We do not have much of him, but what we do have is spectacular. The statue of Hemiunu was found in a walled-up serdab of his mastaba (G4000) on March 12, 1912 by Herman Junker. A serdab is a chamber inside a mastaba containing a statue of the deceased.
Ancient looters had devastated the mastaba looking for precious items. In the wall to the serbad they cut a hole for a small person or child to fit through. Once inside the petite robber could pass objects of worth including the eyes and gold casings around them through the opening. In gouging out, using forceful blows, the precious eyes and gold castings, one arm was broken and the head was severed at the neck.
From Romer’s book a tight shot of the serdab from the original photo
The 1912 excavators could still see the head through the hole when the rubble and sand was removed
They removed the wall and rumble, carefully taking the broken head and the many fragments placing them in a basket.
The head, still with the eyes gouged out was fixed back on to the body and shipped with the broken off arm shipment to the Roemer und Pelizaeus Museum in Hildesheim.
The face was restored at the museum by recontructing the eys and parts of the face as well as attaching the arm
In 1925 a relief fragment (Accession Number 27.296) was excavated by the Harvard University (Boston Museum of Fine Arts). This fragment showed the undamaged profile of Hemiunu’s face and was used as a reference for reconstructiong the face on the statue but limited by some structure of the nose including the nostrils that were still intact.
quote:
When the statue of Hemiunu was found by Hermann Junker in a serdab of mastaba G 4000 (figs. 109, 110), it was largely intact except for the face, which had been badly damaged around the eyes and nose, apparently by thieves digging out the inlays (particularly the casings of gold) from the eyes. Fortunately, a reasonable restoration could be made from a number of fragments found in the sand filling the serdab chamber. While the animation of the original eyes (probably rock crystal) could hardly be duplicated, their general shape was deemed recoverable; the line of the brow ridge seems to have been unambiguous, but the treatment of the eyebrow as a natural ridge rather than a plastically raised strip was a decision of the restorers. The shape of the nose was re-created from traces of its original contours on the face and from the relief depiction of Hemiunu (cat. no. 45) and is perhaps less satisfactory. Traces of color noted by Junker indicate that the statue had been fully painted. Sitting unusually far forward on a wide, block-shaped seat, Hemiunu wears a kilt that is tied with a rare type of knot. His hands rest on his knees, the right hand formed into a fist and the left with open and downward-facing palm.” Egyptian Art in the Age of the Pyramids by the MET Museum of Art 1999 page 230 and page 232 for (cat. no. 45) referral
In such restorations the restorers intentionally use a different color of filling material, here of a lighter color around the eyes and part of the nose to indicate to the viewer which parts are restorations.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
The head, still with the eyes gouged out was fixed back on to the body and shipped with the broken off arm shipment to the Roemer und Pelizaeus Museum in Hildesheim.
clarification: they also attached the arm as well as the head back on to the body before they shipped it to the museum in Hildesheim
Also they found the head severed but if I'm not mistaken but still proped atop the head. The other picture you see of the head lying on the ground in the debris is apparently left there temporarily while they were moving the body, then placed in a basket and then reattached to the head. I will have to recheck details about this
^^^ this particular photo I'm still trying to find provenance on
Posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
I was about to make a thread on this, but you did already. So I will add my stuff here.
Nefermaat and Atet
quote:From Giza, tomb G 4000. 1925: excavated by the Harvard University-Museum of Fine Arts Expedition; 1927: assigned to the MFA by the Egyptian government. (Accession Date: January 1, 1927)
Egyptian Old Kingdom, Dynasty 4, reign of Khufu 2551–2528 B.C.
quote: Only two known images exist of the talented man who built the greatest wonder of the ancient world, the famous pyramid at Giza belonging to King Khufu (2606–2583 B.C.). His name was Hemiunu (pronounced Hemi-you-knew), and he was the “overseer of all royal construction projects” under his uncle Khufu. One of his two images returned to Boston in the form of a magnificent carved limestone face in raised relief, which once adorned his tomb wall. Hemiunu’s fragment reveals a rare and superior example of Egyptian Fourth Dynasty royal “portraiture,” with a distinctive nose, a subtly modeled pocket under the eye, and full, undulating lip and chin outlines.
Hemiunu’s massive tomb was unearthed in March 1912, just beyond the Museum Expedition’s allotted portion of the great Western Cemetery at Giza, within the area designated to the German/Austrian expedition. The relief fragment, however, turned up in December 1925 in the debris southeast of the tomb, within the area formally assigned to the Boston expedition. A spectacular, life-size statue of Hemiunu found in the tomb was sent by the Egyptian authorities to the Pelizaeus-Museum, in Hildesheim, Germany, while the MFA was allowed to acquire the loose relief fragment. The relief was then lent to Hildesheim in 1982, as a comparison piece to the more complete statue. Since Hildesheim began building a new museum, the MFA relief has come “home” to Boston once again. Visit the Egyptian galleries and look the architect of the Great Pyramid in the face!
They never tell who these team members were of this "important finding". Do you have any info on this?
Posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
Provenance From Giza, Tomb G 4000 (Tomb of Hemiunu). 1925: excavated by the Harvard University–Boston Museum of Fine Arts Expedition; assigned to the MFA in the division of finds by the government of Egypt. (Accession date: January 1, 1927)
Egyptian Old Kingdom, Dynasty 4, reign of Khufu 2551–2528 B.C.
quote: Raised relief fragment with remains of finely executed but faint hieroglyphs, including two partial hieroglyphs spelling the name Hemiunu.
Provenance From Giza, stone chips at SE corner of mastaba G 4000. 1925: Excavated by the Harvard University–Boston Museum of Fine Arts Expedition; assigned to the MFA by the government of Egypt.
quote: Raised releif fragment depicting hand facing right grasping handle of staff. Red mason’s lines are across the top of the worked face.
Provenance From Giza, G 4000, stone chips at SE corner of mastaba.1925: Excavated by the Harvard University–Boston Museum of Fine Arts Expedition; assigned to the MFA by the government of Egypt.
quote: Raised relief fragment with remains of finely executed but faint hieroglyphs, including a portion of a shrine and the title ‘sA nswt’.
Provenance From Giza, G 4000, stone chips at SE corner of mastaba. 1925: Excavated by the Harvard University–Boston Museum of Fine Arts Expedition; assigned to the MFA by the government of Egypt.
quote:In 1890-91 Flinders Petrie copied what was left of the filled-in reliefs in the tomb chapels of Nefermaat and Itet in Meydum. He saw this as his "immediate duty" and lamented that so much of the tomb decoration had been destroyed since Vasalli had hacked out the Meydum Geese in 1872. When he returned in 1909 the situation was even worse and Gaston Maspero, head of the Antiquities Service had asked him to take down what Petrie termed the "wretched remains". In his opinion the chapel decoration should have been "put in safety" fifty years earlier when it was still complete. Today the chapel of Nefermaat is displayed in the Cairo Museum and the more fragmentary parts of the northern chapel of Itet are dispersed among collections in Europe. It will here be discussed whether there is an ideal way of displaying these reliefs and what we can do in the future to justify the removal and distribution of these "examples of this earliest tomb sculpture" as Petrie called them. How can we best manage this precious heritage today?
