Present location: EGYPTIAN MUSEUM [01/001] Inventory number: JE 51280 Dating: 6TH DYNASTY Archaeological Site: GIZA NECROPOLIS Category: STATUE Material: LIMESTONE Technique: CARVED Excavator: Hermann Junker, German, 1877–1962 Notes: From excavations of Hermann Junker. Registered in JE March 3, 1927.
Then
Now
This statue looks repainted. What do you guys think? Care to post more?
Posts: 535 | From: From the Darkest of the Abyss | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged |
This statue looks repainted. What do you guys think? Care to post more?
It could have been because that black and white one you posted looks like there is no color on the male's hair also much or the females hair also. Where did you find that?
In various color photos on google images it's all filled in
posted
@Lioness Hey Lioness, Sorry for the late reply and thanks for the books i will look into it.
Posts: 535 | From: From the Darkest of the Abyss | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged |
I am convinced this has been repainted. Look at the female's hair in the old photo, clearly much of it has most most of it's paint but some of the lower portion is still quite black. But in recent color photos here hair is almost all black. (The lowest photo is a decolorized version of the one above it, that is not an old one)
As we can see in the old phots at the top of the post, although paint can fade, on a lot of these stone statues there is also a more dramatic type of damage where layers of paint seem to fallen off the surface of the sculpture in random pieces, like large flakes. The result is an unpleasant patchy look.
posted
Lioness, you are fast. You didnt even let me post to you first.
also, for those who are using macs do Cmd + F to 'find on page'. Posts: 535 | From: From the Darkest of the Abyss | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
This appears to be stone and painted, also 6th dynasty like the OP item To me it looks like the paint is un-restored condition More photos of the same, if you scroll down, takes a few seconds to load
posted
Nice find. If you can find anymore details on the excavation of the statue please post.
Posts: 535 | From: From the Darkest of the Abyss | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Here's another famous example.
Old Kingdom Seated Scribe from the Louvre:
Before
Now
I know you've pointed out the loss of "dark spots" on his body before, but I noticed the black base seems to have lost a lot of its color in the "after" image as well. What kind of cleaning job did they do to it?
quote:Originally posted by Mighty Mack: Standing Pair Statue from the Tomb of Ikhetneb
Present location: Hearst Museum, Berkeley Inventory number: 6-19775 Dating: 4TH DYNASTY Archaeological Site: GIZA NECROPOLIS Category: STATUE Material: LIMESTONE Technique: SCULPTURED; PAINTED Excavator: George Andrew Reisner Date of Register Entry: 1903–1904
Then
Now
If these are indeed the same pair of sculptures, then, holy fuck, that's some serious whitewashing, literally speaking. I dunno if it is deliberate, but it probably does present a misleading image of how these statues would have looked back then.
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: I know you've pointed out the loss of "dark spots" on his body before, but I noticed the black base seems to have lost a lot of its color in the "after" image as well. What kind of cleaning job did they do to it?
Exactamundo! I was just going to point that out as well.
quote:If these are indeed the same pair of sculptures, then, holy fuck, that's some serious whitewashing, literally speaking. I dunno if it is deliberate, but it probably does present a misleading image of how these statues would have looked back then.
And this whole cleaning (bleaching) process with many painted statues has been going on for quite sometime as noted by Egyptologists like Ahmed Saleh. In fact I recall Wally citing quotes from Egyptologists of the 19th century admitting how some of their peers deliberately alter statues to their 'liking' and even the British accused the Germans who discovered the Nefertiti bust of doing a bleaching job on that artifact! So yeah, I believe it's deliberate and a conspiracy theory that's NOT relegated to "Afrocentrics" only! Even P. K. Manansala suspects alterations to statues not only by bleaching but also reconstructed noses and lips.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: [qb] I know you've pointed out the loss of "dark spots" on his body before, but I noticed the black base seems to have lost a lot of its color in the "after" image as well. What kind of cleaning job did they do to it?
Exactamundo! I was just going to point that out as well.
Seated Scribe, Louvre
quote:The statue was cleaned in 1998, although the process merely reduced the wax overpainting. This restoration brought out the well-conserved ancient polychromy. --Louvre Museum
Suppose that is a lie, that they intentionally got rid of the remnants of a darker skin tone what is your guess as to the reason the top of the base of the statue in the older (I assume) picture appears to be nearly solid black (or solid dark grey) but in the lower photo it's very patchy, a lot of it's looking like raw stone with just some parts with the black still on it
posted
Why would they need to whitewash those statues ? Their features aren't even black and I don't see a big difference between dark red and red. Also how can you believe that statues which are almost 5000 years would stay perfectly clean ?
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
________________________________above, the male figure is dark in both versions
but below, a different sculpture, the male figure has lost it's color
Senenu (also: Sennuw) and wife
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Why would they need to whitewash those statues ? Their features aren't even black and I don't see a big difference between dark red and red. Also how can you believe that statues which are almost 5000 years would stay perfectly clean ?
At top we have a picture with two photos They are the same photo but one has the color removed in a photo editor to show how a color phot looks converted to black and white
But in the lower picture we don't see that same color to black and white relationship
Instead we see a "black featured" Egyptian couple, Senenu and his wife in an old actual black and white photo taken in the early 20th century To the right of it in a later color photo perhaps taken around 100 years later the male figure has virtually no color on it.
If one were to argue the figures were direct and then cleaned we can already see in the old photo as is common in many of these couple statues the woman is lighter. If the thing was dirty they would both be as dark as the male as well as their garments. In the color version they also don't have the eyeball color
How and why did that color disappear? Did the owner of the statue not like the dark skin and have it removed?
We don't even have to discuss features. The color had nearly disappeared there is hardly any left and this in merely around 100 years. Something is peculiar here
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
How and why did that color disappear? Did the owner of the statue not like the dark skin and have it removed?
We don't even have to discuss features. The color had nearly disappeared there is hardly any left and this in merely around 100 years. Something is peculiar here [/QB]
idk maybe a problem of preservation knowing that many egyptian artifacts were in fact part of illegal traffic or maybe that's simply a replica/mold of the original statue
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
How and why did that color disappear? Did the owner of the statue not like the dark skin and have it removed?
We don't even have to discuss features. The color had nearly disappeared there is hardly any left and this in merely around 100 years. Something is peculiar here
idk maybe a problem of preservation knowing that many egyptian artifacts were in fact part of illegal traffic or maybe that's simply a replica/mold of the original statue [/QB]
That is absolutely not a replica, I have linked the sources There is a possibility it was accidently damaged maybe by water. Or it could have been intentionally scrubbed of color.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
How and why did that color disappear? Did the owner of the statue not like the dark skin and have it removed?
We don't even have to discuss features. The color had nearly disappeared there is hardly any left and this in merely around 100 years. Something is peculiar here
idk maybe a problem of preservation knowing that many egyptian artifacts were in fact part of illegal traffic or maybe that's simply a replica/mold of the original statue
That is absolutely not a replica, I have lined the sources There is a possibility it was accidently damaged maybe by water. Or it could have been intentionally scrubbed of color. [/QB]
Why would they "intentionally" scrubbed the colors if they took a picture of the statue in its original state ?
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a good question It seems to have been at Berkeley the whole time, I am not sure
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Why would they need to whitewash those statues? Their features aren't even black and I don't see a big difference between dark red and red. Also how can you believe that statues which are almost 5000 years would stay perfectly clean?
And what pray tell are "black" features since again black refers to color NOT features.
Also, the Egyptian artistic scheme for men was reddish-BROWN and not "red" the complexion is best described a mahogany, though milk chocolate is not uncommon. These same complexions are also painted by Sub-Saharans further south in their artwork.
Lastly, the complaint we have is that when these statues are initially uncovered they have more paint intact then after they are "cleaned" up by the antiquity handlers.
Of course my questions are just prodding since I don't take anything you say seriously.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Also, the Egyptian artistic scheme for men was reddish-BROWN and not "red" the complexion is best described a mahogany, though milk chocolate is not uncommon. These same complexions are also painted by Sub-Saharans further south in their artwork.
the color of milk chocolate is brown not black So if you call a Sub-Saharan who is the color of milk chocolate "black" we instantly know that the term "black" applied to a person does not correspond to accurate description
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
And what pray tell are "black" features since again black refers to color NOT features.
Dictionary definitions of "black" are deliberately vague as to avoid dispute The common everyday use of the term "black" in America and Europe is defined as "a person who resembles the majority of Africans in appearance, in skin color, hair type and facial features"
if your definition of black is "anyone with dark skin" that is your personal definition not the common use definition. "black" as used commonly in America and Europe is clearly a socio-political term that has more to it than just "any person with 'dark' skin"
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Dictionaries, like science, exist for a reason, non-reliance on the-man-in-the-street ignoramus for authority.
The black Bangladeshi and Tamils The blueblack Andamanders The negritos (little blacks) of the Philippines etc The BlackFellas of Australia The blacks of Papua (new Guineas - old Guineas are W African) The black Oceania Melanesia (black islands) folk
When first encountering them Western (white) scientists classified them all as black, which they are.
Black cannot be pigeon-holed to Inner Africans only. Never was the case, and is not now the case except for those wanting to deny IAs of their non-color based identities. Inner Africans need be called by their nationality like other black peoples are, indeed as all peoples are.
Europeans aren't white. They range from pink to beige. Yet no ones harping about how wrong it is to call them white. Some see it a crime to call Inner Africans black regardless of actual complexion. We have the Inner African authored Tariks where Sahelians call themselves and those south of them black. And remember Sudan is just Arabic for blacks. Abyssinia was self renamed the Greek term Ethiopia meaning blacks which the Greeks applied to Africans below their 'Libya' and clear eastward to at least India.
I concur with DJ Black is a broad scheme covering many dark human colors from pink-chocolate to Wolof black. Negro however is a set of Western (white) defined facial features and hair textures applied to Africans immediately classified as ripe for enslavement. Slave trading Africans reputed the term negro for themselves while at the same time telling Europeans we can get you negroes after you pay us for them.
posted
I won't even address the semantics of what is "black". My point is that the same brown complexion Egyptian (men) are portrayed in is used for many Sub-Saharans. Many Africans even in Sub-Sahara are not ebony or "Dinka" black as Antalas like to use as his straw doll.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
How come black is semantic but white isn't? SMH.
C'mon DJ you posted many a time that Aeta little-negroes/Negritos are called blacks by your people though they are hardly black black skinned at all. We who are black and chose that descriptor don't find nothing semantic about it nor will we be dictated by non-blacks arguments that it's a misnomer since the color ID appears in the oldest writings known from India Africa and Med Europe.
AE painted "sub Saharans"? What are the national/ethnic identities ofe these so-called SSAs? I'm here to learn as well as to teach and I have learned and accepted many of your teachings.
Nehesu were black skinned and they weren't "sub Saharan". Kush quite simply was adjacent to Sahra.
I dislike this term SSA it's just a euphemism for "negro African" and as I just showed black black Africans lived at Sahar latitudes.
SSA by dialectic makes Sahra and Mediterranean Africa one entity which they are not. Thus black accomplishments in Sahra are magically ceded to coastal phenotypes
Also black blacks have lived directly in Sahra since the early Holocene nor are all African blacks what they call negro in features.
posted
Painted limestone pseudo-group statue depicting two figures of Penmeru, his wife Meretites, his son Seshemnefer, and his daughter Neferseshemes
Present location: Harvard University—Boston Museum of Fine Arts Inventory Number: 12.1484 Dating: Old Kingdom, 5th DYNASTY Archaeological Site: GIZA NECROPOLIS, Mastaba G 2197 Category: STATUE Material: LIMESTONE Technique: SCULPTURED Notes: This object was excavated by the Harvard University–Boston Museum of Fine Arts Expedition, but was not recorded in any object register book.
1912: Excavated by the Harvard University–Museum of Fine Arts Expedition;
1912: assigned to the MFA in the division of finds by the government of Egypt. (Accession Date: December 5, 1912)
Then
Now
Posts: 535 | From: From the Darkest of the Abyss | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged |
THE mastaba of Penmeru (G 2197) was excavated in To the earlier studies of text can now be added April, 1912.
MFA acc. no. 12.1504, H. 1.30 x W. 1.05 x Th..38 m. (pl. L). The second group statue of Penmeru represents the same individual three times with virtually the same attributes in each case except for the wig. Each stands with arms at the side holding the fisted cloth and wearing a short kilt extending to just above the knees with an overlap on the right over left, the horizontal belt knot, pleated tab diagonally on the left side of the navel, and the left foot advanced. The statues are not particularly differentiated in slenderness or corpulence, all three showing a similar development of the chest and the kilt hanging relatively low on the hips, below the navel. The red color clearly seen in the first photographs has now faded completely;
__________
another photo of the same statue at the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston
DESCRIPTION Head of right figure missing; figures have short skirts to above knees, with loop fastened belt; inscriptions at feet of each figure. Representing Pen-meru in three Ka forms, left head without headdress, center head with large wig each in traditional pose with clenched fist and figure's left leg forward. Color remaining in parts.
a little bit showing on the leg
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Something I notice here that seems unrealistic in some of these family sculptures is you see the mother light skinned and the father dark in most cases both children male and female would be in most cases about 50% the color of each parent. They would usually be somewhere in between, not as light as their mother or as dark as their father. But here in the art, the female children are the same color as their mothers and the male children are the same color as their fathers.
I'm not saying that could never happen naturally but it usually doesn't
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Something I notice here that seems unrealistic in some of these family sculptures is you see the mother light skinned and the father dark in most cases both children male and female would be in most cases about 50% the color of each parent. They would usually be somewhere in between, not as light as their mother or as dark as their father. But here in the art, the female children are the same color as their mothers and the male children are the same color as their fathers.
I'm not saying that could never happen naturally but it usually doesn't
It was common for women in AE art to be colored with yellow skin. We don't know why for sure, but it may have had some symbolism. DJ has suggested it might be connected to women putting on yellow makeup in some North and Northeast African societies today, and I think that makes sense.
Visualizing Coregency An Exploration of the Link Between Royal Image and Co-Rule During the Reign of Senwosret III and Amenemhet III By Lisa Saladino Haney · 2020
______________________________________
I have noticed when researching Amenemhat II and III in the past that sometimes different sources will have the same sculpture but some might deem it II, others III
Below, these are all supposedly III but I'm not sure how sure the' museums are between Amenemhat II and III The one on the left has an unbelievably huge ear but the rest looks believably human
@lioness The nose on the right of the statue looks retouched or restored. Look at the bridge from the nasal root. It looks like an addition. I will try to find a picture of this sculpture when excavated and post it.
Posts: 535 | From: From the Darkest of the Abyss | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged |
^ The above example is very disturbing. It wasn't just the skin color of the male that has completely faded but the yellowish skin color of the female and even their jewelry and eyebrows and pupils.
This is why it's no longer just a conspiracy but a fact that ancient artwork is purposefully being altered, actually damaged. Since there's no way such a "clean up" job that airbrushes the original coloring is unintentional.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mighty Mack: Here is the same statue from legrain 1906
Then
What is the link for this ? And do they have other angles?
Also please put some captioning under those photos, just at least with this text we have in the posts
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
In my opinion either paint was scrubbed off/removed chemically OR it came off naturally after the tomb became exposed to air flow, brittle paint coming off over the decades.
You can see on the older photo on the left and in many colored sculptures, light spots of flaked off paint where the raw stone color is underneath (lighter here) like on his nose tip, around the eyebrows, on his left arm, also parts of the Usekh (collar) pattern are missing, flaked off Could this flaking off have happened to the drastic extent we see here over this hundred or so year period ? I don't know, that needs further research on ancient paint conditions and the background of this particular piece, the conditions
________________________________
.
There could be fading but you can't tell from the photo but what you can see is more drastic than fading. We can see his original dark color on his lower torso and arms but on his shoulders and head we can see extensive flaking off of paint, most of the sculpture there is down to the raw stone. Most of the black of her hair is gone, flaked off to raw stone. Artists may have also used varying paint ingredients
I'm not sure how delicate the remaining paint is there, how much vulnerability to things like moving it around or new airflow or heat humidity differences that might case the deterioration of the paint later at a faster rate after being excavated. I have to admit that top before and after of Senenu does looks suspect, you can't even see and color left on the eyeballs. The piece could have sustained water damage or somebody might have thought it looked better unpainted and intentionally removed paint (although if so they left a little-why?). If it was done intentionally it could be racially motivated or it could just making it look more like classical Greek and Roman sculptures looked, unpainted (although some of those may have been originally painted also).
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
If you click on one of these volumes, then on the lower right pick that page layout of 4 boxes ("thumbnail view") then you have thumbnails of every page at once, scroll down to see where the photos are The photos are unmarked as to which kings they are but there is a small 5 digit catalog number below each photo. The text describes each one on numerical order in the text section. I recommend if you post any, add to them a caption graphically with the proper info. This way if somebody copies them the proper information is attached to the photo
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
i think G.legrain only took one shot because i cannot find anymore angle shots of the statue.
Posts: 535 | From: From the Darkest of the Abyss | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mighty Mack: @Lioness thanks for the archive, i will add to my list for future searching. also, here is the site where i found the image of the statue.
We can see this is the same crack across the chest in all photos At C we see it has an angle pointing down and a second narrower crack comes down from that vertically. On photo 2 you can see that but it's faint.
However on photo 1 (1906) we see the wide opening of the wide crack on the arm at A. That seems to be completely filled in on 2 and 3. Also on photo 1 at B there is a crack on the headcloth. It's hard to tell but that looks filled in on the other two
I think they have put some filling material in the cracks but choose not to fill them entirely
On photo 3 which is basically the same as photo 2 but a different angle we can see that outward curve of the nose and that is similar to some different statues of Amenemhat (although the overall nose slightly wider) But on old photo 1 the nose seems to do the opposite, to dip down lower in the middle but the angle of the photo is a little different, hard to be sure, the camera angle is looking a little more from a lower vantage point and looking more upward at the statue
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
left, post-restored statue, Chicago___________________________________right, similar sculpture in Cairo Museum
Two Twin Statues of Tutankhamun. Chicago / Cairo
At the Oriental Institute of Chicago, the nearly 75,000 annual visitors have the opportunity to marvel at the sight of the colossal statue of King Tutankhamun.
This fantastic sculptural work from the 18th dynasty shows a colossal statue of Tutankhamun (usurped successively by Ay and Horemheb) in polychrome quartzite. It is 525 cm high. (17.22 feet)
Egypt kept possession of the best-preserved statue (photo above on right) and gave the other to the American Institute (which was since restored - on the left above at the Oriental Institute now known as ISAC )
Colossal statue of Tutankhamun. Oriental Institute of Chicago. Pre-Restored upper part of the statue
Restoration process of the statue of Tutankhamun at the Oriental Institute. Oriental Institute of Chicago.
Colossal statue of Tutankhamun. Oriental Institute of Chicago. Restored version
________________________________________
.
.
similar Colossal statue of Tutankhamun. Cairo Museum (same as right figure, top of post) -seems to have it's original nose This was used as a guide for the Chicago restoration of the other statue
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic