Luxor4u

A-Four wrote:this subject is quite irrelevant when it comes to dealing with the Luxor Cashette

It sure is, and I'm afraid I really have no idea what point you're trying to make.

FarleyFlavors wrote:

A-Four wrote:this subject is quite irrelevant when it comes to dealing with the Luxor Cashette

It sure is, and I'm afraid I really have no idea what point you're trying to make.

When I am faced with a mystery that relates to history, I seek to find out the best idea fits in an attempt to solve the problem. With the problem in hand being the Luxor Cashes, there has to be a very good reason why they were deposited in the fashion that they were discovered.

At this stage, all I have said is that I do not see a link with the Christian fresh that we see on the south wall of the Sun Court, immeadiatly high up on the eastern side of said wall. As I have written above, I will write what I believe is the best solution to this mystery.

Perhaps you, FarleyFlavour have your own ideas, and perhaps in the meantime you could offer the forum on your idea.

FarleyFlavors wrote:

A-Four wrote:this subject is quite irrelevant when it comes to dealing with the Luxor Cashette

It sure is, and I'm afraid I really have no idea what point you're trying to make.

Obfuscation I suspect.........to cover the initial boob concerning Copts and Romans

.........Or any one else for that matter, rather than the usual one line insults, from. the usual suspects, that seems to be the norm of this forum these days.

I will put my idea forward on Sunday evening,to give others enough time for those to put forward theres.

I see A-Four is sticking to his guns in maintaining the frescoes beyond the sun court are "Christian fresh" (frescos? ).

They're not.

If they look fresh it's probably as a result of the cleaning and restoration carried out by ARCE.

http://archive.arce.org/conservation/archive/u10

https://www.ajaonline.org/book-review/3452

The above and countless other online articles maintain that they depict Roman senators "worshipping" the rule of the 4 emperors established by Diocletian in the late 200's AD.

Found those articles very interesting Newcastle, thanks. Been a while since I visited Luxor temple but you have aroused my interest again will go tomorrow.

Yes Newcastle, thanks from me too. Am trying to find the original publication in eform, as it sounds so interesting.

A-Four wrote:When I am faced with a mystery that relates to history, I seek to find out the best idea fits in an attempt to solve the problem. With the problem in hand being the Luxor Cashes, there has to be a very good reason why they were deposited in the fashion that they were discovered.

At this stage, all I have said is that I do not see a link with the Christian fresh that we see on the south wall of the Sun Court, immeadiatly high up on the eastern side of said wall. As I have written above, I will write what I believe is the best solution to this mystery.

Perhaps you, FarleyFlavour have your own ideas, and perhaps in the meantime you could offer the forum on your idea.

Buried for the same widely-accepted reason as the Karnak cachette - a temple over-populated with statues which could not be destroyed. Or do you think there's some sort of mystery involved in the Karnak cachette too?

newcastle wrote:I see A-Four is sticking to his guns in maintaining the frescoes beyond the sun court are "Christian fresh" (frescos? ).

They're not.

If they look fresh it's probably as a result of the cleaning and restoration carried out by ARCE.

http://archive.arce.org/conservation/archive/u10

https://www.ajaonline.org/book-review/3452

The above and countless other online articles maintain that they depict Roman senators "worshipping" the rule of the 4 emperors established by Diocletian in the late 200's AD.

I did some searching and found an exhaustive academic paper on the Luxor cachette which mentions that "up until 1953, most scholars [...] thought that this room had served as a Christian church and that the frescoes were representations of Christian saints."

So maybe A-Four has been reading a very old book?

https://www.academia.edu/3236954/The_Im ... r_at_Luxor

John Gardner Wilkinson assumed the same when he examined the walls in the 19th century and his powerful reputation meant the error was maintained until more detailed work inthe 1950's.

Something A- Four could have discovered with a quick internet search instead of doggedly repeating his error and maintaining that any disagreement is an "insult".

I agree with FF that there is nothing mysterious about the cachette......although why the priests decided to bury them at that particular time remains open to speculation.

We know there were at least 2 versions of Christianity, ultimately one would be adopted by and brutally enforced promoted by the Romans, but that could not have happened until at least 365 AD. As the "Good Book" wasn't finished until then.

Problem to with the Romans is that we have the Victorian established thinking about who they were and what they did, but day by day that is now being challenged as more and more archaeological discoveries are being made.

I Often wonder where the world would be today had the Roman Empire succeeded.

