WRONG IDEAS ABOUT ANCIENT EGYPT
Updated: 22 November 1998
WRONG IDEAS ABOUT ANCIENT EGYPT
Before starting any chronicle in Egypt, we must remove some strong ideas that exists since the Holy Bible and that are... false. A lot of prejudice came from readers of this book, as well as some archeologists who mistook scientificaly proofed information with high-romance prejudice-full ideas. For those still doubting it, I will say YES, I'm atheist, and have as much respect for the Holy Bible as for any other religious or non-religious book. I have a scientific formation with basis of philosophy, and YES, I have a strong prejudice against Judeo-Christian religion, and I assume it (Despite what some priests claim, they are not religions of peace: History can give us more than enough examples of this).
This chapter is not a pamphlet for anti-religious thoughts, but only a personnal (and not so personal view) about Egypt, and of course, it will contradict some religious dogma. I don't care. If you believe I'm wrong, you're free to Email me to tell me where I am, but only about facts: I care as much about the fact the Bible told the Egyptian were a cruel people than the fact the Silmarillion told the world was created by singing angels, and if you're not mature enough to make the difference between religious propaganda and historical facts, don't bother to Email me. Still, some among you could want to try anyway. Unlike others, I'm open to discussion, but you should know I've read the bible, and I have marked sentences that would cut down to shreds any idea like ''God is a just God and he loves us all'' and the like.
Raoul ''Violence'' Borges
paercebal@hotmail.com
ABOUT EGYPT:
Egypt was a nation of slaves:
False. Egypt has a strange (for the time) conception about slavery. No army of slave could have built the pyramids, despite what some ancient greeks would like to believe. Four months per year, the Egyptian was without work because of the Nile flood. Thus, for those needed food etc. worked for Pharao. They were well fed (weak workers would have built nothing) and well treated.
It must not be forgotten that Egypt has the first known record of strike! The workers weren't paid enough and stopped to work until their grievance were accepted! No slave could have done this.
Now, slaves existed. They were war prisonners, and while they worked for free, they were soon freed and accepted as full egyptians. A papyrus even describe how a man freed a slave and made him his own heir to marry his daughter. This was not an exception.
Egypt was a nation of conquerors:
The Egypt was a land of peace. They had almost everything they needed, and most expeditions they made were commercial ones, or even war-like ones to insure security of their commercial and prospection activities, for example, to bring wood (Egypt's trees were of poor quality to build ships) and religious goods (as incense), gold, etc.. The people suffering from Egypt's army were the Nubians (who standed between Egypt and their much-needed incenses), the Lybians and the asian (semitic) nomads (who sometimes turned thiefs, pillaging the Delta). They learned well the lesson when the Hyksos took over the delta: By neglecting the outer world, they have made themselves weak. The 18th and 19th Dynasties corrected this by invading lands that would serve as buffer between Egypt and expansionist civilizations, like the Hittites and the Assyrians.
Egyptians married their own sisters/brothers:
I searched well, and I must say I don't have the answer: It must be stated that in the egyptian tongue, Sister and Brother were synonimous with Wife and Husband...
There is two possibilities: Either the Egyptians accepted this kind of what some civilizations call incestuous unions, or because of the egyptian hieroglyphs, what we believe to be a brother and husband is only an husband. Akhenaton was known to marry his own daughter. It is possible that this union was only a diplomatic marriage, without any intimate union.
Egyptian women were submitted to men:
The women were accorded more respect then than in most countries of our 20th century, including the ones we believe civilized. Only the army seemed to be out of reach of an egyptian woman. Otherwise, they had the same rights, and were protected from any abuse. Divorce was accepted as the marriage were only simple contracts that could be broken as any other contract. They were not slaves, and this nonsense about ''Harems'' was a misunderstanding from first Archeologists. ''Harems'', called in truth ''Kheneret'', which means ''closed place''. They were in truth enterprises of women where they worked and observed religious rites to various gods. The women were free to go as it pleased them, and men were authorized (in fact, Christiane Desroches Noblecourt tells us that only male servants worked there!!! As there was no eunuchs in Egypt, it seemed the egyptian ''harem'' was not the typical harem most lust-filled ottoman kings supported...).
This is not to say there wasn't polygamia in Egypt. There is numerous examples of this, at least in the royal dynasties. But probably not for the common people. And anyway this didn't removed the women their rights, and it is probable that they had the choice to accept or refuse this kind of wedding.
We could find in Egypt businesswomen, priestess, craftswomen, and even the Pharao had to be a couple of man and woman, or at least a woman (Hatshepsout, as well as some other less well known queen ruled Egypt alone!). It can be surprising for those not knowing this, but the Greeks were the ones who ended this equality: Indeed, for these ''great philosophers'', women and men living in equality was an abomination. Ptolemeus Philopator (221-205 BC) made the egyptian woman the equal of the greek woman, that is: Nothing.
Egyptian Gods are animal-like allegories:
Egyptian mythology was a complex one as each major city has its own contingent of gods. Still, the merging was made possible because of the tolerance of egyptian religion and people. The result of this merging was the conception (found among the litterate and even the Pharao) that every god and godess was the incarnation of a single god (Yes, a primitive monotheism was found in Egypt well before the time of Moses!). Aton was a ''corruption'' of this system, as Akhnaton believed Aton was the only God, and that the others were either false gods or incarnation of Aton. The intolerance of the Atonians deeply hurt the other Egyptian priesthood in the last years of Akhenaton's rule, and the answer to this was as great...