The early descriptions of the tomb of Nefermaat
The publication by Yvonne Harpur (2001) has documented the complete history of the mastabas of Nefermaat and the almost contemporary mastaba of Rahotep. The initial recording of the large mastaba tombs in Meydum is from December 1871 when the tomb of Rahotep and Nefert was the first to be discovered (Harpur 2001:7-20) by Monsieur Vigne, a merchant from Alexandria. Auguste Mariette was Director of Egyptian Monuments and as he was busy with the preparations of the Opera Aida for the opening of the Suez Canal and thus not able to come to the site himself. Instead he wrote instructions to his assistant Albert Daninos: "It is essential that everything stays in its original state until you receive new orders. ... You know as well as I do that much of the interest of a discovery depends upon our determining the place where everything is situated. This often results in the recording of fruitful scientific notes." When the statues of Rahotep and Nefert were discovered the Khedive Ismail himself arrived at Meydum and Daninos carefully wrapped the statues in linen to transport them to the Boulaq Musuem. In January 1872 Mariette himself took over in Meydum, but his recording of the tombs was sketchy for all his good intentions. When he had finished he had the entrances covered with sand.
Petrie in Meydum 1881
Not long after his first work in Giza Petrie went on a photographic tour up the Nile in the winter of 1881-82. He took photos of the chapels of Nefermaat and Itet as they looked then (Harpur 2001:245-250) and noted that the tomb chapel of Nefermaat was 'the most visible'. The photo of Itet's chapel shows that only the upper part of the lintel was visible. The drawings made by Mariette in 1872 were unfortunately neither complete nor correct in every detail. It was, however, not till 1890-91 that Petrie was able to come back and copy the reliefs and paintings of the tomb chapels. Petrie’s drawings from 1892 became the most important documentation of what was at least still preserved at that time since even more had disappeared when he returned in December 1909 with his assistants Gerald Wainwright and Ernest Mackay.
Petrie in Meydum 1909-10
In 1909 it was decided to remove of the remaining reliefs and paintings from the chapels of Nefermaat/Atet and also from the tomb of Rahotep/Nefert. The head of the Antiquities Service, Gaston Maspero, had requested this to be done in order to rescue what was left as the decoration was by then badly damaged. Most of what was left was still in situ but many fragments had also fallen down and were collected. Petrie made an agreement with Maspero that he could take the fragments of reliefs and paintings from the northern chapels of the wives Atet and Nefert to London while the more complete decoration of Nefermaat and Rahotep would stay in Cairo where it is now in the Egyptian Museum. Petrie’s share would be distributed among his sponsors, various museums and collections including the Glyptotek in Copenhagen. Petrie commented on his reasons for the distribution procedure: “As the whole tomb-chapels of relief work (Rahotep) and of inlay (Nefermaat) are to be set up in Cairo Museum, the most useful course was to distribute the other examples of this earliest tomb sculpture as widely as might be, so as to give points of reference in many centres for study.” To have 'reference points' and study collections was obviously important for students of Egyptology in a time without abundant publications, the internet and other digital means of sharing material existing today. Many museum visitors have no doubt marvelled at the fine work of the reliefs and paintings, but only few have been aware of their context. Before we discuss whether this is necessary and how best to present the dispersed reliefs (and paintings) a look at the present fate of the decoration as well as the mastaba of Nefermaat and Itet itself is in place.
--Tine Bagh, PhD Curator, Egyptian Art Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek Forming Material Egypt
Sitting statue of Hem-iunu at its excavation The seated statue of vizier Hem-iunu is a one of a kind monument of it’s time. No other private people’s image comes even close to the dimension of the famous figure in Hildesheim. The quality of the stone and the workmanship are also extraordinary. The statue was found in a chamber of his tomb, which is situated in close vicinity to the Cheops Pyramid. Even though the tomb was looted during the Roman period, the figure of Hem-iunu remained. That might be due to the fact that the statue is extremely heavy: It weighs more than a ton. The massive damage of the head leads to the assumption that the eyes were made of quartz. Tomb robbers have forced them out, so that the face had to be reconstructed in a modern way.
The figure was in a small above-grounded room, a so called Serdab, which is adumbrated in the exhibition. It was standing behind a false door and could therefore not be seen by visitors of his tomb. Statues in such chambers were not meant to represent the dead in an earthly context, but were exclusively built for living on beyond. What is unusual is Hem-iunu’s liveliness, because other figures from Serdab are normally shaped timeless and without individual features. Hem-iunu’s head rather shows similarities to the so called reserve heads, which depict the dead in a naturalistic way and were found in the area of the coffin chamber. Hem-iunu’s stoutness is particularly conspicuous. The chest seems almost feminine, the stomach has several folds, the stoutness of the legs evokes the image of tree trunks. All this, like his size, are signs of wealth and power. The real looks or appearance of Hem-iunu can not be imagined precisely from this.
An inscription on the statue’s foot plate provides considerable information on the high status of Hem-iunu and his influence in the Egyptian state:
The Prince and Mayor, Taiti [title of an official] and Sab [title of an official], the Vizier and Keeper of the seal of theking of Upper and Lower Egypt, the Guardian of Hierakonpolis, he who is responsible for the seating arrangement, the Priest of Bastet, the Priest of Schesemtet, the Priest of the ram of Mendes, Keeper of Apis, Keeper of the white bull, who is loved by his lord, des eldest of the working area, biggest of the five of the house of Thot, who loves his lord, the only friend (of the king), Hem-iunu. Master of the scribes of the king, Master of [unknown title], Leader of the singers of Upper and Lower Egypt, Overseer of all works of the king, the bodily child of the king, Hem-iunu.
quote:
The Old Kingdom
The sitting statue of Hem-iunu in the exhibition The first part of the permanent exhibition concentrates on the beginning of ancient Egypt history (ca. 3250 – 2707 BC) until the culture’s first revival during Old Kingdom (2707 – 2216 BC). The subject “From Mastaba to Step Pyramid” sums up evidence of the prehistoric age as well as the early worshipping of gods, but also the first examples of arts and crafts. The visitor understands how simple pit tombs evolved into pyramids. Already on ancient world the Pyramid of Cheops was declared one of the Wonders of the World.
The architect of this monument was Hem-iunu, the nephew of Pharaoh Cheops. A whole room is dedicated to him and his time. The sitting statue of Hem-iunu is the most famous exhibit in Hildesheim’s collection and therefore the centre of the exhibition. In the subject area “Giza and the Great Pyramids” this one-of-a-kind figure and other objects from dignitaries’ tombs show the lifestyle of the ruling class at that time. Funerary objects like tomb statues, tomb reliefs, false doors, so-called “reserve heads” and the extraordinary head of Pharaoh Chephren’s statue, as an example of royal art, still show the cultural revival and wide range of power during that time.
A touch screen monitor provides further information on particular exhibits and the sites, where they were found. By using this multimedia station the visitor can virtually participate in the excavations in Giza. Old photos, letters and the excavation’s documentary form a picture of scientific searching for clues.
Objects from the late Old Kingdom highlight another aspect: “From the times of Solar Temples” presents the monuments of the 5th dynasty (2405 – 2347 BC), among them the famous statue of the writer Heti.
Following the chronological development, the visitor encounters servant figures, which especially appeared in the Old Kingdom. They should provide the deceased with everything necessary in the afterlife and show, among other tasks, the process of grinding grain, baking bread and brewing beer.
quote:
In the second part „Life at the Nile“ more than 600 exhibits show the diversity of everyday life in Egypt. The first room, themed “Horus and Saviour”, is dedicated to Ancient Egyptian religion. The exhibition design simulates a temple entrance in front of which statues, and temple equipment represent the variety of Egyptian Gods. This kind of installation enables the visitor to experience the objects like in their original contexts at their original sites.
