Go to the Egyptian Dreams shop
Egyptian Dreams
Ancient Egypt Discussion Board
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Smenkhkare
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 13, 14, 15  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Pharaohs and Queens
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3733
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 9:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Osiris II wrote:
Lutz
check out www.metmuseum.org/toah/worksofart/30
The description mentions the hole drilled for an uraeus, which can be seen on one of the smaller pictures.
Osiris II

Where in my posts do I deny the existence of this hole to attach the head of an uräus?

Again, the hole alone says nothing about when it was made. Critical to assessing whether the uräus was primary or secondary is not the hole, but his into the stone chiseled body. And on the three objects in Cairo there is no evidence of subsequent change, the body seems original. If the body of the snake is a later addition than they reworked the whole wig. And that seems to me very unlikely (expenditure / benefit).

Lutz
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3733
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 11:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kemetian wrote:
... However, I would like to point out that the epithet "beloved of Akhenaten" attested for Neferneferuaten does not exist. ...

Juergen von Beckerath : Handbuch der ägyptischen Königsnamen. - München : Deutscher Kunstverlag, 1984, gives on page 87

as source for "Neferneferuaton mery Akhenaton"

Frankfort / Pendlebury : The City of Akhenaten III - 2. - London : Oxford Universty Press, 1951. - Plate 108, an object in Universty College, London :



U.C. 410 are 7 limestone fragments of a private stela from Amarna, the famous stela from the Petrie Museum.

Greetings, Lutz.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3733
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 11:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

@ Kemetian : Have send to you an private message here over the forum.

Greetings, Lutz.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 2:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
Osiris II wrote:
Lutz
check out www.metmuseum.org/toah/worksofart/30
The description mentions the hole drilled for an uraeus, which can be seen on one of the smaller pictures.
Osiris II

Where in my posts do I deny the existence of this hole to attach the head of an uräus?

Again, the hole alone says nothing about when it was made. Critical to assessing whether the uräus was primary or secondary is not the hole, but his into the stone chiseled body. And on the three objects in Cairo there is no evidence of subsequent change, the body seems original. If the body of the snake is a later addition than they reworked the whole wig. And that seems to me very unlikely (expenditure / benefit).

Lutz


Well they had no problem cutting uraei over the depictions of Kiya at Maru Aten in order to convert it for Merytaten.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khazarkhum
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 82

PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 3:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:


Again, the hole alone says nothing about when it was made. Critical to assessing whether the uräus was primary or secondary is not the hole, but his into the stone chiseled body. And on the three objects in Cairo there is no evidence of subsequent change, the body seems original. If the body of the snake is a later addition than they reworked the whole wig. And that seems to me very unlikely (expenditure / benefit).

Lutz


No, the hole itself is npn-evidentiary. Tut's were similarly made--the head first & the uraeaus added afterwards.

http://www.griffith.ox.ac.uk/perl/gi-ca-qmakedeta.pl?sid=71.108.77.217-1333639417&qno=1&dfnam=266c-c266c
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3733
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 6:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meretseger wrote:
Well they had no problem cutting uraei over the depictions of Kiya at Maru Aten in order to convert it for Merytaten.

And what has this to do with what we discuss here?

Lutz
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Vangu Vegro
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 05 Nov 2009
Posts: 49

PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 6:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

On the uraei on the KV55 canopic stoppers:

In 2008 there was an exhibition in Monaco focusing on the queens of Egypt. I didn't visit this exhibition, but I own its catalogue, Queens of Egypt - from Hetepheres to Cleopatra by Christiane Ziegler.

One of the KV55 canopic jars (Cairo JE39637.c) was exhibited there, and the catalogue features on its front and back covers a nice and big picture of the front and back of the jar's stopper. I've scanned them (which is no mean feat with a book that size Wink) and focused on the relevant details.



Here we have a detail from the front, which shows part of the alabaster uraeus' hood still present, plus on both sides of the uraeus we can see traces of its coiling body. It's clearest on the right side.
Also note that the wig textures and the uraeus body are both visible in the same place, which means one was carved over the other.



...And on the back we can see the tip of the tail.

So, at least one of the stoppers had a uraeus with a carved body, and at one point it was evidently altered. Whether the wig texture was carved over the uraeus or the uraeus over the wig texture I'm not really qualified to judge, but to my layman eyes it looks more like the former. Whatever way it was altered though, it seems like an amateurish or unfinished job.

As for the other stoppers, I don't think I've seen all of them even in pictures (and certainly not in the size and quality of the photo on the catalogue cover), but I can't make out any traces of snake bodies on them. If the intent of the sculptors modifying the stoppers was to erase the uraei, perhaps they did a better job with the other stoppers, left this one for last, and ran out of time? Or if the uraei were added afterwards, perhaps they ran out of time halfway while carving (one of) the first one(s)?

Either way, the true story of KV55 remains a hard nut to crack.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kmt_sesh
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 13 Nov 2004
Posts: 7099
Location: Chicago, IL

PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 8:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Are the photos displaying all right on your end, Vangu? I'm seeing nothing but the broken-link icon on my end.

(How about you other folks? Can you see Vangu's photos?)

I went into your post to check the coding and everything looks right, so I don't know why I'm not seeing the photos. Confused
_________________


Visit my blog!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Kemetian
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 25 Mar 2012
Posts: 33
Location: Staffordshire

PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 8:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
Kemetian wrote:
... However, I would like to point out that the epithet "beloved of Akhenaten" attested for Neferneferuaten does not exist. ...

Juergen von Beckerath : Handbuch der ägyptischen Königsnamen. - München : Deutscher Kunstverlag, 1984, gives on page 87

as source for "Neferneferuaton mery Akhenaton"

Frankfort / Pendlebury : The City of Akhenaten III - 2. - London : Oxford Universty Press, 1951. - Plate 108, an object in Universty College, London :



U.C. 410 are 7 limestone fragments of a private stela from Amarna, the famous stela from the Petrie Museum.

Greetings, Lutz.


Hi Lutz,

I visited the Petrie museum specifically to view this stela.

There is an image of the stela in from Julia Samsons book "amarna city of akhenaten and nefertiti.



The line drawing you reproduce here is in error over the sign mry. On the stela there is clearly a gap on the right hand half of the bottom line of this glyph which would not be there if it were mry. The sign for mry should be a complete oblong. The sign on the stela is the sound sign "H", it is reasonably clear on the image of the stela itself.

However, as a means of proving the truth of this without needing the image consider the word order. If it said beloved of akhenaten the mry sign would come before the akh sign not after it.

Look at the ankhkheperure cartouche next to the one in question in your picture. The epithet says beloved of waenre. The mry sign is a different sign altogether but more importantly it comes before the signs for waenre not after. As I said it should come before the akh in akhenaten in the neferneferuaten cartouch not after it. The sign is surely "H" not mry

I discovered this independantly but Gabolde agrees, he mentions it in his paper "under a deep blue starry sky" which is available online.


[/img][img]

Regards, Kemetian[/img]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ankhetmaatre
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 209
Location: District of Columbia, USA

PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 8:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FWIW I can see the images very clearly, kmt_sesh.

The jar at the MET doesn't have theses over carved lines on it, btw.
_________________
Anger is an acid that can do more harm to the vessel in which it is stored than to anything on which it is poured
~Samuel Langhorne Clemens
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 1231
Location: victoria, australia

PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 1:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

i saw one of the jars in melbourne, for the tutankhamun exhibition. it didn't have a uraeus. it did have a circle in that spot though, reminded me of a hindu red dot on the forehead. it was that big, but obviously not red lol.
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sothis
Priest
Priest


Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659

PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 10:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kemetian wrote:
Lutz wrote:
Kemetian wrote:
... However, I would like to point out that the epithet "beloved of Akhenaten" attested for Neferneferuaten does not exist. ...

Juergen von Beckerath : Handbuch der ägyptischen Königsnamen. - München : Deutscher Kunstverlag, 1984, gives on page 87

as source for "Neferneferuaton mery Akhenaton"

Frankfort / Pendlebury : The City of Akhenaten III - 2. - London : Oxford Universty Press, 1951. - Plate 108, an object in Universty College, London :



U.C. 410 are 7 limestone fragments of a private stela from Amarna, the famous stela from the Petrie Museum.

Greetings, Lutz.


Hi Lutz,

I visited the Petrie museum specifically to view this stela.

There is an image of the stela in from Julia Samsons book "amarna city of akhenaten and nefertiti.



The line drawing you reproduce here is in error over the sign mry. On the stela there is clearly a gap on the right hand half of the bottom line of this glyph which would not be there if it were mry. The sign for mry should be a complete oblong. The sign on the stela is the sound sign "H", it is reasonably clear on the image of the stela itself.

However, as a means of proving the truth of this without needing the image consider the word order. If it said beloved of akhenaten the mry sign would come before the akh sign not after it.

Look at the ankhkheperure cartouche next to the one in question in your picture. The epithet says beloved of waenre. The mry sign is a different sign altogether but more importantly it comes before the signs for waenre not after. As I said it should come before the akh in akhenaten in the neferneferuaten cartouch not after it. The sign is surely "H" not mry

I discovered this independantly but Gabolde agrees, he mentions it in his paper "under a deep blue starry sky" which is available online.


[/img][img]

Regards, Kemetian[/img]


How should the two cartouches on the right then be translated?

And what sign is the bird sign in the cartouche on the right which comes after the Neferneferuaten part?
It is definitely not the akh-sign, but I can`t make out what it is.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 4:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
Meretseger wrote:
Well they had no problem cutting uraei over the depictions of Kiya at Maru Aten in order to convert it for Merytaten.

And what has this to do with what we discuss here?

Lutz


The point is modifying existing objects and/or reliefs to suit a new owner was not unknown or as prohibitive as you seem to think.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 4:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

khazarkhum wrote:
Lutz wrote:


Again, the hole alone says nothing about when it was made. Critical to assessing whether the uräus was primary or secondary is not the hole, but his into the stone chiseled body. And on the three objects in Cairo there is no evidence of subsequent change, the body seems original. If the body of the snake is a later addition than they reworked the whole wig. And that seems to me very unlikely (expenditure / benefit).

Lutz


No, the hole itself is npn-evidentiary. Tut's were similarly made--the head first & the uraeaus added afterwards.

http://www.griffith.ox.ac.uk/perl/gi-ca-qmakedeta.pl?sid=71.108.77.217-1333639417&qno=1&dfnam=266c-c266c


That surprises me. From the images I'd seen I'd assumed they were carved of a piece with the rest of the head.

What is interesting is that Tut has both the vulture and the cobra while the KV 55 jars had only a uraeus. Could that mean they'd been meant for a lesser royal figure than a pharaoh? Or just a different workshop.

Our choices would seem to be 1) lids modified for a royal personage with ureai that were later effaced OR 2) lids made for a royal personage, possibly not a pharaoh, later effaced.

And I sink ever deeper.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3733
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 5:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meretseger wrote:
Lutz wrote:
Meretseger wrote:
Well they had no problem cutting uraei over the depictions of Kiya at Maru Aten in order to convert it for Merytaten.

And what has this to do with what we discuss here?

Lutz


The point is modifying existing objects and/or reliefs to suit a new owner was not unknown or as prohibitive as you seem to think.

Has someone challenged this somewhere?

Lutz
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Pharaohs and Queens All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 13, 14, 15  Next
Page 14 of 15

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group