When I was young – I think I was seven or eight – there was a children’s magic show on television called Mister Magic (not to be confused with the rap and hip-hop DJ with the same on-air name). Television in those days was only black and white. If you didn’t have a big rooftop antenna you needed something called rabbit ears which were better anyways because you could fiddle with them.
My brothers and sister and I would gather in front of the TV a few minutes early so as to not to miss the opening magic trick, which was always the same; a milk bottle slowly morphing into Mister Magic while a disembodied voice counted down from 5 to 4 to 3 to 2 to 1.
Shazam! It was done. Mister Magic would then say to us, “Boys and girls, I have to brush off this radiation created when the milk bottle turned into me.” And with that, he would take a small whisk broom out of his hat and brush himself off as glitter filled the air.
Oh, I loved that trick. But then came the trip to the television studio. Our cub scout pack had been chosen to watch the show in the studio. There we were, in little blue and yellow cub scout uniforms, sitting in the audience, watching the magic. “Don’t talk,” the man in charge told us. “Clap when I clap and laugh when I laugh.”
And there it was, the milk bottle sitting on a table in front of a television camera. The camera had a big glowing red light bulb on top. And there, too, was the magician on the stage with another camera aimed at him. The cameramen operating the cameras turned some knobs and as they did so, the red light of the camera that was focused on the bottle grew dim while the red bulb on the other camera brightened. On a TV monitor, I could see the effect. It wasn’t magic. It was trickery. That day I stopped believing in magic and miracles and anything remotely not natural. But only for a while.
This weekend, I was reading Potential Problems with a Cloth Collapse Hypothesis for Image Formation on the Shroud of Turin by Robert Rucker and I encountered these assertions:
- “In all our historical records, the only person suggested that might emit such a burst of radiation from his dead crucified body is Jesus. To solve how such radiation could be emitted, it is usually assumed that this burst of radiation occurred during the body’s disappearance from within the Shroud . . .”
- “It is also usually recognized that the body’s disappearance was not an instantaneous event (ΔT = 0.0).” . . .
And as I read that, I had a flashback to the milk bottle trick: 5 to 4 to 3 to 2 to 1. Thank you for the memory.
It may be that the problem with assertion number one is just a matter of word choice or grammar. I most seriously doubt the historical records (only chapter 20, verses 1-10 of John’s Gospel is cited) can possibly suggest anyone in history who might emit a burst of anything. And why radiation? Assertion number two might be difficult to defend. Both assertions seem goal oriented 2.
Assertion number two is contradicted by the old Baltimore Catechism #3 which tells us Jesus’ body had “Agility, by which it moves from place to place as rapidly as an angel,” even though St. Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologica tells us that angels going from wherefrom to whereto do so in ΔT = 0.0, but explained in more flowery prose, of course. Absurd? Of course! But less absurd than the assertion unexplained.
Or maybe, I’m thinking; the Resurrection was simply a miracle, free of time and radiation and thus unexplainable by science or history.
In 2002, Ray Rogers had written:
The observations do not prove how the image was formed or the “authenticity” of the Shroud. There could be a nearly infinite number of alternate hypotheses, and the search for new hypotheses should continue.
There was in Rogers’ words, in 2002, a spirit of discovery; there was excitement with every new idea. We were challenged. Now, a mere twenty years later, we seem to be mired in trying to prove that the Resurrection or some part of it is scientifically explainable. Why?
In my next posting, I will try to explain why I think a miracle such as the Resurrection does not involve radiation. Stay tuned.
You sure it’s John 20? Couldn’t find a reference to radiation. But couldn’t anyone through out history have been bitten by a radioactive spider. Couldn’t we ask Spider Man to lie down on a linen sheet and see what happens. Seriously, all this radiation theorizing will be the death of shroud research. I’m embarrassed to let anyone know that I am interested in the shroud.
What do you propose?
Paulette said: “Seriously, all this radiation theorizing will be the death of shroud research. I’m embarrassed to let anyone know that I am interested in the shroud.”
My reply: To date, I have found nothing that thoroughly explains the radiation theory, referencing Jesus and the Shroud or any other details that are of concern to me, such as was stated by many Shroud scientists that Jesus was naked when he was crucified. This was a Roman custom. I didn’t believe that.
The first video explains the radiation theory as laser light and the second video clearly shows Jesus wearing a loincloth at the crucifixion.
—————————————————————
#1 Nelson Walters, Shroud of Turin, Radiation
LATEST: Shroud Of Turin Image was ALIVE & MOVING (Moment of Resurrection?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgG9m7cqx68
and
#2 Nelson Walters Youtube video
HIDDEN ITEMS in Shroud of Turin Image (Nails, Belt, Tefillin …
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w43ov5aA-ko
My question: Is this data familiar to Shroud scientists? Is it new scientific data or is it not true? Your thoughts?
If we can find the exact tomb where Jesus body was laid, then there is a chance to prove radiation by analysing the Calcium (or other) ions on that slab.
If we can find the exact tomb where Jesus body was laid, then there is a chance to prove radiation by analysing the Calcium (or other) ions on that slab.
Location is well known: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Holy_Sepulchre
Then you just need to organize the examination.
Thank you OK
Interesting article about “electromagnetic disturbances”
https://aleteia.org/2016/11/15/mysteries-surround-the-opening-of-the-tomb-of-christ/
Hope one day someone can examine it.
Hi Tamara!
Thanks for dropping by. The answers to your questions are:
1) Yes, this collection of suppositions is well-known to some serious Shroud researchers.
2) No. There is no scientific data presented, new or old, only supposition.
3) Whether the suppositions are true or not is largely a matter of individual perception, not of objective data. Few Shroud researchers perceive them.
4) My thoughts!
In the first video, Walters doesn’t say anything controversial for three minutes or so, and then we get an out-and-out untruth (I won’t say lie, as I dare say Walters is only parroting what he’s read somewhere else). “One of the original experts who tested the Shroud became aware of this problem. He retested the Shroud and found the original results were in error.” Totally false. This is instantly followed by another untruth, this one more of a misunderstanding. “It was discovered that additionally some of the data from the original [radiocarbon] test was withheld, to doctor the results.” Wholly untrue. A little later the famous “Summary of STuRP’s Conclusions” is trotted out as if it were gospel, which it isn’t. It isn’t even a good summary of the actual “Summary of the 1978 Investigation” by Schwalbe and Rogers, which was peer-reviewed and published in Applied Optics. And no, STuRP (which mysteriously appears as SoTRP in the video) did not conclude that it was a photographic image of any sort.
About 5 minutes in, we get the first of the “I think I see” suggestions. Flowers. Well, I’ve tried, and I don’t see flowers. Especially, I don’t see the hundreds of small flowers around the head of the Shroud image which Avinoam Danin claimed he did see. Then we get an absurd misreading of some of Max Frei’s pollen results. Neither he nor anybody else who examined his pollen slides claimed that “much of the pollen is native only to the around Jerusalem” or that “some are not still in existence, which dates the cloth no later than AD 800.” Nonsense. Someone’s just making this up.
The limestone on the Shroud is not a “rare form” of aragonite (not argonite, as Walters pronounces it), nor does it closely match, let alone uniquely match, samples from Jerusalem.
Walters has not read the latest research on the blood found on the Shroud, by Kelly Kearse, which demonstrates that it cannot be asserted to be either human or type AB with diagnostic confidence.
No, the Shroud does not show that the crown of thorns was on Jesus’s head when he was buried, nor that it was made of “Asarcopetium sinosium.” This is a clumsy misreading of Sarcopoterium spinosum, which is a prickly bush found around much of the eastern Mediterranean.
Nobody at the University of Padua has carried out “new carbon dating tests,” and they couldn’t have used the same fibres, as the sample is destroyed in the test. Giulio Fanti has carried out some tests, with different fibres, but Walters’ commentary is too confused to make it worth pursuing further.
Yes. The image is superficial, but it is ridiculous to claim that this is “something we can’t achieve even today with modern science.” Just scribble on a handkerchief with a felt tipped pen. There is not necessarily any bleed-through; it entirely depends on the density of the weave and the pressure of the application.
And on, and on, and we haven’t even got to the “new” evidence yet! There are lots of 2D images which can be converted to 3D images; we have published several right here at shroudstory.com.
With five minutes to go, we get “Scientists believe it was […] oscillating bursts of high intensity, single wavelength light – laser light. This is a technology we simply don’t have today.” Yes, we do, that’s how we know what energy, wavelength, pulse duration and pulse frequency to use.
The next bit makes no sense. “[the light] travelled in all directions in exact parallel lines.” And the bit after that is a hopeless misunderstanding. Hardly any energy is necessary to brown a cloth, let alone that which “exceeds all the electrical power generated in the entire earth at one time.” There is a schoolboy confusion here between power and energy.
Finally, we arrive at the “new” evidence, which is based on that of Giuseppe Catalano, who first published it in 2014. He was born in 1959 and has worked at Palermo University at some kind of spatial representation all his life. He is a fairly egregious self publicist, describing himself on LinkedIn as the “author of very important discoveries,” and writing under the banner of the “International Institute for Advanced Studies of Space Representation Sciences,” which is a wholly invented institute with no members, no publications and no premises other than Catalano himself.
None of that necessarily means that Catalano’s speculations are wrong, but it doesn’t inspire confidence. They are based entirely on what he “thinks he sees” in some rather blurry, high contrast enlargements of the 1936 Enrie negatives, in which the natural striations of the cloth play quite a significant part. Those of us who have studied both Catalano’s ideas and the rather better images of, say Barry Schwortz or the latest Archdiocese of Turin photos do not see what Catalano sees. We do not see nails, tephilim or belt buckles, single or in motion.
On the other hand, I don’t find it amazing that Jesus moved during the Resurrection. If, which I don’t believe, the Resurrection was accompanied by stroboscopic flashes, then maybe it would capture movement on the Shroud. I don’t find that astonishing.
Well, you did ask!
Thank you, Hugh Farey.
I knew if anyone was capable of presenting a thorough, scholarly and quite believable scientific reply to my question it would be you. I certainly appreciate your time and effort in clarifying the proposals put forth by Catalano.
Just to be fair Walters did say placing a newspaper in a window for two or so weeks is all that is necessary to brown cloth, but that fact alone would not produce the image.
How was Catalano able to show the loin cloth, the snakeskin belt and the teflin, which is clearly evident in the photos he presented?
What makes perfect sense is the Nazarite vow that Yeshua (Jesus) may have taken with respect to long hair, just like Sampson and John the Baptist. It makes no sense that the long hair worn by Yeshua (Jesus) was a sin, but that it was not sinful for either Sampson or John the Baptist.
Obviously all of them followed the Nazarene religion and that is probably why Yeshua (Jesus) was referred to as either the Nazarene or Jesus of Nazareth throughout the Bible. This may have been a way of differentiating the more stringent religious Nazarene rules He followed, as opposed to those of the rest of the Jewish population. He was fulfilling the prophecy.
Remember: “And he came and dwelt in a city. called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled, which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.
So, have any of Catalano’s proposals been proven to be true?
Where did he get the photos? The loincloth is clearly seen in the images and that particular design was worn by men of the time.
Thanks again, Hugh.
PS correction paragraph 4: Samson, Nazirite
PPS: Oh, I missed your inclusion that Catalano’s images were from high contrast enlargements of the 1936 Enrie negatives. Thank you.
Hugh, it’s hard to believe the work of Dr. Leoncio Garza-Valdes and Dr. Avinoam Danin, Professor of Botany, was basically useless when they were both experts in their respective fields.
Everything concerning the Shroud keeps changing. Nothing appears to be fact from one year to another anymore. I’ve finally given up.
Thanks for your time, Hugh, and good luck to you.
You’ll be elated to know I might stop by 10 years hence. :-)
Best always,
Tamara Beryl Latham
PPS. Oh, I missed your inclusion about the enhanced enlargement images being from the 1936 Enrie negatives. Thanks.
Hugh, it’s hard to believe the work of Dr. Leoncio Garza-Valdes and Dr. Avinoam Danin, Professor of Botany, was basically useless when they were both experts in their respective fields.
Everything concerning the Shroud keeps changing. Nothing appears to be fact from one year to another anymore. I’ve finally given up.
Thanks for your time, Hugh, and good luck to you.
You’ll be elated to know I might stop by 10 years hence. :-)
Best always,
Tamara Beryl Latham
Hi Tamara,
I guess this might miss you, but there may be others following this exchange who are interested, especially as Nelson Walters’s vlogpost has garnered nearly 200,000 views.
The second video’s evidence begins with a guess (that the side strip was used to lower Jesus from the cross), supported by an untruth (“experts have determined how the side strip was positioned”). I do not recognise any nails, let alone a stroboscopic image of any, nor rotated feet, nor tefillin, necklaces or any of the other accoutrements suggested by Giuseppe Catalano.
It was not a “common practice” for the Jews to place coins over the eyes of the deceased, and the coins supposed to be there are too small to keep the eyelids closed anyway. The coin illustrating the beginning of this section is a denarius from about 40BC, and nothing to do with the Shroud. Later Walters moves on to a more likely coin, first suggested by Francis Filas, but he doesn’t really understand what he is reading. The Greek for Caesar was not “Kaicapoc” as pronounced by Walters. It is Kaisaros. It looks like Kaicapoc on coins, as a Greek ‘s’ looks like a ‘C’ and a Greek ‘r’ looks like a ‘P.’ Anyway, these coins were minted by Pontius Pilate, but the idea that they are represented on the Shroud has been shown to be spurious.
I do not believe that either a skirt (I don’t recognise Walters’ term ‘corason’) or a snakeskin belt are “clearly evident.” Anybody can envisage all sorts of shapes among a collection of indistinct marks, and, by outlining them, other people may be able to see them too, but that doesn’t make them evident. We may both identify, say, an elephant in a cloud formation, but that doesn’t mean that the shape is anything more than co-incidence. In order to demonstrate that it is more than pareidolia, more contextual clues are required. Catalano’s shenti, belt and tefillin are examples of this. There is no evidence that Jews of Jesus’s time were buried in shenti skirts (I don’t recognise Walters’ “corason”) or tefillin, and some evidence, from such archaeology as has been discovered, that they weren’t.
The statement that “these garments, corasons, were common in the Middle East since the time of Moses and traditionally were held in place with a snakeskin belt”, is entirely invented. There is no evidence for any such custom. I do not recognise any belt-buckle on the Shroud either, and consider the wreath of fruit and flowers accompanying the crown of thorns, the oval gorget (and the letters on it) to be ludicrous.
We know very little about the hairstyles of first century Jews, but we can be certain that Jesus was not a Nazirite, whose principle condition was not that they didn’t cut their hair, but that they abstained from wine. Jesus was probably called “from Nazareth” and “the Nazarene” because he came from Nazareth, and therefore was a Nazarene. Just because two words start with the same three letters does not mean they mean the same thing. Jesus probably wasn’t a Nazi either.
You make a valid point that “experts in their respective fields should not be dismissed as “basically useless.” Leoncio Garza-Valdes is a respected pediatrician, but certainly not an expert in archaeology, and his studies on bio-plastic coatings have not been verified or endorsed by anybody who is. Avinoam Danin was indeed an expert on Israeli biology, and could identify a leaf or seed or twig at a glance, but he was not an expert at identifying pareidolia on blurred images, and was easily led astray by Alan Whanger, who claimed to be. Later in life, Danin backtracked from much of his earlier enthusiasm, and repudiated his previous encouragement of Max Frei’s pollen shenanigans.
Well, there we go. See you in ten years, perhaps!
One more thing, before I go. I don’t believe I’ll still be alive in 10 years.
I trust most of what you’ve stated, Hugh, because I realize you’ve done extensive research on the Shroud; however, if what you say is true about the loincloth, how would an artist from the 1800s know to draw such a covering.
I’m not allowed to paste the image (I tried), but if you go to google images and type in the following:
“Christ baptised by John the Baptist by William Brassey Hole (1846-1917)”
you will see the image.
And, if William Brassey Hole lived from 1846 to 1917, how would he know to paint that particular loincloth with the belt, as well.
Did Christ wear such a loincloth when he was baptized by John?
Hugh, one last thing.
I probably won’t be around in 10 years, but you remarked: “The statement that “these garments, corasons, were common in the Middle East since the time of Moses and traditionally were held in place with a snakeskin belt”, is entirely invented. There is no evidence for any such custom.”
My reply: I disagree. Go to google images and type in the following:
Christ baptised by John the Baptist, William Brassey Hole
https://paintingandframe.com/prints/william_brassey_hole_christ_baptised_by_john_the_baptist-5214.html
If William Brassey Hole ( (1846-1917) knew of this design of loincloth back in the 1800s, then it must have been common knowledge in biblical circles.
Also, I saw another painting where John the Baptist was wearing the same type of loincloth.
Samson – Biblical figure
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Samson
and
https://bibleillustration.blogspot.com/2007/11/was-samson-muscular.html
Best always,
Tamara Beryl Latham
Hi Tamara,
William Brassey Hole’s Jesus is wearing a baggy loincloth of a kind worn by millions of people throughout the third world even today. Christ might well have worn something similar. However I see nothing similar on the Shroud, and the baggy loincloth has minimal connection to the tight-fitting shenti skirt and wholly spurious snakeskin belt proposed by Giuseppe Catalano.
Hugh, yes, you speak truth regarding William’ Brassey Hole’s painting; however, we don’t necessarily know how many variations in design there were, with respect to loincloths, at the time of Jesus.
I included the William Brassey Hole image just to show a loincloth attached to a snakeskin belt. I’ve read that loincloths at the time of Jesus could have been tied at the waist with a string or a snakeskin or any other animal skin.
Below is an image of an Egyptian wearing a tight fitting loincloth tied with a string
https://forbrothersstore.com/from-loincloth-to-boxers-the-origins-of-mens-underwear/
Also there is another protected image on
https://world4.eu/ancient-egypt-writer/
Statement:
“There’s nothing new about snakes in the fashion stakes. In ancient Egypt, these reptiles were symbolic of royalty and deity. Cleopatra wore a headdress bedecked with a cobra emblem.”
https://www.gulfshorelife.com/2013/02/06/year-of-the-snakeskin/
My thoughts are that those who don’t believe the image on the Shroud is the Lord will never be convinced, despite any evidence. Perhaps the Shroud of Turin exemplifies the parable of the mustard seed.
We all see the same thing through different lenses, Hugh. :-)
Hi Tamara,
I think we’re drifting. A queen of Egypt’s headdress has nothing to do with Jewish men’s skirts of 60 years later. A quick review of shenti on Google images shows vanishingly few fastened with any kind of belt, let alone a snakeskin one with a big brass buckle. For all any of us know Jesus could have been buried in any kind of clothes, but there is minimal evidence for any on the Shroud.
No, I’m not drifting, Hugh.
The point of that inclusion was people in the Middle East (Egypt was an example) used snakes or other animals as decorative works of art on their attire. Perhaps Jesus was considered to be important or noble, as explained in the reference below: Remember the Romans dressed Him as if He were a King, including a crown.
Google reference
“ornamented and noble version of the loincloth, worn by rich or …
https://www.pinterest.com › … › Education › Subjects
Schenti- more ornamented and noble version of the loincloth, worn by rich or important people. First made out of animal skins, then linen with ornate front belt …
As well, an example of a loincloth similar to the one Nelson Walters referenced on the Shroud can be found at the following address.
Go to google images and type
https://world4.eu/ancient-egypt-writer/
This is the protected image, I mentioned previously. The title is “Statue of an Egypt Writer, painted red limestone.” As you can clearly see it is very similar to the image of the tight fitting loincloth Jesus was wearing in the video presented by Walters.
My question: Why would an artist, out of the blue, come up with that specific design of loincloth?
Isn’t it more logical to believe he, the sculpture artist, (like William Brassey Hole) had to have seen the design of that particular article of clothing somewhere?
“Why would an artist, out of the blue, come ups with that specific design of loincloth?” Well, it was hardly out of the blue. Baptisms of Christ are very common, and Jesus nearly always wears a loincloth of some sort. Hole’s painting is entirely typical its genre, and his choice of clothing was quite possibly based on Egyptian or Indian examples. However Hole’s belt is not obviously snakeskin, there is no apparent buckle, and the vast majority of ancient shenti, even of the wealthy, have no belt at all. Even the ones who do wear a belt do not wear one of snakeskin, nor with a big buckle.
What is most likely to me is that Giuseppe Catalano “thought he saw” something similar to what he had seen elsewhere and first of all added outlines which clearly don’t exist, and then, because the “belt” area looks a bit blotchy, invented the snakeskin to go with it.
Hugh, you commented that the majority of the wealthy have no belt at all; yet, that is purely speculative on your part, especially considering your conclusion is based on the few examples of skirts with belts, from the Middle East, that have been unearthed to date.
Perhaps Catalano inspected that area of the Shroud image (belt and schenti) with a newer microscopic imaging technique, like Micro CT scan.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-8647331/Ancient-Egyptians-whipped-snake-death-tail-broke-cats-neck-make-mummified-animals.html
I also found the following:
Ancient Egyptian Era in Fashion History
Clothing for men
All men wore a wrap-around skirt, tied at the waist with a belt
https://blinkhubs.com/ancient-egyptian-in-fashion-history/?v=fbd25224d617
If what you stated was to be taken as truth, then why does the reference include the word “belt”?
We simply do not know what was worn by men of royalty or those considered to be important in ancient biblical times, nor do we know what embellishments adorned their attire.
Hi Tamara,
“We simply do not know….” Unfortunately, ignorance is not evidence of anything. My comment about hardly anybody wearing a belt is not speculation. It is based on the first hundred examples of men wearing Shenti to be found on Google images. I don’t know who “sultanarajia” is, but they give no evidence for their statement that men’s skirts or loincloths were secured with a belt, and the illustration shows a man in a shenti, and no belt.
And no, Catalano had no information other than the Enrie photographs which anyone can download at much better resolution than he uses.
With the greatest of respect, I’m afraid you’re grasping at straws…
Hugh wrote: “My comment about hardly anybody wearing a belt is not speculation. It is based on the first hundred examples of men wearing Shenti to be found on Google images.
I don’t know who “sultanarajia” is, but they give no evidence for their statement that men’s skirts or loincloths were secured with a belt, and the illustration shows a man in a shenti, and no belt.”
My reply: Perhaps Catalano saw the image of Anubis, complete with belt and oval buckle.
Anubis statue, Egyptian God
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-anubis-statue-egyptian-god-universal-studios-singapore-43657057.html
Anubis statues
Egyptian artifacts
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/390546598932317120/
My reply is not showing.
2nd post.
Hugh, you commented that the majority of the wealthy have no belt at all; yet, that is purely speculative on your part, especially considering your conclusion is based on the few examples of skirts with belts, from the Middle East, that have been unearthed to date.
Perhaps Catalano inspected that area of the Shroud image (belt and schenti) with a newer microscopic imaging technique, like Micro CT scan.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-8647331/Ancient-Egyptians-whipped-snake-death-tail-broke-cats-neck-make-mummified-animals.html
I also found the following:
Ancient Egyptian Era in Fashion History
Clothing for men
All men wore a wrap-around skirt, tied at the waist with a belt
https://blinkhubs.com/ancient-egyptian-in-fashion-history/?v=fbd25224d617
If what you stated was to be taken as truth, then why does the reference include the word “belt”?
We simply do not know what was worn by men of royalty or those considered to be important in ancient biblical times, nor do we know what embellishments adorned their attire.
Hugh, copy and paste into google images
Anubis statue, Egyptian God
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-anubis-statue-egyptian-god-universal-studios-singapore-43657057.html
I must say I do admit your persistence, but in what way does a twentieth-century film prop standing outside an amusement park ride in Singapore confirm Walters’ statement: “these garments, corasons, were common in the Middle East since the time of Moses and traditionally were held in place with a snakeskin belt,” or contradict mine: “There is no evidence for any such custom.”
Tamara wrote: Referencing my earlier statement.
“Ancient Egyptian Era in Fashion History
Clothing for men
All men wore a wrap-around skirt, tied at the waist with a belt.”
Hugh wrote:
“A quick review of shenti on Google images shows vanishingly few fastened with any kind of belt…”
“What is most likely to me is that Giuseppe Catalano “thought he saw” something similar to what he had seen elsewhere and first of all added outlines which clearly don’t exist, and then, because the “belt” area looks a bit blotchy, invented the snakeskin to go with it.”
Tamara: I included that painting of Anubis, the Egyptian God, to show that perhaps Catalano did not “think he saw,” but rather “did see” an image or sculpture that was similar.
Hugh wrote: “Hugh wrote: “I must say I do admit your persistence, but in what way does a twentieth-century film prop standing outside an amusement park ride in Singapore confirm Walters’ statement.”
Tamara wrote: Too funny, Hugh. :-)
Anubis has been around for quite some time.
Wikipedia reference:
“Anubis’ image is seen on royal tombs from the First Dynasty of Egypt (c. 3150-2890 BCE) but it is certain he had already developed a cult following prior to this period in order to be invoked on the tomb’s walls for protection…”
Well done, you’re almost there! Now all you’ve got to do is find a picture from ancient Egypt, not from a Victorian artist or a Film Studio, showing Anubis, or anyone really, wearing a snakeskin belt and a big circular buckle!
Hugh wrote: “Well done, you’re almost there! Now all you’ve got to do is find a picture from ancient Egypt, not from a Victorian artist or a Film Studio, showing Anubis, or anyone really, wearing a snakeskin belt and a big circular buckle!”
Tamara wrote: How about a statue from the Ptolemaic Period.
Go to Bing
Metropolitan Museum
Striding Thoth
332–30 B.C.
Ptolemaic Period
https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/544092
Still no cigar, I’m afraid. You’ve missed the words “snakeskin” and “buckle,” but keep looking!
Hugh, you’d better get your magnifying glass out. You not only missed the belt, but the oval buckle, as well.
Met Museum
Striding Troth
https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/544092
Have I got the right statue? Blue? Stuck to a plinth? Thin pleated skirt with diagonal curving line? Belt, I see. Snakeskin, I don’t see. Buckle, I don’t see. There’s a bit of a chip on his right hip, and a couple of dark discolourations either side, but no buckle.
Yes, the image is blue and has the face of an animal (looks like a ram). I don’t see snakeskin. I see a belt attached to the skirt with an oval buckle, positioned in the same way as Catalano’s depiction of the snakeskin belt attached to the shenti on his shroud image.
As soon as you click on the link it’s the image on the Met Page (top right).
Hugh, You can use either google or bing search engine. Both show the Metropolitan Museum statue (blue).
PS Surely that couldn’t be his stomach with a roll around his naval.
Oh, dearie me, yes, I’m afraid that’s his navel, not a buckle! The belt is a completely smooth band above the shenti.
Hugh, yes, I saw that with a magnifying glass, but how did you deduce it was made of snakeskin?
Egyptians had hundreds of mythical gods wearing belts, and some of the images have belt buckles. It’s difficult to know which ones are snakeskins.
One reference states: “Egyptian art is full of the snakes that inhabited the natural world, but the Egyptians also imagined fantastical snakes in the Underworld.”
https://carlos.emory.edu/slithering-through-egypt
The Egyptian god “Set” is wearing a belt with a buckle. Don’t know if it’s snakeskin.
https://www.pinterest.at/pin/why-was-egyptian-god-set-important–79235274685557259/
ancient egyptian clothing pictures – Facts About Ancient Egyptians
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/290271138462855779/
Sorry, Tamara, you misunderstand me. I wrote:
“Belt, I see.
Snakeskin, I don’t see.
Buckle, I don’t see.”
Your latest illustrations are 19th or 20th century artists’ impressions of what ancient Egyptian clothing was like. To establish your point, you need to find ancient pictures. There are plenty. I had no difficulty in finding hundreds of tomb paintings and sculptures on Google. A few belts can be seen, but no snakeskin ones and no big round buckles.
And it’s no use telling me how much the Egyptians regarded snakes. Having a model on your headdress is a far cry from making a belt out of one.
Hugh, here’s one. I found a better one, but the link is too long.
Sotheby’s
AN EGYPTIAN LIMESTONE FIGURE OF A MAN, 5TH DYNASTY, 2520-2360 B.C. | Ancient Sculpture and Works of Art | Antiquities | Sotheby’s
Visit
https://www.sothebys.com/en/buy/auction/2022/master-paintings-sculpture-part-i/an-egyptian-limestone-figure-of-a-man-late-5th
Provenance
Excavated at Giza (Serdab of Weri and Meti [G2415]), by American archeologist George Andrew Reisner on behalf of the Harvard University-Museum of Fine Arts, Boston expedition, and awarded to the museum by the Egyptian Government Antiquities Service in 1921
That’s brilliant, Tamara. Except… what does the description say about how he fastened his belt?
Hugh, the only image I could find with a belt buckle is one I gave you originally.
go to Google images and type in the following:
The Blind Guardians of Tuthmosis the III #Egypt | Ancient egypt history …
Supposedly these two men are guarding Tuthmosis III’s tomb.
PPS These are the two from the Singapore photo. There are so many mythical gods that it is impossible to know which one wore a snakeskin belt.