So it is also possible to reconstruct the difference between temple cult and ordinary people’s personal religiousness. The extraordinary group of the so called Horbeit-stelae, which depict private people praying to Pharaoh Ramesses II, should be mentioned especially. The reliefs from the Amarna period highlight the first belief in just one god (monotheism) in Egypt. But monotheism does not prevail until the dawn of Christianity, to which a special area is dedicated. With the theme “Commerce and Craft” a bazaar street has come to life in the second room. The visitor can stroll from booth to booth and experience the great diversity of ancient Egypt’s economy. Agricultural models from the time of the Middle Kingdom convey an animated impression of the daily working, whereas coins show that monetary transactions were primary brought there by the Greeks. Besides trade handcraft is another important subject: Different materials, used by craftsmen to create their artworks, are introduced in workshops. In addition to glass, clay and stone, the focus lies on metal processing. The Roemer- and Pelizaeus-Museum owns a large collection of bronzes, blanks and models as well as casts, showing the steps of bronze casting very well. In the last room the visitor gets an insight into “House and Garden”. The exhibition design imitates an ancient Egyptian house, where the visitor can stroll from room to room with furniture, tiles, cookware, cosmetic and washing jars, textiles and precious jewellery. The jewellery belonged to private as well as royal owners. A model with removable rooftops shows the structure of a private house from the Amarna period (ca. 1350 BC) and allows detailed insight into the model. The final part of the exhibition is dedicated to the results of the Qantir excavations. Qantir is the former capital of Ramesses II, where the Roemer- und Pelizaeus-Museum organizes diggings for more than 25 years.
Sitzstatue des Hem-iunu bei ihrer Auffindung Die Sitzstatue des Wesirs Hem-iunu ist für ihre Zeit ein einzigartiges Monument. Kein anderes Privatbildnis des Alten Reiches erreicht auch nur annähernd die Größe der berühmten Hildesheimer Figur. Auch die Qualität des Steins und der Bearbeitung sind außergewöhnlich.
Gefunden wurde die Statue in einer Kammer seines Grabes, das sich in unmittelbarer Nähe zu der Cheopspyramide befindet. Trotz der Plünderung in römischer Zeit blieb die Figur des Hem-iunu in seinem Grab; eine Tatsache, die auf das beachtliche Gewicht von über einer Tonne zurückzuführen sein dürfte. Die starke Beschädigung des Kopfes lässt auf Augeneinlagen – vielleicht aus Bergkristall – schließen. Grabräuber haben sie herausgebrochen, so dass das Gesicht modern rekonstruiert werden musste.
Die Figur befand sich in einem kleinen oberirdischen Raum, einem sog. Serdab, der in der Ausstellung nachgestaltet ist. Darin stand sie hinter einer Scheintür, konnte also von Besuchern am Grab nicht gesehen werden. Statuen in solchen Kammern dienten daher nicht der irdischen Repräsentation, sondern wurden allein für das Fortleben im Jenseits geschaffen. Ungewöhnlich ist bei Hem-iunu die Lebensnähe, denn andere Figuren aus Serdabs sind in der Regel zeitlos und ohne individuelle Züge gestaltet. Vielmehr zeigt der Kopf des Hem-iunu enge Bezüge zu den sog. Ersatzköpfen, die Verstorbene in naturalistischer Weise wiedergeben und im Bereich der Sargkammer gefunden wurden. Die Fettleibigkeit des Hem-iunu ist bei der Statue besonders augenfällig. Die Brustpartie des Beamten wirkt fast weiblich, der Bauch fällt in mehrere Falten, die Beine erinnern in ihrer Stärke fast an Baumstämme. Dieses alles sind ebenso wie die Größe in erster Linie Zeichen von Reichtum und Macht. Das tatsächliche Aussehen oder Erscheinungsbild des Hem-iunu lässt sich daraus nicht genau erschließen.
Über den hohen Status des Hem-iunu und seinen Einfluss im ägyptischen Staat gibt die Inschrift auf der Fußplatte aber deutlich Auskunft:
„Der Fürst und Bürgermeister, der Taiti [ein Beamtentitel] und Sab [ein Beamtentitel], der Wesir und Siegelbewahrer des Königs von Unterägypten, der Hüter von Hierakonpolis, der für die Sitzordnung Zuständige, Gottesdiener der Bastet, Gottesdiener der Schesemtet, Gottesdiener des Widders von Mendes, Wärter des Apis, Wärter des Weißen Stiers, den sein Herr liebt, der Älteste des Arbeitsbereiches, Größter der fünf des Hauses des Thot, der seinen Herrn liebt, der einzige Freund (des Königs), Hemiunu. Meister der Schreiber des Königs, Meister der [? Titel unbekannt], Leiter der Sängerinnen von Ober- und Unterägypten, Vorsteher aller Arbeiten des Königs, der leibliche Königssohn Hemiunu.“
Das Pelizaeus-Museum beherbergt eine der weltweit bedeutendsten Sammlungen altägyptischer Kulturdenkmäler. Herausragend sind dabei die Schätze des Alten Reiches aus dem Zeitalter der großen Pyramiden.
Wilhelm Pelizaeus, der Stifter der Sammlung, übergab seine Antiken im Jahr 1907 an die Stadt Hildesheim, wo 1911 das Pelizaeus-Museum eröffnet wurde. 2011 feierte das Roemer- und Pelizaeus-Museum den 100. Geburtstag seiner Sammlung mit einem großen Jahresprogramm.
Insgesamt über 8000 Sammlungsstücke repräsentieren die wichtigsten Epochen der Kultur Ägyptens von der vordynastischen bis in die christliche Zeit. Aus einer Zeitspanne von rund 4000 Jahren finden Sie außergewöhnliche Kunstwerke ebenso wie Werkzeuge und landwirtschaftliches Gerät. Zeugnisse altägyptischen Humors stehen neben denen des tief verwurzelten Jenseitsglaubens und beleben so die gesamte Spanne des Lebens im Alten Ägypten.
After rereading this, I wonder about a few things:
quote: Seated statue of Hem-iunu
Sitting statue of Hem-iunu at its excavation
-The seated statue of vizier Hem-iunu is a one of a kind monument of it’s time.
No other private people’s image comes even close to the dimension of the famous figure in Hildesheim.
-The quality of the stone and the workmanship are also extraordinary.
-The statue was found in a chamber of his tomb, which is situated in close vicinity to the Cheops Pyramid.
-Even though the tomb was looted during the Roman period, the figure of Hem-iunu remained.
That might be due to the fact that the statue is extremely heavy: It weighs more than a ton. The massive damage of the head leads to the assumption that the eyes were made of quartz. Tomb robbers have forced them out, so that the face had to be reconstructed in a modern way.
The figure was in a small above-grounded room, a so called Serdab, which is adumbrated in the exhibition.
It was standing behind a false door and could therefore not be seen by visitors of his tomb. Statues in such chambers were not meant to represent the dead in an earthly context, but were exclusively built for living on beyond. [/b]What is unusual is Hem-iunu’s liveliness, because other figures from Serdab are normally shaped timeless and without individual features.
-Hem-iunu’s head rather shows similarities to the so called reserve heads, which depict the dead in a naturalistic way and were found in the area of the coffin chamber.
Hem-iunu’s stoutness is particularly conspicuous.
-The chest seems almost feminine, the stomach has several folds, the stoutness of the legs evokes the image of tree trunks.
All this, like his size, are signs of wealth and power. The real looks or appearance of Hem-iunu can not be imagined precisely from this.
-An inscription on the statue’s foot plate provides considerable information on the high status of Hem-iunu and his influence in the Egyptian state:
The Prince and Mayor, Taiti [title of an official] and Sab [title of an official], the Vizier and Keeper of the seal of theking of Upper and Lower Egypt, the Guardian of Hierakonpolis, he who is responsible for the seating arrangement, the Priest of Bastet, the Priest of Schesemtet, the Priest of the ram of Mendes, Keeper of Apis, Keeper of the white bull, who is loved by his lord, des eldest of the working area, biggest of the five of the house of Thot, who loves his lord, the only friend (of the king), Hem-iunu.
