Cairo Museum 1904 l...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Cairo Museum 1904 location of Ankh-af-na-khonsu's stele:


wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1120
Topic starter  

In an article authored by Colin S. McLeod, titled The Secret Temple, Posted by lashtal | Jun 29, 2007 (source: https://www.lashtal.com/2199-old-article/), it is mentioned that "a stela of painted wood written on both sides and bearing the name Ankhufnikhonsu, priest of Montu.", is listed on page 302 in "the 1903 English translation of Maspero’s “Guide to the Cairo Museum”". This article does also provide the following information: "It is listed as being in Room F, Case K, a case listed as containing funeral statues and statuettes. It says that the case was on the east wall of the room. That room was on the eastern side of the south-facing museum. [...] Room F was upstairs."

Egyptian Museum upper floor(source: http://www.touregypt.net/egyptmuseum/egyptian_museume.htm)

With respect to the above image of the upper floor of the Egyptian Museum in Cairo, my question is where the Room F upstairs was located within the Egyptian Museum in Cairo in 1904?


Quote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1120
Topic starter  

Ground floor, Cairo museum.(Source: http://www.touregypt.net/egyptmuseum/egyptian_museume.htm)

With respect to the above image within the first post in this thread, of the Upper floor of the Egyptian Museum in Cairo, and the above image within this post, of the same museum's Ground floor, my question is if anyone knows other locations within this museum, where the stela of Ankhufnikhonsu referred to in Crowley's The Book of the Law, has been exhibited in this museum?


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 5332
 

Hmmm... That's an interesting line of enquiry that prompts further research.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1088
 

Here is a map from 1903, taken from A.A. and J.E. Quibell's English translation of Maspero's guide:

1903 map of upper floor, Cairo Museum

Room F therefore corresponds to number 35 of the modern chart.


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1120
Topic starter  

Nexus93; December 3, 2006 at 5:31 am #19080: "The original Bulaq museum only had one floor; Crowley describes being led upstairs to a second floor by Rose when she introduced him to the Stele of Revealing, so there is no doubt as to which building Crowley was in–the Egyptian museum of antiquities (source: The Stele, The Museum and The Book - https://www.lashtal.com/forums/topic/the-stele-the-museum-and-the-book/#post-19080) ."

frater_anubis; December 5, 2006 at 11:52 am #19088: "I [...] have just returned from a lengthy stay in Cairo. The Stela is in Room 22 on the first floor of the Cairo Museum [...]. It is a fact that in comparison to other stelae in the same glass case, the Stela of Ankh-f-n-Khonsu does look remarkably well preserved. Indeed, if you look closely, you can see paint runs and a suggestion of a fingerprint….. The original label numbered 666 is still there, to the bottom left of the Stela. Incidentally, the Stela itself seems to be made from wood, the others in the case are in much poorer condition & seem to be made of some sort of plaster (source: The Stele, The Museum and The Book - https://www.lashtal.com/forums/topic/the-stele-the-museum-and-the-book/#post-19088) ."


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1088
 

wellreadwellbred: "With respect to the above image of the upper floor of the Egyptian Museum in Cairo, my question is where the Room F upstairs was located within the Egyptian Museum in Cairo in 1904?"

belmurru: You're welcome.


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1120
Topic starter  

Given that the following artwork by the artist Mitchell Nolte (reproduced on this site by kind permission of the artist © Mitchell Nolte; https://www.lashtal.com/ac-and-rose-in-the-museum/) is depicting Aleister Crowley and Rose Kelly as standing near the doorway in the east wall of the room E of the upper floor of the Egyptian Museum in Cairo in 1904, this would make the stele of Ankhufnikhonsu referred to in Crowley’s The Book of the Law appear to be located on the north wall of the room F in the same floor of this museum in 1904, instead of being correctly located next to a window on the east wall of the latter room (a wall which was also the outer east wall of this museum).


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1120
Topic starter  

"belmurru: You’re welcome."

Thank you, belmurru.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1088
 

"Thank you, belmurru."

You're very welcome, wellreadwellbred.

I don't know how Nolte came to his conclusion about the location of the image, which is in any case a very evocative painting.

Here is a fairly recent photograph, at least within the last 20 years, I can't remember where I got it from. If I had to place it, I would put it on the SW wall of room E (number 34), upstairs of course.

Maspero, in 1902, puts the case in the "middle" of Salle F, rather than against the eastern wall of the room.


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1120
Topic starter  

With respect to the image of the map from 1903 of the upper floor of the Egyptian Museum in Cairo, and the information about the location of Room F in the upper floor of that museum in the same year, generously provided by belmurru in REPLY #103611 to this thread, the artwork by the artist Mitchell Nolte mentioned by me in REPLY #103615 to this thread, appears to depict Aleister Crowley and Rose Kelly in the Cairo Museum 1904 as standing near the doorway in the east wall of what was the room E on the upper floor of this museum at that time.


