Царь Менкаура

Красный кварцит - камень "солнечных" богов.
Страница 1 из 1

Автор:  MenKauRA [ 02-11-2011, 08:31 ]
Заголовок сообщения:  Красный кварцит - камень "солнечных" богов.

gallardo_se писал(а):
"Красный кварцит" в статуях ,сфинксах,строениях и изделиях у "солнечных " царей и фараонов любой династии.

http://www.metmuseum.org/Collections/se ... /100002414
http://www.metmuseum.org/collections/se ... 0765?img=3

The building stones of ancient Egypt – a gift of its geology Dietrich D. Klemm a,*, Rosemarie Klemm b

Another, especially for Egyptology, important hard rock type occurs at the Gebel Ahmar (Red Hill), today more or less covered by the urban sprawl of the eastern extension of Cairo-Abassiya. This hill with its reddish quartzite consists of an Oligocene sandstone, highly silicified by hydrothermal vents, due to underlying Miocene basaltic intrusions. During this event the pore space was filled up by fine silica crystals, solidifying the loose conglomeratic sandstone in places to iron-enriched quartzite (Figs. 10 and 11). In ancient times the early morning sun illuminated this red hill in a bright lumen, this rock variety most probably thus became especially favoured by Pharaohs celebrating the cult of the sun, such as Djedefra, Amenhetep III and Echnaton.

Therefore these Pharaos all left impressive statues of this material to posterity. Due to the intensive overprint during mining in the Arab and 20th century times and due to the many poorly silicified portions of Gebel Ahmar, no realistic estimation of the tonnage extracted by ancient Pharaonic working at this locality is possible, but it might not have exceeded some ten thousand tons. Today the former Gebel Ahmar is covered by a sports stadium and an amusement park with gardens and therefore the Red Hill has also changed its name to Gebel Akdar (Green Hill).

The first documented occurrence of silicified sandstone as an elite status funerary object (described as "brown quartzite") is that of a shallow bowl found in a pharaonic context the 1st Dynasty royal tomb of Djer at Abydos (Petrie 1901: pl.XLVIII, 168). This vessel form is fairly typical of the corpus of Early Dynastic hard stone objects at a time when there was an explosion in the use of exotic hard stones for such objects.
By the 3rd millennium BC these early elaborations of the funerary monument set in motion a revolution in the large-scale exploitation of hard stones that reaches its zenith during the "pyramid age" of the Old Kingdom between the 3rd – 6th Dynasties. Aswan granite, basalt, Chephren Gneiss and silicified sandstone occur in monumental stone architecture and large statuary by the Old Kingdom, particularly between the 4th and 5th Dynasties. The first known use of silicified sandstone in these monumental forms is that of the life-sized statue of 4th Dynasty of King Djedefre and from then on it had a limited use in architectural elements of the pyramid complex of Userkaf as a false door ( Aston et al. 2000; Verner 2002). The 6th Dynasty pyramid complex of Teti sees its greatest use as foundation blocks, basins and pillars, and in the mortuary temple of Pepi II 18 columns are of silicified sandstone (Jéquier 1938; 1940: 22-4; Lauer and Leclant 1972; Lehner 1997: 156; Verner 2002: 370). (Figure 4).

During the Middle Kingdom elite use of the stone for monumental purposes, such as stelae, statuary, wall linings and lintels was maintained (Aston et al. 2000) (Figure 8). However, it was during the New Kingdom that the use of silicified sandstone in monumental architecture, colossal and life-sized statuary, obelisks, lintels, stelae and small statuettes has few parallels (see Kozloff et al. 1992; Johnson 2001) (Figure 5)

Historical sources suggest that this overwhelming use of silicified sandstone in the New Kingdom, particularly in the 18th Dynasty (1390 – 1352 BC) reign of Amenhotep III, was associated with a re-focussing of religious ideas to solarise the major cults of Egypt whilst simultaneously identifying himself with the creative aspects of the sun god Ra (Kozloff et al. 1992: 76, 110). By the following Amarna Period (1352-1336 BC)
solarising of the royal cults reached its zenith with the Aten, depicted as the sun disk, whose most essential aspect was light (Van Dijk 2000: 283). Hence silicified sandstone remained one of the principal hard stones used for royal statuary, in particular there seems to be a marked increase in the use of the purple variety (Figure 6). Baines (2000: 36) suggests that this is characteristic of the Amarna period when there was a desire to
intensify trends from previous reigns and transform them into new "canons of beauty" that placed greater value on colour. Moreover, it seems that there was a transformation from the monumental-scale use of the stone during the reign of Amenhotep III to generally smaller highly crafted statuettes of the Amarna Period. Of particular note are
the several heads of Nefertiti and those of other royal women in the purple and gold varieties (Arnold 1996: 41-84). (Figure 7)

