posted
Hey, just wanted to update the forum about what I learned about the Nubian Statuette. I first saw the dark brown skin servant girl years ago and when I recently spied how she looked now, no longer covered in dark brown paint, and I thought it was another attempt at altering Egyptian artifacts to suit an agenda. Of course, after some info coming out on this thread( http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009901;p=1 ) and questions on whether or not the statuette was altered darker brown in Photoshop in that picture, I contacted the museum myself to see what they had to say.
This is how it went down.
As you can see, the curator confirms that the picture wasn't altered darker and that this was her pictured before the conservation cleaning.
I than went on to ask this:
but she has yet to respond back to me. As you can see, I sent the message on April 3 and it is the 18th. It did took her awhile to respond back to my other replies so I'm hoping she will eventually get back to me. I hesitated to post this without getting her answer on the last question because one, I wanted to get rid of all doubt about its original paint job and only wanted to show the complete conversation, and 2, I didn't want others to contact the museum and ruin any chance for her responding back to me. I request those reading to not contact the museum for similar questions yet. I'm still hoping she will respond to my last email, but since its been awhile this might be it. I will resend the email just in case it might have gotten lost.
Posts: 116 | From: Birmingham, AL | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
So they admit to having cleaned her up. We can only hope they didn't confuse a darker complexion for dirt, but knowing some people out there, I don't have much faith in that.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
I can believe this was shot after cleaning.
I will never believe these aren't the same exact photographs, one of which is filtered.
I would've emailed the two and asked which is authentic and shows the accurate tints.
Notice the 'dirt' spots particularly between Bes and the upper arm on both comparitive imgs. The top solo img is the only after cleaning shot.
This is how a blue filter will alter natural colors "Blue Filter. A blue filter is not often associated with black & white photography however, it can really add “mood” to a photograph by increasing the effect of haze or fog. It also lightens blues and darkens yellows, oranges and reds which helps separation in scenes containing a mix of colours."
The only paint on the statuette is the eyes, the Bes amulet with its cord, also the pubes. As far as I can make out. I could be wrong.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Here's a pic of what the original Image book labels Statuette of a young black girl presenting a stemmed bowl supported by a monkey, before and after restoration. Dynasty XVIII, about 1350 B.C. Ebony. H: 17.5 cm London University College
Ebony wood vs boxwood
The field distinguishes • Egyptian • Nubian • black
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: I can believe this was shot after cleaning.
I will never believe these aren't the same exact photographs, one of which is filtered.
Notice the 'dirt' spots particularly between Bes and the upper arm on both comparitive imgs. The top solo img is the only after cleaning shot.
This is how a blue filter will alter natural colors "Blue Filter. A blue filter is not often associated with black & white photography however, it can really add “mood” to a photograph by increasing the effect of haze or fog. It also lightens blues and darkens yellows, oranges and reds which helps separation in scenes containing a mix of colours."
It is possible that the curator would not have been very familiar with the original photo, if the one on the left is the real one and thought that it was the original due to the similarities. This is why I asked if the darker one was edited or made that way.
Posts: 116 | From: Birmingham, AL | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
You're right. The curator verified the photo was pre-cleaning.
I don't see where the curator says anything about darker or lighter. She notes the sidelock of youth identifies the pre-cleaning photo. The honey brown boxwood 1976 photo has the lock so it's a pre-clean photo too.
She says the cleaning brought out the beauty of the underlying [box]wood". To me that means with the dirt gone the original stain on the wood was clear. Now we can see the woodgrain much better. But the knob on the lid looks altered.
I don't doubt you.
I question how the 1976 book's tone turned into the 2013 internet tint and I question why it was done and I question who did it.
Got some more views of the cleaned coming up watch this post for the edit
Just because I really like Egy scale models, enjoy
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: You're right. The curator verified the photo was pre-cleaning.
I don't see where the curator says anything about darker or lighter. She notes the sidelock of youth identifies the pre-cleaning photo. The honey brown boxwood 1976 photo has the lock so it's a pre-clean photo too.
