Dr Holger Kockelmann talks to HK about the Egyptological Colloquium 2009
Dr Holger Kockelmann is one of the Egyptological Colloquium's young stars, and his second day talk on the use of sunlight, and the significance of the sun disk was one of the most accessible and entertaining speeches at an event which was quite intimidating to the (fairly) uninitiated. It's surprising that such an iconographic gem as the Egyptian sun disk, and its colourful accoutrements, have not been outlined in such detail before - but Dr Kockelmann certainly went a long way to furthering its knowledge. After the event's second day I caught up with the scholar, who told me about the state of the Book of the Dead's academic interest today - and that he didn't quite agree with Dr. John Gee's assertion that the Book of the Dead is a canon.
Heritage Key: How much more do you think we know about the BD after this event?
Dr. Kockelmann: I think the conference was extremely stimulating. It had a lot of new insights and new material, and new thoughts about older material so I thought it was very rewarding – very excellent.
HK: Was there any one particular speech that caught your imagination?
DK: There were so many different speeches which lent new insights. Very difficult to tell, I would say.
HK: How dynamic do you think BD studies are at the moment? Do you think it is in rude health?
DK: Compared to around 20-30 years ago research on the Book of the Dead is in very good shape, and I think that there are so many young people doing research in the field – and this conference showed that this work is in a very good condition at the moment.
HK: Are there any studies or excavations you think the public should be looking out for?
DK: Difficult question! I’d say the relation of the Book of the Dead with other funerary compositions should be examined in detail. Many people over the last two days were talking about that issue, but it still needs much more investigation.
HK: Did you agree with Dr Gee’s conclusion at the end that the Book of the Dead should definitely be seen as canon?
DK: I need to rethink that issue! It has been called the bible of the Egyptians in the past, so I would say it does have some canonic aspects in regards to the funerary practice. But it is difficult to compare it to the Bible, so to say, or some other canonical composites of texts.
HK: So do you think it would be better to compare the Bible with Egyptian texts as a whole, such as the Book of the Dead and Book of Breathing etc combined?
DK: I think it’s a little bit too difficult to make a comparison, yeah. But the idea is very thought-provoking, so I liked John Gee’s lecture a lot – it was very interesting, at least.
Image by Yinon P.
videos
Comments
Post new comment