Why Do So Many Egyptian Statues Have Broken Noses?

> Even early modern and Renaissance art was probably seen differently to how we see it. A lot of the best statues and paintings had religious purposes, kind of like Egyptians.

Nearly everything artists in the past produced was commissioned work, the dutch old-masters are no different and I would be suprised if the appreciation for arts emerged out of nowhere, it was (as nearly everything is) a gradual process. I am a bit suprised by my lack of knowledge how art evolved as a concept, so I can't really argue much here.

I think it's worth distinguishing religious works from religious tools.

As I understand it, religious works were generally made to glorify God in a cultural sense - mostly as commissioned works to make churches and cathedrals more impressive. That's substantially different than pieces with intrinsic religious significance, whether as a literal idol, a vessel for a soul, or an offering to a divinity. For instance, a relief of a Pharaoh might be considered significant while placed in a sealed tomb, even worth opening the tomb to deface, but a pietà shut up in a basement is largely irrelevant.

It's an interesting point, though, because the distinction can definitely get fuzzy. The Stations of the Cross can be performed by simply carrying a blessed cross, but it's hard to deny that the construction of actual stations is the creation of an artistic religious tool. (And of course, an archaeologist would find the stations, but not necessarily have a way to know about the practice without implements.) Rosaries and reliquaries are clearly functional art, and even devotional paintings become ambiguous when literacy and ownership of a Bible aren't standard.

I think there's still a worthwhile distinction here between artistic/instructional and instrumental works, but I'm not sure it would hold across faiths or larger time spans.

The other connotations assigned to art are just the ways that the wealthy think of themselves.

Technically, it's not the same language, culture, etc. The living culture has changed considerably over the centuries both organically and via outside influences, including Islam.

The surprising thing about India is that it has kept around so much of the really ancient stuff while also adding a huge amount of new stuff along the way. Cultural hoarding, if you will.

It's like the cultural change process is sedimentary, with previous layers being preserved below, while the newer layers get added above, giving a kind of continuity, whereas in other parts of the world, it has often tended to be a more volcanic process, with the destruction of what preceded.

Also, Indian culture long ago accepted what to Western thinking seems like a contradiction of polytheistic icon based religious worship and the belief in a more abstract deity, or even atheism.

In the West, this resulted in the complete disposal of the previous pantheons, but in India, it was rationalized through a "many perspectives" lens where all the viewpoints could be accommodated.

I guess it's possible that lesser works were simply defaced instead of being altered, but given how much hand-wringing was devoted to altering statues, it's the sort of practice I'd expect to be well-documented, and I've never seen any evidence to that effect. I'd guess you're right: it's yet another case of Brown grabbing a random pattern and inserting meaning for it.

http://fathom.lib.uchicago.edu/1/777777190170/

Furthermore there was no legal or formal concept of marriage in an official sense. Two people were married when they moved in and lived together and declared it, and divorced when one of them left and they divided their property. As a result, women could unilaterally divorce their husband. The state had no role in it.

Like other ancient Greeks, Herodotus was scandalised: "They Egyptians, in their manners and customs, seem to have reversed the ordinary practices of mankind. For instance, women attend market and are employed in trade, while men stay at home and do the weaving."

On the other hand, the grave robbers in later eras may not have belonged to that culture, but might still have been superstitious about ancient Egyptian curses. I don't believe the theory, but it's difficult to disprove.

Undowned for the edit, very gracious of you.

It doesn't.

Maybe other voters have already noticed the paradox, and taken appropriate action!

So maybe the flaw is to over generalize the gist of the thread early in its history.

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.