She says the cleaning brought out the beauty of the underlying [box]wood". To me that means with the dirt gone the original stain on the wood was clear. Now we can see the woodgrain much better.
I don't doubt you.
I question how the 1976 book's tone turned into the 2013 internet tint and I question why it was done and I question who did it.
Got some more views of the cleaned coming up watch this post for the edit
Just because I really like Egy scale models, enjoy
Its possible that she recognize the photo but not the color shifts so her identifying the picture as the original was simply her vague memory of it.
Posts: 116 | From: Birmingham, AL | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
The left photo is from a book and it was not laid down perfectly flat. It was a large book so there are some curvature.
My preliminary findings
(I have rotated the right photo to coordinate as much as possible to the left photo) and I have found this-
Left 1) line goes through midpoint of eyes 2) chin line at bottom of chin 3) point of crotch shape hits crotch line
Right 1) line goes through midpoint of eyes 2) chin slightly BELOW chin line - Thus the crotch point should also be lower but....
3) point of crotch shape is short of the left photo crotch line
_________________________
same problem here >
The chin on the right photo is lower than the chin line. The hand and knob handle on the vase is lower on the right photo than the left photo line. That line is based of the position of the left photo This means the right photo appears to be lower or slightly larger than the left photo But agin that crotch point on the right photo is instead higher.
This may be due to it being two different photos shot at a very slightly different angle.
The head looks slightly thinner on the right photo. This leads me to believe that the sculpture is on a very slightly rotation position or it could be a different camera lens
The color difference could then be due to two different color settings on each camera, two different photos
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Would appreciate a scan of the subject from Skippy's 2010 Image of the Black.
The 2013 internet img is the only one of this statuette that's not honey brown.
It was made so to support political Egyptology dogma: if it's Nubian it's got to be darker than Egyptian.
Funny thing is the girl's not Nubian. I question how the 1976 book's tone turned into the 2013 internet tint and I question why it was done and I question who did it.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
The page was perfectly flat. You weren't there.
Any curvature is from the mobile device camera tilt.
Anyone who owns the book and has a camera or scanner can make a copy and recolor as desired with Photoshop.
Even a cheap photo editor like Photos has color and light options that will approximate blue filter red orange yellow making honey brown into a much darker shade.
Even after resizing my phone shot to that of internet image to successfully demonstrate they are one and the same I find it amusing to invoke the statuette was moved. Ridiculous. Like a photographer is glued to the spot or can't angle their camera, so that the tiny 5 inch statuette had to be moved instead. Imagine precision turning of a 5 inch object.
The blue vertical line is deliberately off the mark in the right hand markup. Over concern with minutae but misaligning a grid?
posted
Today the museum identifies the statuette as an Egyptian girl
But the 1976 book it calls it Nubian
__________________________ The Image of the Black in Western Art: From the Pharaohs to the fall of the Roman Empire 1976
by David Bindman (Editor), Henry Louis Gates Jr. (Editor), Karen C. C. Dalton (Editor), Jeremy Tanner (Contributor), Jean Vercoutter (Contributor), Jean Leclant (Contributor), Frank M. Snowden Jr. (Contributor), Jehan Desanges (Contributor), Dominique de Menil (Contributor), Ladislas Bugner (Contributor)
47, 48 Statuette of a young Nubian girl carrying an ointment jar.
_____________________________________
Skip Gates edited that book and has a series at the Root website based on that book. In 2013 they had an article called Nubian Women in Ancient Egypt and used "Statuette of a young Nubian girl" from the book . The conspiracy theory, which may or may not be true because sometimes conspiracy theories are true, is that he said to himself " Nubians are darker than Egyptians but this statuette is not looking dark enough, we should darken that up for the article" then he told the graphics department to darken the skin tone in the photo and make it less reddish
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Please rescribble on my NoHoneyBrownNubians png. The vertical lines are out of alignment please correct thank you.
