In this discussion, we'll get to see the House get passionate about about a cause one can respect, for once - respect for the dead. But that they could manage as much respect for the living.

One can easily see the conflict. On the one hand, these relics are the last remnants of a great artistic tradition, and one would like to see them in a place where the living could appreciate them. On the other hand, robbing a grave is not a very nice thing to do, especially given a religious context in which those goods are believed to be of use to the deceased in the next life. How to work out this conflict?

Here would be my suggestion : the key word, is "context". Has the reader ever been to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, in New York? This is a remarkable place, distinguish by even more than the size, scope and quality of its collection, as considerable as these are. Many museums, when they get an artifact, will simply put it in a case, in a sterile room, ripped out of its original context. Sometimes the Met does that, too. But, other times, they will make an effort to put pieces of their collection into context. What is more interesting - to see a piece of 17th furniture in one case, in one room, while the china and utensils are in various rooms elsewhere in the museum, or to see a recreation of a 17th century room, with each item in its proper place ?

Set out a case of old astronomical instruments, and the audience will be bored. Have a museum guide show how the instrument was used, under a real or simulated nighttime sky, and the audience will be mesmerized. Context is what makes an item as fully interesting as it can be, which is why much of this conflict between the desire to present the object to an appreciative present-day public, and the desire to respect those interred, can be seen as illusion. Handling these artifacts in a manner that shows respect for the deceased could easily make for a better, more entertaining exhibit.

For example ...

Remember how Howard Carter found Tutankhamun's tomb? The goods were piled one on top of another, so deep that entering the tomb without damaging its contents was almost impossible. How would you feel if your house looked like that, all of your worldly goods in a heap? Pretty upset, I'm guessing. But, this was necessary, because a larger tomb would have attracted the attention of grave robbers and been cleared out, the fate of the largely empty tombs found under the pyramids. Now, suppose, instead of sending those goods hundreds or thousands of miles from the tomb site, a museum was created on-site, directly connecting to the original tomb, properly ventilated so that the humidity from the modern structure did not invade the old tomb, and hasten the deterioration of that which remained inside of it?

Don't build it to look like a standard, non-descript museum building. In fact, don't even necessarily call it a museum, per se. The pharoahs were, after all, leaders of the Egyptian people, their founding fathers, if you will. Call your museum a memorial, build it to be one, and honor the spirit of Egyptian patriotism.

Think of this as an expansion of Tutankhamun's tomb. Build it, as if it were a shrine to him, according to the best knowledge available as to how such a thing would have been built. The educational interest would be obvious. The items would be put in a context that would make them even more intriguing to the visitors, who would be even more eager to come, which would certainly be good news for the modern Egyptians. As for showing respect for the deceased - if one wakes up in a shack in the morning, and goes to sleep that night in a mansion, does one feel insulted by the upgrade in one's living conditions? I don't see how the construction of a museum, in that fashion, could be viewed as being disrespectful of pharoah.

"Yes", somebody is bound to counter, "but one has people trampling through his home". Perhaps so, but you know, Christians have a ritual in which people trample through the house of God each day, and He seems to like it. We call it "mass". What separates the respect from the disrespect is the spirit in which one enters. The notion that one should be reverential toward the dead has carried over to modern Western religions, Islam included, I understand. (I seem to recall that a number of tombs are Islamic pilgrimage sites). Making sure that museum visitors behaved in a respectful fashion, wouldn't really create an ideological crisis, I shouldn't think.

Kemetic Orthodoxy, in any of its incarnations, even under traditional Islamic rule, should see a tolerant response for the same reason that Hinduism did - the existence of holy scriptures (eg. the Book of Coming Forth By Day) would render the Kemetic Orthodox a "people of the book", a status accorded the equally non-Judeo-Christian-Islamic followers of the Zoroastrian faith. To be sure, such tolerance wasn't seen in the past, which is why one speaks of Egyptian Reconstructionists and not of Kemetic missionaries. However, merely because something has been done by Muslims, one can not conclude that it has been done so with the blessing of Islamic law. Consider the vendettas carried out in the Caucasus region, and the suicide bombings in Israel - both sternly forbidden by Islamic law, carried out by Muslims who would do well to better study and better honor their own religion. Ignorance and sin happen.

Better could be expected, I would guess, from the far better educated members of an Egyptian government, especially one which wishes to be seen as the government of a modern, secular society. So, if a non-denominational chapel were set up inside of our hypothetical museum, and one of the groups worshipping there was a Kemetic Orthodox one, would that be a problem? I seem to recall that the use of temples already in Egypt for the Nisut's coronation ceremonies, without any sort of violent response, and which seems sadder - a tomb to which offerings are brought by those who honor the deceased, or one that lies abandoned and half-forgotten in the desert? As for "intrusions" by Copts and other Christians, the leaving of flowers and other gifts by the side of a grave is an old tradition, as is offering petitions for the deceased in one's prayers. The intrusion, very often, might be a welcome one.

