13-10-2016, 04:05 PM
VViews - thanks for your open-mindedness 
I am growing more and more convinced that the original documents which were copied (probably via various intermediate copies) into the VM were from the Roman Egyptian period. This is similar to what Diane believes, though I often approach it from a different angle and we disagree about most details
In this period (but also already before) we see an explosion of artifacts that were made for everyday use. Also common people of average wealth could suddenly afford a proper burial, people used lots of amulets, shrines, textiles.... In other words, the kinds of images that were before only seen in limited contexts, had now become an industry for the general public.
You probably know that Egyptian iconography was stunningly consistent over millennia. Of course, when I see an image from the first dynasties I know it is not from the Greco-Roman period, but many motifs remained the same. So often, when I find a clearer picture in an older artefact, I am still comfortable using it as representing general Egyptian custom (I always check this, of course - I need continuity at least until the Ptolemaic period).
So in the later periods, we see that imagery moves from being hidden away in tombs to being seen by all. And, importantly, in the Roman period art became a bit more free, and we see "degenerated" forms of Egyptian art. That is, forms using Egyptian motifs, while not looking typically Egyptian.
I'm posting this example because it's the first one I can think of, it's a Ptolemaic offering tray:
![[Image: a0c6d95db9d44727768096f719ef180b.jpg]](https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/a0/c6/d9/a0c6d95db9d44727768096f719ef180b.jpg)
In this case the water is one wiggly line, and it seems to make a 90° angle towards or from the vessels.
So to me, such things are all indicators that at the very base of the imagery is a late, "degenerated" form of Egyptian art. We still see many traces of Egyptian custom and artistic convention, but it probably never has been a product made under dynastic supervision. Let's say, Greco-Roman period "popular" Egyptian art.
What you say about the interruption of the line is certainly true, and I have no idea if it is intentional. My guess is that it isn't. If we assume, for example, a second century CE origin of the sources, then how many times have they been copied before the 15th century? And by whom?
(Sorry for long post, but I thought some explanation of how I see things would be handy)
I am growing more and more convinced that the original documents which were copied (probably via various intermediate copies) into the VM were from the Roman Egyptian period. This is similar to what Diane believes, though I often approach it from a different angle and we disagree about most details
In this period (but also already before) we see an explosion of artifacts that were made for everyday use. Also common people of average wealth could suddenly afford a proper burial, people used lots of amulets, shrines, textiles.... In other words, the kinds of images that were before only seen in limited contexts, had now become an industry for the general public.
You probably know that Egyptian iconography was stunningly consistent over millennia. Of course, when I see an image from the first dynasties I know it is not from the Greco-Roman period, but many motifs remained the same. So often, when I find a clearer picture in an older artefact, I am still comfortable using it as representing general Egyptian custom (I always check this, of course - I need continuity at least until the Ptolemaic period).
So in the later periods, we see that imagery moves from being hidden away in tombs to being seen by all. And, importantly, in the Roman period art became a bit more free, and we see "degenerated" forms of Egyptian art. That is, forms using Egyptian motifs, while not looking typically Egyptian.
I'm posting this example because it's the first one I can think of, it's a Ptolemaic offering tray:
In this case the water is one wiggly line, and it seems to make a 90° angle towards or from the vessels.
So to me, such things are all indicators that at the very base of the imagery is a late, "degenerated" form of Egyptian art. We still see many traces of Egyptian custom and artistic convention, but it probably never has been a product made under dynastic supervision. Let's say, Greco-Roman period "popular" Egyptian art.
What you say about the interruption of the line is certainly true, and I have no idea if it is intentional. My guess is that it isn't. If we assume, for example, a second century CE origin of the sources, then how many times have they been copied before the 15th century? And by whom?
(Sorry for long post, but I thought some explanation of how I see things would be handy
)