I went over this Aug 2016, Gates was never editor of the original 1976 book. At the time Skippy was a 26 year old secretary.
Owning that book since it came out, when I saw the 2013 img I immediately noticed a 'hack' job. Top of the head skimmed off. Legs cut out. Color changed. Why?
Blacks deserve an authentic Africana. One that plays the hand dealt. One that doesn't alter or fabricate pictures or text. Darkening a photo and mislabelling its ethnicity is something expected of sloppy scholarship 'afrocentricks'.
It was made so to support political Egyptology dogma: if it's Nubian it's got to be darker than Egyptian.
Funny thing is the girl's not Nubian. I question how the 1976 book's tone turned into the 2013 internet tint and I question why it was done and I question who did it.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote: __________________________ The Image of the Black in Western Art: From the Pharaohs to the fall of the Roman Empire 1976
by David Bindman (Editor), Henry Louis Gates Jr. (Editor), Karen C. C. Dalton (Editor), Jeremy Tanner (Contributor), Jean Vercoutter (Contributor), Jean Leclant (Contributor), Frank M. Snowden Jr. (Contributor), Jehan Desanges (Contributor), Dominique de Menil (Contributor), Ladislas Bugner (Contributor) _____________________________________
Skip Gates edited that book
.
No he did not. A memory refresher from Aug 2016
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
I'd like to see how the current reissue differs from my 1976 original edition The Image of the Black in Western Art, vol 1: From the Pharaohs to the Fall of the Roman Empire.
Apparently the only changes are * Amadou Mahtar M' bow's foreword is gone * Ladislas Bugner's preface replaced by Bondman and Gates * Bugner's introduction replaced with Jeremy Tanner's
Gates did not cajole Harvard into buying art nor publishing this or volumes 2 3 and 4. Harvard University Press was the original publisher, Belknap Press is the current publisher, Gates is just a series reissue coeditor and coauthor of one chapter in vol 5, ttbomk.
Nor did the Menlil Foundation horde a thing.
The artworks presented within the books do remain museum and gallery property where the public could've, and still can visit and view these materials.
Per Dominique, a decision was made "in 1960 to launch a systematic investigation of the iconography of blacks in Occidental art" and it "did not proceed from any clear plan."
What a vivid imagination this [guy] has
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike111:
... Gates got Harvard's visual, documentary, and literary archives of African-American texts, arranged for the purchase of The "Image of the Black in Western Art", a collection assembled by Dominique de Ménil (a French-American art collector woman) in Houston.
And then published it, ...
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^Still we do owe Skippy props for getting Harvard to buy the paintings and then publishing them, because of that, Blacks who could put two and two together got to see them.
A thank you is also owed to Dominique de Ménil; [whites] like her who gathered-up those artifacts, and kept them safe and away from the [white] public, are responsible for their existence today.
Can you imagine if a degenerate like [identity withheld] had gotten hands on them?
Then all that would still exist is all of those fake paintings of [whites] in place of the real Black people.
Here we have two ESers, one banned one a moderator, hatching a conspiracy theory that Skippy had a thing to do with the original 1976 Image.
quote: Gates: We’re Johnny-come-latelies here. There were no archives for black people, virtually, in 1991 at Harvard. So Rudenstine said, “Well, what do you have in mind?”
And I said, “Well, there’s this huge archive in Houston, Texas, called The Image of the Black in Western Art."
Cole: That was the de Menil --
Gates: Yes, Madam Dominique de Menil was looking for a home and the museum director, a very able director, Karen Dalton, happened to be marrying a prominent Boston architect. This was like dynamite. We negotiated and they made me go out and raise an endowment of, I don’t know, three million dollars, and I was able to do that with a lot of help from people here at Harvard. We moved that archive here, and we have twenty-six thousand images of black people in high western art, from the ancient Greeks to yesterday. That’s amazing.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Debate tricks: moving the goalpost from Skippy edited 1976 Harvard book to Skippy was involved with post 1991 Harvard archive.
