It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ramesses cleans up to be Psamtik

page: 1
17

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 10:11 PM
link   
You remember the fragmentary statue of Ramesses they found last week or so in the mud in Cairo? Well, as they were cleaning the torso, they found someone else's name on it.
Here's an excerpt from the announcement on the Egyptology mailing list


The Ministry of Antiquities tonight announced the probable identity of the royal colossus discovered last week in Matariya
district, Cairo (ancient Heliopolis).

Few Hieroglyphic signed and initial studies carried out on fragments of the colossus reveal that it belongs to king Psammetich I(664-610 BC)-26 Dynasty.
The torso’s back-pillar has preserved one of the five names of king Psammetich I. If it belongs to the later, it is the largest statue of the Late Period that was ever discovered in Egypt. This date explains the puzzling features of different ancient stylistic details since the Late Period, which is known
for its archaizing art.


(the Ministry's first language is NOT English, which accounts for the odd sentences. The team working on this is a German-Egyptian team (nobody's first language is English))

Here's a bit more from them:


The temple of Matariya is well known as one of the most important sites of pharaonic religion, since it was considered to be the
place of the world`s creation by the sun-god. For about 2400 years, most kings erected their monuments in the temple. Because of the vicinity to modern Cairo, the site was heavily destroyed in antiquity, from the Late Roman times onwards to the Mameluke era. The blocks of the temple were used to build various monuments in Cairo such as Bab el-Nasr and others. It is therefore, especially noted that in this site there are still important monuments that can be found even today.


Matariiya was once part of old Heliopolis

Psamtik I was one of the first kings of what's known as the "Saite Dynasty" and reigned from about 664 BC to 610 BC; one of the more successful pharaohs of this time period.




posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 10:14 PM
link   
Great update, thanks for posting.



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 10:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

This makes a bunch of people look really inept. I am surprised this news came out.

Seems like archeologists are a fickle bunch.



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 10:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Byrd

This makes a bunch of people look really inept. I am surprised this news came out.

Seems like archeologists are a fickle bunch.


Yeah, they should have covered it up like all the other times they covered stuff up but didn't because you heard about it.
See I love that on one hand the credulous have these people as carrying out the most successful conspiracy theory in history, involving tens of thousands of people over two hundred years and yet on another, they publish their errors the second they are realised.

Maybe there's two groups of Archaeologists, the first who are controlling the world and keeping it a secret and the second who couldn't cover their own noses if they were sneezing.



originally posted by: Byrd
Psamtik I was one of the first kings of what's known as the "Saite Dynasty" and reigned from about 664 BC to 610 BC; one of the more successful pharaohs of this time period.


Damn, he could have got Solons autograph if he'd lived another 15 years

edit on 16-3-2017 by Marduk because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 10:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

Yes archeology is the only profession that is immune from vanity and self aggrandizing.
As I said in my post, I am surprised about the honesty. Good deal all around.

Conspiracies do exist. Gulf of Tonkin.



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 11:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
Conspiracies do exist. Gulf of Tonkin.


Ok, lets just imagine for a minute that there is a conspiracy theory involving the gulf of Tonkin
Can you tell me which archaeologists were involved in covering it up ?



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 11:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

I never said there was a cover up in this case, in fact I was surprised how honest they were. And quick too.



Can you tell me which archaeologists were involved in covering it up ?

No idea what you are going on about. The Gulf was a Vietnam war issue. But the fact that they do exist means they are possible.



See I love that on one hand the credulous have these people as carrying out the most successful conspiracy theory in history, involving tens of thousands of people over two hundred years and yet on another, they publish their errors the second they are realised



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 11:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Marduk

I never said there was a cover up in this case, in fact I was surprised how honest they were. And quick too.



Yeah and the other day you said


originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: rexsblues

You are more than likely right, If anything does not fit the current gangs (archeologist) feelings it is discarded.

In archeology if it doesn't fit it doesn't exist.