After a hiatus of approximately 80 years, the consumption record sees a short revival in the use of silicified sandstone for royal ornamental and monumental purposes during the reign of Sety I in the early 19th
Dynasty (1294 – 1279 BC). Having modelled himself on Amenhotep III (the most prolific user of silicified sandstone), the use of silicified
sandstone for obelisks (including a truncated obelisk form that rests on a wider base) and colossi was again sought after (Brand 2000: 128, 360). It is important to note that a number of large building programmes, particularly in the Luxor Temple at Thebes (modern Luxor), were not completed due to Sety"s early death (Brand 2000: 365, 384).
Evidence related to such unfinished projects may be observed in the West Bank quarries as discussed in Chapter 6.

The New Kingdom era, between 18th and early 19th Dynasties, represents a period that witnessed the exponential rise and decline of large-scale silicified sandstone use for royal and elite purposes that was never to be repeated in antiquity. Even accounting for poor preservation, silicified sandstone use by the Late Period is dramatically reduced for elite status objects. A small statuette dating to the 25th – 26th Dynasty in the purple variety of the stone (Figure 8), a bowl described as a shallow mortar (note this may not necessarily be an elite status object) with four lugs and the top of a cosmetic jar are some rare examples (Aston 1994: 35, pl. 6 (c); D"Abbadie 1972: #168). The Ptolemaic
Period also sees a very limited use of silicifed sandstone for elite objects. The head of a Ptolemaic Queen in silicified sandstone was suggested as exceptional for sculptors of the 4th – 3rd centuries BC, implying it was a special commission, as similar to the Late
Period largely dark stones dominate for elite statuary (Bianchi 1988: 166).

It is important to note that the use of silicified sandstone for grinding stones was continuous throughout the dynastic period. The typical oval/boat-shaped grinding stones (saddle querns) occur in relatively standardized forms at major settlement sites across Egypt. At the multi-period settlement on Elephantine Island in Aswan these objects occur in stratigraphic levels from the Old Kingdom into the Ptolemaic Period.
Significant quantities are also recorded at Amarna (Middle Egypt) and in the New Kingdom levels of Kom Rabi"a at Memphis in Lower Egypt. (Giddy 1999) (Figure 9).

Used for grinding grains as well as pigments, this activity is numerously reproduced in Egyptian tomb paintings and models of the dynastic period (Figure 10).

There is a return to the large-scale use of silicified sandstone in the Roman Period, particularly the purple variety, given the elite associations attached to this colour (Maxfield and Peacock 2001). However, examples of its use as finished objects remain limited and caution needs to be applied given that large-scale re-use of hard stones occurred at this time. For instance, a large standing statue in the Cairo Museum might
suggest re-use of an earlier dynastic (probably New Kingdom) statue (Fig 11).

Moreover, with the introduction of the circular or rotary millstone, often made from granite and basalt, this may indicate a subsequent decline in the use of silicified sandstone grinding implements in food preparation (Fig 12). This decline in use for domestic purposes may also be implied from excavations at Elephantine, where the common silicified sandstone oval shaped grinding stones are largely absent from settlement levels after the Ptolemaic Period (Wolfgang Müller pers. comm. 2006).

