Rameses reconstructed....

[LivinginLuxor]

A week or so ago, I asked whether anyone had heard the rumour that the fallen colossus of Rameses at the Ramesseum was going to be reconstructed. Yesterday, I got the answer from the horse's mouth - Christian LeBlanc who was showing a visitor around the temple. Yes, he said, work has already begun, and the computer reconstruction shows that it would be possible.



As you can see, some scaffolding is in place, and the second statue, that of Rameses mother is being rebuilt. Next to the ramp to the temple, is a large collection of granite pieces of statue that have been collected together.



I couldn't find a free copy of the full report on the computer reconstruction, but here is an abstract.

http://www.insightdigital.org/PDF%20pap ... _0318).pdf

I'm really not sure about this project - to me, the temple would lose much of its romance, and the feelings of the mortality of the great! And what would Shelley think? That's why I've added a poll to this post.

[Lisak]

I have clicked on No. I think it should be left as it is.
I personally like the way the Ramesseum is in all it's 'ramshackle' glory, the fallen statue is a massive part of the temples history, especially with Shelly's poem. Will that make as much sense once it has been put back together?

I am sure it will look magnificent, but I would prefer to see it as it currently is.

[TonyC]

I've always associated Shelley's poem with the mighty fallen statue, but recently I discovered some doubt is cast on the link. Here's an extract from a Wikipedia piece: This statue, however, does not have "two vast and trunkless legs of stone", nor does it have a "shattered visage" with a "frown / And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command." Nor does the base of the statue at Thebes have any inscription, although Ramesses's cartouche is inscribed on the statue itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozymandias

[Azurite]

I'm a No too.

I prefer it as it is now, wouldn't like it to become a staged set. They've already moved the stones around too much.

[BBLUX]

I'm with the previous posters. I believe over restoration will spoil the ambiance of the temple. Much the same concerning the temple at Abu Simbel. That collapsed during Ramses II reign so is part of the history but the UNESCO team did actually consider it when it was being moved.

[Clandestino]

The french doctor has not only this gigantic plan in his head , they will be enough to realise for the following 50 or 100 years.
Now, getting a computer for a short while and readig this topic i feel him and the site so much again (but not the prints of his kicks on my ass).:-) I especially did like the french stone-cutter, who is working on the coloss of Tuy, he is very funny. I'm close to cry, against being unsuccessfull on the field, i really did like them.

An earthquake also damaged one of the Abu-Simbel colossi - as it was told just above - if i exactly remember, in Ramesses' time and he doesn't wanted to restore it - ok, lack of technical solutions. From my aspect the story of the fallen colossus belongs to the temple history. As i did saw during their restoration work, they follow one of the two possible way of restoring the temple scenes - if you didn't know what exactly stood on the wall, let its place to be empty and make a simple retouching (as you can see in the Luxor temple, an other line of restoring is to retouche and make the outlines in black). The face if the coloss is sverely destroyed, if they should follow the first path by restoring it, looking at the poor giant will be not too touching.

Damages in antiquities, they belongs to the history of the object, will not always to be restored (in the school one of our teachers gave us the example of a robe, worn by a martir of the 1848' revolution, who was kiled by a gun and the hole and blood is still visible on the textile. May - during the conservation process - blood should be washed out or it's belong to the histiory of the piece?). Objects they were more times restored or altered- also in ancient and modern times - gives also questions about. The doctor is lucky by this case, MegaRamses is still 'intact'. Now, having also the poem of Shelley and may the notes of other ancient and modern visitors, the lying Ruler of Foreign Princes is totally agreeable, also looking at his dimensions now, much more human.

I think Ramesses will vote 'yes' but this is a field where i have much more experience like His Majesty so i vote 'no'.



Ps. thank you Stan, to let me see the place again - at least on pics

[DIANA]

I am a most definate NO too. It's amazing that money is being spent on such a project when there is so much more urgent work that needs doing elsewhere. Who made the decision to go ahead with it I wonder?

[Clandestino]

The team is sponsored by multiple founds, they're in greater part french and also scientific teams who're interested in such as project - because it means reference for them. They give technic and experience, financial supporters gives the money. May if the doctor went to Mubarak at spring to talk about his plans concerning the statue, financial problems weren't in question. Theyre not only lucky but also their supporting system is well-organized

(The only they cannot have is a balkanic graphician with two skilled hands leaded by the spirit of Ramesses II - being also actually the slave of Photoshop to help survive Christmas' loneliness...)

[LivinginLuxor]

I'm a little mystified - I've searched through the first 4 pages of Google on Abu Simbel, and nowhere is it mentioned that the earthquake which caused the damage to the second statue ocurred during Rameses reigh! "In ancient times" was one of the best descriptions I can find.

Can anyone supply me with a reference to it happening during his reign?


On the main topic, I'm quite heartened that the majority have voted No, and tend to agree with Clandestino about the politics of archaeology!

[Alistair1967]

I've always associated Shelley's poem with the mighty fallen statue, but recently I discovered some doubt is cast on the link. Here's an extract from a Wikipedia piece: This statue, however, does not have "two vast and trunkless legs of stone", nor does it have a "shattered visage" with a "frown / And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command." Nor does the base of the statue at Thebes have any inscription, although Ramesses's cartouche is inscribed on the statue itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozymandias

A bit of poetic license, perhaps?

[DIANA]

If I remember rightly, Shelley never saw the fallen statue. I believe there was a poetry competition held after it's discovery and Shelley won with his glorious offering.

[Brian Yare]

I thought that I had posted one of Shelley's sources, Strabo, book 1, 47, a few days ago but can not find it in this thread.

"Ten stades from the first tombs, he says, in which, according to tradition, are buried the concubines of Zeus, stands a monument of the king known as Osymandyas. At its entrance there is a pylon, constructed of variegated stone, two plethra in breadth and forty-five cubits high; passing through this one enters a rectangular peristyle, built of stone, four plethra long on each side; it is supported, in place of pillars, by monolithic figures sixteen cubits high, wrought in the ancient manner as to shape; and the entire ceiling, which is two fathoms wide, consists of a single stone, which is highly decorated with stars on a blue field. Beyond this peristyle there is yet another entrance and pylon, in every respect like the one mentioned before, save that it is more richly wrought with every manner of relief; beside the entrance are three statues, each of a single block of black stone from Syene, of which one, that is seated, is the largest of any in Egypt, the foot measuring over seven cubits, while the other two at the knees of this, the one on the right and the other on the left, daughter and mother respectively, are smaller than the one first mentioned. And it is not merely for its size that this work merits approbation, but it is also marvellous by reason of its artistic quality and excellent because of the nature of the stone, since in a block of so great a size there is not a single crack or blemish to be seen. The inscription upon it runs: 'King of Kings am I, Osymandyas. If anyone would know how great I am and where I lie, let him surpass one of my works.' There is also another statue of his mother standing alone, a monolith twenty cubits high, and it has three diadems on its head, signifying that she was both daughter and wife and mother of a king.

Beyond the pylon, he says, there is a peristyle more remarkable than the former one; in it there are all manner of reliefs depicting the war which the king waged against those Bactrians who had revolted; against these he had made a campaign with four hundred thousand foot-soldiers and twenty thousand cavalry, the whole army having been divided into four divisions, all of which were under the command of sons of the king."

[jewel]

Yes Diana it is true it was written as a competition with shellers friend Horace smith whose offering went thus:


    IN Egypt's sandy silence, all alone,
      Stands a gigantic Leg, which far off throws
      The only shadow that the Desart knows:—
    "I am great OZYMANDIAS," saith the stone,
      "The King of Kings; this mighty City shows
    "The wonders of my hand."— The City's gone,—
      Nought but the Leg remaining to disclose
    The site of this forgotten Babylon.

    We wonder,—and some Hunter may express
    Wonder like ours, when thro' the wilderness
      Where London stood, holding the Wolf in chace,
    He meets some fragment huge, and stops to guess
      What powerful but unrecorded race
      Once dwelt in that annihilated place.

 

[Goddess]

I'm a little mystified - I've searched through the first 4 pages of Google on Abu Simbel, and nowhere is it mentioned that the earthquake which caused the damage to the second statue ocurred during Rameses reigh! "In ancient times" was one of the best descriptions I can find.

Can anyone supply me with a reference to it happening during his reign?


On the main topic, I'm quite heartened that the majority have voted No, and tend to agree with Clandestino about the politics of archaeology!

I thought they suspected it was the 27BCE earthquake that destroyed the statue - not during his reign.
Don't think there is any documentary evidence to support it though?

[Brian Yare]

I would have to check, but I believe that the statue at Abu Simbel was destroyed during the reign of Ramses II and deliberately not repaired. As my sources are in my library rather than on my computer it will be at least 2 weeks before I can look for them.

[Clandestino]

An earthquake should be between Amenhotep III (or exactly the finish of building his funerary temple in Western-Thebes) and the reign of Mérenptah because the second one did use the stones of AIII's monument. The
Mérenptah funerary temple was false dated by itst excavator (sh.t, forgot the name...) because he found more re-used elements bearing the name of AIII. as 'original XIX. dynasty 'products. Later he corrected himself.

In the two 'cellars' - modern rooms for exhibitions - in Mérenptah's site big-sized elements of a monumental gate of AIII. can be seen - hmmmm, extraordinary quality of masterwork... I think, demolish an original gate could be much more hard as collect the pieces of a destroyed one. So the building couldn't stand under Mérenptah's reign.

May somebody is remembering the lecture wich one was held by the armenian archeologist Dr. Hourig Shourouzian about the theme (2010 january) - i didn't remember exactly if she told about it as reference (means an earthquake under RII.) but she represented the traces of a nature-catastroph marked in the soil of their site, wich are also shown on the cross-sections made by the excavation. May could the SAME catastroph destroy also Abu-Simbel. If yes, it should be a great damage and may should be recorded - especially by the ramessides.

But this is interesting maybe the temple of AIII was one of the most gigantic building of the time, also the destruction could be much more touching (not equal if you demolish a house or a castle :-)...) as the possible damage of lesser buildings, temples, palaces, etc. But how the other side of the river wasn't been affected? There are for example also gigantic elements of the Karnak temple and i never saw any evidence of damage, except humans - in antiquity. (mean not written in publications i know but this is not deciding because i'm not an expert)

Between AIII. and Mérenptah is an enough wide gap for thinking about few natural catastrophs. And the reign of RII. and - of course the time of building the AS complexes - are also m,atchning into the gap.

Ok, i spoke about the AS-statue till now. But if poor Ozymandias was been fallen by an earthquake, how the lesser massive elements (except for example the 1st pylon) - such columns and walls are still standing?


I could ask Ramesses but his mouth is frozen, the winter is hard here now
I could ask Dr. L'blanc' but contacting him will recut my wounds. So i didn't do

[Brian Yare]

I'm sorry if I responded to the wrong part of the thread. Someone, somewhere mentioned the earthquake the broke one of RII's statues at Abu Simbel.

I have no information about the earthquake that broke the Collossi of Memnon, except that repairs in Roman times stopped them from 'singing'.

[DIANA]

Does anyone have any information concerning progress on this reconstruction? I can find no info on any of the usual well informed bloggers sites.

[Glyphdoctor]

When he first found the statue back in 1993 or 1994, Christian Leblanc told me he planned to reconstruct it. I even wrote an article that appeared in Ahram Weekly about the plans.