Day 20 - Swimmer cosmetic spoon
February 9, 2018
I think I was wrong in identifying the downward-curving arcs on the which the circular mirrors I mentioned yesterday are mounted as evoking a cow's (or cow-goddess's) horns. The arc seems to be a standard design element for these mirrors, but I don't know what it signifies. Also, I checked online, and I still don't know how to read the middle symbol on Thutmose's cartouche.
So much I don't know....
But in Gallery 119, I'm wowed by the craftsmanship of those artisans from ca. 1400 B.C. This is manifested in the elaborate pleated cloak (made of linen?) on a small statue of Amenhotep III sculpted in serpentine as well as in wonderfully realistic heads of a hippo and a cow (yes, Hathor), sculpted in alabaster and diorite, respectively. A small ivory carving of a hunting dog, about 7 inches long, shows the hound runnng in hot pursuit of its prey; its mouth can be opened with a thong to reveal prominent teeth. (Actually, I expected fangs, but the animal looks more buck-toothed.)
Today's object delights by its strangeness. About 8 inches long, it's an alabaster statuette of a woman lying belly-down, her legs stretched out behind her, her elaborately wigged head lifted, and her arms stretched out in front to support a flat surface at the front of whch is the head of an animal, a gazelle or ibex, according to the caption. The caption describes the woman as "swimming," but it's more like she's extended in the (imaginary) water and holding onto a kick board that has an animal head. She's nude except for a black band which at first I think of as a bikini bottom but is more likely a belt circling her hips. Her breast and nose are delicately molded. Her face is serene; the animal, in contrast, looks slightly startled.
The caption describes this as a "cosmetic spoon," but I don't see any concavity that would identify this as a spoon. Maybe the flat surface on the animal's back served as a palette on which cosmetics could be piled. How were these cosmetics then applied, I wonder? People must have used brushes of some kind to outline their eyes; did they use their fingertips for other applications? Were the cosmetic substances wet or dry? I guess the self-beautification "instinct" (for want of a better term) is very old and, in the case of the Egyptians, rationalized by religious beliefs about self-presentation and self-preservation in this world and the world beyond.
But how much of this was restricted to the elites? Certainly common peple couldn't have afforded this little luxury object that seems so unique and, to me, anyway, provides so much pleasure.
So much I don't know....
But in Gallery 119, I'm wowed by the craftsmanship of those artisans from ca. 1400 B.C. This is manifested in the elaborate pleated cloak (made of linen?) on a small statue of Amenhotep III sculpted in serpentine as well as in wonderfully realistic heads of a hippo and a cow (yes, Hathor), sculpted in alabaster and diorite, respectively. A small ivory carving of a hunting dog, about 7 inches long, shows the hound runnng in hot pursuit of its prey; its mouth can be opened with a thong to reveal prominent teeth. (Actually, I expected fangs, but the animal looks more buck-toothed.)
Today's object delights by its strangeness. About 8 inches long, it's an alabaster statuette of a woman lying belly-down, her legs stretched out behind her, her elaborately wigged head lifted, and her arms stretched out in front to support a flat surface at the front of whch is the head of an animal, a gazelle or ibex, according to the caption. The caption describes the woman as "swimming," but it's more like she's extended in the (imaginary) water and holding onto a kick board that has an animal head. She's nude except for a black band which at first I think of as a bikini bottom but is more likely a belt circling her hips. Her breast and nose are delicately molded. Her face is serene; the animal, in contrast, looks slightly startled.
The caption describes this as a "cosmetic spoon," but I don't see any concavity that would identify this as a spoon. Maybe the flat surface on the animal's back served as a palette on which cosmetics could be piled. How were these cosmetics then applied, I wonder? People must have used brushes of some kind to outline their eyes; did they use their fingertips for other applications? Were the cosmetic substances wet or dry? I guess the self-beautification "instinct" (for want of a better term) is very old and, in the case of the Egyptians, rationalized by religious beliefs about self-presentation and self-preservation in this world and the world beyond.
But how much of this was restricted to the elites? Certainly common peple couldn't have afforded this little luxury object that seems so unique and, to me, anyway, provides so much pleasure.
Comments
Post a Comment