posted
I'm one of the newer members of this forum, thus I'm often making new discovers that I suspect most of the long term posters here were likely already aware of. One of these discoveries was that Khafre's statue was giving a fake nose by King's Monologue.
I originally assumed that they found the real nose and attached it back, but King's Mono shows other depictions of Khafre with a broader nose.
What makes this surprising is that the mainstream explanation behind the broken noses is that conquering groups that came after the Romans hacked off the nose, as part of their regime change process, and people would often show roman statues with broken noses to support their claims. However, I've never seen an instance where a nose of a different type was attached to a statue. This seems to support afrocentric claims that racist Europeans/White Americans intentionally defaced these statues to hide the Black African features present among the Egyptians.
The most concerning part is that King's Mono states that other statues have undergone the same treatment in the second image. And that's the main reason why I'm here, does anyone know what these statues in question might be?
the lioness, Member # 17353
posted
King's Monologue has and agenda and says a lot of inaccurate things (although some correct). He just looks at photos and makes assumptions. And his interview with Manu Ampim exposed Manu Ampim doing the same thing. Even KM was scratching his head about some thing Ampim said. You need do some reading because accepting any of his claims
If you are looking at a photo of a sculpture and you sees a line on the face it could be due to 1) the sculpture was found in fragments and they cemented it back together 2) They reconstructed a part of the face 3) some stone has natural lines, "veins" running through it
Some statues do have reconstructed noses but you have to do research to find out if this is a possibility. It should also be noted that when a nose is reconstructions sometimes the purposely use a reconstruction material of a different color to to show that part is modern. KM and Ampim act like the museums were idiots and didn't get the color right but the facts is if they wanted to they could reconstruct a nose or some other body part so that you could not tell, if not would have to see it in person with magnifying glass.
First you have to identify the exact statue and this one of of Khafre is very similar to another one of Khafre so you have to be able to distinguish and identify the museum
then when you have words describing the title of the sculpture and material used, Museum location and hopefully a catalog number
then you take the essential details and add the word "conservation" and as separate search adding "restoration" and another separate search adding "excavation"
I include searching for the statue adding "excavation" because sometimes that has pictures and description of the sculpture right at the time they dug it up, in it's original condition
Do you hear King's Monologue talking about this? No, he is just looking and not looking up background information, it's uniformed
Ibis you should be looking up this stuff doing some of your own research
Look for PDF that come up in google search on a topic and also look in googlebooks
KM and Metatron are just laymen learning as they go along and may have their biases an angles mixed up in it
You are misinforming people if you are calling this thread "Khafre's Fake Nose" without proof, you need to do research and from more than one source
I notice people like King's Monologue like to use n argument method "cover all bases". For instance he will show a picture of Tutsi men with thinner features that some Europeans look similar to, he will use this to explain the appearance of Rameses II. But at the same time he will show some cherry picked pictures of statues where his features looks broader than in other depictions of him. This is what I call the "cover all bases" argument you throw out two or more explanations that you like but contradict each other in certain ways but don't act like there is any contradiction. You just hope one will stick. He will leave out the art depicting him with those thinner features which he said Tutsis had, there is no consistency
KM shows this but it's not good enough for him. He needs the Khafre sculpture to have a reconstructed nose based on no evidence so he can use a different Khafre sculpture and base a new reconstruction on it Why? Because he's trying to make his reconstruction more like himself, even this Tutsi is not good enough for him
Thutmose II
the lioness, Member # 17353
posted
quote:Originally posted by Ibis:
What makes this surprising is that the mainstream explanation behind the broken noses is that conquering groups that came after the Romans hacked off the nose, as part of their regime change process, and people would often show roman statues with broken noses to support their claims.
Why Are the Noses Broken on So Many Ancient Egyptian Statues? Ancient texts provide a few clues. By Elizabeth Treptow
posted
Below the famous statue of Hemiunu, 4th dynasty. The head was found knocked off the body and it's eyes were broken out and a lot of the nose damaged and then all this reconstructed. The have purposely a slightly darker color for the restoration to show that that part is modern and also it is slight raised above the regular face surface, you can see the edge
Hemiunu (fl. 2570 BC) was an ancient Egyptian prince who is believed to have been the architect of the Great Pyramid of Giza.[1][2] As vizier, succeeding his father, Nefermaat, and his uncle, Kanefer,[3] Hemiunu was one of the most important members of the court and responsible for all the royal works. His tomb lies close to Khufu's pyramid.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
[/QB] ^ it is not uncommon that a statue could have it's head broken off and be nearby. That was the case here, as opposed to conspiracy that in modern times they made one from scratch to look European When being excavated the head can be seen through this hole They removed the wall and rumble, carefully taking the broken head and the many fragments found laying them in a basket.
Ancient looters had devastated the mastaba looking for precious items. In the wall to the serbad they cut a hole for a small person or child to fit through. Once inside the petite robber could pass objects of worth including the eyes and gold casings around them through the opening. In gouging out, using forceful blows, the precious eyes and gold castings, one arm was broken and the head was severed at the neck.
Djehuti Member # 6698
posted
Lioness is correct, you shouldn't believe everything you see or read from folks on the internet not even myself unless you can verify it. This is why whenever I make claims I like to post sources. As for the broken noses, that is common among many ancient and medieval statues. Noses are broken off for varying reasons usually religious or malicious.
Ibis Member # 23674
posted
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Lioness is correct, you shouldn't believe everything you see or read from folks on the internet not even myself unless you can verify it. This is why whenever I make claims I like to post sources. As for the broken noses, that is common among many ancient and medieval statues. Noses are broken off for varying reasons usually religious or malicious.
After spending time to conduct some research in the archives I disagree. This thread seems to support King's Mono's conclusions regarding Khafre. In page 2 a poster by the name of xyyman posts a different statue of Khafre and notes that he may have actually had been flat nosed.
And when one looks at the statue from that angle it is indeed much flatter than the pointy nosed Khafre. Logically, how could a sculptor hired by the pharaoh at the time mess up such a distinctive and crucial detail, unless the original nose was removed and replaced with a pointed one?
the lioness, Member # 17353
posted
quote:Originally posted by Ibis:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Lioness is correct, you shouldn't believe everything you see or read from folks on the internet not even myself unless you can verify it. This is why whenever I make claims I like to post sources. As for the broken noses, that is common among many ancient and medieval statues. Noses are broken off for varying reasons usually religious or malicious.
After spending time to conduct some research in the archives I disagree. This thread seems to support King's Mono's conclusions regarding Khafre. In page 2 a poster by the name of xyyman posts a different statue of Khafre and notes that he may have actually had been flat nosed.
And when one looks at the statue from that angle it is indeed much flatter than the pointy nosed Khafre. Logically, how could a sculptor hired by the pharaoh at the time mess up such a distinctive and crucial detail, unless the original nose was removed and replaced with a pointed one?
things are not that clear at this angle. It is also common that in various sculptures, reliefs and paintings of a given king there can be slight or more than slight differences. Even in modern times, try looking at images of various MLK statues. Some scholars of Egyptian and classical sculptors attribute differences to some portraits being realistic and others being more idealized
quote: More than one hundred statues may originally have adorned the funerary complex of King Khafre at Giza.1 Some have come down to us as undamaged masterpieces, but most have been reduced to humble fragments of alabaster, quartzite, anorthosite gneiss, black granite, or schist. This trove of statues was found in a shaft dug in the vestibule of the valley temple of Khafre's pyramid. Seventeen works, complete or fragmentary, appear in the Cairo Catalogue Générale, but many fragments have not been published.
the lioness, Member # 17353
posted
Excavations of the temple suggest it was originally one of about 23 seated statues of the pharaoh, estimated from the numerous fragments of similar statues found within the temple.
If you look at the lower sculpture without the falcon his lower torso and hip area look much thicker as if 25+ pounds heavier. He could have been heavier at different times or one of these could have been interpretation by the artist for unknown reason, maybe idealization of some kind. Thicker could have looked more masculine as a positive or less fit as a negative, this is unknown And since there were and estimated 23 of these statues it is likely that these two statues are not be the same artist
Source Catalogue Général des Antiquités Égyptiennes du Musée du Caire. Statuen und Statuetten von Königen und Privatleuten. Teil 1 (1911 photo of the same CG 15 without falcon )
.
.
Menkaure
Menkaure (Latinized as Mycerinus) was the son of Khafre (Romanized as Chephrên) and the grandson of Khufu
Each angle has it's own limitations in describing the shape of the nose. If your biased you show one not the other. Similarly some who do reconstructions based on the art, they sometimes pick the one they like the best and make excuses for why they did not use or hybridize with the other one
With two realistic sculptures of Khafre shown here and more I don't see a need for reconstruction. I think reconstructions are modern repackaging to appeal to various targeted modern demographics
an article by Hawass arguing this was made in the 26th dynasty not the 4th:
I read this several years ago, I don't know if he's right or not I call this a very small statue in bad condition and of unknown date, I'm would not be confident if forced do do racial profile, that the features are preserved well enough or if accurate in a 3 inch statue
On Khafre we have two examples of the many seated statues of Khafre and they differ in nose and body although still have similarities. I don't know which one is more accurate to what his physical appearance was but to call the nose of one fake has no basis. They show a picture of a vein in the stone, winding lighter colored lines that run through the rock and try to suggest it's a crack. Then they show some Ptolemaic statue that actually has a nose reconstruction, and these are Greek rulers where one would expect a nose of a different type. You are being manipulated to stop looking at the art not do hours of reading on the topic, not try to find a reconstruction or excavations record but simply to accept a new reconstruction and become a paid patron member and get various perks. And were you informed there were and estimated 23 of these seated statues made and an estimated 300 total with only tiny fraction of surviving heads, these things dumped in a pit. No you're being given only little slivers of information so you can be sold a new modern construction I don't accept any of these "reconstructions". They don't add to science they are marketing race concepts to target audiences and taking away from the original records made by the civilization, life-like realistically human statues and some of these Khafra and Menkaure ones are true masterpieces
It would be reasonable to call the thread "the noses on these two statues of Khafre are different"
or even "I think one of the noses on these two statues of Khafra is fake"
Somner Member # 22034
posted
Interesting point. The only thing I'd add is I think we should move away from solely characterizing broad, flat noses as black African features. Black African features are actually pretty diverse (example below of Ife heads show noses that aren't particularly broad or flat yet we know that they depict black people). Solely looking for broad, flat noses as evidence of black Ancient Egypt may cause you to overlook other evidence.
posted
"black" is a vague political term, If someone wants to propose it means "anybody with dark skin" or "and African person with dark skin" or "any indigenous African" one is s skin color reference another a geographic reference.
But here he have a given, a statue from African and skin color is out of the equations for Khafre because there are no paintings of him, no painted sculpture and no mummy.
There were said to be 300 statures of Khafre but no there are only a handful with head intact
the proposal is that his nose did not look like this because the other few in existence had a less sharp nose and the 2nd proposal is that this is a fake nose, added to make him look more Euroepan
King's Monologue said here on June 29th, 2024 that he discovered the nose on the famous statue of Khafre with the falcon is made from a separate piece of stone. So either he has proof or he's a liar
Ibis Member # 23674
posted
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: "black" is a vague political term, If someone wants to propose it means "anybody with dark skin" or "and African person with dark skin" or "any indigenous African" one is s skin color reference another a geographic reference.
But here he have a given, a statue from African and skin color is out of the equations for Khafre because there are no paintings of him, no painted sculpture and no mummy.
There were said to be 300 statures of Khafre but no there are only a handful with head intact
the proposal is that his nose did not look like this because the other few in existence had a less sharp nose and the 2nd proposal is that this is a fake nose, added to make him look more Euroepan
I'll admit that King Mono should provide more evidence for the nose, but I honestly can't blame him for arriving at that conclusion.
Below is another statue of Khafre that shows a much broader nose than Khafre Enthroned. Source:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Statue_of_Khafra_%28side_view%29.jpg
Khafre enthroned seems to be the "odd one out" based on all the other statues of him that I've seen, so what other explanation is there?
the lioness, Member # 17353
posted
quote:Originally posted by Ibis:
Below is another statue of Khafre that shows a much broader nose than Khafre Enthroned. Source:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Statue_of_Khafra_%28side_view%29.jpg
No, a profile, side view of a nose does not show how wide (broad) it is. The best view to see wideness is front view. Side view is to show it's main shape and degree of protrusion
________________________________________________
Like the famous wooden head of Queen Tiye, the eyes on the calcite alabaster Khafre would have eyeballs nearly the size of tennis balls proportionally, too large to be realistically human although the rest of the face, nose , mouth etc are believable
With an estimated 300 statues of Khafre at Giza (although very few with intact heads) there would have been multiple artists making them. We also do not know to what extent the people in charge wanted each one to be a highly accurate resemblance or if some interoperations were idealized and others made by artists less skilled
Ibis Member # 23674
posted
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Ibis:
Below is another statue of Khafre that shows a much broader nose than Khafre Enthroned. Source:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Statue_of_Khafra_%28side_view%29.jpg
No, a profile, side view of a nose does not show how wide (broad) it is. The best view to see wideness is front view. Side view is to show it's main shape and degree of protrusion
________________________________________________
Like the famous wooden head of Queen Tiye, the eyes on the calcite alabaster Khafre would have eyeballs nearly the size of tennis balls proportionally, too large to be realistically human although the rest of the face, nose , mouth etc are believable
With an estimated 300 statues of Khafre at Giza (although very few with intact heads) there would have been multiple artists making them. We also do not know to what extent the people in charge wanted each one to be a highly accurate resemblance or if some interoperations were idealized and others made by artists less skilled
While you have a point. I do find it odd that we can't find such nose shape variance among any other pharaoh of that time period. Are we to assume that they had decided to do a sloppy job with Khafre's statue?
Djehuti Member # 6698
posted
^ Despite so-called "Afrocentric conspiracies", it was a known fact that in the early days of Egyptology it was not uncommon for damaged statues to be reconstructed even if in ways to that are to the aesthetics of the Europeans doing the reconstruction and not the original likeness of the pharaohs. I forgot which Egyptologist it was but I remember reading that when the famous bust of Nefertiti was found, he thought that it was lightened up by the Germans who found it. You can still see traces of darker paint around certain areas of the Nefertiti bust.
posted 
