The Osirion - Continued

The dating controversy

As mentioned earlier in this section, the view of orthodox Egyptologists as to the age and builder of the Osirion, is the subject of much debate - the reasons for the controversy are as follows;

Egyptologists attribute this structure to Seti I (New Kingdom) because

- It is physically attached to the Temple of Seti I

- There is a small inscribed tenon in the Osirion, bearing the name of Seti (but this is the only place in which inscriptions appear).

- The site in general is associated with Seti, and the worship of Osiris.

This attribution seems tenuous at the best to me, especially when one considers the evidence for much greater antiquity;

- The foundations of the Osirion are much lower than those of the Temple of Seti - this suggests that it was either designed and built to be below ground level, which would have been unprecedented in Egyptian architecture, or that it was designed and built to be above ground at a time that ground level was considerably lower than the present day, and indeed lower than ground level at the time of Seti. The earth excavated around the Osirion has been shown to be compacted Nile silt, which has been laid down year after year by the annual innundation of the Nile since time immemorial.

- The design of the Temple of Seti itself is unusual insofar as it is not designed in the standard rectangular shape, as with all other temples of this period, but it an "L" shape. I can see no other logical reason for this departure from convention, save for the fact that the buried Osirion was discovered during the temple's construction, forcing this change of plan.

- Perhaps the greatest reason for dismissing the conventional attribution of this structure is the architectural context - New Kingdom architecture is inceredibly distinctive in its style and form, and although every New Kingdom temple is unique, there are multitudes of stylistic coherances between their designs. But the Osirion displays none of these traits - there is a distinct absence of prolific inscriptions on this site, the construction with megaliths is unique in New Kingdom architecture, and it seems almost absurd that Seti should choose to construct his temple at one level, and the Osirion 20-30 feet deeper in the bedrock.

So what am I saying here? I am amazed and angered that, despite the voluminous evidence to the contrary, that Egyptology fails to recognise the fact that the Osirion is much older than its conventional attribution, and I find myself wondering why the so-called experts still feel that they should cling desperately to this premise. Architectural style should dictate that they should at least rate this structure as contemporary with its stylistic counterparts, like the Sphinx and Valley Temples, which conventially are dated to the Old Kingdom. Check out the photos, and make up your own mind.