Laying a ghost strawman to confuse the unknowing.
Gates had nothing to do with the 1976 Image book.
He is listed as editor of the 2010 Image revision and either wrote or co-wrote one article in it.
1976 original has Honey Brown N752 (full view) 2010 revision has ??? N752 (still waiting somebody to post it) 2013 Skippy's theRoot has Mulberry Brown N752 (cropped view).
This century N752 is recognized as an Egyptian girl. Why is Skippy's 2013 blog turning back time, declaring N752 a Nubian and supporting it with an unknown 'unprovenanced' photo?
It was made so to support political Egyptology dogma: if it's Nubian it's got to be darker than Egyptian.
Funny thing is the girl's not Nubian. I question how the 1976 book's tone turned into the 2013 internet tint and I question why it was done and I question who did it.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote: Gates: We’re Johnny-come-latelies here. There were no archives for black people, virtually, in 1991 at Harvard. So Rudenstine said, “Well, what do you have in mind?”
And I said, “Well, there’s this huge archive in Houston, Texas, called The Image of the Black in Western Art."
Cole: That was the de Menil --
Gates: Yes, Madam Dominique de Menil was looking for a home and the museum director, a very able director, Karen Dalton, happened to be marrying a prominent Boston architect. This was like dynamite. We negotiated and they made me go out and raise an endowment of, I don’t know, three million dollars, and I was able to do that with a lot of help from people here at Harvard. We moved that archive here, and we have twenty-six thousand images of black people in high western art, from the ancient Greeks to yesterday. That’s amazing.
posted
"47, 48 Statuette of a young Nubian girl carrying an ointment jar. Image of the Black in Western Art 1976
Statuette of a young Nubian girl carrying an ointment jar. The Root magazine Sept 2013
Statuette of a young Nubian girl carrying an ointment jar. The Root magazine Sept 2013 (online) [68% OPACITY] I made this one a little bit transparent, looking lighter here so in the next picture when I overlay it in the other one and can also see the other one underneath to be able to position it to try to match the two photos
OVERLAP OF BOTH PHOTOS, ALIGNED BY HEAD
^ this last one is the 68% opacity Root 2013 on top of the normal version from the book Image of the Black in Western Art
Notice alongside the girls arm a ghost outline and on the right side of the jar another ghost That is the 68% Root image showing beyond the book image Yet the head has no ghost because it is overlapping perfectly
That may be evidence that the two photos are not the same photo with different color filtering.
It may be two different photos with two different cameras but the camera is positioned slightly differently or a different lens was used.
Whatever the explanation is I can't make the two pictures should fit perfectly like a puzzle piece but If I fit it in one place perfectly there is always a mismatch someplace else.
The more reddish lighter book image is a photograph of the open book and could be at a a slight curvature causing this but I don't think so. I think it's two different photos. I could be wrong but further research is going on
--but now that I'm looking the darker one does look kind of dirty because the color is not uniform. Maybe that is a photo even older than the 1976 book photo and is before cleaning. The lighter reddish one in the book could be after cleaning but before they decided to leave the side lock off or lost it. It doesn't look dirty
I can't tell for sure
I've used two different measurement methods and unless my methods are off I can't get these two pictures to fit their outlines perfectly
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
The Lioness refuses to admit that Skippy had nothing to do with the original 1976 Image of the Black book. Is that honesty? Is that objectivity? Just what is it except clinging to a priori bias?
The Lioness' debacle continues not realizing her analysis supports identity of 1976 and 2013.
Dozens of Honey Brown N752 photos abound from at least 1976 on up to today.
Only one Mulberry Brown N752 and no older than 2013 (pending img from Skippy 2010).
Recognized now as Egyptian except for theRoot's Nubian misidentification.
Q: Other than a bunch of badly speculated woulda coulda shoulda, what is factual?
A: The book image is way larger than its cropped and darkened internet rip off.
1976 N752 is resized as close as I could but is not 1:1 scale. Since my 1976 and theRoot 2013 aren't exactly same scale it's unreasonable to expect a perfect one to one match.
The cropping on 2013 proves it was chopped from another photo, a proper museum piece fuller photo of the statuette.
Nobody knows where 2013 came from. Nobody has shown it in a book yet.
Even with meager windows photo editors like PAINT and PHOTOS I can approximate the blue filtering effect of red orange yellow darkening. watch me:
Anybody phone's PhotoEditor can even do it.
With her displayed excellent photochopping skill, tL could've reproduced 2013's alterations better than me, but nature being what it is only roorag has been forthcoming. Reproducibiliy is capstone science.It elevates this forum to a level of acceptability beyond Deshret forum.
Back to the real issue, we will not be distracted nor led away from Honey Brown got made over to Mulberry Brown; when by whom for what reason.
1976 original has Honey Brown N752 (full view) 2010 revision has ??? N752 (still waiting somebody to post it) 2013 Skippy's theRoot has Mulberry Brown N752 (cropped view).
This century N752 is recognized as an Egyptian girl. Why is Skippy's 2013 blog turning back time, declaring N752 a Nubian and supporting it with an unknown 'unprovenanced' photo?
It was made so to support political Egyptology dogma: if it's Nubian it's got to be darker than Egyptian.
Funny thing is the girl's not Nubian. I question how the 1976 book's tone turned into the 2013 internet tint and I question why it was done and I question who did it.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: "47, 48 Statuette of a young Nubian girl carrying an ointment jar. Image of the Black in Western Art 1976
Statuette of a young Nubian girl carrying an ointment jar. The Root magazine Sept 2013 (online) [68% OPACITY] I made this one a little bit transparent, looking lighter here so in the next picture when I overlay it in the other one and can also see the other one underneath to be able to position it to try to match the two photos
OVERLAP OF BOTH PHOTOS, ALIGNED BY HEAD
^ this last one is the 68% opacity Root 2013 on top of the normal version from the book Image of the Black in Western Art
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Here's a pic of what the original Image book labels Statuette of a young black girl presenting a stemmed bowl supported by a monkey, before and after restoration. Dynasty XVIII, about 1350 B.C. Ebony. H: 17.5 cm London University College
Was theRoot embarrassed to use that statuette of a Nubian female carved from ebony and so took and darkened an Egyptian female statuette carved from boxwood? One with 'good' features like a Wannabe not 'bad' features like a Jigaboo (homage to Lee's School Daze and Hispanic want ads).
Even in the Diaspora little girls still get their hair done into that scalp baring style of plaits as in this comparison of UC14210 before restoration and modern little black girls by the Cheikh himself.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: "Western art"?! That's African art.
Ha. Ha. They consider Egypt as a Western Civilization.
Taking W Civ in university in 1975 I had to go to the Dean to make my instructor accept my research that Egypt was an African Civilization.
The 1976 book is wonderful but marred by what some want to deny, Egyptology is POLITICAL.
N752 is in Vercoutter's chapter, Iconography of the Black in Ancient Egypt, it begins by separating Egyptians from Africans.
For Vercoutter "there is no known representation of an indisputably "Negro" person in Egyptian art dating from before 1600 B.C."
For Vercoutter there is something called "a genuine black."
Anyway there are at least 7 Nubian females theRoot could've chose to represent "Nubian Women in Ancient Egypt" including the famous Huy procession with its variety or these.
