I refer below to Grove Dictionary of Art and: Smith, W. Stevenson, and Simpson, William Kelly. The Art and Architecture of Ancient Egypt, 3rd edn. 1998, Yale University Press (Penguin/Yale History of Art), ISBN 0300077475. Grove is very clear and useful. Johnbod (talk) 03:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"...the Egyptians performed a variety of rituals believed to have real effects through the principles of Egyptian magic." - "magic" is a tad pejorative here.
The Egyptians had a concept, heka, that was fundamental to their religious practices and that can't be translated by any English word except "magic". Egyptologists argue about whether "magic" should be used because of its supposed pejorative connotations. Ritner, the foremost expert on the subject, argues that the word should be retained as a direct translation of heka, and I'm inclined to agree with him (having been raised without most of the cultural baggage that comes with Christianity, I don't see "magic" as any more pejorative than "religion"). A. Parrot (talk) 23:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well evidently many experts do, perhaps not having had your advantages! I think it should be avoided in the lead, & explained a little when it is used lower down. You don't mention or link to heka at present. Johnbod (talk) 03:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"In Egyptian creation myths, the first temple originated as a shelter for a god, which stood on the mound of land where the process of creation began. Each temple in Egypt, therefore, was equated with this original temple and with the site of creation itself. As the primordial home of the god and the mythological location of the city's founding, the temple was seen as the hub of the region, from which the city's patron god ruled over it.[13" - a bit confusing as to number here. Is there just one first temple and god, & if so which god? Or several of each? If the latter, an "each" near the start would help
The impression I get—although my sources do not say this as explicitly as I would like—is that in Egyptian creation myth there is one primordial city that is synonymous with all cities. There is one primordial god who is synonymous with all the gods. It's not easy to write about concisely; any suggestions? A. Parrot (talk) 23:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Grove seems to say the same, but is also not quite clear. From Ancient Egyptian creation myths it seems that each of the differing myths had one god & one city, but which one depended on where you were, which seems logical. Maybe:"In Egyptian creation myths, the first temple originated as a shelter for a god (which god it was differs in local versions),..." Johnbod (talk) 03:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"most non-ceremonial buildings in temple complexes remained brick-built throughout Egyptian history..." rather conflicts with "Many temples were now built entirely of stone,...." higher up. What about roofs and floors?
The distinction is between the stone temple building proper (the part that's still standing in the Medinet Habu photograph) and the brick buildings in the enclosure around it (the part that's just foundations in the photograph). I changed the text to try to make that clearer. Roofs and floors were apparently stone. A. Parrot (talk) 23:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok
"The blocks were usually large and irregularly shaped.[69][Note 5] They were usually laid without mortar; each stone was dressed to fit with its neighbors... Once the temple structure was complete, the rough sides of the stones were dressed to create a smooth surface, then decorated with reliefs and paint.[65]" Needs clarifying. The stones used in building don't seem very "irregularly shaped" (unlike say Inca ones). Do you need to distinguish more clearly between large blocks coming from the quarry and smaller shaped ones put into place in a wall? If the stones were only dressed after placing, then the sides will obviously be rougher, and without mortar, gaps visible, which I don't think is typical. No doubt the visible faces (not "sides") of stones were more finely dressed, before or after placing in position. Was there not a plastering stage before paint was applied? Were negative (sunken) reliefs always painted, and all over? The picture here suggests not. Were most surfaces painted? Do you need to distinguish between interior and exterior surfaces?
By "irregular" I mean that they didn't have fixed sizes or shapes. Dieter Arnold describes it this way: "After laying the first course of a wall, the top surface of the blocks—still uneven—was cut and dressed for the second course. Because the blocks of the lower course had different heights and it would have been a waste of stone to cut them all down to the same height for each block to be laid, an individual stretch was measured and prepared. If necessary, a step or socket was cut into the lower blocks in order to accommodate the upper one. Thus quite frequently rectangular masonry of stepped courses was the result, naturally with horizontal bedding joints." So the finished blocks had had smooth surfaces, but they weren't necessarily rectangular or perfectly level. Can you suggest a way of making that clearer?
I think I get it, but only because Wilkinson's book has a nice (non-free) illustration. Picture a course of blocks (say just three, for simplicity's sake) that have been laid, but whose top edges are still rough. The one on the left sticks up more than its neighbors. The block in the middle sticks up on its left side nearly as much as the left block, but on its right side is much lower. The left side of the block on the right is even lower than the middle block, but on the right side it is a little higher. When leveling out the blocks, the stonemason cuts the left block and the left side of the middle block down to the same level. He cuts the right side of the middle block at a lower level, so there's a sort of stairstep between them. He cuts the left side of the right block at a lower level than that, and cuts the right side of the right block somewhat higher. Then the next course of stones is cut to fit the levels of the course beneath. I think.
I think a picture is certainly needed. Most seem to show pretty regular horizontal seams in the lines of blocks, but blocks of irregular length (A). B C or D might be used; B I think also shows eroded plaster reliefs.
As for paint, my sources don't go into detail about the process of decoration. I don't think plaster was used, but I'm not sure. I don't think there was a difference in construction process for exterior or interior, either. A. Parrot (talk) 23:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is complicated - p. 12 here is useful & Grove clearest - the paint binding medium is still "unidentified", rather amazingly. But plaster was very widely used as a ground, often 2 layers, or a wash. Only some limestones could be painted on directly. All reliefs were apparently painted. You seem to be incorrect saying "In most cases artists used sunken relief, which was less costly than the extra carving involved in bas relief". According to both my sources (S&S pp 176-179), both were used until Amarna, but mostly raised, but after that sunk relief predominated, and raised was rare. Sunk relief had previously mostly been used on external surfaces, where it looks best. Plaster relief of both sorts was also sometimes used. Grove is very good on all this; S&S better on the trees than a view of the wood. Johnbod (talk) 03:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have access to either of these sources, but I can get a couple of other books on Egyptian art by late tomorrow (Pacific time). If they're worth anything, and they look like they are, I should be able to address these questions on Friday. A. Parrot (talk) 04:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"living rock" - a common phrase I know, but liable to puzzle many; "solid" would do. Were these always built into a cliff or hill, or were some underground structures on flattish land? "enclosed their inner areas within caverns rather than buildings" - slightly awkward - "used excavated chambers rather than buildings for their inner spaces" or something.
I changed the awkward wording, but "solid rock" does not mean the same as "living" (a boulder is solid rock if it's not cracked, but it's not living) and it's not like I'm using words like "metempsychosis" or "ontology" here.
Temples are always horizontal (except the usually slight rise from entrance to sanctuary), and as far as I can tell the entrance is always at ground level. Therefore, there were no truly underground temples. I'm not sure how to specify this because my sources don't say it outright. A. Parrot (talk) 23:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Barque (a three-masted vessel) is not the link you want I think, & in this context just a fancy word for boat, no? I see there is a section on Egyptian barques - the link should go there.
It is, but my dictionary doesn't list "barque" as specifically British. I'm so used to seeing and writing "barque" that if nobody objects I prefer to leave it that way. A. Parrot (talk) 04:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The shadowy halls, whose columns were often shaped to imitate plants such as lotus or papyrus,..." - the capitals, not the columns, surely? The column shafts may represent the stalk of the plant, but are not exactly "shaped" to reflect this.
Scratch that. Wilkinson says that it was indeed the whole column. Some columns, for example, actually represent bundles of plants, and are therefore ribbed to imitate the multiple stalks contained within the bundle. See also the leaves at the bases of the columns here; unfortunately those markings are not very visible today. A. Parrot (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"In late temples these walls frequently had alternating convex and concave panels,..." a picture would help here. "panels" is probably not the right word. Did the whole height of the wall go in or out at the same time? What scale were these undulations on, inches or yards?
I don't think any pictures are freely available. I tried to express it more clearly in words. Whole courses of bricks clearly put the undulations on scales of yards, do they not?
Still a bit puzzled; the wall was straight, but with a wavy top? The scale sounds small unless the number of courses is changing.
I don't quite get how it was built, either. Arnold says "The walls were divided into sections with either convex or concave courses (pan bedding) which, when viewed from the front, had a wavy appearance" and "The side pressure produced by this underlying construction ensured that the bricks were kept in close bond" and "Corners were strengthened by the courses of bricks being laid so that they sloped toward the inside, thus increasing the effect of bonded quoining." Jeffrey Spencer's Brick Architecture in Ancient Egypt (which I do not have on hand nor use as a source, but from which I copied a small portion) calls them "walls built in alternate concave and convex panels of brickwork in place of horizontal courses" and says, "A number of different styles of undulating walls can be distinguished, varying in the complexity of their design. The most complete form which is best exemplified at Karnak, exhibits undulation of the brickwork not only along the face of the wall, but also through its thickness, in such a manner that the concave panels are convex in section, and vice-versa… A simplification of this type is produced when the convex sections of the wall are replaced by panels of brickwork built in ordinary horizontal courses…" Is that any help, or is it still clear as mud-brick? A. Parrot (talk) 04:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The temple building was elaborately decorated with reliefs and free-standing sculpture ..." and "and in late temples, walls, ceilings, columns, and beams were all decorated,.." it would be helpful to specify the usual focal locations of decoration, and mention paintings. I don't think the whole complex was decorated. The whole "decoration" section could be expanded somewhat. If it were me doing it, I'd add some one line mini-galleries to the most visual sections, but I always say that.
Again, my sources don't describe the decoration in as much detail as I would like. In the periods when reliefs and painting were not ubiquitous, I'm not sure where they went. The whole complex wasn't decorated, but the whole temple building was (except the floor, I think). Maybe I can find another article in the OEAE about relief or painting to add a little more information (which would take a few days, because I don't have the book myself), but the Egyptian temple is about more than its decoration, and I don't want the section to get too big. Nor am I fond of galleries—no offense. A. Parrot (talk) 23:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given how important the decoration is to modern visitors, I still think the section pretty short. Grove is very good, and concise here if you can get it. Some floors were decorated with inlays, & walls of rich temples had reliefs in thin panels of precious metals, and sometimes gold leaf on stone. Johnbod (talk) 03:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does Abu Simbel temples have a link? A second one in the last section could be added anyway. Generally there aren't many mentions of and links to articles on individual temples that we have as examples of features. Luxor Temple is mentioned at points but I can't see a link. Part of the function of an article like this is as a gateway to individual articles, although sadly very few approach this quality at the moment.
B
C
D