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1120
Topic starter  

"The Stela is in Room 22 on the first floor of the Cairo Museum.", according to my quote above in this thread, from a post by frater_anubis posted on this site December 5, 2006 (source: The Stele, The Museum and The Book – https://www.lashtal.com/forums/topic/the-stele-the-museum-and-the-book/#post-19088).

As the "stele 666" was located in Room 22 on the first floor of the Cairo Museum early in 2006, it is likely that it was also located in the same place early in 2004. Can anyone who visited Cairo and the Egyptian Museum in 2004, confirm that the "stele 666" was located in the ground floor of this museum in 2004? (Having never visited Egypt myself, I hope to make a future visit to the new The Grand Egyptian Museum some two kilometres in the north of of the Great Pyramids of Giza ( http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-01/04/c_135952769.htm & https://www.facebook.com/GizaGEM/, & https://blooloop.com/features/grand-egyptian-museum/), which is will be partially opened in May this year( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Egyptian_Museum), and I hope that this stele will be on exhibition there).


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1120
Topic starter  

Corrections and/or further information:

Nexus93; December 3, 2006 at 5:31 am #19080: “The original Bulaq museum only had one floor; Crowley describes being led upstairs to a second floor by Rose when she introduced him to the Stele of Revealing, so there is no doubt as to which building Crowley was in–the Egyptian museum of antiquities (source: The Stele, The Museum and The Book – https://www.lashtal.com/forums/topic/the-stele-the-museum-and-the-book/#post-19080).”

Correction: "The Gizeh museum [= the original Bulaq museum] also had two floors and, when the collection was still located there, the stélé was, according to the museum catalogue, located on the upper floor. Certainly, the heavy items had been transferred in 1902 (railway spurs having been laid in for the purpose) [...] item 666 in the 1903 English translation of Maspero’s “Guide to the Cairo Museum”, which he had consulted, refers to an entirely different stela. Also, Ankh-f-n-khonsu is not listed in the quite comprehensive index [Source: Article authored by Colin S. McLeod, titled The Secret Temple, Posted by lashtal | Jun 29, 2007 (source: https://www.lashtal.com/2199-old-article/] ."

" [...] the stélé [of Ankhufnikhonsu is] listed on page 302 with the catalogue number 666. It was listed over a hundred pages from the regular item 666, and not amongst listings of other stelae. It is listed as being in Room F, Case K, a case listed as containing funeral statues and statuettes. It says that the case was on the east wall of the room [Source: Article authored by Colin S. McLeod, titled The Secret Temple, Posted by lashtal | Jun 29, 2007 (source: https://www.lashtal.com/2199-old-article/] ."

Correction?: The regular item 666 is listed on page 175 in the 1906 edition of the English translation of Maspero’s “Guide to the Cairo Museum”. The stela of Ankhufnikhonsu referred to in Crowley’s The Book of the Law, is listed on page 277 in this guide. This stele is described as being located in "Case K", which together with "Case J" is described as located in "Middle of the Room" on page 275. (Source: Book digitized by Google from the library of Harvard University and uploaded to the Internet Archive by user tpb. Guide to the Cairo Museum by Matḥaf al-Miṣrī , Gaston Maspero, A.A Quibell, Pirie Quibell, James Edward Quibell
--- https://archive.org/details/guidetocairomus00quibgoog).

I guess this might indicate that Crowley did not plan in advance to go visit the stela of Ankhufnikhonsu within the Cairo Museum in 1904, as this item was not listed as item 666. in “the 1903 English translation of Maspero’s" Guide to this museum. That is, this might indicate that he saw this stele in the Cairo Museum in 1904 by pure coincidence.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1088
 

What exactly are you looking for, wwwb?

wwwb - "this item was not listed as item 666. in “the 1903 English translation of Maspero’s” Guide to this museum"

But the Stela of "Ankhufnikhonsu", is indeed listed in Maspero's 1902 guide and its 1903 English translation as "no. 666"; it is on the upper floor, in room F, case K, in the middle of the room.

By the way, as far as I know, there is no evidence Crowley ever used Maspero's guide, whether the French version or the translation. I would assume he bought it, but I can't recall seeing him refer to it anywhere. I'm happy to be corrected.

Crowley's 1912 account in "The Temple of Solomon the King" (in The Equinox, Vol. I, No. VII, pp 357-386.) is consistent with case K being freestanding, in the middle of the room - “They went upstairs. A glass case stood in the distance, too far off for its contents to be recognized.”

In his contemporary diary, he does not describe the location, but only writes “In the museum at Cairo, No. 666 is the stele of the Priest Ankh-f-n- khonsu." (he goes on to describe the imagery).

As far as the exhibit's subsequent deplacements go, I have the picture I showed above, which is consistent with it being in the same room, although now against the western wall, south side of the arch; and there is Nexus' 2006 report of it being in a room on the ground floor.


