The paint has not faded off but was intentionally washed off by the restorers who say it was dirty.
1) If the above was washed how do you know that paint was removed and not just dirt?
2) It is very possible the above painting had become dirty. It is debatable whether or not that justifies trying to clean it or not. Ancient paintings do become dirty over time. This is a fact. This means that colors in a painting may not be as bright and light as they were originally. There are many variables. Some pigments lighten over time others darken. This is entirely separate from dirt and dust which may accumulate on the surface and cause the painting to darken. For example, if a paint has lightened over time it may simultaneously have accumulated a layer of dirt which darkens the painting. This is common.
3) If a painting is shown on the internet in different versions the source of these versions need to be established to separate differences due to restorations and differences due to photography.
4) If such a painting was altered by environmental conditions or by human intervention, regardless, suppose it is either 10% lighter or 10% darker now then it was originally- are we to worry that by these variances that a person's race is changed?
posted
Paint made by the ancients is water soluable.
Ancient paint from Saharan rock art to AE tomb art is being washed away by photographers wanting to enliven the colors in the case of the former to restorers making the colors into what they wish them to be in the case of the latter.
Also, keep in mind that this tomb has been restored multiple times since its discovery.
And there are mutltiple images of nefertari in various hues. There are some where she is depicted as dark chocolate brown. Others where she is depicted as lighter brown and still others where she is depicted as pale. Now of course all the hype of the restoration and exhibition goes to those "pale" images as being "naturalistic", but this is simply hype because the brown images are just as naturalistic. Depictions of Egyptian women in various shades, even of the same person in one tomb, was normal in Egyptian art and shows that many of the colors were symbolic.
Posts: 8898 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: The paint has not faded off but was intentionally washed off by the restorers who say it was dirty.
Since when does fading necessarily mean a natural process and not by intentional and artificial means?? I never suggested the latter to not be the case, as I'm well aware of so-called "restoration" works.
quote:Thanks for this pre-restoration original. In the coming decades pre-restoration original AE art will become harder and harder to find. By next century only post-restoration doctored complexion artwork will be all that's available and the people citing them will not even know the paint job is not that of the AEs.
Now is the time to buy art books on AE published before 1963 and scan their pictures so to build a database of images as the AEs actually painted them not as Hawass and his teams of European and Egyptian painters with not a single black person among them are "restoring" them.
Indeed. We've discussed this issue many times before, especially Doug. I myself have pointed out that older black-and-white photos show a lot more 'black' if you know what I mean than color photos of the same paintings today.
Posts: 26302 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Apparently the lying dummy can't see the traces of darker paint around the cheek, chin, arm, etc. Obviously the image was much darker, but her little black phobic mind can't accept it.
quote:The concept of "pristine folk" is like something Hitler would say
How so?? Northern Europeans are more 'pristine' in that they have the least recent African admixture than southern Europeans along the Mediterranean. Similarly, southern Egyptians especially in rural areas are more pristine Africans in that they have least recent Eurasian admixture compared to Egyptians in the urban areas of the Delta. So don't even bother trying to demonize a word or its usage because it inconveniences YOU. Posts: 26302 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Apparently the lying dummy can't see the traces of darker paint around the cheek, chin, arm, etc. Obviously the image was much darker, but her little black phobic mind can't accept it.
you're dumb and I'll tell you why. We see on the skin tone, two tones. One is light brown and the other is darker. slightly reddish. The slightly reddish darker color is what is seen clearly on the neck in triangular lines. The same darker color outlines the ear. Obviously the bit of this same color on the cheek does not represent what the artist originally intended . The proof is that the artist used this darker color in several locations to delineate the form. The locations are as I said the wrinkle lines on the neck, the underside of the chin and the outline of the ear. Do you see how what you are saying makes no sense? If the whole face was the color of the lines you would not see the lines at all they would merge and delineate nothing. Painting starting with dark under layers and painting lighter layers over them but not completely over them is called "painting from dark to light" is standard procedure and you can look that up on google, and the AE's used it too.