But, I guess some administrators just enjoy doing things the way they've "always" been done, even when new ways have proved far more successful elsewhere, and that some people would rather gripe, than seek a sensible compromise when faced with something of a dilemma. Obviously, the Egyptians can't (and won't) leave their national treasures locked away when nobody alive can see them, yet we would get to see some of the members of the House argue that they should do just that.

("Nonk" is the same "Nonk" you'll see mentioned elsewhere on this site; the other names I didn't bother to change because not much is said about them in this review).

Hotep!

I've really been looking forward to tonight's broadcast of the tomb opening. Even though we've known about this tomb for more than six months now (from news reports) and even though my Egyptology professor said that she, and other egyptologists, had known about this tomb for 2 years or more. I rather think that the area they will open will not be the first area, but it will be exciting anyway!

They've been showing pictures of the cartonnage masks on the TV, and it has given me cause to wonder, what do these Akhu think of all of this? Certainly, this will make them known to the world. Perhaps even by name. Immortality!

I used to be, and still am, fascinated by mummies and what they can tell us about the people that they were. But now-a-days, with finding this faith, I wonder if it right for us to examine mummies the way that we do? What to the Akhu think of this, I wonder?

If it were me, I don't think I'd mind. I'd be glad that people would know about me and remember me. But I guess that some other people might just want to "rest in peace".

What do you guys think? I'm still pondering this and would like to hear some opinions.

Senebty!
AnkhMau

Now that you've seen it, what did you think of it Carol? I don't think the Akhu mind. While I found some parts of the show distasteful, anything that brings money to Egypt is a good thing in my book, and you can bet Fox paid them well. In a way, by being on display, the ancestors were remembered, and they themselves feed the country still there too. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

Dr. Hawass (pardon if I spelled his name incorrectly) also said he felt the mummies should be reinterred after the discovery; meaning reburied. I have to commend him on that very much. I wonder if it was an unpopular decision among his colleagues.

Seshet-Nisut Imakhu Inibmutes meritHeka
Rev. Donna A. Schaefer
Hemt Aset/Serqet

Hi Imakhu,

Well, I thought it was--in places--very hokey and obviously staged, but very neato! I liked that Dr. Hawass said that the mummies will remain in their tombs, but I wondered, what will happen to them if their things are in museums? Will they still be able to use those things?

I liked the explanation of the masks--like Ka statues. That was really neat to see. And I think it surprised Dr. Hawass when Bill (Pullman) asked about them.

The Govenor's mummy--well, what remained of it--was great. All those amulets. I was surprized when Dr. Hawass emptied out that jar and it had those tiny golden amulets inside. He made the comment about look at these tiny fine things and the workmanship compared to the workmanship of the large stone sarcophagus. A real testament to the artisans who made those items.

I do sorta feel that the Akhu don't mind, like you said. And I think that Dr. Hawass thought so too. Hence his insistance that they would be reinterred, and his reminder that each mummy was a person. Senebty!

PS I loved seeing the jewelry, too! That blue bracelet was magnificent!

Heh heh, I thought the first FOX special was more hokey -- they had men carrying the _same_ bricks from a pile over and over again in the middle of the night

The body of the governor was interesting. It's unfortunate the water from the houses overhead seeped into everything so badly -- some of the paintings were gorgeous. After this I rather liked Bill Pullman a bit more despite myself

Seshet-Nisut Imakhu Inibmutes meritHeka
Rev. Donna A. Schaefer
Hemt Aset/Serqet

Oh, so you missed the same fellah (sp) carrying a few palm fronds on his shoulder back and forth behind Hugh Downs this time? I don't know, I shouldn't dump on Fox so much, they at least bring us things like this. Unlike other networks.

Ah, yes, the paintings! Exquisite!

And Bill Pullman, he was very excited and enthusiastic. Rather how I think I might be if given the same opportunity. Except for crawling through those little holes! *shiver*

And I loved Dr. Hawass and his hat!

Senebty!
AnkhMau >^..^<

I could only bear to watch for a short amount of time. From what I saw, the special lacked archeological value and was more akin to the "grave robbing" style of archelogy from the 1910's. The main focus of the special seemed two part. One, look at all the neat dead people. Two, how much gold can we find. I was not pleased and rather disgusted by the televised sacrilegious act.

Just one wolf's opinion, though.

Em hotep Stormwolf and Everyone:

I think now that I am thankful that out in the woods where I live we don't pick up FOX, except quite rarely. I was going to watch it, but the barometric pressure and the satellites weren't with me. I probably would have sided with you, Storm. I have a real hard time with the opportunistic quest for things to stick in museums etc. I understand that my own personal bent on this is very much based on my American Indian upbringing and how we view the graves and the grave goods of the ancestors.

I once watched some televised thing with Telly Sevalas, where they went into the wreck of the Titanic and brought up a safe, there was this attitude of their finding incredible lost treasure in the safe, etc. All I can remember was that for two nights I was litearlly haunted by that show. To disturb the gravesite of so many lost so tragically was to my mind the deepest of sacreligeous acts. I remember feeling quite literally sick with it. It was as if I could hear the voices of those people who were rather upset at being so insensitively prodded in their final resting place. I felt then and I still feel now, the site should be left undisturbed.

Probably the most uncomfortable part of any museum exhibit for me has always been the mummies. In my mind they were people...and as such I respect them, what their lives were, etc. I find it refreshing that museums such as the Field Museum in Chicago have put up for their patrons, the Peret Herew or Invocation Offering to say to the spirits of the ancestors that are there in the museum's care:

The Peret Herew (or Invocation Offerings):

An offering which the King gives to Wesir upon His mountain:

A thousand of bread, a thousand of beer, a thousand of alabaster and oil and linen, a thousand of meat and fowl and all things good and pure which heaven gives, the earth produces and the inundation brings. To the ka of [fill in name of deceased person], ma'a herew.

Senebty!
Imakhu Nonk
Hmt Netjer Sekhmet/HetHert

Em Hotep Imakhu Xina, and All

My gut reaction, to things like the special on Fox, is to be sickened too.

I kind of desensatized myself to it, because I thought that most of the best information about what was going on then, was come by in this way. I know it's not the only way, but how else is it done? It seems that if digging around in tombs is bad, then wouldn't we have to boycott all info that was obtained this way? How much that is valuable to us would that eliminate?

Do you think that the spirits of the people who were buried there would be angry?

Personally, I don't think I would be angry about people just looking at my things, as long as they didn't take them away. But that's me, and I'm not dead yet, so I really don't know

Then I have to consider that there are all sorts of things written at those tombs, which suggest to me that the people buried there didn't want anyone inside.

I just wanted some further info/insights on all this, because I have struggled a bit with this topic myself...

If I'm missing something I'd love to know!
Thanks
Jess

Em hotep Jess <henu>

Its a fine line that we walk in this world. So much of modern society seems divorced from the awareness and knowlege that we build our own lives upon the bones of the ancestors. We step back through their paths, and realize that we are one and the same and that the spirit and blood of our ancestors are within us and when their remains are either disturbed or they are not remembered it is only natural that culturally we would have such a gut reaction to such.

One level I am very glad for the knowlege of those who came before us and the only real way that we had to really get to know the culture that was all but obliterated was through grave goods and their remains etc. The unspeakably horrific things that early Egyptology did, or those who were mere treasure seekers still, I think fills us with a necessary rage. The damage has been done - however now, I think the key is education. Hawass' attitude that the mummies should be reinterred I think is a phenomenal step forward! I wish that we could get that sort of reaction from the bureaucrats in this country who think nothing of digging up indigenous burial sites. I thank the ancestors who have permitted us to glimpse their lives through such excavations - however Ithink that as we know them and feed their ka's through our prayers and our honoring of them it serves to lessen their ire, perhaps.

I think it is a strong belief through most of the House of Netjer that we do not participate in the further looting of grave goods and illegal antiquities trade that goes on. I am hoping that Kai Imakhu Nakhtdeshretiu can lend some of his insights since as a Setem Priest, he deals far more in this area than I do. My rule of thumb is to follow the ideals that I was raised with, and ancestor veneration is very much a part of that. We are aware of them, we feed them and talk to them and pray for them and perhaps that is some of what can heal some of the past hurts that modern man has wrought in its ignorance. I hope that answers some of your questions.

Senebty!
Imakhu Nonk
Hmt Netjer Sekhmet/HetHert

Em Hotep, Jess <Henu>

I can understand what you are saying but I have a different view of the subject. If they were digging up the tomb, thanking the occupants, gathering information and then resealing the tombs. I would have less of a problem. But that is not what they are doing. They open the tomb, ransack it, take every thing and then dismember the occupant. I do have a problem with that. Let's move the focus the topic for just a moment.

If I said that I lacked a full understanding of the year 1930 and with that statement I dug up one of your ancestors. I then took the pearls they were buried with, the marble headstone, the gold wedding bands, and the skull. I sold the jewelry to a musuem for a profit. They in turned displayed your family jewels. They charge admission to see them AND they make a profit on this action, by the way! As for the skull, I televise the excavation and show the skull to keep viewer ratings up. Now is this research and discovery or was this example sacriligious? This is how I feel as the special. They focused on the bodies and the coins and the gold. How can they claim that it was an informative special? Hah!

<Stormwolf steps down from his soapbox and heads to his den>

Click here to return to the previous page.