DOI Artikel:
Griffith, Francis Ll.: Progress of Egyptology: archaeology, hieroglyphic studies, etc.
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.11174#0058
Archaeology,
Hieroglyphic
Studies, Etc.
45
(2) The " mane" of the Hons' heads which figure on the thrones of
three of the statues represents in reality the lappets of the wig of a
goddess. If the statues -were really of early date, one would expect to
find a true mane, as elsewhere on thrones. In the XVIlIth Dynasty
both the lappets and the mane are regularly shown in the statues of
leonine goddesses ; in any case the present example points to late
deterioration of the lion type.
(3) In the short inscriptions upon the statues the spelling is not that
usual in the IVth Dynasty, and there are peculiarities that point to mis-
understandings of form and meaning such as might be expected to occur
in late copies or inventions of titles.
(4) The peculiar workmanship and style of the slate statues is identical
with those of a slate statue of Amen in the Gizeh Museum, and there are
very decided indications that the latter was actually found along with
those of Khafra. It is well known that mention of the god Amen is not
found in texts earlier than the Xlth Dynasty.
Many other peculiarities are noticed, of which the use of the palm-tree
as symbolic of Upper Egypt is perhaps the most remarkable ; but the
above seem to afford definite arguments for a late date.
So far no evidence has been given by which the real age of the statues
may be fixed. Borchardt, however, supplies this in a headless limestone
statue from Karnak, representing the Ethiopian Pharaoh Shabataka
(XXVth Dynasty). This recalls the Khafra statues in every technical
respect. Further, one of the peculiar spellings in the titles of the statues
is closely similar to an example of Tirhaka, the successor of Shabataka
in the same dynasty. The imitation of the Old Kingdom in tomb sculp-
ture, and also in the titles of the magnates at this time, agrees well with
these indications. The absence of the name of the restorer or dedicator
is paralleled by some instances quoted of restoration in the New
Kingdom.
Five other statues of kings of the Old Kingdom from Memphis arrived
more recently in the Cairo Museum. They also show the lines of eye-
paint, and therefore are not contemporary. Borchardt concludes that as
yet no royal statues of the Old Empire have been discovered.
A few hasty comments may be permitted on this important essay. If
the imperfect statue of a god mentioned above, represents Amen beyond
question, it seems almost certain that worshippers of Amen were much
concerned with the history of these statues. The inscriptions on the
slate figures are the most faulty, and these now seem attributable to
the XXVth Dynasty. The strong reversion to Old Kingdom models
Hieroglyphic
Studies, Etc.
45
(2) The " mane" of the Hons' heads which figure on the thrones of
three of the statues represents in reality the lappets of the wig of a
goddess. If the statues -were really of early date, one would expect to
find a true mane, as elsewhere on thrones. In the XVIlIth Dynasty
both the lappets and the mane are regularly shown in the statues of
leonine goddesses ; in any case the present example points to late
deterioration of the lion type.
(3) In the short inscriptions upon the statues the spelling is not that
usual in the IVth Dynasty, and there are peculiarities that point to mis-
understandings of form and meaning such as might be expected to occur
in late copies or inventions of titles.
(4) The peculiar workmanship and style of the slate statues is identical
with those of a slate statue of Amen in the Gizeh Museum, and there are
very decided indications that the latter was actually found along with
those of Khafra. It is well known that mention of the god Amen is not
found in texts earlier than the Xlth Dynasty.
Many other peculiarities are noticed, of which the use of the palm-tree
as symbolic of Upper Egypt is perhaps the most remarkable ; but the
above seem to afford definite arguments for a late date.
So far no evidence has been given by which the real age of the statues
may be fixed. Borchardt, however, supplies this in a headless limestone
statue from Karnak, representing the Ethiopian Pharaoh Shabataka
(XXVth Dynasty). This recalls the Khafra statues in every technical
respect. Further, one of the peculiar spellings in the titles of the statues
is closely similar to an example of Tirhaka, the successor of Shabataka
in the same dynasty. The imitation of the Old Kingdom in tomb sculp-
ture, and also in the titles of the magnates at this time, agrees well with
these indications. The absence of the name of the restorer or dedicator
is paralleled by some instances quoted of restoration in the New
Kingdom.
Five other statues of kings of the Old Kingdom from Memphis arrived
more recently in the Cairo Museum. They also show the lines of eye-
paint, and therefore are not contemporary. Borchardt concludes that as
yet no royal statues of the Old Empire have been discovered.
A few hasty comments may be permitted on this important essay. If
the imperfect statue of a god mentioned above, represents Amen beyond
question, it seems almost certain that worshippers of Amen were much
concerned with the history of these statues. The inscriptions on the
slate figures are the most faulty, and these now seem attributable to
the XXVth Dynasty. The strong reversion to Old Kingdom models