New Yorkers and Jerseyites can go see 'em in person at The Brooklyn Museum.
posted
What edition of the book Henry Louis Gates was involved in is irrelevant to my last post. I put the the 1976 image and the 2013 Root online image into photoshop resized them to match as closely as possible and tried to get then to coordinate perfectly. I can't do it. This is what I have honestly attempted to do and I have also stated I'm not sure if the photos are different or my methods are off. My goals was to make them fit and I failed
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
SENATOR CHAMBERS: When there is a dispute...let's say that we had a court. Aesop told fables, and animals could talk. If you had a court comprising roosters as judges, and the ones who would be likely to be sued are other roosters and the ones likely to do the suing are cockroaches, well, when the cockroach goes to court and the roosters are the judges and roosters are the ones being sued, who is likely to lose? You probably don't want to say it. [LB388]
STEVE HOWARD: Well, the cockroaches. [LB388]
SENATOR CHAMBERS: Right, the roaches will always lose. [LB388
posted
fig 47, 48 Statuette of a young Nubian girl carrying an ointment jar. Image of the Black in Western Art 1976
Statuette of a young Nubian girl carrying an ointment jar. The Root magazine Sept 2013
HabariTess , this is my theory on these photos.
In the 70s or earlier this sculpture was cleaned. The people who did the cleaning took a before and an after photo to document the restoration It may have even been cleaned more than once, not sure about that
David Bindman and Henry Louis Gates, Jr. edited the new version of the book in 2010. They had the whole archive of photos. For this edition they changed the picture and choose the uncleaned statuette photo.
In 2013 the Root magazine online again used the pre-cleaned version
_____________________
Whether or not the servant girl is Egyptian or Nubian is debated by scholars. In the book Image of the Black in Western art the author of that chapter Jean Vercoutter argues that she's a culturally Egyptianized Nubian that's why the side lock doesn't necessarily mean she was Egyptian. The Root article is based on this book and they stuck with this interpretation
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Pure speculation.
Post a snapshot of N752 from 2010 like a snapshot of N752 from 1976 was posted.
"theory" must be reproducible. Without seeing N572 2010 it's just a guess theRoot 2013 N752 appears in Skippy's 2010 Image edition.
Not to get took, remember the curator said you can ID the pre-clean statuette by the fake sidelock attached to her left temple.
My post of the 1976 is a pre-clean photo. I ain't gotta rely only on no photo I took on a cheap Android like it's a professional HD pic. I got the book here in my hands.
I can't see the woodgrain that thrilled the curator but I can see dirt spots. Can you see them too? Same dirt on theRoot 2013 N752 darkened and cropped copy of the original one and only 1976 N752.
SIDELINE: Vercoutter's surmise on sidelocks notes Lower Nubian royal youth do them too. Different types of these locks can signify class and age differences but not nationality in New Kingdom times when Lower Nubia was an Egyptian territory like Samoa or the US Virgins.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
this is my theory on these photos.
In the 70s or earlier this sculpture was cleaned. The people who did the cleaning took a before and an after photo to document the restoration It may have even been cleaned more than once, not sure about that
David Bindman and Henry Louis Gates, Jr. edited the new version of the book in 2010. They had the whole archive of photos. For this edition they changed the picture and choose the uncleaned statuette photo.
In 2013 the Root magazine online again used the pre-cleaned version
_____________________
Whether or not the servant girl is Egyptian or Nubian is debated by scholars. In the book Image of the Black in Western art the author of that chapter Jean Vercoutter argues that she's a culturally Egyptianized Nubian that's why the side lock doesn't necessarily mean she was Egyptian. The Root article is based on this book and they stuck with this interpretation
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Pure speculation.
Post a snapshot of N752 from 2010 like a snapshot of N752 from 1976 was posted.
what would you think if the darker one, same as in the Root is in the 2010 book?
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
^ this is pure speculation but I tell you when I'm speculating. You have taken speculation, that a filter was used, presented it as fact in a graphic at least put:
taking responsibility for the accusation on the graphic , my opinion
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
My opinion on Mulberry Brown N752 is it's a cropped and darkened digital HD reproduction of Honey Brown N752 for the internet click-a-minute crowd
Even using in box apps I could get the blue filter effect, reproducible not mere speculation.
In this Post-Construction century science is being replaced by information. No one knows if important news is real or fake. Environmental scientists are gagged and NASA's chief is not a scientist. If the information is palatable to the hearer their idea is fuck what science says. Prime example POTUS, 'leader of the free world'.
I'm waiting for a post of N752 from IMAGE 2010. If it's the same or full sized like the original don't matter. Nowhere else from 1976 to April 2018 has any Mulberry Brown photo.
The simplest straightforward reason I can fathom is editing of the original.
The when, who, and why remains unknown. My best guess is in earlier posts along with why I think so.
That's a best guess simulation not actual 'genetic data', so to speak, and can be discarded or mused over depending one's bent.
, my opinion I'm correct. And like all things I'm right about I don't have to convince you in order to be right and I'm still right anyway just like before I ever heard of you.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Pure speculation.
Post a snapshot of N752 from 2010 like a snapshot of N752 from 1976 was posted.
what would you think if the darker one, same as in the Root is in the 2010 book?
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
^ this is pure speculation but I tell you when I'm speculating. You have taken speculation, that a filter was used, presented it as fact in a graphic at least put:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: My opinion on Mulberry Brown N752 is it's a cropped and darkened digital HD reproduction of Honey Brown N752.
I'm waiting for a post of N752 from IMAGE 2010. If it's the same or full sized like the original don't matter. Nowhere else from 1976 to April 2018 has any Mulberry Brown photo.
The simplest straightforward reason I can fathom is editing of the original.
The when, who, and why remains unknown. My best guess is in earlier posts along with why I think so.
That's a best guess simulation not actual 'genetic data', so to speak, and can be discarded or mused over depending one's bent.
what would you think if the darker one, same as in the Root is in the 2010 book?
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
You're repeating yourself. My answer ain't what you wanna hear. Nonetheless it is my answer.
posted
If I get anymore petty whining from either Lioness or Tukuler about vice versa having it out for them to me then this thread is getting locked. No more PMs. No more taking over and derailing separate threads. Any drama inside of posts are being removed. Having a petty disagreement is NOT repeat NOT trolling. Last warning.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Hey I only sent that one initial PM. I have not sent anyone any series of PM's.
It was explained dissing is ok. It's 21st century Hip Hop normal culture. See, an OG Unc Dawg can learn new tricks.
Gotta make way for the young folks. That's the way of the world.
BTW U 2 late. The 5 star Barbancourt Estate is empty 🍷 🤧
^^ these are the facts on how this one item is presented in different editions of a book and on the Durham Castle Museum website
We have in all versions an unpainted 5.8 inch wooden sculpture with jar for cosmetic As for the body color, that is the natural wood color in all versions and only the eyes, necklace and waist/crotch area are painted.
Now that I have seen each book in real life not online I have seen the detail and the lighter image from the 1976 book also looks somewhat dirty. So I retract my theory that the photos from each of the Image of the Black editions represents before and after cleaning.
So what we have here now is the 1976 book has a lighter more reddish looking photo, that is more similar to the current Durham museum photos. The Durham museum calls it "servant girl statuette" and says nothing about it being a Nubian girl but they don't go out of their way say she is Egyptian either.
Why would a 1976 edition of the book have a lighter image than the 2010 updated version of the same book ?
I'm not sure about it but here are some possibilities.
1) The writer of the chapter in the Image of the Black in Western art, in both editions, French Egyptologist Jean Vercoutter says the the girl "no doubt represents a Nubian" and there is a reference [63] which I did not get a chance to check out. It is suggested that she was Egyptianized so that is why she has a side lock. But Durham Castle university museum doesn't have display her with the side lock (they say it was lost) and doesn't say if she is Nubian or not So the editors of the 2010 Image of the Black, David Bindman and Henry Louis Gates Jr had the picture darkened by photo editing to drive home the point "yes she is a Nubian, notice her darkness"
2) Different editions of books often have different printers and different printings can vary in color.
3) Cameras have color settings the photographer of the statuette could have photographed the item more than once and used different color settings. In the later edition of the book one of these other versions of the photo was chosen
4) Today the girl with jar is cleaned and the color of the wood is reddish but before it was cleaned it looked darker. In the 1976 book they lightened the photo before putting it in the book. Then in 2010 a new edition came out and they went back to the original photo. I can't see a plausible motive for this theory though.
The Durham Castle museum says the girl with the jar is believed to have been part of the burial of Meryptah, high priest under Amenhotep III
Meryptah
______________________
Colossal bust of Amenhotep III at the British Museum
^^ 1973 article describes it as "Egyptian servant girl", no mention of Nubian
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Where is a photo of the open book 2010 page of EG4007 like the one I posted?
I told you dirt was visible on the 1976 because I have the book not a low resolution jpg.
quote:Notice the 'dirt' spots particularly between Bes and the upper arm on both comparitive imgs.
quote:From the Curator : The statuette was conservation cleaned some years ago. This had the great advantage of revealing the beauty of the underlying wood.
Straight line from A to B. No twists. No turns. No convulsions.
A straight line from A to B. 2010 + cropping = 2013 (need 2010 snap to vet)
I expect to hold 2010 in my hands a week or two. When I look at it though I won't neglect to snap and post the EG4007 page whether Mulberry or Honey Brown, the Sun'll still go down.
I still gotta wonder why theRoot wouldn't use the, what Vercoutter called indisputably black, below image for the Nubian Women blog.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Where is a photo of the open book 2010 page of EG4007 like the one I posted?
I told you dirt was visible on the 1976 because I have the book not a low resolution jpg.
quote:Notice the 'dirt' spots particularly between Bes and the upper arm on both comparitive imgs.
quote:From the Curator : The statuette was conservation cleaned some years ago. This had the great advantage of revealing the beauty of the underlying wood.
Straight line from A to B. No twists. No turns. No convulsions.
A straight line from A to B. 2010 + cropping = 2013 (need 2010 snap to vet)
I expect to hold 2010 in my hands a week or two. When I look at it though I won't neglect to snap and post the EG4007 page whether Mulberry or Honey Brown, the Sun'll still go down.
I still gotta wonder why theRoot wouldn't use the, what Vercoutter called indisputably black, below image for the Nubian Women blog.
As we can see in the unaltered pre-cleaning of the wood photo areas around outside of the hand on the vase are lighter but they are not just a lighter brown of the same color elsewhere. We can see the color is not perfectly even, it's more a yellowish-orange there brown rather than just a lighter coffee colored brown. Over a couple thousand years the dirt in the air does not settle on an item like this with perfect evenness. It looks old not brand new. Look at the base of the vase. In the middle it's more yellowish-orange. Then on the part that flares out at the bottom it's darker. That is because that flaring out part is not vertical like the other part. It curves into a more horizontal position and as the dust and dirt fall more on top of that and accumulate there
As we can a uniform brown color, some places lighter than others but no difference in color. That is what the filter does. It mixing in a new transparent layer of blue and that integrates with every color on the original and takes away the differences in the original
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
At left they didn't caption it "Egyptian girl" in the 1976 book and then in a conspiracy say "let's change it and say she was Nubian"
Right or wrong, they determined it a Nubian girl from the start.
But Tukular is saying there was a conspiracy. Even though they said she was Nubian from the beginning and nobody questioned it in 2013 Gates decided she was not Nubian enough for an article in the Root so they altered the photo to look darker.
However you can see above the figure in both photos are in a similar position but the angle is not 100% the same. It looks maybe 96% the same but not exactly.
There may have been more than one photo and it could have even been made at the same time and used different settings on the camera. Or if the statuette had been in that same position in a museum it may have stayed with the same lighting for a long time and pictures could have been taken at different times.
Look at the wideness of her legs in both photos above, definitely thicker in left photo. That is because those pictures are taken at a slightly different angle. The head is also wider in the left photo. Is it the same photo altered? That's also possible but not proven
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic