| Author | Message | ||
     Jon Bodsworth Member Username: jon_b Post Number: 152 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 195.92.168.172 |
I've been reading Christine El Mahdy's "The Pyramid Builder - Cheops, the man behind The Great Pyramid". The author has some fairly unconventional theories, the following concerns her identification of the face of the Sphinx. After outlining her expertise in identifying the different periods of Egyptian sculpture she writes: "An examination, then, of the Sphinx's face will reveal some- thing very odd. The face as it is is an amalgam of two sets of features. The eyes are not level; one is higher than the other, while the mouth droops slightly at one side. The chin is broad and square, typically Old Kingdom. The eyes, on the other hand, are wide, more New Kingdom in style, while the eye- brows and the painted lines to the side cannot in any way be anything other than New Kingdom. It would seem, from a close inspection of it, that the original face was Old Kingdom, but that it was recarved in the New Kingdom. This would mean that the alternative thinkers are correct. The Sphinx has indeed been altered. But it is not, as they believe, an ancient statue of 10,500 BCE recarved in the Old Kingdom, but a Fourth Dynasty original recarved in the New Kingdom. This seems conclusive, although like most points, some may try to dispute the stylistic evidence. It would be helpful if there were corroborative evidence. And there is." The author then goes on to describe the famous "Dream Stela" which she claims has been incorrectly translated: "The accepted translation is: May the good god live, son of Atum, protector of Horakhte, the living image of the Lord of All, a sovereign created by Re, potent heir of Khepri, beautiful of countenance like his father... ...This translation cannot be justified in any way. According to Egyptian rules, a sentence starts with a verb, then has a subject and then an object. The way Sethe has divided his lines, the first section has subject, object, verb - an order which can never, ever happen. It was clear that the signs had to be regrouped. In this case, the `sovereign' and the sun-disc became the determinatives of the `Lord of All'. Immediately, the whole sentence changes. The correct translation actually reads: The living image of the Lord of All which the heir created when he carved Khepri, beautiful of face, like his father. The heir, of course, was Tuthmosis. Khepri, an aspect of the sun as he rises over the eastern horizon, the area to which the Sphinx points, was a pseudonym for the Sphinx. Tuthmosis, the text says clearly, carved the Sphinx's face to appear like his father. The Sphinx is an image of god whom Tuthmosis encountered in his dream. Associated with all aspects of the sun, it faces the eastern horizon to welcome the dawn of every new day. According to artistic, archaeological and textual evidence, it was carved in the Fourth Dynasty from an outcrop of good rock left after stone for the core of one of the pyramids had been quarried. The body was carved from a softer stratum of rock in the bedrock. Over centuries, the body has alternately sanded up and been cleared by successive rulers. During this process, the soft core of the body has been eroded by sandstorms and attacked by rain. During the 18th Dynasty Tuthmosis IV, copying the example of his father Amenhotep II, hunted regularly by the Sphinx, and on one occasion, dreamed that he met god. As a result he ordered the face to be recarved `in the image of his father' and erected a cult temple alongside. The original face of the Sphinx was of Fourth Dynasty date; and it was recarved and repainted in the 18th Dynasty renovations. But John Anthony West, who found that the original face is not that of Chephren, is indeed correct. It is the face of his little known half-brother or brother, Redjedef." I've had to condense El Mahdy's arguments and the book also includes the hieroglyphs of the disputed passage with a bit more about the 'mistake'. So, anybody got any thoughts on a Djedefre Sphinx recarved in the New Kingdom? Jon B www.egyptarchive.co.uk | ||
| Janine Williams Senior Member Username: janine Post Number: 840 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 66.26.67.114 |
Jon: Excellent post! It seems reasonable that the face of the Sphinx might have undergone a 'face-lift' at some time in history - perhaps due to weathering, or perhaps from vanity? How did West determine that face was that of Redjedef when the present Sphinx is so damaged? The mouth is damaged, one eye has been "put out" and the nose is gone. Interesting re-translation of the hieroglyphs. JD should see them. Janine | ||
| J.D. Degreef Senior Member Username: jd_degreef Post Number: 964 Registered: 02-2000 Posted From: 213.177.133.228 |
Dear Jon & Janine, SETHE's hieroglyphic transcription isn't online yet AFAIK, so I used the picture in JORDAN's excellent "Riddles of the Sphinx", p. 98. Unfortunately the relevant passage lies on a damaged portion of the stone surface. What I can see is (line 2, right) : anx nTr nfr Live the Good God (= Thutmosis IV) zA tmw the son of Atum nD.tj Hrw-Ax.t.j Avenger / Protector of Horakhti Ssp-anx n nb-r-Dr Living image ("sphinx") of the Lord-of-All jtj [… … …xpr]j Sovereign .... Khepri nfr-Hr mj jt=f (…) Beautiful of face like his father (...). If someone has a good close up pic of the second line of text, right half, I'll have a look. I scanned it to post it here, but the format permitted doesn't allow to make out the signs with sufficient clarity. From what I can see, the first three lines accumulate laudatory comments concerning Thutmosis IV, then after his cartouche on line 4, the story of his cleaning the Sphinx's precinct of sand starts. Would his recarving activities already have been mentioned on line 2 then ? That the Sphinx's face has been restored = retouched by Thutmosis IV is plausible. But I find it amusing to see EL-MAHDY lecturing the great Kurt SETHE on a point of elementary grammar...  JD | ||
| Jon Bodsworth Member Username: jon_b Post Number: 153 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 195.92.194.13 |
Hi JD I've emailed you some further information from El Mahdy's book on the heiroglyhs. Like you I can't find anything on Sethe's translation on the web. You can download a PDF of Brestead's translation at: http://www.cwru.edu/UL/preserve/Etana/BREASTED.ANCIENTv2/BREASTED.ANCIENTv2.htm click on the link that says: Reign of Thutmose IV 810-840 Hi Janine The identification of the Sphinx as Djedefre is El Mahdy's although this is not a new theory. Her arguments are so complex and all to do with the family relationships of the various brothers, cousins, half brothers etc etc that she lost me and I can't begin to explain it. Jon B www.egyptarchive.co.uk | ||
| J.D. Degreef Senior Member Username: jd_degreef Post Number: 965 Registered: 02-2000 Posted From: 80.236.159.18 |
Hi Jon, Thank you for the scans. Here's the relevant part of the inscription.  One could translate "the Sovereign Re, made by the efficient heir etc.", but SETHE's translation is more plausible (anteposition honoris causa of Re before jr.n). A mistake in EL-MAHDY's text is that the sphinx-sign isn't used elsewhere in insriptions : I saw it in Thutmosis III's Akhmenu at Karnak, in a very similar expression "the living image of Atum" (part of the king's nb.tj title) : JD | ||
| J.D. Degreef Senior Member Username: jd_degreef Post Number: 966 Registered: 02-2000 Posted From: 80.236.159.18 |
Hi Jon, Thank you for the scans. Here's the relevant part of the inscription.  One could translate "the Sovereign Re, made by the efficient heir etc.", but SETHE's translation is more plausible (anteposition honoris causa of Re before jr.n). A mistake in EL-MAHDY's text is that the sphinx-sign isn't used elsewhere in inscriptions : I saw it in Thutmosis III's Akhmenu at Karnak, in a very similar expression "the living image of Atum" (part of the king's nb.tj title) :  JD | ||
| J.D. Degreef Senior Member Username: jd_degreef Post Number: 967 Registered: 02-2000 Posted From: 80.236.159.18 |
Sorry for the little mix-up above... | ||
| Rick Baudé Senior Member Username: rjb Post Number: 176 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 204.210.9.245 |
I think J.D. unintentionally hit the nail on the head when he wrote "....But I find it amusing to see EL-MAHDY lecturing the great Kurt SETHE on a point of elementary grammar..." Well It seems to me that Egyptology is quickly turning (turned?) into a subject where everybody is endlessly criticizing and revising everybody elses work. In the meantime the monuments are melting away before our eyes as the ground water level rises and whole areas of Egypt are placed off limits to further excavation. My point? It seems to me that Egyptology is an intellectual and academic dead end. There's almost nothing new. And now with whole sections of Egypt being cordoned off there won't be anything new discovered. Every book reads like every other book, every SCA announcement sounds like every other SCA announcement. | ||
| Janine Williams Senior Member Username: janine Post Number: 841 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 66.26.67.114 |
Rick: You sound disgruntled, and I am too. JD: You'll probably find yet another translation quoted by Bauval. http://members.boardhost.com/Bauval/msg/298.html (Wonder why "the board administrator has disabled responses to this message" ?  ) Otherwise, How easy it is: Kurt Sethe died in 1934 and is not available for a rebuttal to ANYone. Did Richard A. Parker have a translation of this? Rick: Part of the SCA headaches lie with irritation with those who want "salt" missing Egyptian history with their own screwy theories, then serve it up in a re-write as a sensational "new" discovery. This would retard progress in Egypt more than ever, because so much written material has been destroyed. Don't know why "no admittance" areas are blocked off, other than too much destruction has been done at the site already - or the location has terrorist possibilities. Like you say, every book reads like every other book. Progress seems to be nil. It is necessarily slow, at best. Janine | ||
| Rick Baudé Senior Member Username: rjb Post Number: 177 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 204.210.9.245 |
Hi Janine: I am disgruntled. All Egyptology consists of is rules piled on top of rules with draconian measures if you violate any of them. On top of that most discussion boards now are nothing more than apologetics defending these suffocating provisions. Unfortunately Looney theories are part of Egyptology, if that's the SCA's excuse all I can say is baloney. I can get more first hand information on North Korean missile sites go here http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/facility/nodong.htm Than I can on Nefertiti's shawbti. A book on the who sphinx is or when it was carved? Give me a break, that one been's done over and over for at least a thousand years and probably longer. | ||
| Jon Bodsworth Member Username: jon_b Post Number: 154 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 195.92.194.19 |
Rick wrote "A book on the who sphinx is or when it was carved? Give me a break, that one been's done over and over for at least a thousand years and probably longer." Don't read it then. If El Mahdy thinks that she has spotted an error in a translation of a important text then she's quite entitled to point it out and we are quite entitled to discuss it. If you don't want to, fair enough, but then why visit a discussion site? Why not give us a break from disgruntled carping. Jon B www.egyptarchive.co.uk | ||
| Janine Williams Senior Member Username: janine Post Number: 842 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 66.26.67.114 |
Allan: I dont' have the URL but I read about a week ago, that Ramesses was naturally red headed and, if I recall correctly, he was taller than most. However, it seems like they found traces of dye or henna on the mummy. He died at an advanced age, so he may have continued to keep it red after it turned gray. Janine | ||
| Rick Baudé Senior Member Username: rjb Post Number: 178 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 204.210.9.245 |
"Why not give us a break from disgruntled carping?" Digruntled carping? I like to think of it as a wake up call against complacency. But if my "carping" bothers you then I'll withdraw from the discussion. | ||
| Jon Bodsworth Member Username: jon_b Post Number: 155 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 195.92.168.172 |
Rick Why not start your own thread if you have a point? Rather than posting off-topic stuff about North Korean missile sites and 'Looney toons' in a thread about a possible New Kingdom recarving of the Sphinx. I found your comments difficult to understand and your comment about "Give us a break" offensive. Why should I bother to raise questions from books I'm reading for discussion if people are going to take your attitude? If your not open to new ideas and are just interested in destructive criticism then that's the complacency. Jon B www.egyptarchive.co.uk | ||
| J.D. Degreef Senior Member Username: jd_degreef Post Number: 968 Registered: 02-2000 Posted From: 80.236.150.39 |
To get back to the subject of this thread : the text lists a number of epithets of the king : -That may live the regenerated god (nTr nfr, with nTr placed in front as a form of respect) -the son of Atum (zA tmw, a variant of "son of Re", but here the name of the deity isn't placed in front) -the avenger of Horakhti (nDtj Hrw-Ax.t.j, again the god's name not placed in front) -the living image of the Lord-of-All (Ssp-anx n nb-r-Dr, same remark) Then comes the part EL-MAHDY disagrees upon : the standing figure of the king, read jtj, "sovereign" the solar disk, read hrw "day" or "Re" then jr.n "made" jwa "the heir" mnx "potent" n xprj "of Khepri" nfr-Hr mj jt=f "beautiful / youthful of face like his father"… SETHE reads jtj jr.n ra "the sovereign made by Re" jwa mnx n xprj "the potent heir of Khepri". The fact that Re is placed in front of the verb is usual in texts, as a form of respect for a god's name. But it does indeed contrast with what we see in some of the preceding epithets, where the god's name isn't placed in front. So EL-MAHDY wants to read : "The living image of the Lord of All (sSp-anx n nb-r-Dr) which the heir created (jr.n jwa) when he carved Khepri (mnx xprj) beautiful of face, like his father (nfr-Hr mj jt=f)". For this 1. she has to get rid of the jtj ("sovereign") and Re signs, which she adds as determinatives to nb-r-Dr "lord of All". But such multiple determinatives are rare in Middle Egyptian (they will soon become more frequent in Neo-Egyptian, used in official inscriptions by Akhenaten). 2. hen the word mnx, "potent" is used as a verb "to carve". A meaning "chisel" for mnx is listed in FAULKNER's Concise Dict of Middle Eg, but not "to carve" AFAIK. 3. to these two problems, a third one must be added. In the titulary variant of Thutmosis III in the Akhmenu, the nb.tj name starts with sSp-anx n tmw "living image of Atum" and then proceeds with an epithet related with Khepri (but I don't distinguish the signs on my slide and don't know what exactly it says ; the Khepri part is clear though). So the association of epithets linking the ruler with Atum, then Khepri, does occur outside of the Sphinx Stela. The Akhmenu inscription certainly doesn't want to link Thutmosis III with the Giza Sphinx. So I'd be tempted to consider the part of the inscription which EL-MAHDY retranslates to imply a link with Thutmosis IV's recarving of the Sphinx as just an ordinary listing of a king's epithets, of titles linking him (the king) with the gods. 4. EL-MAHDY's translation would clash with this : the list of divine epithets of the king would be interrupted by a mention of his works, in advance of the text, which will mention the king's works later. For these four reasons SETHE's translation remains much more probable, IMHO. JD | ||
| Jon Bodsworth Member Username: jon_b Post Number: 156 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 195.92.194.16 |
Thanks JD I wish I'd kept up the study of Hieroglyphs that I did at an evening class many years ago. It was enough to help with some basic identifications but I've forgotten most of what I learned. I also wish El Mahdy herself would respond to your points. According to her book she: "also settles once and for all the arguments over the dating of the Sphinx." Quite a claim and it would appear a little over optimistic. Jon B www.egyptarchive.co.uk | ||
| Janine Williams Senior Member Username: janine Post Number: 846 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 66.26.67.114 |
Thanks JD. It's great to have you around. Did R.A. Parker not make a translation of this? He is reliable, too. He started the American Research Center in Egypt and read all forms of Egyptian writing. Janine |