If you were to know anything about painting you would know that painters work in layers most often from dark to light. In the first layer the whole face was painted that darker color you see in the neck wrinkle lines. At this point you would see no lines because it would all be one color, the skin. The next layer is lighter paint you paint everywhere except where you want darker lines to be. So what you are saying is BS because if that dark area were covering the whole face you would not see the wrinkle lines on the neck or the outline of the ear. What you are seeing on the cheek is the lighter layer of paint damaged and coming off revealing the darker under layer. Either that or some kind of cheek shadow the artist intended. I'm sorry we can't be certain over the internet.
This layering sequence is sometimes used and other times not used and it is not always easy to tell unless you look closely at the painting.
For example look at the spoon shape above the hand.
It has a reddish brown color with a dark outline. But there are two ways to do that.
The first way to do it is paint the whole thing the dark color then wait until that dries and them paint the lighter color on the inside leaving the dark color only around the edge as a thick line. Thus if you sanded off the top lighter layer the darker layer would show underneath. The intent of the artist is that it is not sanded off or damaged but a combination of these two layers.
Another method, akin to drawing, that is more familiar to the layman is to paint the whole thing the lighter color first and then outline it with a dark outline.
This is done in some cases and other not. In this case if you were to sandpaper off the top layer it would be the opposite result, there would be no dark under layer it would just get lighter if the support was a lighter or white plaster.
You might know something about DNA and history but you know nothing about art technique. You can't just look at some painting off the internet and assess the condition or what type of damage is showing or not showing.
There is a darker brown color. It is the piece above the bird and the circular shape above it. So why is that not (supposedly) faded?
You don't know the process that this painting was made. Even professional have to use things like X rays to tell for sure. So stop it.
Another example that shows the artist used light over dark technique is the white garment overlapping the arms. The arm is painted first in that reddish brown color. Then stripes of white are painted over it. But you will also notice that between the stripes near the shoulder you can see how that even between the stripes is a little whitish. This shows the painter knew how to paint a transparent lighter layer over a darker color. Obviously the stripes are not just floating there they are part of a broader piece of thinner cloth. This shows the painter worked in layers.
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ The only dummy here is YOU. You fail to see that:
1. The original paint is faded with vague traces that cannot convey what the actual original complexion may have looked like. (though I have provided examples of portraits from the same tomb where the original dark mahogany complexion is preserved).
2. The ancient Egyptians used paints made from natural substances which as Takruri pointed out were water soluble and thus subject to erosion from the elements in particularly water or even light itself which is why flash photography of ancient paintings are banned!
3. The Egyptians used 6 primary colors to paint with-- yellow, blue, red, green, white and black. Of course these were obviously not only colors displayed in art, which means any other colors or shades had to be created through mixing and blending of the six primary pigments to create variety. Because of the chemical composition of each dye when mixed, erosion or fading occurs in layers.
This is why some Egyptian and other depictions which originally had dark complexions or 'black' can appear 'white' over time in areas where paint has eroded the most.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: "... their skin colour ... yellow-pink" my ass!
posted
^ What's funny is that when I posted pics where the paint was fully preserved, you rebutted by saying that paintings sometimes get darker over time. This is true, however that is no reason why the photos I posted show Nefertari with a darker skin complexion especially when all other colors remain bright.
In fact the problem with Egyptian paintings is just the opposite-- portraits loose paint and become lighter over time.
The par-examplar of this is the seated scribe proudly displayed in the Cairo Museum.
before
after
There's no way getting around it you dumb liar.
Posts: 26302 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
dimwit, you proved my point magnificently, this what a faded painting looks like
_________________________________
this is what a faded painting does not look like
__________________________________
quote: Originally posted by Djehuti: Again, portraits where the paint is preserved...
Originally posted by Djehuti: versus the one where the paint was lost.
fool, the skin tone directly above matches the left figure in the painting immediately above it.
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gold is the color of the female gods - white is the color of death Golden skin Hathor giving the dead (white skin) Nefertiri the breath of life
The very much alive Royal Lady from the South standing before Djehuti - far right: Osiri nsu hime.t wer neb.t tawi <nefertiri t.hor n mer.t> "Royal Southern wife of Osiris the Great Lord of the Two Lands <Beautiful creation and beloved of the Horus>";......................................................................................................................................................................... .................................. playing a game of Senet (Snt)... Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Above Hathor doesn't have white skin, it's yellow.
As for Nefertari, the skin tone in the smaller upper picture upper picture is lighter than in the lower picture. This demonstrates different paintings of the same person can have varying skin tone. point for lioness
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: Above Hathor doesn't have white skin, it's yellow.
As for Nefertari, the skin tone in the smaller upper picture upper picture is lighter than in the lower picture. This demonstrates different paintings of the same person can have varying skin tone. point for lioness
No, you incredibly illiterate person,
The color of Hathor on the right is gold because she is a goddess, the color of the southern queen royal on the left is white because she's dead - a ghost - who is being given the breath of life; being reborn by Hathor into her natural state as a living Black woman
Nefertiri was a member of the house of Horus - Het.hor
Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wally is correct. The imagery in Egyptian tombs, especially those of the royals, followed a narrative and each section represented a part of the journey to the afterlife. That is why in certain parts of the tombs the deceased, male or female, may be seen in certain pale colors, while in others they are seen in natural tones. This pattern is found in most tombs with the same person, especially females, being shown in different colors.
Unfortunately, most Western discussions on Egyptian art only focus on one or two scenes or images out of a larger tomb which causes whole bunch of confusion and distortion. The imagery has to be taken into the context of the entire tomb not just one small piece of it.
Posts: 8898 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ What's funny is that when I posted pics where the paint was fully preserved, you rebutted by saying that paintings sometimes get darker over time. This is true, however that is no reason why the photos I posted show Nefertari with a darker skin complexion especially when all other colors remain bright.
In fact the problem with Egyptian paintings is just the opposite-- portraits loose paint and become lighter over time.
I think the reason some paintings (for instance, those from medieval churches) get darker is because of the soot from candles used over the generations. Most Egyptian tombs would not have people with candles visiting them on a regular basis after they were initally painted.
Posts: 7090 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Soot or ash could be one cause, but the truth is there are many chemicals in the air that can cause paint to become darker. The point is Egyptian relics are usually preserved in dry climates with few chemicals in the air.
quote:Originally posted by the lying dumbass:
dimwit, you proved my point magnificently, this what a faded painting looks like
this is what a faded painting does not look like
So you're saying that all paint fading occurs the exact same way?? Are you saying the Nefertari portrait is not faded despite the traces of dark paint on the cheek, chin, neck, and arms. What about older photos showing more paint?? The only dimwit is YOU! LOL How long are you going to humiliate yourself here in this forum?? Posts: 26302 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Wally is correct. The imagery in Egyptian tombs, especially those of the royals, followed a narrative and each section represented a part of the journey to the afterlife. That is why in certain parts of the tombs the deceased, male or female, may be seen in certain pale colors, while in others they are seen in natural tones. This pattern is found in most tombs with the same person, especially females, being shown in different colors.
Unfortunately, most Western discussions on Egyptian art only focus on one or two scenes or images out of a larger tomb which causes whole bunch of confusion and distortion. The imagery has to be taken into the context of the entire tomb not just one small piece of it.
Correct. However, there's no doubt the picture of Nefertari I posted has its skin color faded.
Posts: 26302 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The texture and thickness of the hair on this mummy is that of an African woman, however, that is not the issue here...
This appears to be a black and white photo that has been tinctured with a burnt sienna touch up of the hair, forehead, nails...there are no other color or hues on this photo
Why was this done, do you suppose?Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Also, keep in mind that this tomb has been restored multiple times since its discovery.
And there are mutltiple images of nefertari in various hues. There are some where she is depicted as dark chocolate brown. Others where she is depicted as lighter brown and still others where she is depicted as pale. Now of course all the hype of the restoration and exhibition goes to those "pale" images as being "naturalistic", but this is simply hype because the brown images are just as naturalistic. Depictions of Egyptian women in various shades, even of the same person in one tomb, was normal in Egyptian art and shows that many of the colors were symbolic.
The above painting is very telling to say the least.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Soot or ash could be one cause, but the truth is there are many chemicals in the air that can cause paint to become darker. The point is Egyptian relics are usually preserved in dry climates with few chemicals in the air.
quote:Originally posted by the lying dumbass:
dimwit, you proved my point magnificently, this what a faded painting looks like
this is what a faded painting does not look like
So you're saying that all paint fading occurs the exact same way?? Are you saying the Nefertari portrait is not faded despite the traces of dark paint on the cheek, chin, neck, and arms. What about older photos showing more paint?? The only dimwit is YOU! LOL How long are you going to humiliate yourself here in this forum??
They are obviously both faded - silly. Keep hope alive though, and keep posting those "restored and faded Libou as well. Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ What's funny is that when I posted pics where the paint was fully preserved, you rebutted by saying that paintings sometimes get darker over time. This is true, however that is no reason why the photos I posted show Nefertari with a darker skin complexion especially when all other colors remain bright.
In fact the problem with Egyptian paintings is just the opposite-- portraits loose paint and become lighter over time.
The par-examplar of this is the seated scribe proudly displayed in the Cairo Museum.
before
after
There's no way getting around it you dumb liar.
I think that's the scribe now at the Louvre. Funny thing I was just asked the other day on youtube by a Eurowack gone wild - "why is the scribe at the Louvre white if the Egyptians were black". And the guy calls me a racist. lol! Pitiful all of this unnecessary confusion has been caused by European museums and so-called mainstream "Egyptology".
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
"The statue was cleaned in 1998, although the process merely reduced the wax overpainting. This restoration brought out the well-conserved ancient polychromy."
Old Kingdom, 4th Dynasty (?), c. 2620-2500 BC
"The most convincing of these associates the scribe to Pehernefer. Certain stylistic criteria, such as the thin lips, which was unusual, the form of the torso, and the broad chest could support this theory."
His degree is in African American history, yet he feels qualified to go around slandering Ancient Egyptian artifacts as fakes and impugning the integrity of white and Egyptian scholars. There has been no whitewash Egyptian history, the Rahotep and Nofret statues and other are perfectly genuine, and no good reason has been given to doubt them. Europeans did not toil under the burning sun in Egypt to uncover statues only to knock their noses off and scrape the paint away. Such suggestions are preposterous and insulting.
Ampim was enough of a clown to claim that paint was scraped from one statue to make it look white, and to cite as evidence the fact that there was still brown paint on the legs! What halfwit would only scrape half a statue white? This is not scholarship but insane paranoia!
The Tetisheri bust was discredited by a proper scholar (Davies of the British Museum) for sound reasons. Its inscription was found to be copied from another statue base, and was incorrectly rendered in the areas where the inscription was damaged on the other base. Also it shows a type of dress and hairstlye that are not represented on any other statues. These are good grounds for declaring an object inauthentic. This is scholarship. The likes of Ampim and Stierlin demonstrate no such metholdogy. They are just attention-grabbing chancers.
Hawass called Stierlin 'delerious' for questioning the Nefertit bust, and I'll go with that. As for Hermiunu, his face has obviously been reconstructed from fragments also found in situ. No parts were missing except the eyes, and the reconstructed parts are evident enough on close examination.
Fake statue Amarna Princess returns to Bolton Museum
The Amarna Princess was bought by Bolton Museum in 2003
A fake ancient Egyptian statue has returned to the museum in Greater Manchester which was tricked into paying £440,000 for it.
Bolton Council bought the Amarna Princess in 2003 after Christie's and the British Museum authenticated the figurine as 3,300 years old.
But the statue of the granddaughter of King Tutankhamun was created by Shaun Greenhalgh in his shed in Bolton.
It, and other fakes, will go on display at Bolton Museum from 16 April.
Greenhalgh, of Bromley Cross in Bolton, was jailed for four years and eight months at Bolton Crown Court in 2007 after admitting selling faked and forged works of art as genuine and laundering the money he made.
London's Metropolitan Police acquired the Amarna Princess, and Greenhalgh's other fakes, after his conviction.
Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ You morons. The eyes are translucent marbles that give off a certain color depending on what light they are reflecting. Sometimes it appears gray, other times blue. LOL
You idiots fixate on the light color of the eyes but not the original color of the scribe!
It's rare, but blue eyes can occur in black people as well. LOLPosts: 26302 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ You morons. The eyes are translucent marbles that give off a certain color depending on what light they are reflecting. Sometimes it appears gray, other times blue. LOL
You idiots fixate on the light color of the eyes but not the original color of the scribe!
It's rare, but blue eyes can occur in black people as well. LOL
Louvre Museum on the seated Scribe:
inlaid eyes: they consist of a piece of red-veined white magnesite, in which a piece of slightly truncated rock crystal was placed. The front part of the crystal was carefully polished. The back side was covered with a layer of organic material, creating the color of the iris and also probably serving as an adhesive.
The statue is 21.26 inches high and made of painted limestone. It had been covered in a layer of wax varnish. The wax had accumulated dirt and was removed in 1998 returning the figure to it's original color.
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
The statue is 21.26 inches high and made of painted limestone. It had been covered in a layer of wax varnish. The wax had accumulated dirt and was removed in 1998 returning the figure to it's original color. ________________________________________________
I thought there was more to the story.
Posts: 676 | From: the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass: inlaid eyes: they consist of a piece of red-veined white magnesite, in which a piece of slightly truncated rock crystal was placed. The front part of the crystal was carefully polished. The back side was covered with a layer of organic material, creating the color of the iris and also probably serving as an adhesive.
^ Correct, round crystals like today's translucent marbles. You've confirmed my statements. Congratulations. Posts: 26302 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by A Simpleton: The statue is 21.26 inches high and made of painted limestone. It had been covered in a layer of wax varnish. The wax had accumulated dirt and was removed in 1998 returning the figure to it's original color.
I thought there was more to the story.
And what is the basis that the remnants of original dark paint that was true skin tone was "dirt". You'd be surprised how many statues lost their original paint due to the claim that it was "dirt". Of course they probably share the same mentality as you. "This must be dirt because it is too dark to be the Egyptians' actual skin color" LOLPosts: 26302 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by A Simpleton: The statue is 21.26 inches high and made of painted limestone. It had been covered in a layer of wax varnish. The wax had accumulated dirt and was removed in 1998 returning the figure to it's original color.
I thought there was more to the story.
And what is the basis that the remnants of original dark paint that was true skin tone was "dirt". You'd be surprised how many statues lost their original paint due to the claim that it was "dirt". Of course they probably share the same mentality as you. "This must be dirt because it is too dark to be the Egyptians' actual skin color" LOL
The original paint was the above dark orange brown color. The restorers didn't come in and say this is too dark to be an Egyptian. They tested the wax varnish to distinguish it chemically from the paint sample. Then they removed it. Prior to the cleaning one could detect three colors. One was the basic dark orange brown color of the statue. The second is a cream color, some of the color of the original limestone in many smaller places, a result of the paint flaking off. The third color is a darker chocolate brown color which was a wax varnish layer used by the Egyptians to protect the paint and is a standard ancient material. Over time wax can pick up dirt. This layer of dirt of a chocolate brown color is a different type of brown than the orangey base color. If such a color were to fade it would be a light brown tan color but not show this orange quality.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass: inlaid eyes: they consist of a piece of red-veined white magnesite, in which a piece of slightly truncated rock crystal was placed. The front part of the crystal was carefully polished. The back side was covered with a layer of organic material, creating the color of the iris and also probably serving as an adhesive.
^ Correct, round crystals like today's translucent marbles. You've confirmed my statements. Congratulations. [/QB]
You made no mention that the back side of the translucent crystals were "covered with a layer of organic material, creating the color of the iris". You said the iris appeared colored due to varying outside light refraction upon the crystal. The complexion of the Seated Scribe after being cleaned falls still falls within the realm of skin darkness which some people would call "black" and also within the realm of skin darkness which some people would call "non-black"
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
...and this is Shinola...Authentic Kememou scribes - some of which are 'nose Chiseled'... Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Who knows. They could have been damaged by tomb robbers, fanatic Christians or Muslims, or Euronuts who thought the noses were too wide.
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass:
The original paint was the above dark orange brown color.
The restorers didn't come in and say this is too dark to be an Egyptian. They tested the wax varnish to distinguish it chemically from the paint sample. Then they removed it. Prior to the cleaning one could detect three colors. One was the basic dark orange brown color of the statue. The second is a cream color, some of the color of the original limestone in many smaller places, a result of the paint flaking off.
The third color is a darker chocolate brown color which was a wax varnish layer used by the Egyptians to protect the paint and is a standard ancient material. Over time wax can pick up dirt. This layer of dirt of a chocolate brown color is a different type of brown than the orangey base color. If such a color were to fade it would be a light brown tan color but not show this orange quality.
I was being sarcastic when I put those words in the mouths of the restorers, stupid. Of course, I don't know exactly what went on in the minds of those people but such a mentality is not unlikely. Also, Are you suggesting that "orange" is somehow the true color of the scribe and not the dark brown?? He is after all an African!
quote:You made no mention that the back side of the translucent crystals were "covered with a layer of organic material, creating the color of the iris". You said the iris appeared colored due to varying outside light refraction upon the crystal. The complexion of the Seated Scribe after being cleaned falls still falls within the realm of skin darkness which some people would call "black" and also within the realm of skin darkness which some people would call "non-black"
Okay. So? Regardless he was not the blue-eyed Euro you and Simpleton make him out to be.
Posts: 26302 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wally: ...now, this is sh|t...
...and this is Shinola...Authentic Kememou scribes - some of which are 'nose Chiseled'...
Yes. It is amazing how successful white Westerners were in white-washing a black African people and their culture. It still baffles me today after years of all the research and info I've learned on Egypt.
Posts: 26302 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: [QUOTE]You made no mention that the back side of the translucent crystals were "covered with a layer of organic material, creating the color of the iris". You said the iris appeared colored due to varying outside light refraction upon the crystal. The complexion of the Seated Scribe after being cleaned falls still falls within the realm of skin darkness which some people would call "black" and also within the realm of skin darkness which some people would call "non-black"
Okay. So? Regardless he was not the blue-eyed Euro you and Simpleton make him out to be.
I don't know how this comment derives from what I said. I never said anything about A "blue-eyed Euro". Again, the quote form the Louvre Museum says
"covered with a layer of organic material, creating the color of the iris".
The particular color has not been indicated.
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
...and this is Shinola...Authentic Kememou scribes - some of which are 'nose Chiseled'...
the statement has no value unless you separate the Scibes with the original noses from the ones you think were purposely chiseled to make their noses look different.
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nice thread by Wally showing fake Egyptian statues, white people trying to be black Egyptian, Kufi hat and a rare seated picture of pharaoh Khafra with a round nose. I find this thread when I was looking for picture in google image.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic