6 ms·

I'm surprised that the article didn't mention another popular theory: that many of the Egyptian statues taken by Europeans had their noses deliberately broken t

by fwip 8y ago

I'm surprised that the article didn't mention another popular theory: that many of the Egyptian statues taken by Europeans had their noses deliberately broken to obscure their blackness. As the theory goes, in order to make the statues seem like high art, it was necessary to make the culture seem more like the ancient Greeks and Romans. Removing their noses made it so the viewer could more easily read the statues as "like us," rather than the "primitive" countries of black people that Europe was busy exploiting.

bagel_factory 8y ago
We wuz kangz
acron0 8y ago
Probably because it's not a theory with any substantial evidence.
aaaaaaaaaaab 8y ago
Yeah, and they didn't mention other crackpot theories either, like ancient aliens destroying the statue's faces with zero-point energy weapons. I wonder why?
- novacole 8y ago
  Why would it be a crackpot theory to suggest that for Western Europeans, whose civilization as we know it starts in the late 1400s, who convinced themselves of African inferiority for the purpose of justifying their theft, rape, and murder of those people, upon seeing Black looking people in Egypt from thousands of years before their civilization started, would want to erase signs of it? Sounds just about right to me.
  - aaaaaaaaaaab 8y ago
    That's a very "nice" narrative. The only problem is that it isn't grounded on archeological or historical evidence, therefore it's a crackpot theory.
  - Kaiyou 8y ago
    Because it's unnecessary. To them these people looked so much inferior, that they even put them into zoos. Now ask yourself, if you found ruins indicating that [insert animal, maybe elephants] used to have an ancient civilization would you find that incredibly interesting or would you want to destroy evidence of that because it might affect the way we think of elephants today?
    - novacole 8y ago
      I think you underestimate the sickness of the people and culture of said people who would put people in zoos. If you can do that, you can’t put anything past that person/culture.
      - fromthestart 8y ago
        White man bad! I think the sickness is in our own very recent culture's push to deface historic European culture, and rationalize all sorts of interpretations of evilness by, ironically, dehumanizing Europeans, as you're doing here.
        krapp 8y ago
        But.. Europeans did put Africans into zoos and freak shows and display them, and European culture did consider them subhuman. Just study the history of Sarah Baartman, for an example. Mentioning that is neither dehumanizing nor defacing European culture, it's a statement of literal historical and cultural fact. That said, I don't really buy into the theory being presented here. I would need to see some documentary evidence supporting it first, such as a common cultural association at the time of "broad noses" with "Africans" or an attempt to portray ancient Egypt as a Caucasian society. People knew where Egypt was. The pyramids, temples and other signs of civilization were still there. Knocking the noses off of the statues wouldn't hide anything.
        novacole 8y ago
        Putting people in Zoos is a good thing? It dehumanizes Europeans to say that it is sick to put people in Zoos? Also, I never said anything about white people. I was talking specifically about the Western Europeans who put people in Zoos. I think your comment perfectly illustrates the lengths people will go to and the ways in which they will contort their minds in order to uphold an strange idea that is dear to their hearts, however...
  - fromthestart 8y ago
    >who convinced themselves of African inferiority for the purpose of justifying their theft, rape, and murder of those people The Africans they encountered had virtually no technology and no government, and looked like different creatures. It wasn't something that required rationalization. There's far less malice in this than you'd like to see. As far as I am aware, there is no credible evidence that Egyptians strongly represented south African phenotypes or had the same shade of skin. It is a modern internet meme. Lay off the propaganda.
    - altern8 8y ago
      Don't waste your time, his gender studies degree did irreparable damage you cannot fix.
      - dang 8y ago
        We've banned this account for posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait to HN. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - novacole 8y ago
      >and looked like different creatures These are your words. These are your thoughts.
      - altern8 8y ago
        > These are your words. These are your thoughts. He said those words. Word by word. Word. By Word.
      - fromthestart 8y ago
        Great contribution. Allow me to expand. The known world to you consists of various tribes of humans who all share rather similar physical phenotypes (white skin, soft, slightly curly to straight hair, similar facial features), with reasonably similar technology (metalworking, beasts of burden, farming, government of some sort, written language, the wheel) and suddenly you discover a group of beings with none of these things - no written language, no cultivated land, no domesticated animals, no wheel, no metalworking, and on top of all this, they look totally different from anyone you've ever seen. It did not take evilness or malice of any kind on the part of medieval Europeans to reason that these beings, if they were human, were less human than they were. Morality is cultural and relative, you cannot demonize historic cultures through your enlightened lense. So no, these are more than just "my words," this is a rational sentiment for a medieval European in the historic context. Globalization is a modern phenomenon. Why do you think there was incentive to put these people in zoos?
  - Bartweiss 8y ago
    It's described as a crackpot/fringe theory because it's an unsupported just-so story, and worse, it's not actually consistent with the data that inspired it. You're right that it's not hard to show motive for such a practice, but that skips past every other consideration, like motive, opportunity, or evidence. A few things that this theory falls utterly short on: - Reliefs that were never exported or even found by colonists are often defaced. - Pharaonic texts specifically reference the practice of defacement and treat it as an act distinct from general vandalism or theft. - Works show other systematic damage unrelated to racial issues (from the article, statues receiving offerings had their right hands removed, and those providing them had their left hands removed). - Single reliefs show noses removed on some figures but not others, even when the preserved noses look substantially non-European (e.g. the article's last photo). - Defacements aren't random, or tied to ethnicity; instead, politically inconvenient rulers like Hatshepsut are overwhelmingly erased while others (even close family members) are not. - Where text accompanies figures, the names of the defaced figures are also defaced. Which requires knowledge of Ancient Egyptian, a motive to target specific historical figures, and a concern with matters unrelated to appearance. - Weathering on in situ works commonly suggests noses were removed much closer to their creation than to the 1800s. (This is less clear for works brought to Europe, but that opens the question of simple fragility.) All of that is above and beyond questions of evidence for the practice, or historical context that Egyptian statues with black features were actually convenient for some racist theories like Samuel Weston's. There's basically no racist practice colonists wouldn't have been willing to engage in, certainly. But advancing specific claims that are inconsistent with huge amounts of evidence is rightly considered a fringe belief.
danans 8y ago
This theory doesn't hold up not the least because the surviving representations of noses in statuary don't look particularly "black" (interpreted very narrowly as the west sub-saharan facial phenotype), which is the image of Africans around which most Eurocentric racism is built. Look the statue in the article with an intact nose, and also the statues of the seated pharoahs at Abu Simbel. To my eyes, they just look a lot like egyptian people today, stylized for artistic purposes.
- novacole 8y ago
  > the surviving representations of noses in statuary don't look particularly "black" I think this says the exact opposite of what you want it to say. The fact that they survived, may be that they were sufficiently non-"black" looking to leave them alone. Phenotypes come in ranges especially for black people, so a "black" nose is anything from the nose of a random Scandinavian to that of a Sudanese persons.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - danans 8y ago
    Sure, that's another interpretation, and I agree that the notion of a single "black" phenotype is fundamentally incorrect, which is why I qualified it. Anyways, the theory would be easily tested by finding examples of statues with the supposedly unacceptable noses that survive today, and see if they can be correlated with the ones Europeans took. The other thing that doesn't make sense about the theory is that if the Europeans actually respected the Ancient Egyptian culture enough to want the statues, why would they deliberately damage the presumably very valuable artifacts? It would would be like someone buying a Van Gogh painting only to destroy it.
    - fwip 8y ago
      Most of the people bringing the statues back aimed to sell them.
deadmik3 8y ago
WE
altern8 8y ago
> [...] rather than the "primitive" countries of black people that Europe was busy exploiting. I smell a gender studies degree!
- dang 8y ago
  Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News? You've been doing this a lot, and we ban accounts that do it repeatedly. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
naibafo 8y ago
The only information I have on Egyptian noses is that, according to Asterix and Obelix, Cleopatra was famous for her nose.
- cwmma 8y ago
  she was Greek though so probably not a great example
  - tP5n 8y ago
    she was born in alexandria, north africa, as daughter to the ruling pharaoh of the ptomelaic kingdom in egypt.
    - adavis321 8y ago
      Yes, and the Ptolemaic Kingdom was a Greek kingdom founded by Ptolemy I Soter, a companion and historian of Alexander the Great. He started the kingdom after the death of Alexander.
- mcnesium 8y ago
  It is clearly explained in this 1968 movie, how and why the Sphinx happens to lack her nose: https://youtu.be/RFnfR26jnzo?t=2033 https://youtu.be/RFnfR26jnzo?t=2033

by fwip 8y ago

bagel_factory 8y ago

We wuz kangz

acron0 8y ago

Probably because it's not a theory with any substantial evidence.

