neo-Assyrian relief in Trinity College Dublin
- A neo-Assyrian relief in the Weingreen Museum of Biblical Antiquities, Trinity College Dublin—a case study in artefact acquisition (pp. 1-33)
By Amanda Kelly
Appears (online) in a place you might not think to look for such a thing:
Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, Section C: Archaeology, Celtic Studies, History, Linguistics and Literature
NY - NY
- On behalf of the moderators:
A proper signature means name plus affiliation. We, the moderators have constantly to reject otherwise fine mails which do not comply with protocol. It is annoying and time consuming.
Niels Peter Lemche
- Send from Chris Bennett's Iphone
>>Independent scholar visiting UCSD
>>> There is a little more to it. The discovery is the first _contemporary_ document naming the king. It gives his Sedge and Bee or throne name -- Senakhtenre -- which was previously known. But it also gives his Son of Re or personal name, which was not, and about which there has been much speculation. Aayko Eyma on EEF pointed out that the "Son of Re" title and the cartouche for the name is shown in a photograph supplied by CNRS at http://www.cfeetk.cnrs.fr/uk/index.php?page=senakhtenre, although the name itself is obscured by buffers being used to protect the monument while it is being raised.
>>> Chris Bennett
>>> --- In ANEemail@example.com, Robert McRoberts <mcroberts.robert@...> wrote:
>>>> Thanks for the clarification. I have been hearing different views of this for several days. If I understand correctly what is being stated is that an artifact from this king's reign had been discovered showing his name. Previously the name was only known from artifacts dating to his successor's. So the idea that there needs to be a new name added to the king list is bunkum. Sadly it seems this misconception is tainting an otherwise worthwhile find.
>>>> Robert F. McRoberts
>>>> Suite101 Ancient History Editor
>>>> From: Ian Onvlee <sambacats@...>
>>>> To: "ANEfirstname.lastname@example.org" <ANEemail@example.com>
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 6, 2012 5:35 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [ANE-2] Archaeologists discover name of lost pharaonic
>>>> <<He belongs to the XVII dinasty. You can read his name in this article:
>>>> Just to let you all know: The title and the first sentence of this
>>>> article is a sensationalistic lie. The king Nakht In Re is not a previously unknown king nor a "lost king". He is known from a family list of Amosis I as Senakhtenre, the alleged father/predecessor of Sequenenre. So Mohamed Ibrahim Ali should have said that the discovery is no more than a verification of the existence of an already long known early 17th Dynasty King.
>>>> Ian Onvlee
>>>> Den Haag, Netherlands
- It is likely that the minister of antiquity in Egypt did not say such an unprofessional thing as "unknown", but used the proper word "unattested" and probably in Arabic. It was also probably lifted out of context. Since a word like "unattested" is common in Egyptology but not suitable for the general public, for a cunning journalist who wants to present a more sensationalistic headline and story, it's easy enough to deliberately mistranslate it into a radical "unknown" instead of a more closely related word like "unproven", or "uncertain". And if he decides to leave out anything else that has been said, you'll get this kind of confusing or downright fraudulous articles. Journalists have the best opportunity to mislead the public and to play dumb themselves.
Den Haag, Netherlands
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]