Master of the scribes of the king, Master of [unknown title], Leader of the singers of Upper and Lower Egypt,
Overseer of all works of the king, the bodily child of the king, Hem-iunu.
The most outstanding of all is:
-Hem-iunu’s head rather shows similarities to the so called reserve heads, which depict the dead in a naturalistic way and were found in the area of the coffin chamber. Posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
The Reserve Heads of The Old Kingdom N.B. MILLET
It is a great pleasure to pay tribute in these pages to a scholar whose achievements over so many decades have spanned archaeology in both Egypt and the Sudan, and have covered virtually every period of time between the Predynastic and the early centuries ofthe Christian era. It is also a great personal pleasure for the writer, whose first guide and teacher in Egyptology Dows Dunham was, and to whom he will always owe more than can be expressed in words scholarly or otherwise. The contribution to this volume which follows was selected because it deals with a subject which was one ofthe topics of the first conversation the writer was privileged to have with Dows Dunham, in the old offices ofthe Egyptian Department ofthe Museum ofFine Arts, in June of1953.
1 The so-called "reserve heads" ofthe Fourth Dynasty have long been rightly regarded as among the finest products of the sculptors' workshops ofthe period., and specifically as remarkable examples ofindividualizing, if also idealizing portraiture. Few pieces of Egyptian sculpture, even of the Fourth Dynasty itself, can be said to bring before our eyes the same startlingly vivid impressions of living persons. There is no doubt a strong idealizing tendency in the work, but apart from the conventional treatment ofthe eyes, it must be confessed that we could hardly deduce the fact from the heads themselves. They are intriguing also because oftheir oddity; as has been remarked over and over in the literature, simple bodiless portrait heads are not only almost unheard-of in Egyptian art, but they would also seem at first sight to contradict many ofour cherished suppositions about the nature and function o f Egyptian funerary sculpture. Equally puzzling are the strange mutilations to which many ofthe heads have been subjected; the ears of most have been damaged or removed, while several show in addition a roughly cut groove down the backofthe head, beginning near the crown and ending only at the base ofthe neck. Their strangeness extends even to their location within the tomb, since they would seem to have been normally buried in the bottom ofthe shaft, at or near the entrance to the burial chamber, rather than within it or above ground in the chapel area. All in all, the heads are sufficiently bizarre that it is per- haps not surprising that Egyptological opinion has continued to accept the original excavators' interpretation of the heads as ritual and religious in purpose. It is the intention ofthis briefarticle to attempt to demonstrate that another, more practi- cal, explanation is to be preferred.
The ritualist explanations put forward by Junker, Reisner, and Borchardt, and repeated by more recent writers, range from the relatively simple notion that the reserve head served as a substitute (Ersatzkopj) for the vulnerable head ofthe mummy to more elaborate interpretations involving the assumed northward-facing position ofthe head and the direction ofthe circumpolar stars. None of these explanations, however, seem really to take into account either the strange mutilations already mentioned or the other striking peculiarities ofthe reserve heads as a group, and an archaeological explanation ofa class of artifact must ofcourse account for all features which distinguish that class from its nearest parallels: in this case, the heads of other statues of the same period.
The distinctive features of the class of reserveheads- apart from the primary fact that they are finished sculptures ofthe head alone - are the following, not all of which are characteristic of all or even most members ofthe class:
I. The mutilation of the ears. This is perhaps the commonest of all features, being met with in almost all examples to some degree or another. In one head, Cairo 37832, one ofthe two ears had been broken offbut replaced, while the other was found beside the head; two other heads, the Dahshur example and Cairo 4-7838, seem never to have had ears. The woman's head from G 4440 has the best- preserved ears ofthe series; it is perhaps worth pointing out here that the ears of her husband's head are damaged and that he also has the cranial groove, while she does not. There can be little doubt that this damage to the ears ofthe reserve heads was in some sense deliberate, in which case the replacement of the ear in Cairo 37832 requires an explanation. The head from G 4-94-0 in Boston had two dowel holes for the attachment ofears which are now missing, but seem to have been made separately in any case and not carved in the block.
2. The cranial groove, as we may call it. This feature occurs frequently in a range of forms, being sometimes a fine shallow groove, and sometimes a rougher cutting exhibiting chipping ofthe limestone at the sides. It may start from forward ofthe centre ofthe cranium or near its centre, but always runs down to the very bottom ofthe back ofthe neck. The cutting is clearly deliberate and careful.
3. The cutting ofthe eyes. The treatment ofthe eyes in some ofthe reserve heads is distinguished from that in most contemporary statuary by a careful, emphatic cutting oft he rone between the edge ofthe eyelids and the ball ofthe eye, particularly at the corners.
4-. The cutting ofthe edge ofthe nostril. As William Stevenson Smith has pointed out, another peculiarity ofthe reserve heads is "the tendency to mark the outer curve of the nostril by a sharp incision or by an angular edge to the raised surface". This is especially noticeable, as he remarks, in the Nofer head.
5. The treatment ofthe philtrum: So far apparently unnoticed in the literature, this feature is common in the Cairo group ofheads, but in the Boston group appears in only the male head from G 4-4-4-0; it does not occur in the female companion piece. Like the cranial groove and the nose cutting, it is a distinctly unrealistic feature, and consists ofthe philtrum (the depression in the upper lip beneath the septum of the nose) being deeply cut out in such a way that it forms a shallow, straight-sided trough with square angles. Such a treatment of this facial feature is unknown in any Egyptian sculpture o f any period.
6. The angle ofgaze. As has been frequently pointed out, the reserve heads all have their line ofgaze raised slightly from the horirontal, the entire head in fact being tilted backwards to a perceptible degree.
These then are the peculiar characteristics ofthe reserve heads which must be used to elucidate their nature. The hypothesis advanced here is that the reserve heads were in fact actually sculptor's prototypes, like the famous head of Nefretity and some ofthe other heads or masks found in the sculptor's studio at Amarna, and that from them artists would have copied the features of the deceased while making statues and portrait relieffor funeral purposes. This hypothesis is advanced on the basis ofwhat seems the only possible explanation ofsome of the peculiar features listed above: that moulds must have been taken from some at least of the heads. Thus certain subtly-cut features - the philtrum, the edge ofthe nostrils, and the eyes - were in some instances deliberately emphasized in a non-realistic manner so that they would appear more sharply in a rather unsatisfactory moulding medium, such as fine linen and size. The damage to the ears, and the feature called here the cranial groove, were the result, it is suggested, of the removal ofsuch a mould. The hypothesis can perhaps best be explained by describing the process of moulding which it is proposed was used.
