm, so I’m reading up on every pharaoh from the first dynasty onward instead)
“More important to us than offerings, my child, is prayer. Devotees focus so much on what to give us, while forgetting that the basic relationship between us is based in communication. Talk to us. We’re listening.”
I feel this is important… many fear the Gods will “not like them” or “not accept them”, for a plethora of reasons… but the Gods are not as trivial as humans… If you open your heart to them, they will accept your offering. For love is the purest and most powerful offering that can be given.
Okay I feel like an asshole saying this, but I feel like it needs to be said.
This type of mentality, imo, can be dangerous.
The gods aren’t under any requirements to like you. They aren’t required to accept your offerings no matter how pure your intentions or sincere your love for them. They aren’t required to love you, and gods can be hella trite.
Now, I do agree that many people worry waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much about whether the gods will like them or not. All in all, most of the gods seem pretty chill, and don’t seem to be too terribly picky about things. Normally, if you are respectful, they are respectful back and everything is good. (bolding because I want to make sure that people see this and know that I recognize this because I promise I’m not trying to crush people’s dreams or what have you)
However, assuming that love will cure all can also open you up to potentially being dicked over by Unseen entities, which is why discernment and being judicious with your trust is important. So while I can appreciate the sentiment (love is a great offering, when given in the right circumstances), I’m also uncomfortable with the idea that gods can’t be petty like humans, and that gods can’t be jerks like humans. Cuz they can. I’ve seen it happen to other devotees, and its no fun when it happens.
Plus, no one should be obligated to accept love that they don’t want- humans, gods, or otherwise.
Sooo, uh, yeah. >.>;;
Thank you for saying this.
I underlined/italicized the above part because I think that needs emphasis, as well. I went into this with my heart wide open and my eyes firmly snapped shut. I got hurt beyond belief because of this and I’m still picking up the pieces many moons later.
I’m still here; I’m still doing this so I’m not saying it isn’t possible to recover. What I am saying is that going in with your eyes wide open is safer in the long run.
(I also agree that people seem far too worried about how the gods feel about them. I was like that, too, and it’s probably just like part of the learning curve. But honestly, the emphasis shouldn’t be so much on their reactions to us and what we do for them, but on our reactions to them and what we do for them.)
The word “hubris” in regards to Kemeticism isn’t even appropriate, like, ever.
In The Pyramid Texts and likewise texts, the dead person literally fucking claims to BE certain gods (“I am Atum! I am Shu!”), be a unique god themselves, and exceed (some of) the gods in power. There’s also the thing where it says “O goddess Nut, we all know that you love (dead person) more than you love your Mother Tefnut.”
The ancient Egyptians were practically the DEFINITION of hubris. Modern Kemetics actually don’t really even measure up to the levels of “hubris” that the ancient Egyptians portrayed (which wouldn’t even be a bad thing since it’d just be being historically accurate). So applying the same standards to modern Kemetics and modern Hellenics is absurd if you want to be historically accurate. The Kemetics and Hellenics were VERY different.
Your Ma’at is enough if all you can do is take better care of yourself, be gentle and kind to yourself in a world that beats you down that is enough. Your Ma’at Counts if it is letting someone go ahead of you in the check out queue. Your Ma’at is enough if it is being a shoulder to cry on, or crying on a shoulder. Ma’at is relational. Your Ma’at Counts if it’s just reporting hateful things, or standing up for someone, online or off. Your Ma’at is enough if you smile at your gods when before you would have frowned.
It is not just by great acts that the darkness is driven back. Set does not spear the beast alone. All of us are holding the barque a float. With each small action we help.
Your Ma’at is enough, it counts and so do you.
The following are excerpts from “Ancient Egypt” with David
Silverman as the general editor.
The written copy below doesn’t contain the same formatting
or picture the original sources have.
Anything bolded is something I have modified. [REST CUT]
means the rest of the text has not been typed up, thus information is missing.