ReplyQuote
William Thirteen
(@williamthirteen)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 1091
 

What exactly are you looking for, wwwb?

that's always been the $64,000 question...


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1120
Topic starter  

belmurru: "But the Stela of “Ankhufnikhonsu”, is indeed listed in Maspero’s 1902 guide and its 1903 English translation as “no. 666”; it is on the upper floor, in room F, case K, in the middle of the room."

On page 175 within the 1906 edition of the English translation of Maspero’s “Guide to the Cairo Museum”, the stele directly listed after the Catalogue Number 666. written in bold, is this:

"666. Siliceous Limestone. — Height 1 m. ^17 c,
breadth o m. 78 c, thickness o m. 36 c. — Mendes,

Stela found by E. Brugsch Bey at Tmal el-Amdid. It
contains a decree of Ptolemy II in honour of the ram of
Mendes and of a deified daughter of the king. Some
fragments , which were wanting on both side , were recovered
a few years ago. — Ptolemaic period."

I don't know on which page this stele is listed in the 1903 English translation of Maspero’s “Guide to the Cairo Museum”, but I presume it is listed in the same way in the 1903 edition as in the 1906 edition of the English translation of this guide book?

In the 1906 edition of the English translation of Maspero’s “Guide to the Cairo Museum”, a stele of painted wood written on both sides bearing the name Ankhufnikhonsu, priest of Montu, is not directly listed after the Catalogue Number 666. written in bold text, but it is on page 277 listed as one of the items in the "Middle of the Room (page 275)." of "ROOM F (page 276)." within the "Case K (page 276)." located within this museum's upper floor [= second floor].


ReplyQuote
⛄
 
(@jg)
Frosty the Snowman
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 144
 

If you are in the US it is online at

babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=njp.32101074229392;view=1up;seq=318;size=125

babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.tz1raj;view=1up;seq=242;size=125

In Gaston Maspero Dawn of Civilization Egypt and Chaldea (Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, London 1894) 666 numbers an image of Apis.

bull


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1088
 

wwwb: "I don’t know on which page this stele is listed in the 1903 English translation of Maspero’s “Guide to the Cairo Museum”, but I presume it is listed in the same way in the 1903 edition as in the 1906 edition of the English translation of this guide book?"

Yes, here is a link to the 1903 edition -
https://scholarship.rice.edu/jsp/xml/1911/13080/1540/MusCa1903.tei-timea.html

The limestone stela number 666 is on page 176. Ankh-f-n-Khonsu's, no. 666 is on page 302.

You can surely see, with your own eyes, in the image I posted above of page 302, following the finger pointer I have inserted into the margin, that the Stela of Anhkufnikhonsu is numbered 666. It is also numbered 666 on index card beside the stela in the display case, and on the stela itself.

Why are there two exhibits with the number 666 (and other duplicated numbers)? I have an answer. But would you accept it?


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1120
Topic starter  

belmurru: "Why are there two exhibits with the number 666 (and other duplicated numbers)?"

This is the explanation for this provided in an article authored by Colin S. McLeod, titled The Secret Temple, referred to by me in the OP of this thread: "The confusion of the index numbers was due, apparently, to the French and English Guides using different sets of numbers. As an “Important Notice” in the start of the 1903 Guide says:

“The red numbers are the present English edition; the black numbers refer to the French edition and will be removed when it is sold out.” The stélé was numbered 666 in the 1897 French guide to the Gizeh Museum but, apparently, such was the disorder of the collection at that time, its number in the French catalogue nevertheless appeared as the stélé’s number in the English Guide. Considering a criticism of the accuracy of this Guide in a letter to the editor of the Egyptian Morning News in late 1904, one should use some caution in relying upon the Guide for the location. The author of the letter calls the guide “quite useless for the purpose of identifying the objects in the museum” and commends the museum for continuing to sell stock of an out-of-date provisory guide. In the early years the museum was plagued by a leaking roof and there was extensive renovatory work and, presumably, much rearrangement of the upstairs displays. However, I have since obtained later editions of the Guide, published after 1904, and the same entry appears so it does seem probable that the location given was accurate."

I notice that another item than the stele of Ankhufnikhonsu referred to in Crowley’s The Book of the Law, is referred to as item "No. 666", "now in the Gizeh Museum", in the source provided by jg above in this thead in REPLY #103692. And now I wonder if there two exhibits or items with the number 666 already within the Gizeh Museum, before the said stele of Ankhufnikhonsu was relocated to the Cairo Museum. Because of the following statement within an article authored by Colin S. McLeod, titled The Secret Temple, referred to by me in the OP of this thread:

"Despite the common belief, based on Crowley’s account, it [= the stele of Ankhufnikhonsu referred to in Crowley’s The Book of the Law] was not item 666 in the original Boulaq museum catalogue. It did not, so far as I have been able to ascertain, receive this number until the collection was moved to Gizeh."

The item illustrated as numbered 666 within the soure referred to by jg in REPLY #103692 to this thread, contains a depiction of the sacred bull Hapis

  • , and is not in "in honour of the ram of Mendes and of a deified daughter of the king [Ptolemy II]", as the item listed as 666. in bold lettering, in the same 1903 edition of the English translation of Maspero’s “Guide to the Cairo Museum”, which also referes to one stele of Ankhufnikhonsu being numbered 666.
  • (

  • : "In general, the Egyptian religion was based on the idea of resurrection: When a person died, he or she could resurrect in the next world. When the Apis bull died, however, the Egyptians seemed to believe in reincarnation, that the bull would be born again in this world in the body of another bull." (Source: page 20, Egyptian Mythology A to Z, by by Pat Remler, Chelsea House Publishers, third edition published 1. April 2010).

  • ReplyQuote
    wellreadwellbred
    (@wellreadwellbred)
    Member
    Joined: 9 years ago
    Posts: 1120
    Topic starter  

    Correction:

    "I notice that another item than the stele of Ankhufnikhonsu referred to in Crowley’s The Book of the Law, is referred to as item “No. 666”, “now in the Gizeh Museum”, in the source provided by jg above in this thead in REPLY #103692. And now I wonder if there were two exhibits or items with the number 666 already within the Gizeh Museum, before the said stele of Ankhufnikhonsu was relocated to the Cairo Museum. Because of the following statement within an article authored by Colin S. McLeod, titled The Secret Temple, referred to by me in the OP of this thread:"


    ReplyQuote
    ⛄
     
    (@jg)
    Frosty the Snowman
    Joined: 9 years ago
    Posts: 144
     

    From what I have been able to determine from Wikipedia and Google Books (it is not my specialty) the Bull depicted above was numbered 666 in the original Boulaq Museum founded by Mariette in 1858. His Notice des Principaux Monuments de Musee de Boulaq 1876 states that items 652 to 678 are "vingt-sept dalles sculptees qui rentrent dans la categorie des modeles". Mariette set up the Egyptian Museum in 1858 in a warehouse along the bank of the Nile in the Boulaq district of Cairo. It flooded in 1878, and in 1892 the collections of the Boulaq were moved into a former royal palace in the Gizeh district of Cairo, and in 1902 they were moved again to Tahir Square in Cairo.

    It may be this very Apis Bull to whch he alludes in the 1929 Confessions account (Chapter 49 page 393) of Rose pointing out the stele numbered 666, when he asks "was her bull's-eye a fluke?"

    In the Old Comment III 74 in Equinox I Number VII (1912) he writes "Khephra is the “Sun” at midnight in the North. Now in the North is Taurus, the Bull, Apis the Redeemer, the “Son.”"

    He also writes in On the Conditions Prevailing at the Time of the Writing section 4 The Events Leading up to the Writing of the Book April 7ᵗʱ entry that possibly bull's blood was burned for incense, that he "remembers nothing at all one way or other. Bull's blood was burnt sometime in this sojourne in Cairo, I forget why or when."

    Crowley attended King's College London in the very year Maspero's work with the illustration of the 666 Bull was published in London. I would hazard to guess that not only is there a high probability that it is one of the books he purchased "by the ton" at the time he went up to Cambridge the next year, but also that he read it.


    ReplyQuote
    belmurru
    (@belmurru)
    Member
    Joined: 14 years ago
    Posts: 1088
     

    Concerning jg's note above, the image is from an 1872 photograph published in Auguste Mariette, Album du musée de Boulaq, comprenant quarante planches photographiées par MM. Délie et Béchard, avec un texte explicatif rédigé par Auguste Mariette-Bey (Cairo, 1872), Plance 24.

    It is clear that the Apis bull sculptor's model already had the number "666" in 1872.

    The text Maspero refers to in jg's excerpt, in note 3, is Mariette's Notice des principaux monunments , p. 222 -

    The group of 27 sculptor's models is numbered 652-678, and includes the Apis 666. It is not noted individually.


    ReplyQuote
    wellreadwellbred
    (@wellreadwellbred)
    Member
    Joined: 9 years ago
    Posts: 1120
    Topic starter  

    belmurru: "Why are there two exhibits with the number 666 (and other duplicated numbers)? I have an answer. But would you accept it?"

    I can't know if I will accept the answer you have with respect to the question"Why are there two exhibits with the number 666 (and other duplicated numbers)?", unless you provide me with it.

    And thank you for in REPLY #103747 to this thread, providing "the image is from an 1872 photograph published in Auguste Mariette, Album du musée de Boulaq, comprenant quarante planches photographiées par MM. Délie et Béchard, avec un texte explicatif rédigé par Auguste Mariette-Bey (Cairo, 1872), Plance 24."

    So the item (= a limestone stele) that is listed after the Catalogue Number 666. written in bold, on page 176 within the 1903 edition of the English translation of Maspero’s “Guide to the Cairo Museum”, is identical with the object numbered 666 in the above already mentioned image provided by you in REPLY #103747 to this thread?


    ReplyQuote
    ⛄
     
    (@jg)
    Frosty the Snowman
    Joined: 9 years ago
    Posts: 144
     

    Excellent belmurru. In my rush going through the Album to post the photograph it has of the Stele of Ankh ef en Khonsu I did not pay heed to the other photos except to discard them as not being stelæ - and lo and behold I see you post the actual photograph of Emil Brugsch-Bey of the original dalle sculptée! Before posting the photo of the Stele from the album I checked and saw you had already posted it at least as far back as 2014. Here is a scaled up image of the section of the photo with the Bull

    bull


    ReplyQuote
    wellreadwellbred
    (@wellreadwellbred)
    Member
    Joined: 9 years ago
    Posts: 1120
    Topic starter  

    (Question to belmurru, from me in REPLY #103748 to this thread:) "So the item (= a limestone stele) that is listed after the Catalogue Number 666. written in bold, on page 176 within the 1903 edition of the English translation of Maspero’s “Guide to the Cairo Museum”, is identical with the object numbered 666 in the above already mentioned image provided by you in REPLY #103747 to this thread?"

    Ooooops, correction: That can not be the case, as the item (= a limestone stele) that is listed after the Catalogue Number 666. written in bold, on page 176 within the 1903 edition of the English translation of Maspero’s “Guide to the Cairo Museum”, is listed as:

    "666. Siliceous Limestone. — Height 1 m. 47 c.,
    breadth 0 m. 78 cent., thickness 0 m. 36 cent. —
    Mendes.

    Stela found by E. Brugsch Bey at Tmai el-Amdid.
    It contains a decree of Ptolemy Il in honour of the ram
    of Mendes and of a deified daughter of the king. Some
    fragments, which were wanting on both side, were recovered
    a few years ago. — Ptolemaic period."

    But still; I can’t know if I will accept the answer you have with respect to the question“Why are there two exhibits with the number 666 (and other duplicated numbers)?”, unless you provide me with it.

    belmurru: “Why are there two exhibits with the number 666 (and other duplicated numbers)? I have an answer. But would you accept it?”


    ReplyQuote
    belmurru
    (@belmurru)
    Member
    Joined: 14 years ago
    Posts: 1088
     

    No, jg's 666 Apis bull is not the same as the limestone 666 of the 1903 Guide.

    Long story short, the number of the Ptolemy II stela was changed in the winter of 1902-1903 from 284 to 666. That is, it was 284 in the French Guide, and 666 in the English Guide.

    Here is the entry in 1902, page 105, item 284 -

    Maspero wrote the introduction for both the French and English editions, and explains how the ground floor exhibits received a new classification during the winter.

    It is a shame that Colin McLeod seemed not to know of Maspero’s 1902 French edition; if he had seen it, he would have known that the Stela of Ankh-f-n-Khonsu was numbered 666 and located in the same place in the museum as in the 1903 English edition of the Guide. Thus the “red numbers” is a red herring in this case, whatever other faults the 1902 Guide possessed.

    He cites the 1897 edition of Loret’s Notice as evidence that the stela was by then numbered 666; he could just as well have cited the 1892 edition. In any case, it bore the number 666 well before 1904, although I cannot trace when exactly. The 1872 Album (the first image here -
    https://www.lashtal.com/images/gallery/ankhefenkhons-i/ - ) shows that the number had not yet been affixed to the stela itself, although it must have had *some* number in the museum’s scientific catalogue.

    Here is the entry from the 1892 edition of Loret's Notice.

    I have not yet found the sculptor's models in the post-1902 catalogues, to see whether they bore the same numbers as in 1872.


    ReplyQuote
    ignant666
    (@ignant666)
    Tangin
    Joined: 15 years ago
    Posts: 3563
     

    Can someone explain why all this matters?

    I assume there is some subtext that something about the exhibit tags, and guidebooks, and position of the Stele in the Museum proves (in the eyes of someone) that AC was lying about something about the origins of AL, because that is what this sort of picking of nits is usually about, but i can't see how any of this could offer any evidence of that one way or the other.

    Very "inside baseball" stuff (sorry non_Americans, i meant "obscure stuff incomprehensible to 95% of readers"), to say the least. Another version of those watermarks that were going to blow AC's story sky-high a couple years ago, except the watermark evidence still hasn't arrived?


    ReplyQuote
    belmurru
    (@belmurru)
    Member
    Joined: 14 years ago
    Posts: 1088
     

    For my part, ignant666, I am as bewildered as you and others are about what wwwb is after. My best guess is that he is wondering - for the umpteenth time? - whether there is anything, anything at all, to the suspicions that have been periodically raised about the veracity of AC's account since about 2000. Colin McLeod cites Jess Karlin (alias for Glenn Wright) as first pointing out that the 1903 Maspero Guide has another stela after "666" - but did sloppy work and didn't notice that later on in the same book the stela of Ankh-f-n-Khonsu is also mentioned and called "no. 666". But there is always someone who comes across an old blog post or something and wonders what the answer is.

    Why it matters? Just to get clarity, by going over what is already known, as well as learing new details. I am always willing to go into minutiae, as you probably know.

    Basically, some of the items in the museum's collection over time and three changes of location, have borne the same numbers as others in the collection. This might be confusing to a reader of the various guidebooks, but to visitors it wouldn't matter, since they would be reading it in the room concerned. Number 666 in room F, case K, upstairs, is not the same as Number 666 in gallery T downstairs. The tourist for whom the guidebook is intended wonders "what am I looking at here?".

    When our stèle (of Revealing) got its number 666 is not known (yet), but it was at least by 1892, which is all that matters for our purposes. Where exactly it was in the museum matters not at all, except to say that AC's description of going upstairs and seeing the case in the distance is consistent with the 1902/1903 guidebook's placement of it in a display case in the center of the room (rather than, say, against a wall).


    ReplyQuote
    ignant666
    (@ignant666)
    Tangin
    Joined: 15 years ago
    Posts: 3563
     

    Thank you, belmurru. At least now i know i am not missing some obvious "smoking gun" in all this stuff, if someone as knowledgeable as you can't figure it out either.

    I guess we will have to see if WRWB will explain what the point here is, and also see if we can understand it if he does.

    WRWB's posts are frequently very cryptic. I know he is posting in a second language but there is also the fact that his posts consist mostly of quotations from others. At least he stopped using that anorexic avatar that used to give me the creeps.


    ReplyQuote
    wellreadwellbred
    (@wellreadwellbred)
    Member
    Joined: 9 years ago
    Posts: 1120
    Topic starter  

    The image provide by belmurru in REPLY #103747 to this thread does not contain any "decree of Ptolemy Il in honour of the ram of Mendes and of a deified daughter of the king Ptolemy Il", but it contains two relief plaques depicting a Ram, one numbered 682 and one numbered 683.

    Can anyone provide an image of the item listed as 666. on page 176 within the 1903 edition of the English translation of Maspero’s “Guide to the Cairo Museum”?:

    666. Siliceous Limestone. — Height 1 m. 47 c., breadth 0 m. 78 cent., thickness 0 m. 36 cent. — Mendes. Stela found by E. Brugsch Bey at Tmai el-Amdid. It contains a decree of Ptolemy Il in honour of the ram of Mendes and of a deified daughter of the king. Some fragments, which were wanting on both side, were recovered a few years ago. — Ptolemaic period.” (Source, page 176 within the 1903 edition of the English translation of Maspero’s “Guide to the Cairo Museum”.)

    In REPLY #103741 to this thread, jg states that "the Bull depicted above was numbered 666 in the original Boulaq Museum founded by Mariette in 1858" jg does in that reply also state that "in 1892 the collections of the Boulaq were moved into a former royal palace in the Gizeh district of Cairo, and in 1902 they were moved again to Tahir Square in Cairo." Does this indicate that the Cairo Museum can have contained three items numbered 666 in 1904?


    ReplyQuote
    belmurru
    (@belmurru)
    Member
    Joined: 14 years ago
    Posts: 1088
     

    wrwb: "The image provide by belmurru in REPLY #103747 to this thread does not contain any “decree of Ptolemy Il in honour of the ram of Mendes and of a deified daughter of the king Ptolemy Il”

    It was not supposed to. My post was a response to jg's post on an Apis bull numbered 666.

    wrwb: "Can anyone provide an image of the item listed as 666. on page 176 within the 1903 edition of the English translation of Maspero’s “Guide to the Cairo Museum”?"

    Perhaps someone can, but I don't feel like doing any more work on it, although I'll admit that I have spent over an hour on the question. To help you in your search, my guess is that this stela is what is known as "The Great Stela of Mendes", "mendesstele" in German, and it currently bears the number 22181. It is large and famous among Egyptologists, and it has been published several times over the past century and a half, but I could not find a picture of it with any number on it, so I'll leave that to you.

    wrwb: "Does this indicate that the Cairo Museum can have contained three items numbered 666 in 1904?"

    It could well be. But, since I haven't found the sculptor's models in the 1902 and 1903 catalogues yet, I suspect that they were reclassified by then with different numbers, so only two exhibits might have had the number 666 (the stela of Ptolemy II, and the stela of Ankh-f-n-Khonsu).

    Basically, wellreadwellbred, the classification numbers on many objects changed as the museum's collection evolved. The stela of Ankh-f-n-Khonsu remained relatively stable, having number 666 since at least 1892.

    Beyond that, I don't know what aim your persistent questioning has. There is nothing suspicious in any of this that I can see.


    ReplyQuote
    ignant666
    (@ignant666)
    Tangin
    Joined: 15 years ago
    Posts: 3563
     

    WRWB: Do you intend to answer the question belmurru and i have posed? Why does any of this matter? Do you have some point you are trying to make?

    There may have been two exhibit 666s in 1904. You speculate [in a post WRWB seems to have deleted in between belmurru's and this one?] that AC would have been more likely to notice one than the other, and was "selective" in only mentioning one.

    Even if your speculation is correct (and there is no good reason to think it is): So what?


    ReplyQuote
    wellreadwellbred
    (@wellreadwellbred)
    Member
    Joined: 9 years ago
    Posts: 1120
    Topic starter  

    My point is that there being two exhibit 666s of steles in the museum in Cairo that Crowley supposedly visited in 1904, doubled his chance of coming across a stele numbered 666 to get all excited about. If one of the said two exhibit 666s of steles was the "The Great Stela of Mendes" - as is the guess by belmurru in REPLY #103780 to this thread - this latter stele does also contain depictions of Horus and Horus symbolism, an Egyptian god important in the holy text Crowley actually ended up apparently constructing on the basis of an exhibit 666 of another stele in the same museum at the same time, supposedly in 1904.


    ReplyQuote
    ignant666
    (@ignant666)
    Tangin
    Joined: 15 years ago
    Posts: 3563
     

    Thank you for the reply, WRWB.

    OK, there were twice as many chances to find an exhibit 666 "to get all excited about".

    But once again: So what? Does this give us some grounds to doubt AC's account of AL's "reception"/"construction"?

    Are you sure AL was constructed (to use your verb) "on the basis of an exhibit 666 [in a] museum"? This seems to me a pretty debatable, and probably wrong, statement. Why would you say this? Why would it matter?


    ReplyQuote
    wellreadwellbred
    (@wellreadwellbred)
    Member
    Joined: 9 years ago
    Posts: 1120
    Topic starter  

    ignant666: "Thank you for the reply, WRWB."

    You’re very welcome, ignant666.

    ignant666: "OK, there were twice as many chances to find an exhibit 666 “to get all excited about”."

    Not only twice as many chances to find an exhibit 666 “to get all excited about”, but twice as many chances to find an exhibit 666-stele “to get all excited about”, to be exact.

    ignant666: But once again: So what? Does this give us some grounds to doubt AC’s account of AL‘s “reception”/”construction”?

    That Crowley mentions nothing about the other more famous exhibit 666-stele in the same museum at the same time, when he supposedly visited it in 1904, gives some ground to doubt AC’s account of The Book of the Law‘s “reception”/”construction”. But AC’s account of his wife in a museum in Cairo in 1904 finding the stele of one Ankhufnikhonsu when looking for an image of Horus could very well be true. This because this stele according to the description in the 1903 edition of the English translation of Maspero’s “Guide to the Cairo Museum”, was the only stele in Room F. in the second floor of the Cairo Museum. And this because this stele appears to be the only item in this room embellished with a rather large depiction of Horus in the form of Ra-Horakhty. So this stele would be easy to notice for Crowley's wife if she just walked around looking in this room.

    ignant666: "Are you sure AL was constructed (to use your verb) “on the basis of an exhibit 666 [in a] museum”? This seems to me a pretty debatable, and probably wrong, statement. Why would you say this? Why would it matter?"

    It is a correct statement apparently, based on the following written by Crowley about that the discovery of one stele [= one of the apparently two exhibit 666-steles in the Cairo Museum in 1904] led to his The Book of the Law being authored, right before the text of LIBER L. VEL LEGIS(/The Book of the Law) in his Liber L: 1907 Galley Proof for Collected Works (Aleister Crowley):

    "We are indebted to the kindness of Brugsch Bey and M. [Delormant] for the above translation of the stele whose discovery led to the creation of the ritual by which Aiwass, the author of Liber L., was invoked."

    This matters because Crowley in his Liber L: 1907 Galley Proof for Collected Works (Aleister Crowley), makes the writing of his The Book of the Law dependant on the discovery of one stele [= one of the apparently two exhibit 666-steles in the Cairo Museum in 1904].


    ReplyQuote
    ignant666
    (@ignant666)
    Tangin
    Joined: 15 years ago
    Posts: 3563
     

    Thank you for the unusually clear post, WRWB. However, while this last post is much easier to understand than most of your posts, i am still confused by much of what you say.

    So you would agree that the fact that there may have been two exhibit 666s in the museum is actually of no significance whatever, in light of all that follows the word "But" in your sixth paragraph?

    I am not sure how the part before that word gives "some ground to doubt AC’s account of The Book of the Law‘s 'reception'/'construction'"- why would this be so?

    No one would dispute that the Stele had a role in the "'reception'/'construction'" of AL. I don't think you give any very good evidence that "t is a correct statement apparently" that the Stele was "the basis" of AL- there is an awful lot there that has no relation whatever to anything on the Stele.

    What do you mean when you mention "The Book of the Law being authored, right before the text of LIBER L. VEL LEGIS(/The Book of the Law)" [emphasis added]?

    Are you saying "The Book of the Law" and "LIBER L. VEL LEGIS(/The Book of the Law)" are two different things? Why would you say this?


    ReplyQuote
    wellreadwellbred
    (@wellreadwellbred)
    Member
    Joined: 9 years ago
    Posts: 1120
    Topic starter  

    ignant666: "Are you saying “The Book of the Law” and “LIBER L. VEL LEGIS(/The Book of the Law)” are two different things? Why would you say this?"

    No, I am trying to say that LIBER L. VEL LEGIS and The Book of the Law are the same thing.

    ignant666: "So you would agree that the fact that there may have been two exhibit 666s in the museum is actually of no significance whatever, in light of all that follows the word “But” in your sixth paragraph?

    No, in light of all that follows the word “But” in my in my sixth paragraph in my above on this page REPLY #103788 to this thread, I would not agree that the fact that there may have been two exhibit 666s in the museum is actually of no significance whatever.

    In The Equinox Of The Gods, CHAPTER 6, Crowley's most official account of The Book of the Law's “reception”/”construction”, is the following statement:

    "how are we to explain what followed–the discovery of the Stele of Revealing?

    To apply test 4, Fra.P. took her to the museum at Boulak, which they had not previously visited. She passed by (as P. noted with silent glee) several images of Horus. They went upstairs. A glass case stood in the distance, too far off for its contents to be recognized. But W. recognized it ! “There,” she cried, “There he is !”

    Fra. P. advanced to the case. There was the image of Horus in the form of Ra Hoor Khuit painted upon a wooden stele of the 26th dynasty–and the exhibit bore the number 666! (666 had been taken by Fra. P. as the number of His own Name (The Beast) long years before, in His childhood. There could be no physical causal connection here ; and coincidence, sufficient to explain this one isolated fact, becomes inadequate in view of the other evidence.)"

    The so-called "discovery of the Stele of Revealing", referring to to a stele which is embellished with a rather large depiction of a form of the god Horus, can easily be explained even if Crowley's wife supposedly in 1904 in the Cairo Museum, just by coincidence walked upstairs looking for an images of Horus, as most of the collection of steles was contained downstairs, according to the description[-s] within the 1903 edition of the English translation of Maspero’s “Guide to the Cairo Museum”, were few:

    "I GROUND FLOOR.
    The Ground Floor of the Museum contains the whole collection of the weightier monuments, statues, stelae, stone sarcophagi and architectural fragments. These have been arranged chronologically, so that, beginning on the left of the main entrance we find first the objects belonging to the Memphite period, then, in succession, those of the two Theban Empires, of the Saitic and Graeco-Roman periods and lastly on the extreme right, those dating from Coptic times." (Source: First page of the first chapter titled EGYPTIAN MUSEUM CAIRO, in the 1903 edition of the English translation of Maspero’s “Guide to the Cairo Museum”).

    The so-called "Stele of Revealing" would also be easy to notice for Crowley’s wife if she just walked into and looked around for an image of Horus in Room F. in the second floor of the Cairo Museum, supposedly in 1904, because this stele according to the description in the 1903 edition of the English translation of Maspero’s “Guide to the Cairo Museum”, was the only stele in Room F. in the second floor of the Cairo Museum. And also because this stele compared to the said description of the items in the already mentioned Room F., appears to be the only item in this room embellished with a rather large depiction of Horus in the form of Ra-Horakhty.

    Crowley: "(666 had been taken by Fra. P. as the number of His own Name (The Beast) long years before, in His childhood. There could be no physical causal connection here ; and coincidence, sufficient to explain this one isolated fact, becomes inadequate in view of the other evidence.)"

    The above evidence already just presented by me, with resepect to why the "Stele of Revealing" would also be easy to notice for Crowley’s wife just by coincidence, and documentary evidence that there were two exhibit 666 steles at the same time in the museum in Cairo that Crowley supposedly visited in 1904, argue against Crowley's claim that coincidence becomes inadequate to explain why this stele was numbered 666.

    The presence of two exhibit 666 steles in the same museum at the same time, might be due to a coincidence caused by problems with the task of correcting the original classification of the collection, as referred to in this quote from the preface to the 1903 edition of the English translation of Maspero’s “Guide to the Cairo Museum”: "We have given up the whole of the year 1903 to the task of correcting, as well as might be, the original classification, which was anything but satisfactory."


    ReplyQuote
    ignant666
    (@ignant666)
    Tangin
    Joined: 15 years ago
    Posts: 3563
     

    Thank you for making your argument more clearly.

    I don't find it very convincing, but at least now i understand what you are trying to say.


    ReplyQuote
    Share: