Hello Rebecca

Given this post's proximity to our most recent exchange, where I had asked you to show me the part of your parody essay that you had referred to, so I could take a comparative visual test, I will assume that your reply here to Martin zeroes in on what you were referring to.

So, let me share my impressions, while mentioning that prior to this month I had no idea what an ibex was. If you'd said that it was one of those small boxes that people used to keep on their desks, of clients phone numbers and addresses, I would have believed you.

Another thing, is that I really don't know how this part of this month's discussion has evolved. I've seen mention of ibexes, felines and square butts, but I haven't dug deeper.

Let's start with the image on the right. Given the nature of this discussion, I will answer to that image two ways, as I think that only one way is likely to get much attention, and that is...

1/2 -Does the "feline" carving image on the right look like the corresponding feline silhouette image?

I would say yes, most definitely. While I can't know what the artist was really trying to make, I can say that I am 'completely certain' that the artist wanted to carve a feline. The only thing I can foresee that might change my opinion, is if somebody later shows another animal that also looks quite a bit like the image. That certainly wouldn't rule out the feline interpretation, which would remain a very strong possibility.

2/2 -Here's the likely understated question: Would I consider it reasonable, for a person to say that it is highly, highly unlikely or impossible that the second image is meant to represent a feline? My answer is no in either case. I don't consider them legitimate conclusions.

As for the second image, on the left...

1/2 Does the image on the left look like the corresponding ibex silhouette?

I would say yes, it does quite a bit. The body is in decent proportion. The head and horns are also complementary. On second glance however, I see a problem with the horn angle relative to the head. If the head is looking down, the silhouette's horn would point up, rather than along the back, as one sees in the carving. I can see why this would be grounds for some to say it can't be an ibex. I wouldn't though, because I think the juxtapositioning may be stylistic and/or an attempt to economize the "ibex's" use of space. As for the former, I am reminded of those human hands on the two main stelas. Isn't there quite a bit of such "stylism" at GT? Each such example would further legitimize the possibility that the "ibex's" horns were similarly (stylistically) positioned.

As for the 'square butt', I don't see this is as a problem. In my view - and again, I haven't followed others' feedback - I would say that it is more likely that this area was more about the animals' two hindquarters. Moreover, the animal seems to be in a jumping position - that ram thing - as indicated by the bent front-quarters, in which case we can expect to see a relatively square hindquarter positioning.

That said, the carving on the back legs seem to be less elaborate than the rest of the image, so I can see why some people might not visualize legs in this region of the image.

2/2 Would I consider it reasonable, for a person to say that it is highly, highly unlikely or impossible that the second image is meant to represent an ibex?

I certainly would NOT say it is reasonable to say that this interpretation is impossible. There's enough correspondence to make this interpretation very reasonable, and the question of what seems to be under dispute - the so-called "square butt" - is an arbitrary interpretation, imo, I'm not sure we're looking at a butt, rather than coiled hind legs, or even seated hind legs.

As for this being "highly highly unlikely," at present I would say that this position is still too strong. The carved image looks too much like the ibex silhouette to be dismissed, categorically. Again, however, if others can show other information that somehow supports this interpretation, I would be open. For now though, I would say that this conclusion is too strong, given the overall quality of the match.

The bottom line for me is this: if someone were to say to me, Poster Boy, do you think the carving on the left represents a good approximation of the ibex silhouette? I would say, yes it does. Quite. Could it be something else? Certainly, but I really don't know. For now, I can see why others might say it looks a lot like an ibex, if that's really what the silhouette represents.

To summarize, I really don't know what the background to this point is, and I would imagine that Martin's says the image on the left is an ibex and that you, Rebecca, strongly feel otherwise.

But the more significant point you made, if I followed you correctly, was that a significant proportion of academics disagree with Martin on this point, and perhaps to the degree where they found the ibex interpretation truly unreasonable (?) I would agree that this is a more significant point, in the sense that it relies on the same consensus thinking that Martin relies on in his 'test'. Still, I wonder if this audience is sufficient.

Maybe it would be better to take the test to Reddit, where others can decide, with 'fresh' rather than trained-conditioned eyes, if it really is reasonable OR unreasonable to consider the pairing on the left an acceptable match. If the answer to the second question turns out to be yes, then a perhaps more significant majority thinks that such an interpretation should not be ruled out.

Considering this pairing alone, to the exclusion of all other information, would be most ideal I think. I also think it would be best if BOTH questions are asked.

(Cellphone texting is hard)



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 21-Aug-19 19:57 by Poster Boy.