Of The mediums available to the ancient Egyptians ofthe Old Kingdom for the making ofa mould, the two most likely are soft, plastic substances such as gyp- sum plaster or mud, or wet linen. That the first may have been used from time to time is suggested by the famous death mask from Saqqara, by the modelled plaster masks applied to mummies in the later Old Kingdom, and by the large quantity of plaster still adhering to the left cheek ofthe reserve head 21.239 from G 4-94-0, now in Boston. This is usually explained as a correction layer added by a sculptor unsatisfied with the treatment of the left side of the face, but this is unlikely in view of the extreme thickness ofthe mass of gypsum; a very little plaster would have sufficed for the purpose ofcorrections, and the edges ofthe mass have a broken look in some places, as if there was at one time more of it extending over more ofthe face. It seems more probable that an unsuccessful attempt was made to take a direct plaster mould from the head, and that the remaining plaster is a section which adhered too firmly to the stone to come offwith the rest. The other likely medium, linen dipped in water with size (or possibly a very thin plaster), is certainly the best adapted to the purpose, particularly if it was desired to take a mould ofthe entire head. Very fine linen would presumably form the inside layer, the wet fabric being pressed firmly into the details of the stone, including those deliberately exaggerated for clearer reproduction. Strips or small sheets oflinen would be added to cover the whole head right down the neck until the entire sculpture was encased in a wet shell. When the linen had dried the sculptor would remove it by cutting it from the top of the cranium down to the base of the neck, with an adze, knife or chisel, leaving in some cases the cranial groove so peculiar to this class of sculpture. The ears would of course often break off while the shell was being wrenched off the head; in some cases they may have been, as we have seen, made to come off more easily and were replaced on the original. Then the mould could be used for the production of further exemplars of the head in plaster or mud, either because others were needed at other work-sites (perhaps at the tomb site for workers on relief portraits, as well as in the sculptors' workshop) or because it was desired to produce models with different hair-styles for a variety ofstatues. When the reserve heads were no longer needed, the copies could have been easily broken up or dissolved, but the original limestone head seems to have been felt to be important enough, either because it was somehow felt to have absorbed too much of the owner's identity or because it was a royal gift, to be given decent burial in the bottom of the shaft or in the tomb chamber.
It is easy to see that such a custom may have given rise to the later habit of modelling the features ofthe deceased in plaster on the bandaged head of the mummy, but even then the modeller would have needed some sort of prototype to go on, either a portrait statue or such a reserve head as described, since after the crude mummification ofthe time the features ofthe corpse itself would have lost most of their individuality. Thus it can be suggested that the use ofsuch sculptor's prototypes as the reserve heads was widespread in the Old Kingdom, and that the examples discovered are only those that were royal gifts in limestone, while more ordinary mortals would have had their portraits executed during life in mud (such as the head from G 4840), clay or plaster modelling. It is the opinion ofthis writer that the famous bust of Ankh-hafis also one of the series ofreserve heads. It shows some of the characteristics of the others, but differs from them in three main respects: it is an entire bust (of a rather portly individual) rather than a simple head; it has been painted; and it was found, not in the shaft, but installed on a mud-brick podium in a built chapel, in such a way that it is clear that it was doing duty as a cult statue. Despite these differences, its extreme degree of realism, its size, the missing ears (apparently made separately and attached with adhesive), the lack of any indication of hair, and a certain well-used look all suggest affinity to the reserve head category. Its employment as a cult object may well have been entirely secondary, and suggested by the fact that it was a full bust.
Also known by his Greek name, Cheops, the Egyptian pharaoh Khufu was the second pharaoh of the Fourth Dynasty, famous for building the Great Pyramid at Giza.
Khufu's full name was Khnum-Khufwy, which means '[the god] Khnum protect me'. He was the son of Sneferu and Queen Hetepheres I, and is believed to have had three wives. He is famous for building the Great Pyramid at Giza, one of the seven wonders of the world, but apart from this, we know very little about him. His only surviving statue is, ironically, the smallest piece of Egyptian royal sculpture ever discovered: a 7.5 cm (3 inch) high ivory statue found at Abydos.
Khufu came to the throne, probably during his twenties, and at once began work on his pyramid. The entire project took about 23 years to complete, during which time 2,300,000 building blocks, weighing an average of 2.5 tons each, were moved.
His nephew Hemiunu was appointed head of construction for the Great Pyramid.
Khufu was the first pharaoh to build a pyramid at Giza. The sheer scale of this monument stands as testament to his skills in commanding the material and human resources of his country. It is now believed the pyramids were built using conscripted labour rather than slaves.
The idea that Khufu used slaves to build the pyramid comes from Greek historian Herodotus.
He also describes Khufu as a cruel and wicked leader who prostituted his daughter when he ran short of money. But the Westcar Papyrus describes Khufu as a traditional oriental monarch: good-natured, amiable to his inferiors and interested in the nature of human existence and magic.
Despite not being remembered as fondly as his father, the funerary cult of Khufu was still followed in the 26th Dynasty, and he became increasingly popular during the Roman period.
“Semantic Homicide” and the So-called Reserve Heads: The Theme of Decapitation in Egyptian Funerary Religion and Some Implications for the Old Kingdom1
In 1894, Jacques de Morgan came across a strange limestone sculpture at the Old Kingdom royal cemetery of Dahshur. Dated to the early Fourth Dynasty (c. 2575-2465 BC), this statue was unusual in a number of ways. First, it was a representation of a disembodied head, and showed no signs of having been originally attached to a full-body statue.
[...]
Another strange feature of the reserve heads is the locations in which they were found. Almost all were discovered not in the tombs themselves but in piles of rubble in the shaft entrances to tombs, as if they were thrown into the shafts as an afterthought. While this is almost certainly not the case, the fact that these statues were not placed in tomb chapels is strange. The most likely explanation for the heads’ placement is that they were disturbed during the eventual robbing of their owners’ tombs, and then tossed back in the shafts, as they were not of apparent monetary value.
Despite the fact that there is no evidence as to how these heads were used or why they were made—all we have are the heads themselves—Egyptologists have come up with several theories as to the purpose of these sculptures. The earliest of these dates to 1903, when German Egyptologist Ludwig Borchardt discovered the second known reserve head at the cemetery of Abusir. Borchardt suggested that the heads were intended to protect and/or replace the heads of the deceased, something not unprecedented in Egyptian funerary customs. Hermann Junker, who gave the reserve heads their name, later put forth the theory that they were similar in purpose to later cartonnage mummy masks, which first make an appearance during the First Intermediate Period.
Speculation regarding these heads is far from over. As mentioned above, Nicholas Millet proposed in 1999 that the heads were carved as sculptors’ models. While no statues obviously based upon the heads have been found, two well- known funerary statues from Giza display the same lifelike individualization in their faces. The statues of Ankh-haf and Hemiunu are best known for their blatant nonconformity to traditional Egyptian standardized idealization. Their faces are distinctly middle-aged. While Ankh-haf’s statue is only a bust (there is debate as to whether the original statue was full-sized, as Egyptian busts are rare), Hemiunu is portrayed in a full, seated style, and is markedly overweight. The high social status of these men is suggested by their titles. Both claimed to have been closely related to kings, and both held important bureaucratic positions. It is feasible that the unusual realism of these statues is a reflection of how uniquely important these men considered themselves—not even kings commissioned entirely accurate portraits, preferring instead to portray idealized, stylized versions of themselves at the height of youth.
If Nicholas Millet is correct and the reserve heads were indeed intended to be models for statues similar to Ankh-haf’s and Hemiunu’s, then even more questions must be asked. If this type of apparent portraiture was common enough that we have such a strong record of it millennia later, why was it seemingly confined to the Western Cemetery at Giza in the Fourth Dynasty? Why did people commission these pieces, and why did they stop? Were there complete statues based on these heads, or were they meant to stand alone, something totally incongruous with the rest of Egyptian art? If the heads were indeed meant to be used as artistic tools, why were they mutilated and buried?
