The Wandering Archaeologist

the other guy:

Based on current research¹

So here's the translation I hate:

The first line (from both my image and this one in transliteration reads as follows: ir iri=k Hm.t m Spn.t

'ir' (the first two signs, one reed leaf, one mouth sign) is a conditional clause marker, giving the sentence the meaning of 'if'.

'iri' (the eye) is the verb 'to do/to make/to possess'. This is followed by pronoun =k 'you' (the basket beneath the eye).

Hm.t (the well with water, the semi circle of bread, and the seated woman) is 'woman'.

m (the owl) is a preposition meaning 'in' but...there's grammar stuff here I'm not gonna explain. It's unnecessary for the context.

Spn.t (the oblong pool of water, the seat sign beneath, the water sign beneath that, the semi circle of bread, and a pustule) is a relative form of the verb Spn and means 'one who is voluptuous woman'.

I'm not kidding, this is the dictionary entry for it on the Thesaurus Linguae Aegyptia.

We know it means that a) because it's used in other contexts to describe voluptuous woman (fatness is a sign of health and wealth in Ancient Egypt) and b) the pustule determinative marks it out as word that has something to do with the body or bodily functions. It's a word that describes the body, not a personality.

Here's a different translation, but for the same passge of the same text:

So, with that said, a translation of 'party girl' is so far removed from the context and meaning of the original text that the translator has simply written what they liked as a meaning. There's really no justification for it. It is quite literally nothing at all like the original text and it infuriates me to see a wisdom text from a civilisation whose culture modern discussion on barely gets out of 'they're obsessed with death and cats, and oh did we mention aliens and curses' reduced to 'party girl'.

If you wanted a better, idiomised translation, I'd go with:

'Find a wife from a wealthy family, one who is liked by all those in the town. Never divorce her! Treat her well! Life will be good for both of you.'

A comprehensive list of all uses of Spn.t within the Egyptian, in context, with commentary.

An essay on the socioeconomic implications associated with 'fat rolls' depicted on tomb reliefs and statuary. Your work must include reference to how this changed from the Old Kingdom through to the Middle Kingdom when the Maxims of Ptahhotep were written, and also accurately reflect the Ancient Egyptian understanding of wealth and social status.

A further essay on the understanding of this passage when viewed in context of the maxims that surround it. Do they support your translation, if so, how? Demonstrate this through linguistic analysis - grammar and historical commentary are required. Read other sAby.t written around the same time. Do their translations also back up your suggested translation? If so, how?

A complete etymological breakdown of how you get from 'voluptuous woman' to 'party girl' referncing Ancient Egyptian sources to back up your point. I'd especially like to see where else in the Egyptian corpus Spn.t is used in such a manner that such a meaning can be conveyed. It would be best if you looked into versions written after the Middle Kingdom too, so I would hope that your Late Egyptian is also sufficient to undertake that task.

Finally, I'd like an extensive bibliography. Having done this myself, the tertiary sources are mostly in German, then French, then finally in English.

This is what I mean when I say people act as though only white Western dudebros do history, and there's definitely a component of US-centrism at play here. The Egyptian Egyptology field for example is thriving; but somehow people forget that non-Western countries can do science? That they can have museums? That they can and do study their own cultures and/or those of others?

An Egyptian Carnelian Ring

A finger ring with rounded hoop, the convex bezel carved in the form of a pair of Eyes of Horus with finely-engraved detail, linear and chevron ornament on the shoulders.

New Kingdom, ca. 1550-1070 BC.

Basically, the solution to carving gemstones was the same as carving the larger stone...but smaller. A bow drill made from a copper/bronze wire encased in wood, a bow to make it move back and forth, and various types of silica as the abrasive (which have a Mohs hardness that is higher than Carnelian). They could also use tools made from harder stone than the stone they were working with, especially in the early stages where they'd want to make the stone the required size.

Anyway, at this point I'm going to directly quote from J.Harrell (2012). 'Gemstones', in UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology (pp. 15-16), because it'll just be easier for me:

"Raw pieces of gemstone were first roughly shaped by a combination of chipping and grinding, the latter probably done on a slab of silicified sandstone. Hand-powered drills were used to pierce beads and other objects carved from gemstones. Such drills were equipped with a bit consisting of either a chip of chert or a copper/bronze wire that was used together with fine quartz sand, which did the actual cutting under the impulse of the wire bit. Bavay et al. (2000: 12 - 13) report a notable collection of tiny chert drill bits and partially drilled amethyst, carnelian, obsidian, and rock crystal beads and flakes that were recovered from a deposit at Hierakonpolis dating to either the Early Dynastic Period or Old Kingdom (now in the Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, London, UC 14877). Drills were originally driven by hand with a back-and-forth twisting motion. This is depicted in the right vignette of the 6th-Dynasty tomb scene in Figure 26, where the hieroglyphic text above says “lapidaries (msnSdw) boring (wbA) carnelian (Hrst).” The rotation was done more efficiently with bows, where the bowstrings were intertwined around one or more drill shafts, and this process is illustrated in an 18th-Dynasty tomb scene in Figure 27. The gemstone being drilled is not specified, but the orange color of the finished bead strings to the right of the workmen suggests that it was carnelian. Although the ancient Egyptian bead drills were primitive and cumbersome, they were nevertheless effective as experimentally demonstrated by Gorelick and Gwinnett (1990) and Stocks (2003: 203 - 224). Figures 26 and 27 also illustrate the final step in the preparation of beads: polishing. In Figure 26, the text above the left vignette says “lapidaries polishing (snaa) carnelian” but it is not clear how this was accomplished from the drawing. The two workmen appear to be rubbing pieces of carnelian across the surface of a rock slab, and if this was a hard rock like silicified sandstone, then it seems only a rough smoothing effect could be achieved by this means. If, however, fine quartz sand had been added to the slab’s surface then this could conceivably result in polishing. In Figure 27, the worker at the center of the scene is bent over a table and rubbing the beads over one another by hand, and in this way polishing them. On the ground, below him and the workers with bow drills, are vessels, apparently with spoons, which must be for the quartz sand abrasive. Thus sand was added not only to the drill holes, but also to the mass of beads being polished. These same manufacturing techniques would have been applied to other gemstone objects. Carving and engraving, in the case of seals and other glyptic works, was probably done with a chert graver or perhaps the same kind of drill used to perforate beads. Polishing may also have been done the same way as it was for beads, but for the larger objects it was probably accomplished through rubbing with a fine quartz sand paste applied, perhaps, with a piece of cloth or leather."

The figures mentioned are as follows:

The paper is found here:

We’re all professionals, but sometimes you catch yourself realizing how weird things are looking when handling human remains

Trying to shake out clumped together dirt from someone skull

Brushing someone’s teeth with an actual toothbrush, something they have never done in their lives

Comparing someone’s bones to yours

Judging their dental hygiene

When the earworm of the day is Johnny Cash’ s “Ain’t No Grave”.

Scooping someone’s eye sockets clean with a spoon (or just their whole brain)

When some bones are just … off … you judge hard

Egyptology, by and large, encompasses from the start of the Pre-Dynastic period (c.6012 BCE) to roughly the end of the Roman Period (c.500 CE). So we cover about 6500 years of history give or take a few years. Due to this, you'll find that most Egyptologists will have a specific period they specialise in or a specific topic they specialise in, because I don't know about you, but expecting one person to know everything from c.6012 BCE to c.500 CE is A Lot. Some people will not include Graeco-Roman Egypt (anything from 305 BCE onwards) in 'Ancient Egypt' because it's no longer true Egyptian rule, but as far as the discipline goes no one here is saying those who study that part of history aren't Egyptologists. To me they are, they're just studying a wildly culturally different era of Egypt's history.

Zosimos of Panopolis would sort of fall under the purview of Egyptology, but more for someone who specialised in the Graeco-Roman period rather than someone like me who specialises in the Late New Kingdom. There's a 1000 years between my specialism and when Zosimos is said to have lived. I would also expect it to be someone who focused on Greek alchemy rather than just any old Ptolemaic Egyptologist. For that, someone really does have to be specialised, or have enough knowledge to know how to look the information up. I, for instance, would have no clue where to start, but I know people that would. Not sure about the Temple of Alchemists though.

Coptic studies lasts until the end of the Roman period. I studied Sahidic Coptic when I was at uni in order to help me learn Late Egyptian since the languages are connected. When I went to conferences, there were people doing papers on Coptic monk's wine lists and labels. So yes it is included, but only to an extent.

While what is explained above is all very true and definitely a reflection of how most of Egyptology nowadays is conceptualised, I personally feel like Egyptology should not be separated out from larger Egyptian history -- the way in which we have separated 'Ancient Egypt' and 'Modern Egypt' really is part of the colonial project and I kind of hope that over time we can get better at this and not separate them like that.

Obviously we all need a specialisation, as is said above we really cannot be specialists in 6000+ years of history, but this is not a thing that happens much outside Egypt and the Classics. If I am studying 'Dutch Archaeology', that encompasses everything from pre-history up to 50 years ago (anything older than 50 years is considered archaeology), If I were to be doing Japan Studies, that would also not be subject to a time cutoff.

Given the history of Western imperialism in Egypt, that question is rather redundant. If your measure for visiting somewhere is 'respectfulness of how the collection was acquired' then you're not exactly going to find many places. They're in Egypt. You'd have to go to Egypt. Though some may still argue on those too.

I'm also not familiar with the entirety of the collections or the ethical nature of the acquisitions for every museum globally. That's something you would have to look up yourself independently if it's something that is of huge concern to you.

It also depends on what is defined as an ethically acquired artefact. For me, that would include partion agreement artefacts, but for others it wouldn't. Do we include things like gifts the Egyptian government freely gave in the late 1800s, but now want back because subsequent governments decided they didn't like that decision? Do we include shabtis that were bought in Egypt from Egyptians in 1567 by a traveller and then brought back and kept in a family for several generations before being gifted to a museum as ethical? Pinning something like that down would be incredibly difficult and no two people would agree.

The British Museum is prevented by law from removing anything from its collections. This governmental policy is not indicative of some of the very important work going on behind the scenes that the public may never be privy to. It may also manifest in less dramatic ways, like updated exhibits and curatorial practices that are more culturally sensitive.

Similarly, many American institutions have collections with unethical origins AND people actively working on 1) inventorying those collections to 2) make contact with the relevant groups to 3) begin building the necessary relationships to 4) repatriate the artifacts. I have worked with some of these people and they are incredibly thoughtful, but are working in a sensitive situation that takes time and care to navigate.

Lottie, I know you're not from the US and I don't want to hijack the post, but I also want to briefly add a note on behalf of museum and heritage professionals in the United States. Museums in this country are under attack and at serious risk of going under. The dissolution of these institutions will not facilitate the return of artifacts, and boycotting them to protest things that staff members (whose jobs are increasingly threatened) are actively trying to rectify ultimately does more harm than good.

You're completely fine! It's a terrible time for museums in general (lack of funding, hostile political environment, hostile public who've been led by a hostile political environment and misinformation on the internet) but in the US, museums and the artefacts contained within them are in peril. It's not the time to be hand wringing over the ethical origins of those artefacts when a governmental meme department are cutting through swathes of funding and other legislation that keeps museums open.

If this keeps happening, museums in the US will be forced to close and sell off their collections. Those artefacts will not be going back to their country of origin. No. They'll be going into the hands of private collectors (usually the ones making the hostile political environments) and you will likely never see them again. That's the sad reality of the situation.