2. The lesson I extracted from Macauley was that anyone could and can lie about anything. In this case the lies where of an archeological discovery of a burial ground. The archeologist miss-interpreted everything that he saw, he made up a whole story of what the bodies could have been like and about how they could have possibly lived. This is true about what we sometimes read on the internet. The person Macauley could have been describing as an archeologist could be that one person setting behind there keyboard and typing anything they want and publishing on the web, mainly Wikipedia. A way in which I can personally avoid reading false evidence is by first looking at scholar websites, and researching the websites that I may look at, and checking if they are up to date. Another way is to cross-reference, if the same information is seen in about four or more different websites and different publishers, the information may most likely be correct. All it takes is a little time to do a bit more research to get the facts.
3. The temple of Hatshepsut has a different form, scale and location than of the pyramids. The temple is first horizontal and rectangular on the plain, while the pyramids are stacked to reach the heavens. Another difference is the clear entrance of the temple while the pyramids hide its own. The functionality of the two has a commonality; they were both designed in honor of a great pharaoh and are forever immortalized by its structure. A reason why the temple of Hatshepsut is a different form of funerary is the gender difference. When one just looks at the differences between a male and a female, they notice that a male seems to be shut off from others socially, they tend to hide their emotions, and therefore the pyramids hid its entrance form the world. A female on the other hand is more sociable and opening to others, therefore the temple has a clear entrance for all to see. The locations of these monuments are different as well. The pyramids are placed in the dessert for all who pass it to see and remember the great pharaohs who once ruled the empire. The pyramids themselves symbolized power in society. Queen Hatshepsut was greatly known for uniting the kingdoms; this could explain the horizontal form of the structure, when one thinks of unifying two things you think of being in one common ground. The temple compared to the pyramids is smaller in scale, however due to its location it stands out, even though it is hidden between the mountains terrain. Even though she was a powerful ruler she did not express it the way the previous pharaohs did, and because of that some can say that even if the scale is not vertically big, it is still a great impact in this society. In this case gender does play a big part on design.
Temple of Athena Nike: Greek
4. The Temple of Hatshepsut: Egyptian and the Temple of Athena Nike: Greek
Both temples are at a smaller scale compared to there surroundings. Hatshepsut is located near mountains that hide the monument. The temple of Athena Nike is smaller in scale than the other structures. Both structures are emphasized in there locations. Hatshepsut is placed horizontally in the front creating a contrast with its surroundings; Athena Nike is placed at the front of Acropolis making it the first structure that people see as they enter the city. Egyptian architecture in general could be considered the prototype to Greek architecture. Both structures have balance and symmetry when seen. The difference is the concept of the societies and how they used the buildings. Both Egyptian and Greek civilizations have a polytheistic religion. The temple of Hatshepsut has the Egyptian concept of eternal life and was also used a burial for the Queen. The temple of Athena Nike was a just a temple for Nike, the Greeks believed in creating immortality in their structures and not for them because they thought of life of someday ending. Both honor these females from their civilizations.
4.I believe that the reason for Egyptian furniture being so lightweight compared to the pyramids is that it is a temporary component in a person’s lifetime, while the pyramids where to be permanent. The furniture took on the human’s characteristic of having two lives; it was used while they were alive and taken with them in their afterlife. The furniture had to be lightweight if they were planning to place it in the pyramids, it had to be portable. The furniture itself represented communality, as the pyramids was more ritualistic. This also brings up the message of furniture being just ordinary and the pyramids being extraordinary.
5.I believe that the reason for Egyptian furniture being so lightweight compared to the pyramids is that it is a temporary component in a person’s lifetime, while the pyramids where to be permanent. The furniture took on the human’s characteristic of having two lives; it was used while they were alive and taken with them in their afterlife. The furniture had to be lightweight if they were planning to place it in the pyramids, it had to be portable. The furniture itself represented communality, as the pyramids was more ritualistic. This also brings up the message of furniture being just ordinary and the pyramids being extraordinary.
6. The urns seem to tell a story of everyday, or even a myth of Greek life. The role between male and female seems to be uneven, although Greek gods and goddesses were equal; the society seems to have the woman depicted as the servant to the man. It is as if the urns themselves become a chapter in the Greek life, forever holding a piece of history.