aaaaaaaaaaab 8y ago

Yeah, and they didn't mention other crackpot theories either, like ancient aliens destroying the statue's faces with zero-point energy weapons. I wonder why?

novacole 8y ago
Why would it be a crackpot theory to suggest that for Western Europeans, whose civilization as we know it starts in the late 1400s, who convinced themselves of African inferiority for the purpose of justifying their theft, rape, and murder of those people, upon seeing Black looking people in Egypt from thousands of years before their civilization started, would want to erase signs of it? Sounds just about right to me.
- aaaaaaaaaaab 8y ago
  That's a very "nice" narrative. The only problem is that it isn't grounded on archeological or historical evidence, therefore it's a crackpot theory.
- Kaiyou 8y ago
  Because it's unnecessary. To them these people looked so much inferior, that they even put them into zoos. Now ask yourself, if you found ruins indicating that [insert animal, maybe elephants] used to have an ancient civilization would you find that incredibly interesting or would you want to destroy evidence of that because it might affect the way we think of elephants today?
  - novacole 8y ago
    I think you underestimate the sickness of the people and culture of said people who would put people in zoos. If you can do that, you can’t put anything past that person/culture.
    - fromthestart 8y ago
      White man bad! I think the sickness is in our own very recent culture's push to deface historic European culture, and rationalize all sorts of interpretations of evilness by, ironically, dehumanizing Europeans, as you're doing here.
      - krapp 8y ago
        But.. Europeans did put Africans into zoos and freak shows and display them, and European culture did consider them subhuman. Just study the history of Sarah Baartman, for an example. Mentioning that is neither dehumanizing nor defacing European culture, it's a statement of literal historical and cultural fact. That said, I don't really buy into the theory being presented here. I would need to see some documentary evidence supporting it first, such as a common cultural association at the time of "broad noses" with "Africans" or an attempt to portray ancient Egypt as a Caucasian society. People knew where Egypt was. The pyramids, temples and other signs of civilization were still there. Knocking the noses off of the statues wouldn't hide anything.
      - novacole 8y ago
        Putting people in Zoos is a good thing? It dehumanizes Europeans to say that it is sick to put people in Zoos? Also, I never said anything about white people. I was talking specifically about the Western Europeans who put people in Zoos. I think your comment perfectly illustrates the lengths people will go to and the ways in which they will contort their minds in order to uphold an strange idea that is dear to their hearts, however...
- fromthestart 8y ago
  >who convinced themselves of African inferiority for the purpose of justifying their theft, rape, and murder of those people The Africans they encountered had virtually no technology and no government, and looked like different creatures. It wasn't something that required rationalization. There's far less malice in this than you'd like to see. As far as I am aware, there is no credible evidence that Egyptians strongly represented south African phenotypes or had the same shade of skin. It is a modern internet meme. Lay off the propaganda.
  - altern8 8y ago
    Don't waste your time, his gender studies degree did irreparable damage you cannot fix.
    - dang 8y ago
      We've banned this account for posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait to HN. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - novacole 8y ago
    >and looked like different creatures These are your words. These are your thoughts.
    - altern8 8y ago
      > These are your words. These are your thoughts. He said those words. Word by word. Word. By Word.
    - fromthestart 8y ago
      Great contribution. Allow me to expand. The known world to you consists of various tribes of humans who all share rather similar physical phenotypes (white skin, soft, slightly curly to straight hair, similar facial features), with reasonably similar technology (metalworking, beasts of burden, farming, government of some sort, written language, the wheel) and suddenly you discover a group of beings with none of these things - no written language, no cultivated land, no domesticated animals, no wheel, no metalworking, and on top of all this, they look totally different from anyone you've ever seen. It did not take evilness or malice of any kind on the part of medieval Europeans to reason that these beings, if they were human, were less human than they were. Morality is cultural and relative, you cannot demonize historic cultures through your enlightened lense. So no, these are more than just "my words," this is a rational sentiment for a medieval European in the historic context. Globalization is a modern phenomenon. Why do you think there was incentive to put these people in zoos?
- Bartweiss 8y ago
  It's described as a crackpot/fringe theory because it's an unsupported just-so story, and worse, it's not actually consistent with the data that inspired it. You're right that it's not hard to show motive for such a practice, but that skips past every other consideration, like motive, opportunity, or evidence. A few things that this theory falls utterly short on: - Reliefs that were never exported or even found by colonists are often defaced. - Pharaonic texts specifically reference the practice of defacement and treat it as an act distinct from general vandalism or theft. - Works show other systematic damage unrelated to racial issues (from the article, statues receiving offerings had their right hands removed, and those providing them had their left hands removed). - Single reliefs show noses removed on some figures but not others, even when the preserved noses look substantially non-European (e.g. the article's last photo). - Defacements aren't random, or tied to ethnicity; instead, politically inconvenient rulers like Hatshepsut are overwhelmingly erased while others (even close family members) are not. - Where text accompanies figures, the names of the defaced figures are also defaced. Which requires knowledge of Ancient Egyptian, a motive to target specific historical figures, and a concern with matters unrelated to appearance. - Weathering on in situ works commonly suggests noses were removed much closer to their creation than to the 1800s. (This is less clear for works brought to Europe, but that opens the question of simple fragility.) All of that is above and beyond questions of evidence for the practice, or historical context that Egyptian statues with black features were actually convenient for some racist theories like Samuel Weston's. There's basically no racist practice colonists wouldn't have been willing to engage in, certainly. But advancing specific claims that are inconsistent with huge amounts of evidence is rightly considered a fringe belief.

danans 8y ago

This theory doesn't hold up not the least because the surviving representations of noses in statuary don't look particularly "black" (interpreted very narrowly as the west sub-saharan facial phenotype), which is the image of Africans around which most Eurocentric racism is built. Look the statue in the article with an intact nose, and also the statues of the seated pharoahs at Abu Simbel. To my eyes, they just look a lot like egyptian people today, stylized for artistic purposes.

novacole 8y ago
> the surviving representations of noses in statuary don't look particularly "black" I think this says the exact opposite of what you want it to say. The fact that they survived, may be that they were sufficiently non-"black" looking to leave them alone. Phenotypes come in ranges especially for black people, so a "black" nose is anything from the nose of a random Scandinavian to that of a Sudanese persons.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- danans 8y ago
  Sure, that's another interpretation, and I agree that the notion of a single "black" phenotype is fundamentally incorrect, which is why I qualified it. Anyways, the theory would be easily tested by finding examples of statues with the supposedly unacceptable noses that survive today, and see if they can be correlated with the ones Europeans took. The other thing that doesn't make sense about the theory is that if the Europeans actually respected the Ancient Egyptian culture enough to want the statues, why would they deliberately damage the presumably very valuable artifacts? It would would be like someone buying a Van Gogh painting only to destroy it.
  - fwip 8y ago
    Most of the people bringing the statues back aimed to sell them.

deadmik3 8y ago

altern8 8y ago

> [...] rather than the "primitive" countries of black people that Europe was busy exploiting. I smell a gender studies degree!

dang 8y ago
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News? You've been doing this a lot, and we ban accounts that do it repeatedly. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

naibafo 8y ago

The only information I have on Egyptian noses is that, according to Asterix and Obelix, Cleopatra was famous for her nose.

cwmma 8y ago
she was Greek though so probably not a great example
- tP5n 8y ago
  she was born in alexandria, north africa, as daughter to the ruling pharaoh of the ptomelaic kingdom in egypt.
  - adavis321 8y ago
    Yes, and the Ptolemaic Kingdom was a Greek kingdom founded by Ptolemy I Soter, a companion and historian of Alexander the Great. He started the kingdom after the death of Alexander.
mcnesium 8y ago
It is clearly explained in this 1968 movie, how and why the Sphinx happens to lack her nose: https://youtu.be/RFnfR26jnzo?t=2033 https://youtu.be/RFnfR26jnzo?t=2033