Portraiture of Amenophis III and Leiden F1935/3.1 Relief

Moderator: yuti

Portraiture of Amenophis III and Leiden F1935/3.1 Relief

Berichtdoor Rozette » Vr Feb 28, 2014 6:10 pm

Afbeelding

Master thesis

Title: The Portraiture of Amenophis III and the Rijksmuseum Van Oudheden F1935/3.1 Relief

Author: Kaiafa, Matina
Issue Date: 2013-08-31

Abstract: A misleading label was the starting point for the preparation of the current work. The erroneous interpretation of the relief portrait with inventory number F 1953/3.1 preserved in the Egyptian exhibition of the Rijksmuseum van Oudheden in Leiden stimulated the interest of this author. Though labeled as a portrait of Tutankhamen (ruled ca. 1332 B.C. – 1322 B.C.) (Freed 1999, 275), observations of recent years come to show that the under discussion relief is most probably a depiction of Amenophis III (ruled ca. 1390 B.C. – 1353 B.C.) (Freed 1999, 201). The goal of this thesis is binary: a) firstly, as the main research question, to trace those elements leading to the assertion that the portrait belongs possibly to the time of Amenophis III and b) secondly, to raise the foundations for further study as regards to the question of how it is possible for the museum to believe for over sixty years that the exhibited artifact is a representation of Tutankhamen. The study on this matter is implemented via a methodology organized around the portrait’s stylistic analysis. In parallel, an argumentation will be formulated based on stylistic comparisons among representative artworks of the two kings’ portraiture and thereby a conglomeration of similarities and differences will become the fundamental axis of this work. The aforementioned synthesis will reveal two typological formations of Amenophis III’s and Tutankhamen’s imaging, focused on the rendering of their facial characteristics. The kings’ typology will constitute the cornerstone of this study and will provide connecting factors and highlighting correlations to the question: what made the museum staff to do incorrect assessment on this particular artwork’s identification for over sixty years? Are there stylistic reasons that caused such misinterpretation? What conclusions could be carried out from the total research process?

PDF zie link :
https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/handle/1887/21472
Gebruikers-avatar
Rozette
 
Berichten: 1136
Geregistreerd: Za Mrt 25, 2006 6:57 pm

Terug naar Kunst

Wie is er online?

Gebruikers in dit forum: Geen geregistreerde gebruikers en 1 gast

cron