Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Hanslune

Update on Scan Pyramid project Oct 2016

1,561 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

kmt_sesh

I think you meant this image, Kenemet, right?

E-108S.jpg

If I restore my pedantic mood, we might actually make some sense of the water ripple (n). You're right about the (female) scribe, anf from there the water ripple could be a genitive for the three banners below. Thus:

sS.t n nTrw

"(Female) Scribe if the gods."

That alone doesn't make much sense. A reference to the goddess Seshat? But hieroglyphically that would be incorrect for Seshat. And the plaque is about Thoth, not Seshat. Et cetera. It's not a real artifact, so why am I doing this? LOL I'm too bored tonight.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott Creighton
18 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

I think you meant this image, Kenemet, right?

E-108S.jpg

If I restore my pedantic mood, we might actually make some sense of the water ripple (n). You're right about the (female) scribe, anf from there the water ripple could be a genitive for the three banners below. Thus:

sS.t n nTrw

"(Female) Scribe if the gods."

That alone doesn't make much sense. A reference to the goddess Seshat? But hieroglyphically that would be incorrect for Seshat. And the plaque is about Thoth, not Seshat. Et cetera. It's not a real artifact, so why am I doing this? LOL I'm too bored tonight.

Hi Kmt_sesh,

A very Happy New Year to you. I hope 2018 brings you all that you wish.

I think, once again, we miss the point here. We know this piece is modern and that it uses ancient Egyptian signs to write - well nonsense by the looks of things.

But look at this: DJSDIUCJNSBUSTRC skkkHJSD jhJHJAASKJ kjshgJHYWTRYPC

Absolute gibberish!

But every part of the gibberish I have just written is created from a bona fide, legitimate alaphabet character (sign).

If the creator of this piece wished to make it appear authentically ancient Egyptian then it makes sense to find a source of genuine ancient Egyptian signs and copy them accurately into their artwork. It would make little sense for the artist to make up their own signs as to do so would surely undermine the obective of making the piece at least appear ancient Egyptian (by copying genuine signs).

The question then is WHERE did the artist of this modern piece observe a crested ibis on a standard? I personally doubt the artist simply made it up.

SC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott Creighton
On 29/12/2017 at 8:10 PM, BorizBadinov said:

For the record I wasn't trying to claim any knowledge of their farming practices beyond saying the panels made perfect sense to me how they were depicted and what I see as normal processing. Modern machinery does the same basic tasks just with a few expedited steps.

What I had to reconcile in my mind was the pitchforks. You wouldn't use pitchforks to move grains unless it was still on the stalk. The forks as depicted are too wide to effectively strip the grains out so I would think they are more for moving bundles than threshing but then there are too many workers just forking around so perhaps its part artistic license.

Strictly my interpretation as a former farm laborer. 

Hi Boriz,

Many thanks for your post. It is experience and insights such as yours that can really help in an investigation such as this. The reason I think the grain is still on the stalks in the upper register is because the shading in the 'haystack' is different to that in the lower 'haystack' where we can now observe the grain lying on the ground. I think also the two 'knots' (??) in the upper left and right corners of the 'haystack' would be the ends of ropes used to hold the stack together for the threshing of the grain to commence. Once completed I imagine the ropes could then be untied.

Thanks again for your important input here.

SC

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mstower
49 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

Hi Boriz,

Many thanks for your post. It is experience and insights such as yours that can really help in an investigation such as this. The reason I think the grain is still on the stalks in the upper register is because the shading in the 'haystack' is different to that in the lower 'haystack' where we can now observe the grain lying on the ground. I think also the two 'knots' (??) in the upper left and right corners of the 'haystack' would be the ends of ropes used to hold the stack together for the threshing of the grain to commence. Once completed I imagine the ropes could then be untied.

Thanks again for your important input here.

SC

Threshing and winnowing are separate procedures.  Animals are used for threshing in this case.  This seems to have it about right:

https://www.osirisnet.net/mastabas/ty/e_ty_05.htm

I find the numbering of registers here odd: it is the inverse of the order of procedures.

“It is difficult to imagine how such loose material could possibly be moved with such wide pronged forks, unless of course they had something between the prongs.”

The writer might have done better to look at such actual examples as the Ethiopian ones.  The traditional pitchforks were wide-pronged and they seem to have been functional: one suspects the Egyptian ones were similar.

M.

Edited by mstower
for reasons of pedantry.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BorizBadinov
13 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

Hi Boriz,

Many thanks for your post. It is experience and insights such as yours that can really help in an investigation such as this. The reason I think the grain is still on the stalks in the upper register is because the shading in the 'haystack' is different to that in the lower 'haystack' where we can now observe the grain lying on the ground. I think also the two 'knots' (??) in the upper left and right corners of the 'haystack' would be the ends of ropes used to hold the stack together for the threshing of the grain to commence. Once completed I imagine the ropes could then be untied.

Thanks again for your important input here.

SC

Scott,

The two knots I thought perhaps represented a bundle being pulled off the stack to throw down. It is drawn different than the bundles in the upper registers though, so it's not clear to me. I'm not sure how it could be threshed in a whole stack myself but that doesn't mean it isn't.

Once again just my impression for what its worth. Glad you found it useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mstower
57 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

Hi Kmt_sesh,

A very Happy New Year to you. I hope 2018 brings you all that you wish.

I think, once again, we miss the point here. We know this piece is modern and that it uses ancient Egyptian signs to write - well nonsense by the looks of things.

But look at this: DJSDIUCJNSBUSTRC skkkHJSD jhJHJAASKJ kjshgJHYWTRYPC

Absolute gibberish!

But every part of the gibberish I have just written is created from a bona fide, legitimate alaphabet character (sign).

If the creator of this piece wished to make it appear authentically ancient Egyptian then it makes sense to find a source of genuine ancient Egyptian signs and copy them accurately into their artwork. It would make little sense for the artist to make up their own signs as to do so would surely undermine the obective of making the piece at least appear ancient Egyptian (by copying genuine signs).

The question then is WHERE did the artist of this modern piece observe a crested ibis on a standard? I personally doubt the artist simply made it up.

SC

. . . and again you try to pass off a purely autobiographical report as having argumentative weight.  Also your favourite fallacy, argument by (false) analogy.

M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
58 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

~SNIP~

I think, once again, we miss the point here. We know this piece is modern and that it uses ancient Egyptian signs to write - well nonsense by the looks of things.

But look at this: DJSDIUCJNSBUSTRC skkkHJSD jhJHJAASKJ kjshgJHYWTRYPC

Absolute gibberish!

But every part of the gibberish I have just written is created from a bona fide, legitimate alaphabet character (sign).

If the creator of this piece wished to make it appear authentically ancient Egyptian then it makes sense to find a source of genuine ancient Egyptian signs and copy them accurately into their artwork. It would make little sense for the artist to make up their own signs as to do so would surely undermine the obective of making the piece at least appear ancient Egyptian (by copying genuine signs).

The question then is WHERE did the artist of this modern piece observe a crested ibis on a standard? I personally doubt the artist simply made it up.

The real question, as you've admitted that the modern piece in question is nonsense, is WHY do you assume the artist observed a crested ibis on a standard? Seeing as he or she had no problem with throwing a bunch of hieroglyphs together to appear to say something they actually do not it's more reasonable IMO to believe that the artist took liberties in design with the available hieroglyphs as part of his/her "artistic license" (read BS) that you are oh so fond of. 

cormac

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mstower

Suggest a close look at the second heap (?) visible in these:

ty_CHE_reg1.2_B.gif

ty_CHE_reg1.gif

ty_CHE_cm_308.jpg

M.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
20 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

I think you meant this image, Kenemet, right?

E-108S.jpg

If I restore my pedantic mood, we might actually make some sense of the water ripple (n). You're right about the (female) scribe, anf from there the water ripple could be a genitive for the three banners below. Thus:

sS.t n nTrw

"(Female) Scribe if the gods."

That alone doesn't make much sense. A reference to the goddess Seshat? But hieroglyphically that would be incorrect for Seshat. And the plaque is about Thoth, not Seshat. Et cetera. It's not a real artifact, so why am I doing this? LOL I'm too bored tonight.

Yup.  I came to the same conclusion, as you saw.  Scott did ask why we rejected the hieroglyphs, and that caught my eye.  I thought it provided an excellent opportunity to explain why the artist's interpretations couldn't be understood as being copied with any degree of accuracy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
2 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

Hi Kmt_sesh,

A very Happy New Year to you. I hope 2018 brings you all that you wish.

I think, once again, we miss the point here. We know this piece is modern and that it uses ancient Egyptian signs to write - well nonsense by the looks of things.

But look at this: DJSDIUCJNSBUSTRC skkkHJSD jhJHJAASKJ kjshgJHYWTRYPC

Absolute gibberish!

But every part of the gibberish I have just written is created from a bona fide, legitimate alaphabet character (sign).

If the creator of this piece wished to make it appear authentically ancient Egyptian then it makes sense to find a source of genuine ancient Egyptian signs and copy them accurately into their artwork. It would make little sense for the artist to make up their own signs as to do so would surely undermine the obective of making the piece at least appear ancient Egyptian (by copying genuine signs).

The question then is WHERE did the artist of this modern piece observe a crested ibis on a standard? I personally doubt the artist simply made it up.

SC

Well, given the other hieroglyphs there and the design flaws, I think it's not understanding the hieroglyphs and not taking time to understand them.  For example, we can see that they were attempting to copy "Scribe of the gods" and made quite a hash of that.   The Internet is full of badly hashed up hieroglyphs like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott Creighton
9 hours ago, Kenemet said:

For example, we can see that they were attempting to copy "Scribe of the gods" and made quite a hash of that.  

It is one thing to badly copy an existing inscription but an entirely different matter to copy minute detail of a particular sign that, according to the consensus opinion here, doesn't (and shouldn't) even exist for this particular sign. And yet -- there it is: a crested ibis upon a standard.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott Creighton
9 hours ago, Kenemet said:

Yup.  I came to the same conclusion, as you saw.  Scott did ask why we rejected the hieroglyphs, and that caught my eye.  I thought it provided an excellent opportunity to explain why the artist's interpretations couldn't be understood as being copied with any degree of accuracy.

It is not so much what the signs actually say or what the artist perhaps thought they said that interests me. The actual signs themselves, although apparently presenting gibberish, have been rendered fairly well by the artist. THAT'S the point here.

The artist here has clearly rendered the signs well enough that we can actually recognise each of them and even find them in Gardiner's Sign List. Why can we do that for ALL of the signs in this modern piece with the sole exception of the crested ibis on the standard?

You will probably take the view that the artist simply made up this particular sign of their own accord to which I would simply ask -- why do that for this one sign and none of the others? Why make up a sign of your own which would undermine your attempt to use genuine signs to at least make the piece look ancient Egyptian (even though it reads gibberish)?

I simply cannot see why this artist would make up their own signs (or sign composites) which is why, imo, the artist actually saw this crested ibis upon a standard somewhere and copied what they saw.

 

SC

 

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mstower
2 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

It is one thing to badly copy an existing inscription but an entirely different matter to copy minute detail of a particular sign that, according to the consensus opinion here, doesn't (and shouldn't) even exist for this particular sign. And yet -- there it is: a crested ibis upon a standard.

SC

Give it a rest, Creighton.  Minute detail?  We see how much the designer cared about minute detail in looking at the figure.

As for the inscription, all the designer did is add a crest to this quite ordinary writing of the name of Thoth:

ZG31zM.png

—perhaps (like  you) confused by the tripartite wig—perhaps (like you) failing to understand that the crested ibis and the sacred ibis are as hieroglyphs entirely distinct.

M.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mstower
2 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

I simply cannot see why this artist would make up their own signs (or sign composites) which is why, imo, the artist actually saw this crested ibis upon a standard somewhere and copied what they saw.

. . . which is a commentary on you.  I suggest you stop presenting biography as argument.

M.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
14 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

It is one thing to badly copy an existing inscription but an entirely different matter to copy minute detail of a particular sign that, according to the consensus opinion here, doesn't (and shouldn't) even exist for this particular sign. And yet -- there it is: a crested ibis upon a standard.

SC

So all you have to do is (as I said before) come up with an original inscription that shows Thoth's name spelled with the crested ibis on a standard.  You found one, which the university says is in error.  Perhaps you can find another.

In any case, your piece is of no use as any sort of reference or evidence.  It's modern and by someone who doesn't read or write hieroglyphs and does not know about proportions and construction in Egyptian art.  If the hieroglyphs were corrected, it does nothing to help you (at least the ones on that side of the image) for it's just a bad hash of "Thoth, scribe of the gods. " 

I have seen these kinds of mistakes in artwork created by modern artists who do pieces for the market with various deities on them.  They usually pick two or three lines that they think they can copy easily rather than attempting the longer inscriptions and they make mistakes in the copying.

 

...edited to add... I think you have probably lost the thread of the original discussion, here, in this side track on a piece of modern illustration.  Going round and around about an image made within the last 20 years does not create evidence for an idea about an object from a culture that's over 4,000 years old.

Edited by Kenemet
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott Creighton
11 hours ago, Kenemet said:

 

Kemenet: So all you have to do is (as I said before) come up with an original inscription that shows Thoth's name spelled with the crested ibis on a standard. 

SC: No—I don’t. A number of sources tell us BOTH the sacred and crested ibis were emblems of Thoth. Some sources speak only of the sacred ibis in relation to Thoth while others speak only of the crested ibis in relation to Thoth.

Kenemet: You found one, which the university says is in error. 

SC: If by “university” you mean the consensus opinion here on UM then I think you place too much faith in the “university”. Don’t misunderstand me—deference to authority has its place but, personally, I prefer to look at ALL evidence (including that which that same authority often dismisses simply because it doesn’t fit with their paradigm) and draw my own conclusions. In this case I see little reason not to consider that both the sacred AND crested ibis were emblems of Thoth, perhaps exhibiting different traits/attributes of the ibis species. The crested ibis was regarded by the ancient Egyptians as the “wise” bird --an attribute of Thoth. It was also regarded as the ‘messenger’ or ‘harbinger’ of the flood--as was Thoth. That the “university” cannot see these parallels and consider—as some sources tell us—that BOTH birds were emblems of Thoth is not my problem.  I am happy to agree to disagree with the “university”. I have an incling, however, that the “university” finds it difficult to even agree to disagree. Fine.

Kenemet: Perhaps you can find another.

SC: I won’t be breaking a sweat any time soon to “find another” since this sign representing Thoth (or not) is immaterial to whether the pyramids were built as recovery vaults or something else.

Kenemet: In any case, your piece is of no use as any sort of reference or evidence. 

SC: I never insisted it was.

Kenemet: It's modern and by someone who doesn't read or write hieroglyphs and does not know about proportions and construction in Egyptian art. 

SC: Yes—we have established that already.

Kenemet: If the hieroglyphs were corrected, it does nothing to help you (at least the ones on that side of the image) for it's just a bad hash of "Thoth, scribe of the gods. " 

SC: A “bad hash” which, nevertheless, presents a crested ibis upon a standard. I simply cannot see why the modern artist of this piece would make up their own signs. They didn’t alter any of the other signs in the piece so why would they alter this one sign? As such, imo, the artist must have actually copied this sign from somewhere else. I know that explanation will not satisfy your need for a definitive answer to this but, well, such is life.

Kenemet: I have seen these kinds of mistakes in artwork created by modern artists who do pieces for the market with various deities on them.  They usually pick two or three lines that they think they can copy easily rather than attempting the longer inscriptions and they make mistakes in the copying.

SC: There is only one ibis bird in that piece so it is difficult to see how the artist could have become confused between different versions of the bird. If you are copying something then you must have an original in front of you to copy from. What you are suggesting here is that this artist copied a sacred ibis (i.e. a bird WITHOUT the crest) upon a standard and then, for reasons known only to themselves, ADDED DETAIL to the bird (i.e. the crest) that didn’t actually exist in their original source; DETAIL, I might add, that just happens to perfectly render another valid ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic sign i.e. the crested ibis. How lucky! And just because the artist clearly cannot read the signs does not and should not mean they would not wish to copy each and every sign exactly as they saw them in the original source. I cannot read a single word of Chinese script but if I were an artist and wanted to make an authentic-looking piece of objet d’art using Chinese script, I would damn well make sure I copy the script as accurately as I possibly could and I most certainly would not be inventing my own signs.

 Kenemet: ...edited to add... I think you have probably lost the thread of the original discussion, here, in this side track on a piece of modern illustration.  Going round and around about an image made within the last 20 years does not create evidence for an idea about an object from a culture that's over 4,000 years old.

SC: Indeed. Which is why I have, on a number of occasions now, tried to bring the thread around to the original discussion. Let me try one more time: Hall of the Ancestors

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Windowpane
1 hour ago, Scott Creighton said:

Kemenet: So all you have to do is (as I said before) come up with an original inscription that shows Thoth's name spelled with the crested ibis on a standard. 

SC: No—I don’t. A number of sources tell us BOTH the sacred and crested ibis were emblems of Thoth. Some sources speak only of the sacred ibis in relation to Thoth while others speak only of the crested ibis in relation to Thoth.

Kenemet: You found one, which the university says is in error. 

SC: If by “university” you mean the consensus opinion here on UM then I think you place too much faith in the “university”.

 

I think Kenemet probably meant this post,  and this later one referring to correspondence from University College London.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mstower
2 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

Kemenet: So all you have to do is (as I said before) come up with an original inscription that shows Thoth's name spelled with the crested ibis on a standard. 

SC: No—I don’t. A number of sources tell us BOTH the sacred and crested ibis were emblems of Thoth. . . .

Yes, you do, Creighton.   Yes, you do.  Don’t you dare exempt yourself from the standards (of Egyptology) you pretend to meet.  Specify these sources.  We need to know their quality, seeing as how your source for the specified usage is a piece of modern decorative tat which you have the effrontery to continue to present as evidence.

2 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

Kenemet: You found one, which the university says is in error. 

SC: If by “university” you mean the consensus opinion here on UM . . .

No, Creighton, Kenemet means UCL.

2 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

Kenemet: In any case, your piece is of no use as any sort of reference or evidence. 

SC: I never insisted it was.

Yes, you did, Creighton.  Yes, you did—and you continue to do so, in this very post.  Insisting is an action.  It does not require the formula “I insist”.

You insist and continue to insist by harping on the item, trying to prop it up and turn it into evidence with your usual rhetorical guff.

2 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

Kenemet: It's modern and by someone who doesn't read or write hieroglyphs and does not know about proportions and construction in Egyptian art. 

SC: Yes—we have established that already.

Excuse me?  We?  On the contrary, Creighton, you needed telling.

2 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

SC: A “bad hash” which, nevertheless, presents a crested ibis upon a standard. I simply cannot see why the modern artist of this piece would make up their own signs. They didn’t alter any of the other signs in the piece so why would they alter this one sign? As such, imo, the artist must have actually copied this sign from somewhere else. . . .

. . . but he isn’t insisting it’s evidence, of course—and here we have mere biography pretending to be argument again.

2 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

Kenemet: I have seen these kinds of mistakes in artwork created by modern artists who do pieces for the market with various deities on them.  They usually pick two or three lines that they think they can copy easily rather than attempting the longer inscriptions and they make mistakes in the copying.

SC: There is only one ibis bird in that piece so it is difficult to see how the artist could have become confused between different versions of the bird. If you are copying something then you must have an original in front of you to copy from. What you are suggesting here is that this artist copied a sacred ibis (i.e. a bird WITHOUT the crest) upon a standard and then, for reasons known only to themselves, ADDED DETAIL to the bird (i.e. the crest) that didn’t actually exist in their original source; DETAIL, I might add, that just happens to perfectly render another valid ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic sign i.e. the crested ibis. How lucky! And just because the artist clearly cannot read the signs does not and should not mean they would not wish to copy each and every sign exactly as they saw them in the original source. I cannot read a single word of Chinese script but if I were an artist and wanted to make an authentic-looking piece of objet d’art using Chinese script, I would damn well make sure I copy the script as accurately as I possibly could and I most certainly would not be inventing my own signs.

Argument by asinine analogy.  Now let’s have some reality.

There was a fad in the 1980s for having Japanese characters on clothes.  The silk-screen people got busy and knocked out lots of t-shirts and, yes, mistakes were made.  This was mentioned by Ryuichi Sakamoto in an interview I read.

Likewise, in Japan, some consider it cool to have Igirisu on clothing—and, yes, mistakes are made.

These things happen with living scripts, with plenty of people around to spot the mistakes—but, not enough of them to make getting it pedantically right a commercial necessity.  How much less a necessity with an ancient script which very few people can read.

M.

Edited by mstower
to correct something.
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mstower
3 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

Kenemet: ...edited to add... I think you have probably lost the thread of the original discussion, here, in this side track on a piece of modern illustration.  Going round and around about an image made within the last 20 years does not create evidence for an idea about an object from a culture that's over 4,000 years old.

SC: Indeed. . . .

So why do you do it?  Why do you persist in doing it, as you have here?

M.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh

Didn't mstower or Kenemet identify this relief from Deir el Medina as the most likely inspiration for the wall plaque?

7575b1fed11726495475664f9c66167f.jpg

It's very close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mstower
22 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

Didn't mstower or Kenemet identify this relief from Deir el Medina as the most likely inspiration for the wall plaque?

7575b1fed11726495475664f9c66167f.jpg

It's very close.

Kenemet identified it.  I found a better image.  We may with some confidence reconstruct the design history of the two plaques sold by Ancient Treasures.  From the above we get this:

E-60.jpg

—and then this:

E-108S.jpg

Note the retention from the orginal of the ibis (incorrectly modified) and the scribal kit.  Creighton’s ludicrous fantasy has no place in the reality of the matter.

Edit to add: I notice that the scribal kit (Y3) has been flipped.  This would be a legitimate variant (Y4), but according to Gardiner rarer.

M.

Edited by mstower
to add something.
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mstower

Let’s consider the colour versions.

The original:

7575b1fed11726495475664f9c66167f.jpg

Small decorative plaque:

E-60P.jpg

Large decorative plaque:

Thoth_Plaque_1.jpg

We see that our supposedly ultra-scrupulous artist was not too bothered about the colours of the original or even consistency.

Edit to add: We may note that on the larger plaque, the ibis is coloured to match the figure of Thoth and not as the crested or sacred ibis.

M.

Edited by mstower
to add something.
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mstower
2 hours ago, mstower said:

Large decorative plaque:

Thoth_Plaque_1.jpg

. . .

Edit to add: We may note that on the larger plaque, the ibis is coloured to match the figure of Thoth and not as the crested or sacred ibis.

Look carefully here and you will find an example of the crested ibis coloured as the sacred ibis:

https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/chapter-94-of-the-book-of-the-dead-nefertari-standing-in-front-of-the-picture-id479646827

Still doesn’t match what we see on the plaque.

Other examples of sacred ibis or crested ibis in colour would be of interest.

M.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
22 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

SC: Indeed. Which is why I have, on a number of occasions now, tried to bring the thread around to the original discussion. Let me try one more time: Hall of the Ancestors

(skipping the other stuff, since Mstower answered so beautifully and I don't want to repeat the same points)

The scenario is unlikely.  There are family burial vaults but each family group had their own chamber... and that's not the case here.  The void (if it was intended for such) would have been constructed late enough that they could have put chambers for everyone - but that's unlikely.  In the case of the NK mummies, they were moved in haste and in secrecy and were put into existing tombs.  They did not have new tombs constructed around them.

Secondly, there's the problem of position.  The king is the one who will be rising on the arms of his fellow deities... but NOT on the arms of fellow Osiris-pharaohs.   Those people are already in the field of reeds.  It's the gods themselves who will reach from the sky for him.  He doesn't need others in the way of his path.  Nor did he see himself as being beneath those who preceded him.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.