Note with some mild amusement I noticed
that, true to form, the House had deleted this
entire thread within hours of my linking to
it. Why do I archive posts, now? Take this
case as a good example. The people being
spoken of in this review are more than happy to
falsify the historical record, when doing
so suits their political agenda.
How different is this, ethically speaking,
from shredding documents?
|
Ramessu |
Click here to return.
(1) Probably so. I'd say, take a look at the comments made by the House administration regarding mummification and cremation, if only they hadn't raced to delete those, again, within hours of this file being made publicly available. Try asking them, though, and then do a little reading of your own. While the Old Egyptian state religion was unambiguous in its insistence on the importance of preserving the body after death, a practice which was an important part of said religion, the House, at the time of this writing (c. May 19, 2002) has taken the popular position that "it is all up to the individual".
Maybe they're Reform Kemetics.
One of their shemsu, "Kai", I believe, offered the curious argument that the purpose of mummification was to create a statue of the deceased, and that a representation would serve the same purpose. To those who would find this explanation plausible, I would suggest a trip to a museum, to take a good look at a mummy. While the preservation is remarkable, for a body this old, it is most certainly not life like. Now, visit the library, and look up a book in which you can find pictures of pieces from the old "Treasures of Tut" exhibit which toured the United States back in the 1970s.
Trust me, it will be worth the trip. Note how beautiful the work is, and keep in mind that as Pharaonic burials went, Tutankhamun's is generally assumed to have been a humble one! The pharoahs would not have had any difficulty in finding artists who could have given them images they would have been proud of. So, if Kai was correct, then why would they have bothered with mummification, when their artists could have accomplished the same purpose with far better results, at a greatly reduced cost?
(2) Stephanie Cass, in a post which she apparently deleted herself, offered a perfectly reasonable reply. The Ancient Egyptians lived in a hot climate, in an era when head lice would have been a problem. (No medicated shampoos to take care of them). Short hair would have been both practical and comfortable.
Why this assumption that everyday customs had to be of religious origin, when similar customs can be found in our own era, but a few centuries back, under circumstances which we know had no religious significance? The practice of cropping one's hair very short, and donning wigs was widespread during the Western European "Age of Reason"; the wigs worn in British courts are a reminder of this.
(3) A small Hellenic group on the North Side of Chicago? 
(4) Keeping in mind that Ramessu is from Texas, not Egypt as he would have you believe, ask yourself if this sounds plausible. Throwing the ritually unclean severed foreskin into a sacred body of water, in a region where water is precious? Who would do that?
(5) Oddly enough, nobody seems to have told this to the Ancient Egyptians. See Life in Ancient Egypt, by Adolf Erman, Dover Edition, p. 443, for a reprint of a picture from a "Theban" tomb (Egyptian, not Hellenic Thebes), for a picture of a herd of pigs being driven. On p.429, Erman mentions Herdotos' testimony that herds of pigs were used to trample seed into the dirt, in the delta. A pig is a massive animal, with a huge appetite, and the expense of feeding an animal one will not eat, or eat any product of (milk from cows, eggs from poultry) would be unbearable in a region where arable land was in such short supply. Also, why would one use an unclean animal in order to drive in the seeds from which one's food supply will grow? Ritually speaking, would this seem like a proper thing to do?
(6) A pair of male deities took the forms of female pigs?
(7) Actually, it was a Nile crab, not a fish. (Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology, p. 18)
(8) News, no doubt, to the actual modern day Egyptians, who have a number of recipes for fish, including an interesting looking one on p. 237 of "Mediterranean Grains and Greens" by Paula Wolfert. (ISBN 0-06-017251-7). White fleshed fish (Wolfert suggests Bass or Mullet) is gutted through the gills, with its scales left in place, the belly being seasoned with crushed garlic, cumin and pepper. The fish is patted dry, then rolled in wheat bran. (This is why the scales must be left on - they are what the bran sticks to). The fish is then grilled on a barbecue greased with oil, the bran becoming black, but the fish staying moist inside. The cooked fish is soaked briefly in salted water, in order to loosen the skin, which is peeled away. The fish is then sprinkled with lemon juice, and served with a sauce made from steamed stalks of swiss chard, a little tahini (unroasted sesame seed paste), garlic, lemon juice and water put through a blender to form a creamy sauce, served separately from the fish.
Wolfert notes that the Egyptians, themselves, would not spice the fish, as they would grill it with its intestines in, a choice which my Southern French paternal grandmother would probably have concurred with. Northern Europeans tend to be dismayed by this, though. so compromises are sometimes made. Some of the odors from the 'trail' would be a little off, which is one of the reasons for our first ingredient. The wheat bran serves the same purpose as the clay does does in baking under fire, or the inedible 'pastry' crust of en croute cookery, without sealing in all or the odors as these other two techniques will tend to, at least not as thoroughly.
Wolfert's version may be better for use in the Midwest, as our seafood as not always as fresh as it ought to be, and the entrails will go bad more quickly than the flesh. One might be a little skeptical of her procedure of emptying the entrails through the gills, but it is not unprecedented. The Turks have a renowned stuffed mackerel dish (Uskumru Dolmasi) made, in part, not only by removing the entrails of the first this way, but the flesh as well! The chopped flesh is added to the stuffing, one of sauteed onions, toasted pine nuts, a little chopped walnut, currants and bread, seasoned with dill and parsley with lemon juice, a hint of sugar and pinches of cinnamon, allspice and bread, which is then inserted back into the fish, via the gills, the fish then being dipped in eggs and breadcrumbs and deep fried in olive oil, though I wonder if a mild sesame oil might not be better.
(9) Fishing zones? The Egyptians live in a narrow river valley! (Aside from the minority who live in oases, and elsewhere in the dsert). Where in Egypt would not be a fishing zone, and how many Egyptians would live there?
(10) Sigh. Ramessu, in addition to pretending to be an actual Egyptian, as opposed to an adolescent in Texas with an overactive imagination, has been claiming that he grew up with in a surviving Egyptian Traditionalist community. (The House, in its usual manner, has deleted most of the discussions in which this came up). Of course, in real life, Egypt has been an Islamic country for more than a millenium, and was a Christian country for some centuries before then. Temples, Ramessu? Try "churches" or "mosques".