Talk:Philae obelisk

Dorset Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dorset, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics connected with Dorset. If you would like to participate, you can visit the WikiProject Dorset project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.DorsetWikipedia:WikiProject DorsetTemplate:WikiProject DorsetDorset articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Egypt Low‑importance

	Egypt portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egypt on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject EgyptTemplate:WikiProject EgyptEgypt articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Visual arts: Public art

	Visual arts portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
	This article is supported by the public art task force.

Untitled

There is only one obelisk at Kingston Lacey. Bankes didn't 'discover' it, he brought it from G.V Belzoni in 1815.

The hieroglyphs and a translation can be found in 'Cleopatra's Needles and Other Egyptian Obelisks' by E.A. Wallis Budge, Kessinger Publishing ISBN 0-7661-3524-1. Wallis Budge mistakenly believed the obelisk was the work of Ptolemy IX The obelisk is badly weathered at the glyphs are barely readable on two of the sides.

Thanks, it was my error to say "both obelisks". I will correct that now.

I don't have a source for the acquisition from Belzoni: if someone else does, please add this information to the page. Andrew Dalby 17:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo- just wanted to mention: the statement: "the documents are dated 118/117 BC" shows amazing future guessing capabilities for the Egyptians! How they could know that JC was coming in 118 or 117 years was incredible! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.247.125.124 (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]