The head, still with the eyes gouged out was fixed back on to the body and shipped with the broken off arm shipment to the Roemer und Pelizaeus Museum in Hildesheim.
clarification: they also attached the arm as well as the head back on to the body before they shipped it to the museum in Hildesheim
Also they found the head severed but if I'm not mistaken but still proped atop the head. The other picture you see of the head lying on the ground in the debris is apparently left there temporarily while they were moving the body, then placed in a basket and then reattached to the head. I will have to recheck details about this
^^^ this particular photo I'm still trying to find provenance on
German site:
IM SCHATTEN DER PYRAMIDEN Die österreichischen Grabungen in Giza (1912-1929)
quote:1912 untersuchte erstmals ein österreichisches Forscherteam die Architektur und Dekoration privater Gräber rund um die Pyramiden von Giza in Ägypten. Ihre Skizzen, Dokumente, Tagebucheinträge und Grabungsfunde geben noch heute, 101 Jahre später, wertvolle Einblicke in die altägyptische Kultur, erklärt die Ausstellungskuratorin Regina Hölzl.
Mastaba-Gräber als Informationsquellen
Zentrales Exponat der Ausstellung ist die lebensgroße Statue von Hemiunu, dem Neffen des Königs Cheops, der auch Architekt der Cheops-Pyramide war. Einen weiteren Schwerpunkt bilden die sogenannten Mastaba-Gräber, deren Bauform an eine überdimensionale Sitzbank erinnert und die im Inneren reich mit Statuen, Reliefs und Architekturelementen ausgestattet waren.
Virtuelle Ausstellungselemente
Ergänzt wird die Schau im KHM durch zahlreiche multimediale Installationen, die in Kooperation mit der Technischen Universität Wien entstanden sind. In interaktiven, virtuellen Rundgängen über das Giza-Plateau oder durch rekonstruierte Mastaba-Gräber können die Besucher die Faszination dieser Grabstätten nachempfinden, erklärt Sabine Haag, die Direktorin des Kunsthistorischen Museums.
Die Sonderausstellung "Im Schatten der Pyramiden" ist Teil des internationalen "Giza Archive Project", eine digitale Plattform, die Fundjournale, Tagebuchaufzeichnungen und alte Fotos früher Ausgrabungen virtuell zugänglich macht. Es gehe nämlich nicht nur darum, die 4.500 Jahre alten Ausgrabungen zu zeigen, sondern auch Einblicke in die mehr als 100-jährige Grabungsgeschichte am Plateau von Giza zu gewähren, sind Sabine Haag und Regina Hölzl überzeugt.
back zurück
quote: 1912 examined the first time an Austrian research team, the architecture and decoration of private tombs around the pyramids of Giza in Egypt. Your sketches, documents, diary entries and archaeological finds give today, 101 years later, in the ancient Egyptian culture valuable insight explains the exhibition curator Regina Hölzl.
Mastaba tombs as sources of information
The central exhibit of the exhibition is the life-size statue of Hemiunu, the nephew of King Cheops, who was also the architect of the Great Pyramid. Another focus is the so-called Mastaba tombs, whose design is reminiscent of an oversized bench and they were richly endowed inside with statues, reliefs and architectural elements.
Virtual exhibition elements
The show is supplemented in KHM by numerous multimedia installations that have arisen in cooperation with the Technical University of Vienna. In interactive, virtual tours on the Giza plateau or reconstructed Mastaba Tombs, visitors can relive the fascination of these tombs, explains Sabine Haag, director of the Kunsthistorisches Museum.
The exhibition "In the Shadow of the Pyramids" is part of the international "Giza Archives Project", a digital platform that makes virtually accessible, a reference journals, diaries and old photos earlier excavations. There go not only about showing the 4500 years old excavations, but also insight into the more than 100-year history of excavation to grant the Plateau of Giza, Sabine Haag and Regina Hölzl are convinced.
^ The picture is sourced Kunsthistorischen Museum 1914, still not sure the title
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Below is the proper Hemiunu sculpture before they took down the wall. The eyes are gouged out and you can see the crack line on the neck. Apparently the head was broken off but still proped up on the body. They then took it off and put it in a basket to move the sculpture. Later when the prepared it for shipment to a museum they reattached the head. That is what seems to have been what happened.
.
_______________________
IM SCHATTEN DER PYRAMIDEN Die österreichischen Grabungen in Giza (1912-1929)
I realize the head on the ground is not Hemiunu it's probably a reserve head, one of the two discovered by Junker, As we can see at the German website the pictures are next to each other. That p[hoto was from a third webiste, not part of the other group of Hemiunu excavation photos I posted
Journal of Egyptian Archaeoloy Volume 1 page 253, plate XL The Austrian Excavations, 1914, Herman Junker (page 8-9 of PDF)
Of the two reserve heads found by Junker G 4350 that is at the Kunsthistorisches Museum and resembles the above photo of the head lying in debris
_________________________________
rather than Subsitute head Princess Iabtet Pelizaeus Museum
Both the statue of Hemiunu and these two reserve heads were found by Hermann Junker but if I'm not mistaken on separate excavations
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^You sure are doing a lot of supposing:
On what basis are you doing your supposing?
Did you talk to someone who was there?
Is it that you just know that White people would never lie?
Or is it that you are just a lying ass, making stuff up, just like those Albino liars.
Posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
The fact of the matter is that Hemiunu's head is a reserve head!
It is symbolic and metaphorical.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor: [QB] The fact of the matter is that Hemiunu's head is a reserve head!
That is a false statement.
The reserve heads were made without bodies and could stand up straight
^^^ Here we see the head of the Hemiunu statue with the crack at the neck and unlike reserve heads the eyes are cracked out because there were probably jewels in there. The head would probably not satnd up on it's own.
No reseracher has called this a reserve head artificially attached to the body, it was merely noted that this figure is similarly realistic to the reserve heads which are regarded, despite maybe having magical purpose, to be more realistic looking and individual than some other Egyptian sculpture which is regarded as more idealized. The reserve heads also had other distinguishing marks on them. The purpose of them is unknown and only guessed about. The body is similalrly realistic and did not idealize his somewhat unpleasant case of gynecomastia and heaviness
Maybe you don't realize it, but what you did in this thread was show that the source of one photo I had in the original post I made was NOT Hemiunu and that was correct. It was a reserve head that was found by the man who found Hemiunu but it was from another location !
The excavation of Hemiunu was documented and photos taken. As we can see the head had it's eyes gouged out. The head was broken but was had been placed back on top of the neck. They removed the head when they were moving the sculpture and put it in a basket. When they shipped the sculpture the put the head back on but apparently attached it in some way to keep it from falling off.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Similar in it's higher degree of realism is the bust of Prince Ankhaff son of Sneferu ( and an unknown wife) Hemiunu was a grandson of Sneferu
Posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The reserve heads were made without bodies and could stand up straight
The reserve heads are symbolic and metaphorical. So likely is G4000.
quote: Despite the fact that there is no evidence as to how these heads were used or why they were made—all we have are the heads themselves —Egyptologists have come up with several theories as to the purpose of these sculptures. The earliest of these dates to 1903, when German Egyptologist Ludwig Borchardt discovered the second known reserve head at the cemetery of Abusir. Borchardt suggested that the heads were intended to protect and/or replace the heads of the deceased, something not unprecedented in Egyptian funerary customs. Hermann Junker, who gave the reserve heads their name, later put forth the theory that they were similar in purpose to later cartonnage mummy masks, which first make an appearance during the First Intermediate Period.
quote: In 1928 Dunham wrote to George A. Reisner that ceramics required salt extraction upon their arrival to the MFA and that he performed the treatments himself (Dunham 1928). Desalination campaigns, in some cases more than one on the same object, continue up to the present. Efflorescence has been the result of fluctuating relative humidity in storage or display environments or a consequence of conditions during travel for loans.
JAIC 2003, Volume 42, Number 2, Article 4 (pp. 193 to 236)
quote: Ägyptologe, Antisemit, weit mehr als ein Mitläufer
Hermann Junker war nicht nur einer der bedeutendsten Ägyptologen Österreichs - Er war auch aktiver Antisemit und Mitglied in antilinken und antijüdischen Geheimbünden
"Eine amüsante Gestalt ist der Professor Junker, der seit Jahren in einem Weekend-Häuschen in der Wüste an den Pyramiden haust, denen er sich neuerdings mit Braunhemd und Wickelgamaschen präsentiert. Nach Kairo traut er sich allerdings nicht in diesem Fancy Dress", schrieb die deutschsprachige Exilzeitung Pariser Tageblatt am 8. Juli 1934. Die Rede ist hier von Hermann Junker, dem deutschen Ägyptologen, der von 1912 bis 1929 Grabungen für die Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften (ÖAW) in Giza durchführte, die in der derzeit laufenden Sonderausstellung Im Schatten der Pyramiden im Wiener Kunsthistorischen Museum (KHM) gewürdigt werden.
Hermann Junker bestückte nicht nur wesentlich die Ägyptisch-Orientalische Sammlung des KHM, er war auch die treibende Kraft bei der Gründung des Wiener Instituts der Ägyptologie und Afrikanistik im Jahr 1923 und die zentrale Figur der österreichischen Ägyptologie im 20. Jahrhundert schlechthin.
Und Junker war im Nationalsozialismus nicht das Opfer, zu dem er sich nach 1945 gern stilisierte, erklärt die Wiener Ägyptologin Julia Budka, die derzeit für ihr an der ÖAW angesiedeltes Projekt bei Ausgrabungen im Sudan tätig ist, im E-Mail-Interview. 2012 erhielt Budka sowohl den vom Wissenschaftsministerium und vom Wissenschaftsfonds FWF vergebenen START-Preis als auch einen Starting Grant des European Research Council (ERC).
Budka versucht gemeinsam mit ihrem Kollegen Claus Jurman die Verstrickung des deutschnationalen Katholiken und Priesters Junker mit dem NS-Regime und seine Teilhabe an antisemitischen und deutschnationalen Universitätsnetzwerken zu klären. Die Studie soll in einen Sammelband über Junker einfließen, den Clemens Gütl vom Institut für Afrikawissenschaften der Uni Wien herausgibt. Die unangenehmen Seiten würden "vor allem von seinen Schülern bis heute verschwiegen", sagt Gütl zum Standard.
Selbst wenn man die eingangs angeführte Passage aus dem Tageblatt "in gewisser Weise als tendenziös einstufen muss, zeigt sie doch, wie sehr Hermann Junker vielen Zeitgenossen als Repräsentant der Nazi-Nomenklatura galt", sagt Jurman. Ab 1929 war Junker Direktor des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts in Kairo. 1933 trat er als deutscher Beamter freiwillig der NSDAP bei, die in Österreich noch verboten war.
Seiner Doppelstaatsbürgerschaft, dem Umstand, dass er zu dieser Zeit keinen offiziellen Wohnsitz in Österreich hatte, und der tatkräftigen Hilfe einflussreicher Kollegen wie Akademie-Vizechef Richard Meister war es zu verdanken, dass kein Schatten in Junkers Biografie zurückblieb.
Antisemitische Seilschaften
Junker stellte sich nach dem Krieg als Geschädigter dar. Gemäß seinen Angaben sei ihm nach dem Anschluss eine Honorarprofessur an der Uni Wien aberkannt worden. - Eine Behauptung, die durch kein amtliches Dokument belegt ist, schreiben Budka und Jurman. 1948 wurde ein Erneuerungsantrag genehmigt, wobei sich Junkers früherer Assistent Wilhelm Czermak, nach 1945 erster Dekan der philosophischen Fakultät, für ihn eingesetzt hat.
Meister und Czermak waren wie Junker selbst Mitglieder in verschiedenen deutschnationalen, antilinken und antisemitischen Verbänden, etwa der " Deutschen Gemeinschaft" und dem "Deutschen Klub". Alle drei waren sie auch Mitglied der "Bärenhöhle". Die Professoren-Geheimclique, benannt nach ihrem Treffpunkt in einem paläontologischen Seminarsaal, sorgte dafür, dass Lehrstühle an "Arier" und politisch rechts stehende Bewerber gingen. Die Vereinigung hintertrieb die Habilitation jüdischer und linker Wissenschafter.
Mit von der Partie war auch der Prähistoriker Oswald Menghin, der sich auch öffentlich, etwa in seinem Werk Geist und Blut, und in Vorträgen vor NSDAP-Ortsgruppen zur "wissenschaftlichen Grundlage der Judenfrage" äußerte. Er war zudem Unterrichtsminister des "Anschlusskabinetts" von Seyß-Inquart und damit ein Hauptverantwortlicher für die "Säuberung" der Universitäten von jüdischen Studierenden und Lehrenden.
Menghin war ein enger Weggefährte Junkers, Anfang der 1930-er-Jahre hatte er eine Professur in Kairo inne und war auch Mitausgräber Junkers in Merimde. Als Direktor des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts in Kairo hat auch Junker selbst für die Gleichschaltung des Instituts im Sinne der NSDAP gesorgt, geht aus der im Junker-Band vertretenen Studie der Ägyptologin Susanne Voß hervor, die heute für das Institut in Kairo forscht.
Czermak hielt am 15. April 1945 in seinem Institut in der Frankgasse 1 in Wien jene Sitzung ab, mit der die Universität nach dem Krieg " wiedereröffnet" wurde, wie es noch heute auf einer Gedenktafel vor Ort heißt. Was die Tafel verschweigt: Das Institut für Ägyptologie übersiedelte erst nach Kriegsbeginn in die Frankgasse 1. Die Wohnung des Ehepaars Arnim und Rosemarie Horowitz musste zuerst noch frei werden - die Wiedereröffnung der Uni Wien fand also auf zumindest mittelbar " arisiertem" Institutsboden statt.
Ein großer Opportunist
"Mir ist es wichtig, klarzumachen, dass wir in keiner Weise versuchen, am wissenschaftlichen Verdienst Junkers zu kratzen", erklärt Budka. Er brachte der ideologischen Instrumentalisierung wissenschaftlicher Institutionen durch den nationalsozialistischen Staatsapparat keinen Widerstand entgegen. Direkte ideologische Einflüsse auf seine wissenschaftliche Arbeit seien aber ebenfalls kaum dingfest zu machen.
"Insgesamt denke ich, dass Junker ein großer Opportunist war und vieles tat, um einfach ungestört forschen und arbeiten zu können", sagt Budka. Vorauseilender Gehorsam gehörte dazu: "Junker kann nach heutigem Stand nicht als minderbelastet in der NS-Zeit gelten. Eigeninitiative spielte bei ihm eine nicht unbeträchtliche Rolle und muss entsprechend gewertet werden - er war weit mehr als nur einer der vielen ,Mitläufer'", resümieren die Ägyptologen. (Alois Pumhösel, DER STANDARD, 20.01.2013)
Hermann Junker, Giza I (1929), pp. 132 - 162 ("Die Statue des Prinzin" pp. 153 - 157).
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor: The fact of the matter is that Hemiunu's head is a reserve head!
This is a LIE
Posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor: The fact of the matter is that Hemiunu's head is a reserve head!
This is a LIE
Lies are the many speculations you are doing.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor: The fact of the matter is that Hemiunu's head is a reserve head!
This is a LIE
Lies are the many speculations you are doing.
Speculations are not lies When you claim something is a fact when it is not a fact that is a lie
You claim that it is a fact that Hemiunu's head is a reserve head but it is not a reserve head. That is not a speculation it is a lie.
Posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^You sure are doing a lot of supposing:
On what basis are you doing your supposing?
Did you talk to someone who was there?
Is it that you just know that White people would never lie?
Or is it that you are just a lying ass, making stuff up, just like those Albino liars.
quote:In 1890-91 Flinders Petrie copied what was left of the filled-in reliefs in the tomb chapels of Nefermaat and Itet in Meydum. He saw this as his "immediate duty" and lamented that so much of the tomb decoration had been destroyed since Vasalli had hacked out the Meydum Geese in 1872. When he returned in 1909 the situation was even worse and Gaston Maspero, head of the Antiquities Service had asked him to take down what Petrie termed the "wretched remains".
--Tine Bagh, PhD Curator, Egyptian Art Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek Forming Material Egypt
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor: The fact of the matter is that Hemiunu's head is a reserve head!
This is a LIE
Lies are the many speculations you are doing.
Speculations are not lies When you claim something is a fact when it is not a fact that is a lie
You claim that it is a fact that Hemiunu's head is a reserve head but it is not a reserve head. That is not a speculation it is a lie.
quote: It is likely, thus, that the heads were placed neither in the burial shaft (where many of them were found) nor in a supposed niche in the burial chamber door blockage but rather on the east side of the mortuary chamber, likely facing eastward towards the rising sun and waiting to be rejoined to the mummified body placed in the sarcophagus on the west side of the chamber.104 In particular, I suggest that all the heads (and in general all the statues like Hemiunu’s as well as the funerary equip- ment endowed with autonomous vital forces like the slab stelae) would have been arranged facing toward Khufu’s pyramid, which is to say towards the actual horizon, since all the mastabas of cemetery G 4000 where reserve heads were found were quite perfectly orientated along the same east-west axis as Khufu’s pyramid (Fig. 1, Plate 7). Thus we can imagine that at dawn, the shadow of Khufu’s pyramid, as it shrank, would have gradually allowed the sunlight to illuminate the mastabas, from the furthest to the nearest to his pyramid.105
have been ‘resurrected’ by the shining of its lord Khufu embodied by the pyramid.
Although not explicitly supported by literary or epi- graphic evidence,106 this symbolism perfectly fits the Egyptian religious beliefs and the absolute solar nature of the king in that period. Moreover, it seems to be also confirmed by the visual evidence in the western field at Giza where this optical phenomenon is clearly observable (Fig. 5), particularly during the solstices, crucial points of the Egyptian religious ‘calendar’.107
--Massimiliano Nuzzolo
The ‘Reserve Heads’: some remarks on their function and meaning
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor: [QB] The fact of the matter is that Hemiunu's head is a reserve head!
That is a false statement.
The reserve heads were made without bodies and could stand up straight
I speculate this is the random "source", you used?
Fig. 46. Eight reserve heads excavated in 1913 at Giza by the Harvard University-Museum of Fine Arts Expedition, displayed at the Harvard Camp, Giza, December 17, 1913. The heads were divided between the Egyptian Museum, Cairo, and the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. From left to right, they are: a. Cairo JE 46216 (G 4640); b. Boston 21.328 (G 4540; cat. no. 47); c. Cairo JE 46218 (G 4340); d. Cairo JE 46215 (G 4240); e. Cairo JE 46217 (G 4140); f. Boston 14.717 (G 4140); g. Boston 14.718 (G 4440); h. Boston 14.719 (G 4440; cat. no. 48)
Reserve Heads as Portraits
Although there are many affinities among the heads, each has particular characteristics that distinguish it from the others, as can be seen in a photograph of a group from Giza (fig. 46).7 This individuality has led many scholars to describe reserve heads as portraits. George Reisner, who discovered more than half of the excavated examples, went a step further, perceiving family relationships among the heads he uncovered.8 For example, on the basis of similarities between heads from mastabas G 4240 (Cairo JE 46215; fig. 46d) and G 4440 (Boston 14.718; fig. 46g) he identified the tomb owners as brothers. At approximately 30 centimeters in height, these heads are two of the largest.9 The chief feature they share is the long, narrow shape of the face, apparent when they are seen from the front; however, when viewed from any other angle, the resemblance dissipates.10 Reisner also believed he could determine the ethnic background of individuals represented by the heads. For example, he identified Cairo JE 46218 (G 4340; fig. 46c) and Cairo JE 46216 (G 4640; fig. 46a) as west Asiatic,11 although both have characteristics in common with others he thought represented native Egyptians. While individual reserve heads may have been made to resemble the people in whose tombs they were placed, it is equally possible that the similarities among these works are the result of conventions used by an individual artist or group of artists.
Any study of the reserve heads must involve grouping them according to type, a highly subjective exercise in which each viewer will find different affinities. The chief obstacle to any definitive comparison or analysis of the heads is a lack of good, comprehensive photographs. No photographs exist of certain examples, and only one view has been published of others. In many cases photographs have been taken from different angles: some from above, some from below, some with the head turned slightly to the right or left but almost never rotated to the same degree. And views of the backs of the heads are largely unavailable. There are, however, excellent scaled photographs of most of the examples excavated by Reisner, and Roland Tefnin has provided multiple views of many pieces.12. Using these resources, it is possible to discern numerous stylistic parallels among the sculptures. For example, it is apparent that Cairo JE 46218 (G 4340; fig. 46c), one of Reisner’s west Asiatics, has a number of features in common with Boston 14.717 (G 4140; fig. 46f) and Boston 21.328 (G 4540; fig. 46b; cat. no. 47), two heads Reisner considered to represent native Egyptians.13
Most of the reserve heads found at Giza probably were created by one or two generations of sculptors whose careers spanned the reigns of Khufu, Djedefre, and Khafre, and it is not surprising that these examples can be divided into other stylistic groupings.14 More unexpected are the affinities that seem to connect the head unearthed by Morgan at Dahshur, Cairo CG 519, with two excavated at Giza, Berkeley 6-19767 (G 1203; cat. no. 46) and Cairo JE 46217 (G 4140; fig. 46e). 15 The proportions of the three faces, with their full cheeks and soft chins, are very similar, and the mouths, eyes, and sculpted eyebrows have much in common as well. These parallels appear to bind the two Giza heads very closely in date, and perhaps even in site of manufacture, with the head from Dahshur, a royal necropolis approximately fourteen miles to the south that was diminishing in importance while Giza was becoming the preeminent royal burial ground.16 Further attempts to link heads stylistically using firsthand examination and up-to-date, comprehensive photographs might produce very interesting results.
^^^ Here we see the head of the Hemiunu statue with the crack at the neck and unlike reserve heads the eyes are cracked out because there were probably jewels in there. The head would probably not satnd up on it's own.
No reseracher has called this a reserve head artificially attached to the body, it was merely noted that this figure is similarly realistic to the reserve heads which are regarded, despite maybe having magical purpose, to be more realistic looking and individual than some other Egyptian sculpture which is regarded as more idealized. The reserve heads also had other distinguishing marks on them. The purpose of them is unknown and only guessed about. The body is similalrly realistic and did not idealize his somewhat unpleasant case of gynecomastia and heaviness
Maybe you don't realize it, but what you did in this thread was show that the source of one photo I had in the original post I made was NOT Hemiunu and that was correct. It was a reserve head that was found by the man who found Hemiunu but it was from another location !
The excavation of Hemiunu was documented and photos taken. As we can see the head had it's eyes gouged out. The head was broken but was had been placed back on top of the neck. They removed the head when they were moving the sculpture and put it in a basket. When they shipped the sculpture the put the head back on but apparently attached it in some way to keep it from falling off.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