However, use of silicified sandstone in "industrial" contexts on Elephantine Island for grinding of pigments cannot be ruled out. Grinders of "sandstone" for such purposes are referred to in "industrial" contexts of the Early Roman Period (1st – 2nd cent AD) on Elephantine Island (Rodziewicz 2005: 33, pl 25, nos. 411-415). Given that errors can
sometimes be made by archaeologists in distinguishing "sandstone" from "silicified sandstone" (as discussed in the introduction to this chapter) one may speculate that a continued "industrial" use of the stone during this period may have occurred.

http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0% ... 007029.JPG

http://books.google.ru/books?id=M8yS6ir ... &q&f=false


Cairo, Egyptian Museum.Volume iii. 2
Part 1. Abû Rawâsh. Pyramid complex of Razedef. I. Pyramid. Razedef statues.iii
2.Small head wearing nemes , quartzite, in Cairo, Egyptian Museum, JE 35138.Smith,Hist. Sculp. pl. 11 [d].<<See JEA 63 (1977), 19 for details>>Abû Rawâsh. Pyramid complex of Razedef. I. Pyramid. Razedef statues.iii
2.Head wearing white crown, quartzite, in Cairo, Egyptian Museum, JE 35139.Smith, Hist. Sculp. 32 pl. 11 [c]. See Maspero, Guide (1915), 53 [109].

Абу Роаш
http://www.griffith.ox.ac.uk/gri/3Monum ... n_Piot.pdf

"кварцит" Джедефры

стр 41-45 silicified sandston
http://www.quarryscapes.no/text/publica ... ort_LR.pdf

http://www.eeescience.utoledo.edu/Facul ... erview.pdf

http://perstoremyr.files.wordpress.com/ ... armora.pdf

http://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/er/cybe ... e-2010.pdf
стр 5 и ниже,а как его голову проверить не знаю :wink:

“There is solid evidence that this pyramid had solar ties to it, said Baud. "We found a huge number of statue fragments all in quartzite,” he said. “We know in Egyptian beliefs this stone was associated with the sun.” Baud explained that purple is a color associated with the rising sun and there is also some yellow on the fragments.

Автор:  MenKauRA [ 02-11-2011, 08:36 ]
Заголовок сообщения: 

gallardo_se писал(а):

Здесь дополню ,что бы провести параллель с кварцитом другим камнем - гравуаккой."Черный камень" гравуакка. камень реставраторов 26 династии (можно и отдельно темой).Если сравните изделия из этого камня,особенно саркофаги и головы жрецов , датируемые 26 династией и изделия приписываемые к старому царству,то обнаружите ,что разница в 2000 лет просто отсутвует.Но в оф.егитологии эта разница есть - выводы дальше делайте сами.Ситуция аналогичная с красным кварцитом.На мой взгляд ,очень высокая вероятность ,что это реставрация или 12 ,18,19 ,26 династии .Кем и когда уже сложно говорить.В каждом конкретном случае нужно разбирать мотив -Усеркаф и Менкаура с триадами для примера ,в отличии от Джедефры .Первые с грауваккой видимо сделаны в 26 династию - логика саитов "первая великая империя египта ",второй с кварцитом сделан в 18 династию - логика "основатель солнечного культа".

http://www.gizapyramids.org/pdf%20libra ... 58to73.pdf .
Уже вроде выкладывал,но повторю.
Лично мой критерий - "мотив" поздних воссозданий,другие критерии просто отпадают.

А. Лукас. Материалы и ремесленные производства Древнего Египта.
«Шифер» (граувакка), туф, аргиллит, сланец .После известняка, песчаника и гранита одной из наиболее употребительных пород в Древнем Египте был камень, который обычно называют «шифером», хотя, поскольку он представляет собою осадочную, а не метаморфическую породу, он не может быть шифером.На самом деле это — граувакка 84, мелкозернистая, плотная, твердая кристаллическая кварцеобразная порода, весьма напоминающая по внешнему виду сланец; граувакка бывает серого цвета, самых различных тонов — от светлого до темного, иногда с зеленоватым оттенком. В одну группу с грауваккой могут быть объединены и другие родственные ей породы — туф (вулканический пепел), аргиллит и сланец. Часто они бывают настолько похожи друг на друга, что их можно различить только путем микроскопического сследования тонких срезов; к этому нужно добавить, что все они встречаются в одной и той же местности. Граувакка, а иногда и аргиллит и туф применялись в додинастический и раннединастический периоды для изготовления браслетов, чаш и ваз, а граувакка в более позднее время шла также на изготовление саркофагов, наосов и статуй; из сланца, возможно, иногда делали палетки. [629]Граувакка85, туф86и сланец87встречаются в нескольких местах в восточной пустыне,но основной и, возможно, единственный древний источник двух первых пород находилсяв районе Вади-Хаммамат на главной дороге из Кена в Кусейр, где имеются обширныедревние разработки с более чем 250 надписями, охватывающим период от I до XXX династии88. Эти каменоломни и камень из них часто упоминаются в древних хрониках89.До недавнего времени обычно считалось, что граувакка из Вади-Хаммамат и есть тотсамый камень, который в древности назывался камнем бекхен. В доказательствоприводилась надпись на одном наосе Нектанеба I, в которой говорилось, что наос сделаниз камня бекхен, а он сделан из граувакки 90. В настоящее время выяснилось, что бекхеномназывался и другой совершенно отличный вид камня (а может быть, и другие), как,например, камень, из которого сделан наос Амасиса II и который представляет собоюне шифер, а мелкозернистый серый [630] гранит (псаммитный гнейс)91. Хотя этот каменьсодержит значительное количество красного полевого шпата, в общем он выглядит серым ииздали может сойти за граувакку.В Британском музее хранятся два небольших обелиска Нектанеба II с надписями,гласящими, что они сделаны из камня бекхен. В музейном путеводителе материал из которого высечены обелиски, именуется «черным базальтом»92, а Брэстед, ссылаясьна Гардинера, пишет, что они сделаны «из черной базальтовой породы из Хаммамат»93.Обелиски эти были значительно реставрированы, после чего, очевидно, покрыты слоемчерной краски, так что определить породу камня лишь при поверхностном осмотреневозможно. Однако Кюнц недавно доказал, что один конец камня, находящийся в Каирскоммузее, является фрагментом одного из этих обелисков94. Я взял небольшую пробу. По моей просьбе Эндрю подверг ее микроскопическому исследованию95, и оказалось, что материалпредставляет собою граувакку из Вади-Хаммамат.

2.2. Deposits of ‘‘Bekhen-stone’’ (greywacke-siltstone) at Wadi Hammamat Large parts of the Eastern Desert of Egypt, between the river Nile and the Red Sea consist mainly of nappes of intensely folded Pan African series, predominately comprising ophiolitic and other volcano-sedimentary rocks. These thrust sheets are exposed in the Eastern Desert of Egypt with a few exceptions of old African basement. A zoisite-chlorite facies metamorphosed molasse-type sedimentary rock, resulting from these thrust systems and some syn-kinematic granitoid intrusives, consists mainly of green siltstones, dark green greywackes and conglomerates, which are best exposed in the Wadi Hammamat (Fig. 2) along the Quft-Quseir road from the Nile valley to the Red Sea. At this type locality these meta-sediments are also of favourable cleavage development, whereas at the many other occurrences of the Eastern Desert, the Hammamat series are mainly characterized by intense schistosity and are highly brittle.Thus, larger blocks of suitable construction stones could only be obtained from the Hammamat region itself, where along a gorge type-section of about 2km, an impressive quarrying activity is documented by almost 600 rock inscriptions over a time interval from Predynastic until the late Roman period (about 4000 BC until 300 AD).

These many inscriptions concentrated along a relative short distance in the wadi obviously indicate the uniqueness of this site and its extraordinary importance to ancient Egyptian culture. Consequently the rock type extracted here received a special name: ‘‘Bekhen-stone’’, as reported in many ancient Egyptian documents. The oldest topographical sketch map hitherto documented, known as the ‘‘Turin mining papyrus’’, was ascribed to the Wadi Hammamat locality by Klemm and Klemm (1989). Apart from some gold and silver mines and a mining settlement displayed on this papyrus, it also shows the location of the Bekhen-stone quarry site, coloured in dark blackish green. Otherdifferently coloured parts of this papyrus obviously represent different rock types of the portrayed region and seduced some geologists to postulate this sketch map to be the oldest geological map (Harrell and Brown, 1992), which claim cannot be substantiated realistically at all. Particularly the very dense, medium-grained dark green greywacke was used during the entire Pharaonic era and on until the Ptolemaic (Greek) period (from 332–30 BC), mainly for sarcophagi, archetraphes and for the finest carved sculptures of Egyptian antiquity. Scattered unfinished or broken sarcophagi indicate that at least the raw form of these vessels were worked out at the quarry site, which is understandable as they had to be transported over 90 km through the desert, until shipped on the river Nile to their final destination.

Most of the royal sarcophagi of the OK and about 100 sarcophagi for private individuals of the Late Period (since 600 BC) and of Ptolemaic and Roman times were made of this rock variety. Mainly in Roman times, additionally,the use of a conglomeratic variety of rock, the so-called ‘‘breccia verde’’ became fashionable. The most exciting examples of Hammamat greywacke statues are the Mycerinos (259–2511 BC) triades in the Cairo and Boston museums, and a great number of extremely fine carved statues was produced throughout the ancient times, with a definite maximum during the Late Period. The stone material worked in the Wadi Hammamat quarry district exceed some 10,000 t, of which about a
third was transported to the river Nile valley. According to the rock inscriptions, up to 4000 men were involved in the different quarrying expeditions into the Eastern desert, were well treated with food and ‘‘at least five litres of beer every day’’ and ‘‘no man got lost’’ (Couyat and Montet, 1912). Strange as it may seem, this strongly indicates that the work forces were not made up of slaves and were well taken care of.

The canon of proportions used in wall reliefs was pointed out by Lepsius² and is proved by unfinished walls on which the red proportion lines are still visible. Such walls are known from the mastabas of the Old Kingdom and from the great rock-cut tombs of the nomarchs of the Middle Kingdom. In the Old Kingdom mastabas the proportions were measured on a vertical line in the axis of the human figure by means of dots and cross lines. The lateral measurements were marked by dots on the cross lines. These red lines show that the height of the human figure from the sole of the foot to the base of the hair or wig on the forehead was divided into six units. The length of the advanced foot was more than one unit; that of the other was about one unit. To the knee was two units and to the base of the neck was five and a third.

The seated figure had five units from the soles of the feet to the base of the hair. In the Middle Kingdom the examples of unfinished walls show a rectangular network of red lines, the unit of which is approximately one third of the old unit, so that the height of the standing figure is 18 units and of the seated figure 15. But on this network the figure was outlined freehand and the lateral measurements of the Old Kingdom artist no longer appear. The network was probably used already in the Old Kingdom for complicated scenes, and it continued in use to the end of Egyptian history. The number of units was changed again about Dynasty XXVI when the height of the standing figure was divided into 21 units to the base of the hair (21¼ units to the top of the head).³
In the reliefs, whether the Old Kingdom system of marking the chief canonical proportions was used or the later network, the figures were outlined by eye, and there are many examples of re-drawing where the eye of the master or of the craftsman was not satisfied with the first attempt.

The details of the face and the clothing were also drawn in red or sometimes black lines, which disappeared of course in the process of rubbing in these details, and the final finishing was greatly dependent on the skill of the craftsman. The various degrees of excellence in the reliefs arose from the exactness of eye and the practised coordination of hand and eye of the different craftsmen. Therefore, the measurements of the figures in the reliefs and especially the measurements of details show variations from those normal proportions which have been established by the examination of unfinished reliefs. It is especially to be noted that the canon of proportion did not prevent the drawing of unusual bodies or of bodies in unusual postures, such as dwarfs, the fat old boat builder, and the lean herdsman in the reliefs at Meir, men struggling with cattle, bending down to receive loads on their backs, or fighting in boats.

This analysis of the triads is illuminating in its implications for the larger stylistic problem of royal sculpture of the Fourth Dynasty, and for Reisner's 14 theory of two workshops at Giza headed by sculptor A and sculptor B during the reigns of Chephren and Mycerinus. Basing his stylistic distinction on two facial types, one lean and the other full, Reisner's attributions to sculptor A included the three triads in Cairo, while the Boston intact triad was among the works assigned to sculptor B.

In the case of the triads the distinction is not between masters, however, but between shop work and a masterpiece. We can therefore translate the attribution of the large Boston fragment to sculptor B made by E. L. B. Terrace,15 who broadened the basis for stylistic analysis to a consideration of the whole work, into an attribution to the master who
planned the series and executed the intact Boston triad, for the two works are superior to the rest of the series. On the basis of quality the Boston fragment can be placed in chapel A-south (fig. 2).

http://www.gizapyramids.org/pdf%20libra ... 58to73.pdf
http://www.gizapyramids.org/pdf%20libra ... 0_1974.pdf


http://www.flickr.com/photos/menesje/45 ... -antiquite


ИМХО конечно к чему это приводит в проекции на соседнюю тему о Большом Сфинксе,просто фантазии ;-))

Три головы Аменхотепа 2 сделаны из красного кварцита - одна от статуи ,две от сфинкса.Около Большого Сфинкса построен его храм ,смотрящий прямо на лицо Сфинкса.У Джедефры на пирамиде в Абу Роаш в 7 км от Гизы, нашли голову от сфинкса из красного кварцита.Разница между правлениями фараонов около 1200 лет.Теперь допущение - если Аменемхет сделал этого сфинкса Джедефры из кварцита (редкий материал для статуй ,особенно сфинксов - их очень мало) , то у него должно быть основания - либо он знал ,что это Джедефра построил большого Сфинкса ,либо большой Сфинкс и есть сам Джедефра.Тогда лицо Джедефры из кварцита и есть копия того лица,которое увидел Аменхотеп2 на Б.Сфинксе -он ведь не должен быть разрушен на тот момент,а также выбрал из всех фараонов 4 династии именно Джедефру .Косвенно ,может быть поэтому Василь Добреев выдвинул гипотезу о их похожести в 2004 г,но это немного наоборот - не Б.сфинкс похож на джедефру ,а кварцитовая голова Джедефры похожа на Сфинкса ,в этом случае.Но мы знаем ,что Джедефра умер раньше ,чем Хефрен постороил свою пирамиду и нижний гранитный храм.Можно конечно предположить,что Сфинкс построен до этого ,но опять мы знаем,что его пристроили позже окончания строительства гранитного храма Хефрена.Следуя логике - Большой Сфинкс есть Джедефра,но не он его построил...А как следствие из этого следует объяснение мотива Аменхотеп 2 выбрать именно Джедефру ,как основателя солнечного культа ,строителя Сфинкса и храма для изготовления кварцитового памятника в Абу Роаш .

Вильям Смит ,его много и интересный потом почитаю всего.

Again, in the royal sculpture of Dynasty IV there are two pronounced trends in the representation of the human figure which led Dr. Reisner in Mycerinus to speak of the work of Sculptors A and B. I believe that there can be no doubt that the influence of two great master sculptors produced two schools of sculpture, although these men will probably always remain unknown. The origin of the first style may go back as early as the reign of Sneferuw, while that of the second begins perhaps in that of Radedef, earlier than Dr. Reisner believed at the time he first suggested the existence of the two schools.
Scharff states even more explicitly : “Returning to the question of portrait-sculpture in our sense, I do not deny that this exists in Egyptian art. Its appearance, however, always coincides with a noticeable effort to break the bonds of convention, as we see in the Twelfth Dynasty, in the art of Tell el-’Amarnah, or in the late period, when Greek art was already knocking at the door of Egypt. But within the Pyramid Age, with which I am here dealing, I cannot see any piece of real portrait-sculpture. That a statement like this is not derogatory will now, I hope, be understood without further explanation.”But since he did not believe that statues were placed in the early Giza tombs, and since the royal statues are all destroyed, these heads, however unusual their form, constituted for him the only sculpture that existed from the reign of Cheops. Since he admits the portraiture in these, it would then follow that all the sculpture preserved from the reign of Cheops represented the real portraiture denied by him as existing in the Old Kingdom. This is, of course, quibbling, because we know that other sculpture did exist in the reign of Cheops. I do find it remarkable, though, that if Scharff recognizes qualities of portraiture in the reserve-heads, he did not see it in the statue of Hemiuwn, a contemporary statue which bears the
closest stylistic resemblance to the portrait heads and shows the sculptor working in an equally realistic manner. With the reserve-heads and the statue of Hemiuwn in mind, as well as the royal sculpture of Radedef, Chephren and Mycerinus

Автор:  MenKauRA [ 02-11-2011, 08:36 ]
Заголовок сообщения: 

http://www.mfa.org/collections/object/s ... box-130720

Автор:  MenKauRA [ 03-11-2011, 19:38 ]
Заголовок сообщения: 



Страница 1 из 1 Часовой пояс: UTC + 3 часа
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group