From: mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon)
Subject: Re: Thebes (was: I'm God.)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 21:24:11 GMT
Summary: historical ambiguity has 100 gates

In article <13674@pogo.wv.tek.com>, daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler) writes:

> Jim Merritt quotes my response to a Josh Mcdowell claim, that Thebes was
> be destroyed and never again had native rulers:
> 
> >> 7. Thebes-Memphis
> >> 	destroyed, no more native rulers
> >
> > Memphis is the old Egyptian capital city near Cairo.  It is where the
> > pyramids and Sphinx are located.  While I would not call it in any way 
> > a thriving city, it is definitely ruled by Egyptians.  

And continues with his admission that he got misled by the Greek's odd
naming of the upper-Egyptian sometimes capital as Thebes.  I must place
a mild objection against the style of "refutation" used in this case
against claims of prophecy fulfillment.  If one is going to honestly
note the extravagance of interpretation needed by sectarians to conclude
that their favorite prophecies HAVE been satisfied, one should be just
as careful on the other side.

I suppose one COULD say that after centuries of foreign Spanish rule,
the Valley of Mexico is once again ruled by native Aztecs.  At least,
Nahuatl is still spoken there, and genealogically there is a lot of
continuity from before the conquistadores.  But any such claim strikes
me as exceptionally odd, in that there is (besides some archaeological
nostalgia and some continuity -- by absorption into parish life -- at
the pueblo level) no native Aztec alive anywhere in the Valley or
anywhere else on earth.

The case of Egypt is the same, but more so.  The culture of Ra and Apis
and mummies held on for a millenium and more of mostly foreign rule
(Libyan, Nubian, Assyrian, Persian, Macedonian and Roman) with the last
even arguably "native" rule being in the early 4th century B.C.E.  The
Ptolemies maintained an image of pharaonic divine kingship, to bolster
their dynasty (having seen the Egyptians do nothing but revolt against
the Persians, who did no such thing.)  Full pharaonic titulature still
exists for the first part of Roman rule -- but not past Titus, who is
the last to have a Horus name under a serekh; even the unadorned style
of cartouche disappears after the middle of the third century C.E.
(Decius is the next to last; I forget who the next one is -- Rome was
in disarray itself at this time :-))  There remain some final embers
of ancient Egyptian culture up to about 400 (the last dated hieroglyphic
inscription is at Philae near Aswan, from 394 C.E.), but the culture is
dead, dead, dead.  Even if Mubarak or a successor adopts the double
crown and starts erecting steale with hieroglyphs, I would not reckon
their "rule" to be native Egyptian in any ancient sense.

Coptic speakers in Egypt (who are all Christians, like the current UN
Secretary general) are heirs of the ancient language and presumably,
like the Nahuatl speakers in Mexico, have a good claim to genealogical
continuity with the ancient past.  Arabic speakers -- like Nasser and
Sadat and Mubarak -- have a more mixed ethnic composition (like the
Spanish speakers of Mexico.)  In neither case (Coptic or Arabic) is it
wise to think of them as "native" in the sense of a re-emergent Egypt
of the Pharaohs.

And then there is the question of the towns.  The ruins of Memphis lie
south miles beyond the southern limits of al-Q'ahir.  To cite the
_Atlas of Ancient Egypt_, "The city of Memphis, which has now disap-
peared almost completely, was the administrative and religious center
of the 1st Lower Egyptian nome.  It was the royal residence and capital
of Egypt during the Early Dynastic period and the Old Kingdom, and many
later kings maintained a palace there."  It was, indeed, founded by Menes
at the unification of the Two Lands.  It remained an important city till
the economic collapse of the 3rd century C.E., but was seldom if ever a
ruling city in the last millenium and a half of antiquity.  Alexandria
was capital for all of the Ptolemaic and Roman era, and was the main
prize the Arabs had to take and keep to hold Egypt.  The only thing
of importance in the Memphis area by the Muslim conquest was a fortress
named (I'm not making this up, you know!) Babylon.  The Arab general
lured the Byzantine forces into battle outside the fort and cleaned up.

Arab rule *was* established from a military camp northwards of this
fortress, and over a millenium Cairo grew up -- with administration
always moving NORTHWARDS from there (which was already to the north
of old Memphis, by now essentially deserted.)  Modern Cairo is an immense
sprawl that ALMOST extends far enough south to take in the site of Memphis.
But it has never had any kind of continuity with the old city.  Much less
an identification as may be made between Mexico City and Tenochtitlan.

Thebes was a hick town in the Old Kingdom, but the native city of the
reunifiers of the 11th dynasty and their capital.  It became THE city
of the South in the Middle Kingdom (normally reckoned from the 12th
dynasty), but was not normally the capital.  It *did* function as the
capital during the Empire/New-Kingdom glory days of the early half of
the 18th dynasty.  From the 19th dynasty on (the Ramessids), it was
important but not a ruling city.

Modern Luxor indeed is on the site of this ancient metropolis.  There
has been a mosque in amongst the ruins of Luxor since the Ayyubids of
the 13th century -- a small one, befitting the village it was until
it flourished with the tourist trade starting in the 19th century.

True history is FAR more interesting than ideological claims or counter-
claims.
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		   "Oh, stand, stand at the window,
					As the tears scald and start;
mls@usl.com			   You shall love your crooked neighbor
standard disclaimer			With your crooked heart."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc