Ye Olde Inn

by **ken** » August 24th, 2011, 2:18 am

get it, it needs to be saved
but who is it meant to be :?:

Looks a bit like King Too-Ten-Ka-Moon. Can you Egyptologists help me out here :?:

You speaking of Tutankhamun?
If you want to divide the name like this, it should be:
Toot-Enk-Amon
"Living-icon-of-Amon"
twt (Egyptian hieroglyphs represent only consonants) - ususal engl. transcription "tut", pronounced "toot" = "image, likeness"
‛nh (the ‛ represents the semitic semivocal Ajin, the stroke under the h should be bended, represents a phonem like Greek "X", German "Ch") - ususal transliteration Ankh = "life, to live, living"
jmn - usual engl. transcription Amun = the Theban god Amun.

The figure however, doesn't look like him in the least. It just has some vaguely "Egyptian" style features.
The beard and the shoulder adornment are fayrly original, the headdress is a mess of different male and felmale Egyptian "crowns". The uraeus snake at the headdress would have been a sign of kingly dignity, but it would not have been wound around the head like this. The sword is of a form not found until the European early middle ages (Would had to be made of steel to work in this form, which was a highend material in Egpyt at Tutankhamun's livetime, extremely seldom and much more expansive than gold). The garment is definitely unegyptian and the staff is pure fantasy.
But still, it's a fantasy game, and the figure looks great for this purpose. Just wanted to answer your request for an expertise... 8-)

by **ken** » August 24th, 2011, 4:56 pm

Big Bene wrote:
ken wrote:get it, it needs to be saved
but who is it meant to be Looks a bit like King Too-Ten-Ka-Moon. Can you Egyptologists help me out here

You speaking of Tutankhamun?
If you want to divide the name like this, it should be:
Toot-Enk-Amon
"Living-icon-of-Amon"
twt (Egyptian hieroglyphs represent only consonants) - ususal engl. transcription "tut", pronounced "toot" = "image, likeness"
‛nh (the ‛ represents the semitic semivocal Ajin, the stroke under the h should be bended, represents a phonem like Greek "X", German "Ch") - ususal transliteration Ankh = "life, to live, living"
jmn - usual engl. transcription Amun = the Theban god Amun.

The figure however, doesn't look like him in the least. It just has some vaguely "Egyptian" style features.
The beard and the shoulder adornment are fayrly original, the headdress is a mess of different male and felmale Egyptian "crowns". The uraeus snake at the headdress would have been a sign of kingly dignity, but it would not have been wound around the head like this. The sword is of a form not found until the European early middle ages (Would had to be made of steel to work in this form, which was a highend material in Egpyt at Tutankhamun's livetime, extremely seldom and much more expansive than gold). The garment is definitely unegyptian and the staff is pure fantasy.
But still, it's a fantasy game, and the figure looks great for this purpose. Just wanted to answer your request for an expertise...

I bow deeply to your superior knowledge.

by **AndyW** » August 24th, 2011, 5:17 pm

ken wrote:get it, it needs to be saved
but who is it meant to be Looks a bit like King Too-Ten-Ka-Moon. Can you Egyptologists help me out here

I think it could make a great boss; you could throw in a bunch of undead and have a party

by **Big Bene** » August 24th, 2011, 5:47 pm

Now, did you place a bid on the figure? If not, I would...

Ken wrote:I bow deeply to your superior knowledge.

Thanx, anytimes!
It's nice when I can put my original background to use time and again.

by **drathe** » August 24th, 2011, 6:18 pm

Would go well with the Egyptian board by Iwanhoa.

Enjoyed the archaeology lesson Bene. Does watching films and television programs showing inaccurate artifacts and depictions bother you after studying Egyptology? Or is it just fantasy fun?

by **ken** » August 25th, 2011, 2:01 am

Well you Egyptologists, King Tut is still there, if you want him, ebay Item number: 160640715583. Starting at £3-00, no bids, three days to go.

by **Big Bene** » August 25th, 2011, 6:10 am

drathe wrote:Does watching films and television programs showing inaccurate artifacts and depictions bother you after studying Egyptology? Or is it just fantasy fun?

Depends.

In fantasy films, some of the inaccuracies are funny, creative, or just neccesary to the narrative. Tha's OK with me, expecially if they did their research for the other props/depictions. Good example: Stargate.
Other inaccuracies are just plain stupid, add nothing to the story and would have looked just as good or even better had they been done right. Bad example: The Mummy 1-3.
This indeed bothers me, as having this done by an expert would have hardly added any signivicant percentage to the (often vast) budged. It also gives a false impression to people who are interested but don't have the background to tell facts from nonsense. And last not least, it catches my attention (in a bad way), and somewhat spoils the film for me. Of course, even if this somhow upsets me, it doesn't hinder me to watch and still enjoy the movie as a piece of fantasy. Acting, cameras, pace, etc. may still be good.

Of course, with documentaries it's different. When reporters try to tell the "facts" in scientific channels, they quite often over-simplify, over-drama dramatize, or plainly got it wrong. Naturally, that bothers me much more.

by **Big Bene** » August 25th, 2011, 6:11 am

ken wrote:Well you Egyptologists, King Tut is still there, if you want him, ebay Item number: 160640715583. Starting at £3-00, no bids, three days to go.

Placed a bid