Monday, 30 June 2014

The 'Bric -a-Brac' of War

Australia recently celebrated National Archaeology Week. During this time, Queensland Museum Curator of Archaeology, Dr Brit Asmussen participated in some Meet the Curator sessions with a focus on discovering the stories of authentic and faux archaeological artefacts collected by servicemen stationed in Egypt in the First World War.

Read full story here


  1. Hi Woy Woy Steve,
    There is no question that the 2 pics of Anubis (1983 and 2007) are not the same. I agree with Anonymous who posted earlier.
    There are many features which don't match up and can't be explained by having been taken by different individuals at different times and from slightly different angles.
    Many of the proportions of the figures are different.
    The angles of the arms relative to the torso differ in the two figures. For example the right arm of Anubis ( holding the Ankh) in the 1983 version is at a markedly greater angle to the torso than that of the 2007 version.
    The angle between the legs is wider at 1983 than at 2007.
    The cranium at 1983 is more flattened and lizard like.
    The upper body, measured from the waist is much greater in proportion to the lower body in 2007 than in 1983, and so on .....
    What is the significance of the blue background in the 1983 version?
    The engraving looks much rougher and more crudely carved at 1983.
    It almost looks like it has been roughly scratched on the blue background to bring up the appearance of freshly exposed engraving.
    Looking at the 1983 version I would think, WOW, if I ever saw anything fake that's it! Don't bother to explore any of that further!
    You say that you have a picture timeline of Anubis from 1983 to 2007 so when did the transition occur?
    How can all this be explained?
    Two possibilities come to my burgeoning conspiritorial mind:
    1. The original photo was doctored at 1983,
    2. The original glyph was erased at some time after 1983 and re-engraved to give the 2007 version.
    Either of these possibilities should have left some traces behind for the professional eye, one would think.
    Could the 2007 version actually have been there in 1983, and earlier, with its so-called finished 2007 ears, BUT the photograph supplied was completely false in portraying the so-called 1983 version with the so-called unfinished ears?
    Irrespective of whether the glyphs are ancient or not these observations are puzzling and hopefully should be addressed.

  2. Any perceived difference in the to photos can be attributed to the the angle of the photo taken , for example the photo may look slightly different in proportion to the other as one photographer may have been taller than another and the chance of the 2 photos being taken from the exact same spot is minimal as the cleft is very narrow and hard to get a full shot of the wall
    The 1983 photos were taken with a 35mm camera as opposed to later modern photos by digital devices , photo processing limitations in the 80's do not give a true representation of colour , the rock wall appears darker because there is more lichens and mold on the surface in wetter weather , the latter photo was taken during an extended drought period where the rock surfaces become bleached out from lack of moisture
    The photos haven't been photoshopped in anyway and the timelines are correct.
    There is no need to create a " conspiracy " from this observation as there is overwhelming evidence that proves the glyphs are badly done fakes

    1. oh and the 1983 photos appear rougher and whiter because they were recently carved , the rough edges are called spalling chips from where the sandstone has flaked off during carving, go in your back yard and grab a mouldy old rock and carve into it , mystery solved