John Landon wrote:
I Often wonder where the world would be today had the Roman Empire succeeded.

For sure the Latin I learned at school would have been more useful

newcastle wrote:I agree with FF that there is nothing mysterious about the cachette......although why the priests decided to bury them at that particular time remains open to speculation.

Pure guesswork, but...perhaps it's no coincidence that the statues were buried at the same time as the Romans were transforming the temple into an encampment? Maybe the priests buried the statues as a sort of act of deconsecration.

John Landon wrote:We know there were at least 2 versions of Christianity, ultimately one would be adopted by and brutally enforced promoted by the Romans, but that could not have happened until at least 365 AD. As the "Good Book" wasn't finished until then.

The first roman Emperor was baptised in 337AD. You don't need a fully completed text to start a religion!

John Landon wrote:We know there were at least 2 versions of Christianity, ultimately one would be adopted by and brutally enforced promoted by the Romans, but that could not have happened until at least 365 AD. As the "Good Book" wasn't finished until then.

The first roman Emperor to be baptised was Constantine in 337AD. You don't need a fully completed text to start a religion!

When we went to the lecture about the cachette the speaker said he believed that the Romans buried the statuary because they needed room for their own Gods to be displayed.

Hmmm...looks like my attempted edit went wrong there.

carrie wrote:When we went to the lecture about the cachette the speaker said he believed that the Romans buried the statuary because they needed room for their own Gods to be displayed.

There you go...another entirely feasible explanation.

Unless we know precisely the date the statues were interred - and maybe not even then - it is difficult to know who buried them and why.

The early 4th century AD was a period of considerable turmoil in the Roman empire although when Luxor, on the outer fringes, felt its effect is anyone's guess.

What we can be sure about is that it is unlikely the Christians had much to do with it. It can only have been a few years since they were severely persecuted under Diocletian and I would suggest it unlikely that they had sufficient clout, until news of Constantine's conversion reached Luxor, to mount a clearance and burial of the (relatively small number) of statues found in the cache.

Besides, destruction of such "pagan" idols would have been more on their minds than a decent burial

newcastle wrote:The early 4th century AD was a period of considerable turmoil in the Roman empire although when Luxor, on the outer fringes, felt its effect is anyone's guess.

Far from being on the outer fringes, it seems that Luxor was in the thick of it. A rebellion in Egypt seems to have kicked off in Upper Egypt.

There's an interesting snippet in that article I linked to above:

"Rebellion broke out in Egypt in the last decade of the third century. The revolt began most probably in Upper Egypt in July of 296, spreading from Coptos and Busiris to Alexandria. The alarming events of that summer, on the heels of the turbulence Diocletian's monetary reforms wrought in Egypt, made it necessary for the Emperor to intervene personally. In Alexandria, Lucius Domitius Domitianus was declared emperor; he struck coins that interrupt Diocletian's after 295/96. As Eutropius reports, the back of the usurpation was broken after eight months, and broken severely; the corrector Aurelius Achilleus and many of his followers lost their lives.

Having put an end to the rebellion, Diocletian remained in Egypt for some time to reorganize the country. An edict survives from the praefectus Aegypti, dated 16 March 297, providing for the execution of the new tax laws. This document gives both a date for the reorganization of Egypt and a terminus ante quem for the suppression of the revolt. Diocletian divided Egypt into three provinces, Thebais, Aegyptus Jovia, and Aegyptus Herculea, extending to Egypt the general administrative reforms which reduced the size of the provinces in the interest of creating more efficient government and in order to contain the power of provincial governors.

Procopius tells us that Diocletian visited the southern borders of Egypt, in order to reestablish the borders between the Empire and the barbarians. He surrendered part of upper Egypt to the barbarians, hoping, in vain, to forestall further raids into the Empire's richer agricultural lands. Hence Diolectian not only went to Egypt to suppress the revolt, but spent some time there straightening out its political situation."

Interesting......although I meant fringes to be read geographically. My earler reading had given me the impression that the old ways and religious beliefs gradually retreated south until finally expiring in Aswan. Thank you for the info about Diocletian's visit to Egypt.

I didn't realise Diocletian had taken such a personal interest in Rome's bread basket.....although I can't imagine this was good news for any nascent Christian uprising

Indeed, presumably the revolts as such were by the priesthood and other landholders resentful of seeing their crops plundered in the interests of their Roman masters.