Topic: Problem with the Scholarship of "Mythic Egypt"

[dutch206]

This has bugged me for years, so I thought I'd just throw it out there for everyone.  In the RM 2e "Campaign Classics" book Mythic Egypt, Set is identified as the primary god of evil.

This was only true after the Assyrian Conquest of 664 BCE at the end of the 26th Dynasty.  From the foundation of Kemet (Egypt) in 5500 BCE all the way through the Bronze and Iron ages, Set was one of the Great Councilors of Egypt.  He was the god of desert storms and foreigners.  Warriors prayed to him before combat, asking that Set grant them the ferocity of the Sandstorm in battle.

The chief figure of evil in ancient Egypt was Apophis, aka "Apep the Sun-swallower", a giant serpent who fought with Set and Bast each morning so the sun could rise.  Let's show Set some love and give him back his place in history!

Yes, I know.  I read too much. 

[dutch206]

Oops!  Source: Set Wiki

[markc]

 I do not know why but if I had to make a guess it would be that someone thought there has to be conflict in other religons like god vs the devil. As I said just as guess. Also is not Set assocated with snakes? This could also be snakes as in garden or Eden etc, etc, etc.

MDC

BTW, it is nice to know some things that most others do not.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Subject is a bit misleading.

At the time that Mythic Egypt was written, it is possible that some scholars (perhaps the ones  in the bibliography) considered Set to be evil.

I recall hearing something about how many historical assumptions are challenged/changed every couple of years due to new discoveries/interpretations.

I recall hearing of one such scholar publicly denouncing his own work because the book company wouldn't take it out of print and because of a new understanding of his topic matter meant that the information in the book is incorrect.

Just keep that in mind while discussing 20+ year old gaming books...


 

[NicholasHMCaldwell]

Subject is a bit misleading.

At the time that Mythic Egypt was written, it is possible that some scholars (perhaps the ones  in the bibliography) considered Set to be evil.

From memory, it was commented by Old ICE staff members that the scholarship in Mythic Egypt was accurate right up to about the time it was published. Then the historians and archaeologists changed their mind and Mythic Egypt became incorrect.

Best wishes,
Nicholas

[Cormac Doyle]

Yeah - I remember a post on the old Silent Tower list where Monte stated that the scholarship on Mythic Eygpt was considered good up until a month after publication, when several important papers were released that refuted several sections of it ...

[lev_lafayette]

Can we just say that the scholarship, at the time of publication, in Mythic Egypt, Mythic Greece, Vikings, Pirates, Robin Hood, Arabian Nights, At Rapier's Point and Outlaw was nothing short of exceptional?

(Those are the historical books I own, have read and in most cases have played)

[dutch206]

MarkC:  Set was associated with the packs of wild dogs which roamed the desert.

I know about how scholarship changes over time.  That's why I didn't bring up the fact that the book says Rameses II was the Pharaoh at the time of the Exodous.  (Some archaeologists now put that event back around 1550 BCE when the Hyksos were kicked out of the kingdom.)

I didn't mention the fact that the book says King Tut was assassinated, even though most experts now believe his head was fractured in a fall from a chariot.

I also won't mention that the author referred to the capital of Egypt as Heliopolis, when it was known as Annu for thousands of years before the Greeks ever showed up.

Twenty plus year old books have their place, and this is still one of my favorite campaign classics.  I'm just saying....


BTW; do I read too much?

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

BTW; do I read too much?

No. Actually, you need to go read more. Like some historical books published prior to "Mythic Egypt".

Compare the scholarship of the product to the works produced at the time. Not to works produced after 20+ more years of study and interpretation.

Comparing books that are 20 years apart in their publication is ALWAYS going to come up with problematic issues, because new discoveries and interpretations will have changed the way things were thought about.

It is that simple.

Claiming that a 20+ year old book has "problems with its scholarship" because it doesn't match current interpretations is never a good thing and it is only going to rile feathers. A better idea would have been setting the sbuject to something like "Updating Mythic Egypt to current historical interpretations" as that is what you are wanting to do.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the scholarship of that book. It was accurate at the time that it was released. Attempts to say otherwise or to imply otherwise, are disingenuous at best.

[Fenrhyl Wulfson]

Scholarship is allways a nightmare to use when writing material for roleplaying.
When you study the history of a culture from the past, you have several things to consider :

1) Written sources, when they are available, are usually incomplete and we lack the cultural references to understand them perfectly.

2) Some findings are misleading. For example, a buddha figurine was found in a Viking age settlement in Sweden. It does not mean some northmen were buddhists. Misleading findings are not so obvious and sometimes dramatic errors are commited and are not corrected for decades.

3) We don't know how our ancestors lived. We don't really know what they believed in or even what their lives were about. We don't even understand their mindsets.

4) History is a "politic science". When Germany and France were trying as hard as they could to destroy each other, french historians claimed that the "franks invader" were "mere barbarians" with "no real culture", just cruel, stupid brutes only caring for money. Now that german-french friendship is a key part of the European union, franks are now considered wise and cunning leaders, their quarrels explained by a social mindset we can't fully understand.
Get my point ?

Overall, you have to accept that what you believe is true concerning ancient times at a given moment is actually partly (or completely) wrong. With this in mind, you juste have to carry on and build a RPG universe that takes a lot from scholarship but has "false parts". And as far as "gaps" go, they are just an opportunity to fill them with whatever suits your needs.

Historical accuracy is a myth.

[markc]

MarkC:  Set was associated with the packs of wild dogs which roamed the desert.

I know about how scholarship changes over time.  That's why I didn't bring up the fact that the book says Rameses II was the Pharaoh at the time of the Exodous.  (Some archaeologists now put that event back around 1550 BCE when the Hyksos were kicked out of the kingdom.)

I didn't mention the fact that the book says King Tut was assassinated, even though most experts now believe his head was fractured in a fall from a chariot.

I also won't mention that the author referred to the capital of Egypt as Heliopolis, when it was known as Annu for thousands of years before the Greeks ever showed up.

Twenty plus year old books have their place, and this is still one of my favorite campaign classics.  I'm just saying....


BTW; do I read too much?

 No you do not read too much. And your asking has brought up another problem way back when. There was a basic version of the internet back then, all your books had to come from your library or the authors/game companies had to buy them for the project. I can say that college texts were not cheap in the late 80's and 90's. So I bet a lot of it depended on how good their library was or how good the library was at getting the required books from other libraries.

MDC

[dutch206]

I somehow seem to have created the impression that I dislike this book and think the author is an idiot.  I did not say that, nor did I mean to imply it.  I can't seem to put my thoughts in an order that other people are capable of comprehending, so I will just shut up now. 

[bottg]

The other thing to consider about historical RPG's is that sometimes you don't want absolute accuracy.

One example is medieval manors.  If you are playing an RPG set in anglo-norman england, you imagine that one village + fields = 1 manor.  But it didn't work like that.  Some manors were only part of a village.  Some had several villages.  Some were part of one and part of another.  Some had no village.  Some of course did match village boundaries.

But using this system in a game will confuse issues no end.  So medieval games use the 1 village = 1 manor system.  I don't think the game suffers for it.

[Fenrhyl Wulfson]

Exactly. Set it as the "usual case" and let the game master modify it as it suits his needs.

[dutch206]

I have a problem with total historical acuuracy, too.  Since no one in the real world has ever summoned a fireball out of thin air, it kind of makes incorporating Essence magic a pain in the rear. 

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

I have a problem with total historical acuuracy, too.  Since no one in the real world has ever summoned a fireball out of thin air, it kind of makes incorporating Essence magic a pain in the rear. 

First off, no game is ever going to be able to get 100% historic accuracy. It is an impossibility. Especially when the opinions and presumptions of the experts are continually changing over time. Something that is accurate at the time of publication may become outdated as little as a month later.

Add to this trying to adapt something even remotely historical to a fantasy game that includes magic, and that causes more problems with "historical accuracy".

And Mythic Egypt never claimed to be historically accurate. If it did, it wouldn't have had the word, "Mythic" in its title. 

I somehow seem to have created the impression that I dislike this book and think the author is an idiot.  I did not say that, nor did I mean to imply it. 

Actually, it is somewhat implied by the subject title itself. The title comes close (but does not cross the line) of "bashing". It kinda claims that there were problems with the scholarship of the book itself. This isn't the case. The scholarship of the product itself was (and remains) fine.

When several individuals (moderators!!) pointed out that, according to the time of publication, that the scholarship in the product was correct, you just shrugged it off and acted like you didn't care that it was correct when it was published, that you were more concerned with getting somebody to agree that it was incorrect now -- some 20+ years later --- it only served to reinforce that implication, especially with remarks like the bolded portions in the following quote:

Twenty plus year old books have their place, and this is still one of my favorite campaign classics.  I'm just saying....

At least that is how you were coming across...

If you want to check on or pick at the scholarship of the product, then you need to compare it with the scholarship at the time of its publication. Not after 20+ years of advancements in the field.

It seems, through the content of some of your posts, that you would have done better with a thread subject of Updating the scholarship of "Mythic Egypt" as that seems to be more of your intent, despite the actual thread subject.


I am going to go ahead and lock this thread.

The topic of updating the older quasi-historical products with information and hypothesis and interpretations that have surfaced after its publication is a valid topic for discussion and new threads may be opened in that regard.

However, please stay away from implying that the authors of those books did not do a good job on them just because the information in them is no longer valid because of changes in interpretations since their publication.