THE CELESTIAL REALM
SUB HEADER: THE EGYPTIAN COSMOS
[SIDE TEXT, accompanied by an image of Osiris]
According to Herodotus, the Egyptians were “religious to
excess, beyond any other nation in the world”. Egyptian religion was not a
belief system in the same sense way as Christianity or Islam, with a single
deity and one fundamental set of explanations for the origin and functioning of
the cosmos. Among the most striking aspects of Egyptian religion were its great
number of gods and goddesses – each of whom might have several “aspects” – and its readiness to accept the validity of
different and even contradictory cosmological accounts. [TO READ MORE OF HERODOTUS’ WORKS, CLICK HERE.]
[MAIN TEXT]
Looking at the sky without telescopes, the Egyptians saw
only an undifferentiated background of blue by day, or black by night – the
same qualities visible in the River Nile. Understandably, therefore, the
Egyptians concluded that the sky, like the Nile, was composed of water. The
waters of the sky were thought to surround the earth and extend infinitely
outwards in all directions. The world existed as a single void inside the
endless sea, with only the atmosphere to keep the heavenly ocean from falling
onto the earth – much like a balloon kept inflated by the air inside it.
All life existed inside this cosmic bubble: the universal
waters themselves were devoid of life. By day, the sun sailed across the
surface of the sky-ocean, animating those who lived on the earth below; after sunset,
while the stars sailed through the sky, it descended into a region called “the
Duat”. Because of the Egyptians recognized that the sun was composed, in some
manner, of fire [TEXT CUT], they realized that it had to remain within the
cosmic void, but in a place not visible to those on earth. The Duat was
generally thought to lie under the earth, a counterpart to the sky and
atmosphere of the known world. In Egyptian cosmology, therefore, the world
consisted, as the ancient text themselves tell us, of “sky, earth and Duat”.
This picture of the cosmos is reflected also in images from
temples, tombs, papyri and sarcophagi. However, perhaps the clearest and most
comprehensive illustration is found on the ceilings of two Ramesside monuments:
the cenotaph of Sety I (ca. 1290 – 1279 BCE) at Abydos, and the tomb of
Ramesses IV (ca. 1156 – 1150 BCE) in the Valley of the Kings, Western Thebes.
The ceilings are remarkable not so much for their images (which occur
elsewhere) as for the text that accompany them: these are the subject of
analysis and commentary in two papyri of the second century CE – some fiftenen
hundred years after their Ramesside iriginals. The scene depicts the surface of
the sky (the goddess Nut, “watery one”) held above the earth (the god Geb,
“land”) by the atmosphere (the god Shu, “dry” or “empty”), while along Nut’s
body the sun is depicted at various points in its daily cycle. The text above
describes both the universe outside the cosmic void and the structure of the
cosmos itself: “The upper side of this sky exists in uniform darkness, the
limits of which … are unkown, these having been set in the waters, in
lifelessness. There is no light… no brightness there. And as for every
place that is neither sky nor earth, that is the Duat in its entirety.” Texts
elsewhere in the scene describe the Duat as lying within the body of Nut, the
Sky. This reflects the Egyptian concept of the sky “giving birth” to the sun
each morning. In Egyptian thought, these images were complementary, not contradictory.
Fundamentally, the concept of the world as a cosmic void within a universal
ocean remained consistent and essentially unchanged throughout the three
millennia of recorded ancient Egyptian history.
The Egyptian image of the cosmos was universally depicted by
using the “mythological” counterparts of its elements – Nut stretched above the
recumbent body of Geb, with Shu in between (see illustration, p.126). However,
the concept of the world also appears as a standard element bordering most
reliefs and paintings. Traditionally the ceilings of Egyptian tombs and tombs
would be decorated with yellow stars on a blue ground; the floors were paved
with basalt, evoking the fertile black soil of Egypt; and columns supporting
the ceiling were carved and painted in imitation of lotus or papyrus stalks.
I’m not saying that my gods are gayer than your gods, I’m just saying that one time Loki called Odin a submissive gay prostitute and Odin didn’t deny it.
Goldnwulf 