Facsimile No. 3 printing plate reveals jackal head Anubis

[_Tator]

Beware, Mr. Tatorhead has a couple of questions.

It is my understanding that these funeral scrolls are quite common, yes / no?
If yes, are all funeral scrolls fairly similar? Or have a similar pattern or template?
If yes, are there other scrolls that these reconstructions/redrawings of Joe's be compared to for simularities or differences?

Thanx in advance.

[_Themis]

It is an interesting question. I have always thought the head and hands were missing, from day one, in Fac 1, but when you look at the photo you can see what appears to be a line of glue passing over the top of the penciled in head and connecting to the waist of Hor. Does this mean that section was originally there? If not, why do we have a glue mark where no papyri occurred?

Do we have evidence they are glue makes? I notice though that the areas in and out of that area are all penciled in. Wouldn't that indicate when penciled in those areas were missing?

[_fetchface]

It is an interesting question. I have always thought the head and hands were missing, from day one, in Fac 1, but when you look at the photo you can see what appears to be a line of glue passing over the top of the penciled in head and connecting to the waist of Hor. Does this mean that section was originally there? If not, why do we have a glue mark where no papyri occurred?

I imagine a bottle of glue and a brush for this process (I think this was probably before squirt bottles of Elmer's glue). I would imagine that one would brush the glue onto the paper and then carefully lay the papyrus down on the glue. It doesn't seem too strange that there would be glue on parts of the paper where there is no papyrus.

[Guest]

It is an interesting question. I have always thought the head and hands were missing, from day one, in Fac 1, but when you look at the photo you can see what appears to be a line of glue passing over the top of the penciled in head and connecting to the waist of Hor. Does this mean that section was originally there? If not, why do we have a glue mark where no papyri occurred?

I imagine a bottle of glue and a brush for this process (I think this was probably before squirt bottles of Elmer's glue). I would imagine that one would brush the glue onto the paper and then carefully lay the papyrus down on the glue. It doesn't seem too strange that there would be glue on parts of the paper where there is no papyrus.

Yes, in the method you describe, that would be a good explanation. However, if they were applying the glue to the verso side of the papyri instead, and placing it on the backing paper, the question would remain. In your suggested method I would expect to see more glue marks (if that is what we are really seeing) outside the boundaries of the papyri, we don't, so I suspect the glue was applied to the back of the papyri instead.

[_Fence Sitter]

It is an interesting question. I have always thought the head and hands were missing, from day one, in Fac 1, but when you look at the photo you can see what appears to be a line of glue passing over the top of the penciled in head and connecting to the waist of Hor. Does this mean that section was originally there? If not, why do we have a glue mark where no papyri occurred?

Do we have evidence they are glue makes? I notice though that the areas in and out of that area are all penciled in. Wouldn't that indicate when penciled in those areas were missing?

I vaguely remember reading somewhere about the glue marks in an article that dealt with the backing paper itself. It turns out some of the backing paper contains early architectural sketches of the temple and some local maps.

I'll see what I can find.

[_aussieguy55]

It is an interesting question. I have always thought the head and hands were missing, from day one, in Fac 1, but when you look at the photo you can see what appears to be a line of glue passing over the top of the penciled in head and connecting to the waist of Hor. Does this mean that section was originally there? If not, why do we have a glue mark where no papyri occurred?

I imagine a bottle of glue and a brush for this process (I think this was probably before squirt bottles of Elmer's glue). I would imagine that one would brush the glue onto the paper and then carefully lay the papyrus down on the glue. It doesn't seem too strange that there would be glue on parts of the paper where there is no papyrus.

Klaus Baer said in his Dialogue 1968 article that there no fibres in the glue. I agree the glue on the paper and the papyri placed over it.

[_Themis]

Klaus Baer said in his Dialogue 1968 article that there no fibres in the glue. I agree the glue on the paper and the papyri placed over it.

That makes sense due to the are being penciled in

[_fetchface]

Klaus Baer said in his Dialogue 1968 article that there no fibres in the glue. I agree the glue on the paper and the papyri placed over it.

I would think that brushing sticky glue on the fragile papyrus would be very problematic and would be likely to tear it. If I were gluing the papyrus to the paper, there is no way I would apply the glue to the papyrus. That'd be the dumb way to do it.

Plus, as aussieguy55 points out, there don't seem to be any signs that something was glued there and torn away.

I'm not saying that it is impossible but it just doesn't look likely to me.

However, the snout being removed on the woodcut looks very likely.

[_Jersey Girl]

8 or 9? 8.9? Bah!

You've found a place on the printing plate where a chiseled-away snout is visibly present. And it has visible fangs. And the appropriate ear has always been present. And the snout was, from an egyptological perspective, always to be expected.

That's a 10. Or, if we're being cautious, a 9.99.

Bravo, Shulem, on the brilliant discovery!

Don

Where are fangs? What did I miss?

[_Jersey Girl]

Does that mean when Smith pasted Fac 1 on the backing paper the head would have been missing so he would have no idea of the correct figure and simply added the same head as the reclining figure? So a "slave" with a snout would not have looked good and had to go.

He made the figure into a black slave. Get it?