So here you are surprised that Archaeologists are honest, why would that be surprising in a profession who reports what they find publically, you've never even read an archaeology report in your entire life have you.
and the other day you were making claims about the science being dishonest, yet when questioned further had no evidence to back up your claim, trying to claim that Lucy was a cover up, it wasn't or that Piltdown man was a cover up, it wasn't either, you don't seem to know anything about archaeology at all, or didn't you realise that Lucy and Piltdown man involved paleoanthropologists and were nothing even remotely to do with archaeology
Do you not get how your claims that conspiracy theories exist in archaeology are ridiculous
and why every time you claim someone is dishonest is an insult to their profession because you never have any evidence. Like even mentioning the Gulf of Tonkin in a forum dedicated to lost and ancient civilisations is irrelevant and off topic
I find it offensive that you are making claims about a science with no evidence in a forum that is fact based, some of my friends are archaeologists
If you can't handle real evidence, stop running down those who search for it every day of their lives
clean up your act, you are doing your intellect a disservice
I would remind you that the motto of this website is "deny ignorance", not "encourage ignorance"

ok?


edit on 16-3-2017 by Marduk because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 02:05 AM
link   
Keep updating us....here are some pics www.dailymail.co.uk...



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 05:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Marduk




Maybe there's two groups of Archaeologists, the first who are controlling the world and keeping it a secret and the second who couldn't cover their own noses if they were sneezing. 


I think that is becoming more and more plausible every minute, actually. In all branches of science.



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Byrd

This makes a bunch of people look really inept. I am surprised this news came out.

Seems like archeologists are a fickle bunch.


Not inept. The statue DOES look like Ramesses, so it was a pretty good guess.

However, around 700-600 AD there had been a "let's go back to the old art style" movement that happened after the Nubian kings took over. Pharaohs ordered their workshops to start producing things that looked like they came from the New Kingdom (or took a short cut of just recarving early New Kingdom stuff to fit them) rather than the less traditional styles developed by the Ku#e Pharaohs and the Bubastite Pharaohs from Lybia. One of the things that Psamtik did when he reunited the kingdom was to bring back the "old style" of art.

However, by that time the workshops had been in chaos and were producing the newer style. Some old techniques and icons and meanings were changed or lost. Archaeologists moving the statue noticed there were some odd bits about the decoration but because it was so mud-encrusted they didn't see the hieroglyphs until it was cleaned.

Ramesses was a good guess since he was one of the few that had statues of this size made for him AND it was found in the ruins of a temple that he had added to and had dedicated to himself.

It might still be a Ramesses reworked to Psammtik, but that will need to be determined after they've gotten the whole thing out (and are sure they got all of it) and cleaned it up and put as much back together as they can. For now, we know that it's supposed to be Psammtik.



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: HannahForever
Keep updating us....here are some pics www.dailymail.co.uk...


In fact, the limestone block they show about the middle shows a pharaoh wearing the red crown of Nubia (Upper Egypt). The writing on the stele goes from right to left and says "Lord of the two lands, Lord of appearances, Usermaatre-Sete-enre Ramesses-Meryamun, given life.

The rest is too damaged for me to read.



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 04:31 PM
link   
Sounds like a case of leaping before they looked.

Rather a cool find! What does it change about what we think we know of Ancient Egypt? I would think not a whole lot, it is after all only one piece of statuary.

Still cool.



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 08:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
Sounds like a case of leaping before they looked.


No, many statues are too damaged and don't have a name on them. Names are more likely to appear on the legs or the pedestal, which they didn't have. In that case, the best way of assessing it is to look at cues from the style and the location of the find.

Without other clues, "Ramesses" is an excellent guess because of overall style and location.


Rather a cool find! What does it change about what we think we know of Ancient Egypt? I would think not a whole lot, it is after all only one piece of statuary.


Nothing that you might know about, but if other parts have hieroglyphs or other text, we can date to a part of his reign. There may be other texts as well that tell about the reignal year and may have a lot of other information. It's also not uncommon for pieces of a statue to be in two different collections (only recently discovered thanks to the Internet)




top topics



 
17

log in

join