Building a Theban Lattice Stool
woodenfossils.wordpress.com
woodenfossils.wordpress.com
I just want to point out though that the submitted URL is not a permalink. For now it's nice that it means all installments in this blog post 'series' are listed one after the other, but it won't make sense once there are any future posts that may have nothing to do with stools or Egypt.
Here's the first post permalink: https://woodenfossils.wordpress.com/2021/09/21/building-a-th...
Also,
> Geoffrey Killen made a very useful observation about EA2476 on pg 44 of Egyptian Woodworking and Furniture “Some of these (lattice braces) are tenoned into mortises in the horizontal elements while others are simply wedged into position.” I’m not sure exactly what he meant by “wedged” in this instance but it got me thinking…
I would read that as meaning no joinery - put in at a relaxed angle and then biffed into position ('wedged') a sort of press fit so that it's held there by its own compression.
TFA author's take on it (the 'stub tenon') seems better though.
As of now it still links to https://woodenfossils.wordpress.com .
>> For now it's nice that it means all installments in this blog post 'series' are listed one after the other, but it won't make sense once there are any future posts that may have nothing to do with stools or Egypt.
Surely the right link would be https://woodenfossils.wordpress.com/category/woodwork/theban... ?
I wish we had more furniture like this - it could last much, much longer than the expensive “integrated” stuff we have to put up with today…
https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/544800
Apparently lattice stools were the most popular type in ancient Egypt.
AWESOME stool though.
https://www.metafilter.com/192756/Copying-a-mid-century-stoo...
There is something touching about how 3000 years earlier, the wealthy were not above their affections!
Considering the Nile and the ever-present schistosomiasis, this is almost certainly painfully true.
So a lot of what the Egyptian government is trying to do is educate their own people on the importance and value of artifacts and to not just sell them to tourists for a song and dance.
Many taken during the British occupation. But throughout history, just stolen/smuggled out. Egypt was also occupied by the Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Ottomans, and French. And aside from the occupations, there's a pretty vibrant smuggling trade.
Egypt keeps trying to repatriate these artifacts but with very limited success (https://english.alaraby.co.uk/analysis/egypt-wants-its-stole...). As an Egyptian it's both interesting/frustrating to find museums outside Egypt with more stuff than many museums in Egypt. For instance, it was a little intriguing when visiting the Vatican museum, to find they had a pretty large Ancient Egyptian collection for some reason.
Egyptians (and our Egyptologists) think we are related to Ancient Egyptians, despite that over the years, African, North African, European, and Asian DNA has mixed in. Some Western scholars disagree.
But that's not the point.
I grew up in an apartment where on a clear day, you could look West and see the step pyramid at Saqqara. I drove in a street parallel to the aqueduct on my way to my grandmother's house each week. I passed Saladin's citadel regularly driving through the city. My high school graduation picture was on the first step of the Great Pyramid.
So I could give f_uck all whether I'm related by DNA to the people who built those. It's part of my heritage.
I recently read the book “Sunset Oasis” by an Egyptian author which was the basis for a TV series too apparently which was a good take on this.
How would you reconcile that with other nations or people who currently have ownership of said artifacts, and have a heritage of conquering / empires / archaeology / tomb raiding / whatever you might call it? Someone might see the British Museum out the window of their apartment and have photos of themselves in the Egypt exhibit.
I'm not trying to be mocking or trivialize the issue or your answer, just trying to explore this idea.
Your comment is offensive and nonsensical. Why on earth would genetic relations matter in any way for something like this? As far as I know basically nowhere on Earth is it possible to trace direct genetic lineages back thousands of years to some specific ancient population living in the same area.
Perhaps things are different in Australia, or other isolated places, but I think pretty much anywhere in Eurasia + Africa you will get an endless flow and mixing of populations, cultures, religions etc. With this in mind, it's safe to say that your view would justify all kinds of imperialist atrocities.
I think at any given moment in time what matters is whether the population currently inhabiting that place voluntarily and democratically decided to relinquish/sell certain artifacts. Whether that population is genetically related to the people who created the artifacts is irrelevant.
It's actually very relevant and common practice around the world for people whose ancestors were displaced or wronged to feel the need to seek reparations or have some kind of restoration or acknowledgement.
In Australia since you bring it up, there actually has been extremely significant flows of people. Notably, Europeans displaced a lot of Aboriginal people from their land, and similarly took various historical artifacts. In recent times there has been a trend to return those and return some claim to the land, to the people whose descendants were replaced. The idea that someone can just sit on the land and say nope that's old history I own the land now your ancestral home and your great great grandfather's spear was never yours anyway so I'm keeping it, is just weird. It's completely normal to feel, and many people do have a deep connection to their ancestors, even if you don't.
Or apply similar to Palestine and Israel. Or any number of similar cases around the world.
I am curious what other people feel about the issue of "nativeness". As a European American I obviously am interested in understanding how the world views the rights my children might have to the land in which they will be born. Is there a time limit for when an occupier or invader becomes a native? The question of whether or not Ancient Egypt belongs in some way to modern Egypt(the government or its people) is perhaps less politically sensitive than asking whether myself, my people or my government bear some connection to the culture of ancient North Americans.
It is a relevant question I believe. One could ask how such issues relate to other cultures around the world. As the descendants of conquerors, I am compelled by circumstances to believe "might makes right" or else I would have to consider returning to the land to which I have ancient connections.
I understand this is a sensitive question and likely to trigger folks who believe I am trying to lay a rhetorical trap or secretly push some right or left wing agenda but I am simply trying to think through what I believe to be right.
The idea that because somebody is or claims to be offended by another person's curiosity about the world, that we must stop asking questions ("or else") is, to me, offensive.
Keep questioning everything. Social theories and traditions and status quo should be no safer from questioning than anything else. Stand up to those stuck in their ways or feel their position in the status quo is threatened by people's curiosity. In my experience, people who claim a line of questioning is offensive are usually not offended but scared and probably unwilling or unable to provide answers or defend their position with reason.
Your question isn't a rhetorical trap at all, it was actually very interesting and thoughtful, and possibly exposes some inconsistencies in the way these kinds of historical right to ownership are thought about in different cases, which I had not previously thought about.
The question was offensive, yet I didn't try to cancel the author in any way. I didn't flag the comment, I didn't email dang to have the author's account blocked etc. I instead offered an explanation of my position in polite but firm terms, with some argumentation.
The question had nothing scientific in it, so there's no need to worry about opposition to science btw.
> Social theories and traditions and status quo should be no safer from questioning than anything else.
Definitely agreed, freedom of speech should be sacrosanct in any civilized placed. You should have the right to, for example, claim that the Holocaust didn't happen and I should have the right to tell you that you're wrong and that your position is deeply offensive. That's how free speech works.
> unwilling or unable to provide answers or defend their position with reason.
I did provide arguments for my position.
> inconsistencies in the way these kinds of historical right to ownership are thought about in different cases
In general I think the first thing to ask is: did the majority of the people living in that place at that time freely consented with the removal of their artifacts?
I'm curious btw, do you think what Elgin did with the Parthenon is fair game too?
And there has never been greater need to worry about opposition to science.
> Definitely agreed, freedom of speech should be sacrosanct in any civilized placed. You should have the right to, for example, claim that the Holocaust didn't happen
Bully.
> I did provide arguments for my position.
You didn't. "I'm offended" is not an argument.
> In general I think the first thing to ask is: did the majority of the people living in that place at that time freely consented with the removal of their artifacts?
This is not an argument either, it does not address the question asked and now apparently you don't find it offensive to discuss the issue anymore it seems like it's something you've just made up without thinking much. The issues in question go a lot deeper -- if one group of people displaces another, how do the artifacts become "theirs". An interesting question (note that I did not take the position one way or the other whether this was the case in Egypt).
> I'm curious btw, do you think what Elgin did with the Parthenon is fair game too?
Define "fair game". This is not some gotcha, I never said I thought removing Egyptian artifacts was "fair game". And as to the current discussion, modern Greeks clearly have strong ancestral lineages to ancient Greeks.
Your condescension is ill placed. Questions can very much be offensive, let me give you another example: "Are Jews really related to people? Because if they're not then I really don't see the fuss about this Holocaust thing." See how that's offensive?
> As a European American I obviously am interested in understanding how the world views the rights my children might have to the land in which they will be born
Your children will and should have exactly the same rights as anybody else born there. This does not erase the genocide of the American Indians or the obligation of the US (perpetually unacknowledged) to offer reparations and dignity to the remaining populations.
> As the descendants of conquerors, I am compelled by circumstances to believe "might makes right" or else I would have to consider returning to the land to which I have ancient connections.
I don't see how yours can be a reasonable position. If we start accepting "might makes right" just to excuse the atrocities committed by our ancestors we will regress back to early modernity, before things like the universal human rights, self-determination etc.
You don't need to return any land and you don't need to claim ancient connections (which you probably don't have anyway). Your rights stem from the basic fact that you're a human being. If let's say another imperialist nation (e.g. China, since the yellow peril is en vogue again) would invade the US and exterminate the existing population justice would and should be on your side. It shouldn't be "might makes right", right?
Totally disingenuous. You are continuing to escalate your bullying behavior and anti-intellectualism.
People who ask questions you are scared of are not nazis. Calling for open debate and questioning free of bullying is not some a tacit admission that you would advocate this hatred you're spewing. This is not a gotcha moment, it's just sick.
The nazis were the book burners. Don't forget that.
> even if you don't.
You have no idea who I am, where I'm from or what my connection to my ancestors is, so please refrain from ad hominem stuff.
You seem unable to respond to what I wrote rationally. Perhaps this is has something to do with your fear of questions.
And I did not compare their plight, I specifically used the example to refute your incorrect assertion that genetic lineages do not matter in such cases.
> You have no idea who I am, where I'm from or what my connection to my ancestors is, so please refrain from ad hominem stuff.
I did not justify my argument with an insult so it's not really ad hominem. And I didn't intend to insult at all, I was just musing as to why you believed such a ludicruous and clearly wrong idea that ancestry would be irrelevant and nonsensical in a case like this. I'm surprised you took it as an insult. Or are you again just using that as a tool to try to shut down questions you are scared of?
> I did not justify my argument with an insult so it's not really ad hominem
'ad hominem' just means 'to the person' in Latin, it's not necessary for the thing to be an insult (which it was btw since I feel a deep connection to my ancestors and home land).
Regarding the substance of my comment, it's plainly illogical to equate the plight of the Aborigines with imperial despoilment. Yes, the Aborigines have a right to get their land and artifacts back.
At the same time no, the fact that Britain, France etc. stole things from Egypt is not justifiable on the basis that the then inhabitants of Egypt didn't have a genetic connection to ancient Egyptians.
In an analogy between Egypt and Australia the local Egyptian population is like the Aborigines and the imperial despoilers are like, well, the imperial despoilers (Britain present in both cases, in Egypt as part of a longer line of criminals).
> 'ad hominem' just means 'to the person' in Latin, it's not necessary for the thing to be an insult (which it was btw since I feel a deep connection to my ancestors and home land).
Either way I didn't justify my argument with it.
> Regarding the substance of my comment, it's plainly illogical to equate the plight of the Aborigines with imperial despoilment.
Strawman. I did no such thing.
> At the same time no, the fact that Britain, France etc. stole things from Egypt is not justifiable on the basis that the then inhabitants of Egypt didn't have a genetic connection to ancient Egyptians.
Strawman. Nobody justified theft.
> In an analogy between Egypt and Australia the local Egyptian population is like the Aborigines and the imperial despoilers are like, well, the imperial despoilers (Britain present in both cases, in Egypt as part of a longer line of criminals).
This is your strawman crusade though, because you are seemingly scared of having a discussion about the actual question asked. You are trying to equate people with nazis or claim they justified theft or treatment of Aboriginals.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2015/08/why-sayi...