The animals were either the remaining of animism surviving within a most complex religion system, or a reaction of invaded egyptians in the Lower Kingdom. Anyway, there is no great difference bewteen people revering a bull because of the elemental strenght it represented and a crucifix because of the elemental sacrifice it represents. People always needed greater ''fathers'' and ''mothers'' to tell them what to do, and choosing an omnipotent god instead of an animal is not a proof of maturity, only a proof of sophist reasonning (remember the discussion between Conan and its friend, about their Gods of the Mountain, and of the Sky...).
Egypt Art and Philosophy is primitive:
Egyptian art was fixed by rules, it's true. But the New Kingdom changed it, and craftsmen were given new freedom. The Atonian Heresy permitted much of this freedom, and despite its end, its artistic influence remained.
While it's true greek statues were more realistic than Egyptian ones, they served a different purpose. Greeks built monuments that served a realistic purpose. Egyptians believed the monuments they built had a strong magical/cosmic signification we don't fully understand even now. Temples were cosmic energy catalysers, as were the obelisks. The Heb-Sed (30th year jubilee) served to rejuvenate the energy of Pharao, etc..
As for those believing the Egypt was an evil country of evil dynasties, they should read the principles upheld by everyone in this land, I copy some of the writting that were common in the egyptian tombs:
I must note that once I saw in the same book writtings about conquests and revolts of vassal lands, that froze my blood: Hundred of heads removed, people skinned alive, removing of arms, hands noses, etc.. I was surprised to see this written by a Pharao, which was so different from all the other texts I've read, even texts about similar occurences, and searched for the name of the cruel king... to discover the king was Assurnasirpal the second (Assur is the Guardian of the Eldest Son), king of Assyria.
If I could assume ''Assur'' is the french version of the
english ''Ashur'', it would tell a lot about the mentality of
the Antediluvian. Who said it was Cappadocius or Saulot?
: )
Egypt was plagued by the God of Moses:
Well... the plagues existed, yes, as well as some other lore. The problem is that they existed in different times! Egyptian remember most of the so-called plagues in their twenty centuries of history. The Bible only used these memories, put them in the same time, and gave them a divine explanation. Strangely, while Egyptian administration and people were maniac historians, no one remember these plagues at the ramesside times.
This is aggravated by the fact the whole history of the whole region would have been changed if every firstborn had died. After all, Egypt was a strong nation, and a strong nation without an army (composed of men) would have readily been invaded by strong civilizations like the Hittites. This didn't happened, but the origin of this ''dead firstborn legend''can be explained, perhaps, by the fact that Ramses the Great outlived most of his sons!
This is typical of an apocryphical text: Written well after the time, blurred by the beliefs and faiths, they tended to exagerate, and to magnify their own viewpoint, all the while following the history but with their own interpretations. An interesting example: Imagine that our civilization disappeared in the next 30 years, and that a new civilization fell upon some books... For example, the Book of Nod. Written by White Wolf to appear as near as possible as our history, it could lead this new civilization to believe we were convinced Vampires existed and that they were demi-gods controlling our every moves. It could well spawn Vampire-cults that could become worldwide religions...
Egypt was a Theocracy:
Not so true. Egypt was as much a Theocracy than a Bureaucracy! A huge administration, an army of scribe writting everything on papyri. Today, we tend to see administration as a corrupt thing, but at the time, desert was winning ground, and without a great administration to decide which work should be done by who, this nation would have never lived past its first king. And it lasted 2000 years with but only two limited periods of invasion. The Pharao was the name given to this Administration, and was represented by the Royal couple (King and Queen).
It must be noted that the few time the Administration's power decreased (because of the greed of local leaders), Egypt fell into poverty and disorder, and sometimes, was weakened enough to be invaded (the Hyksos invasion for example!).
Set is an evil Serpent-God:
The animal representing the God of Deserts and Storms has yet to be identified, but it is not the serpent (most probably a mammal)!!!
The serpent Uræus was the protector of Pharao. The only ''evil'' serpent was Apep, also known as the Dragon or the Wyrm in other mythos. (White Wolf was inspired by this wyrm to create their own Werewolf mythology: The Weaver, the Wyld and the Wyrm). And strangely, Set was the one protecting Ra against the Wyrm!!! (Late lore would replace him by Horus).
So forget about this Conan-nonsense. Set was a god of violence, it's true (the desert storms weren't known to be calm!), but was a god necessary for the balance of the universe. Set's fame was decreased after the Hyksos invasion, as it was assumed he and the Hyksos god, Baal, were the same. Still, great Pharao still called for the power of Set, one of them being Ramses the Great, one of the greatest kings of Egypt.
ABOUT EGYPT IN THE WORLD OF DARKNESS:
Egypt was controlled by Mummies:
Mummies are more or less 50, most of them created between 3000 BC and 0 BC. That means more or less 1 created every 60 years. So, Horus could control Egypt in the Old Kingdom Era with less than 20 mummies, most of them dead waiting to awaken once more to life? Against them a whole Brood of Vampires, able to reproduce indifinitely? Either Set and his brood were inept, stupid, idiotic, naive and weak creatures (unlikely, seeing their success in the following centuries), or this idea about Mummies controlling Egypt, even through the famous ''Cult of Isis'' is ridiculous.
The Childer of Set were Corrupters from the begining:
As said before, Egypt was a country controlled by an Administration, and few things are easier to corrupt than an administration, and few things are more difficult to remove than a corrupted administration. So, in 2000 years a brood composed of an Antediluvian and his 4th Generation Childer, with Presence as a Clan Discipline didn't succeed in corrupting the administration while other Clans infiltrate them in the 20th century with little difficulty (and fears the Setites proficiency in this domain)?
If Set was corrupted since the beginning, nothing could have prevented him to corrupt Egypt. Something else happened, and it is the aim of the Uræus Chronicle to explain it.
 |
© 1998 White Wolf, Inc. All rights reserved. © 1998 Black Widow Intellectual Property. All rights reserved. |
 |
