DOI Artikel:
Lipińska, Jadwiga: Egyptian sculptures and reliefs "Brought" by Professor Kazimierz Michałowski from Edfu
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.18950#0059
8. Sphinx of Thutmose III
The National Museum
Warsaw
inv. no. 141267
(photo Z. Doliński)
authenticity of the object on the grounds of a seemingly distorted nfr-sign in
the inscription on the breast of animal. Unfortunately, Laboury was working
only with a photograph, and the distortion is caused by a shadow, while in
reality the sign is inscribed perfectly. An argument supporting the authenticity
of the object is provided by its khat-headdress. A forger would not reproduce
such seldom encountered detail!
Nowhere did Michałowski mention how the sphinx was acąuired. In his
descriptions of the excavated area at Edfu, he used to write: “In the period of
the New Kingdom, above the ruined necropolis a new town arose, in the ruins
of which were found numerous valuable relics, e.g. a sphinx, scarabs and
pottery.”16 The piąte accompanying that description depicts the sphinx in
ąuestion... it is strange to enumerate such a large sculpture together with
scarabs and vessels! The reports contain no tracę of this sphinx, nor was it
found during the earlier French excavations as such a sculpture from Edfu is
not mentioned in the Topographical Bibliograpby of Ancient Egyptian
Hieroglyphic Texts, Relifs, and Paintings. So, the place of origin, as well as the
manner in which the sphinx was acąuired, remain obscure.
The provenance of three morę objects of art “brought from Edfu” so far
remains unexplained. One of them is a large statuę of a falcon, with a
16 Michałowski, Wystawa..., op.cit., p. 17 and pl. V., and in many other publications, without
changes.
57
The National Museum
Warsaw
inv. no. 141267
(photo Z. Doliński)
authenticity of the object on the grounds of a seemingly distorted nfr-sign in
the inscription on the breast of animal. Unfortunately, Laboury was working
only with a photograph, and the distortion is caused by a shadow, while in
reality the sign is inscribed perfectly. An argument supporting the authenticity
of the object is provided by its khat-headdress. A forger would not reproduce
such seldom encountered detail!
Nowhere did Michałowski mention how the sphinx was acąuired. In his
descriptions of the excavated area at Edfu, he used to write: “In the period of
the New Kingdom, above the ruined necropolis a new town arose, in the ruins
of which were found numerous valuable relics, e.g. a sphinx, scarabs and
pottery.”16 The piąte accompanying that description depicts the sphinx in
ąuestion... it is strange to enumerate such a large sculpture together with
scarabs and vessels! The reports contain no tracę of this sphinx, nor was it
found during the earlier French excavations as such a sculpture from Edfu is
not mentioned in the Topographical Bibliograpby of Ancient Egyptian
Hieroglyphic Texts, Relifs, and Paintings. So, the place of origin, as well as the
manner in which the sphinx was acąuired, remain obscure.
The provenance of three morę objects of art “brought from Edfu” so far
remains unexplained. One of them is a large statuę of a falcon, with a
16 Michałowski, Wystawa..., op.cit., p. 17 and pl. V., and in many other publications, without
changes.
57