Detritus

look, i fully recognize that there are reasons to be skeptical of history and archaeology. i am very on board with criticizing academia as an oppressive institution, and the way that researchers take their bigotry and bias with them to their work. i also recognize that academia does a pretty bad job of communicating what it does to the public, and that’s a part of why people’s hostility to it is able to flourish.

but i am disturbed by the pervasive narrative in online leftist spaces that people who research the human past are ignorant and bigoted, and i think we need to do more to combat that narrative.

historians being homophobic has become a whole meme, and it feels like people are just using historians as a homophobia scapegoat, when in reality the humanities are overwhelmingly left-leaning. people also keep blaming historians for erasing the homoeroticism of fictional literary characters, which is just… not what historians do. homophobic biases and erasures in the interpretation of history over the past few hundred years are a very real thing that’s important to learn about, but scholars have radically shifted away from that approach in recent generations, and these memes are not helping people outside the field to understand history and reception. instead, a lot of people are coming away with the impression that…

(source… really? nobody?)

this thread gets bonus points for the comments claiming that modern historians argue about whether achilles was a top or a bottom using homophobic stereotypes, which i can only guess is a misunderstanding of the erastes/eromenos model (a relationship schema in classical greece; i think people have debated whether achilles and patroclus represent an early version of it). also a commenter claims that the movie troy invented the idea of achilles and patroclus being cousins when no, they were also cousins in lots of ancient sources.

there’s this post about roman dodecahedra (link includes explanation of why the original post is misleading).

there’s this thread about how some thin gold spirals from ancient denmark look exactly like materials used in gold embroidery to this day but archaeologists are stupid and don’t know that because they dont talk to embroiderers enough. in fact, the article says they were most likely used for decorating clothing, whether as a fringe, braided into hair, or embroidered. so the archaeologists in the article basically agree with the post, theyre just less certain about it, because an artifact looking similar to a modern device doesn’t necessarily mean they have identical uses.

this thread has a lot of people interpreting academic nuance as erasure. the museum label literally says that this kind of statue typically depicts a married couple, giving you the factual evidence so you can interpret it. it would be false to say “these two women are married” because there was no gay marriage in ancient egypt. (interpreting nuance as erasure or ignorance is a running theme here, and it points to a disconnect, a public ignorance of how history is studied, that we can very much remedy)

lots of other conspiracy theory-ish stuff about ancient egypt is common in social justice communities, which egyptologists on this site have done a good job of debunking

oh, and this kind of thing has been going around. the problem with it is that there are loads of marginalized academics who research things related to their own lives, and lived experience and rigorous research are different forms of expertise that are both valuable.

so why does this matter?

none of these are isolated incidents. for everything i’ve linked here, there are examples i havent linked. anti-intellectualism, especially against the humanities, is rampant lately across the political spectrum, and it’s very dangerous. it’s not the same as wanting to see and understand evidence for yourself, it’s not the same as criticizing institutions of academic research. it’s the assumption that scholars are out to get you and the perception that there is no knowledge to be gained from thorough study. that mindset is closely connected to the denial of (political, scientific, and yes historical) facts that we’ve been seeing all around us in recent years.

If you mean this post, then no. Just no. 100x no. 

You may have already seen @rudjedet‘s response, which should tell you how the Egyptology gang is currently feeling about this. I’m going to go through it bit by bit, though perhaps not the video because I think my blood pressure will go through the roof. 

Let’s preface the whole ask with this: Conservators working on ancient art and artefacts, do not, and I repeat, do not, add paint where it is unnecessary. When they do make changes, as per conservation rules, everything is reversible. No conservator makes changes that cannot be undone. Paint or otherwise. 

So, the tomb of Nefertari underwent conservation that began in 1988, and this is where the post says the ‘white washing occurred’. Let’s put it this way, the tomb had already been open for 84 years at the point of restoration (discovered and opened in 1904). It had been extensively photographed and documented before work began by numerous people. It’d be a really stupid thing to do to actively just paint over and then be like ‘lol nah those old photos of it are just wrong’. You can’t get away with stuff like that. Due to the nature of the limestone and surrounding water table, the tomb was already in a poor state. Sodium chloride, or table salt, had formed beneath the paint and plaster, thus causing it to flake off. Opening the tomb accelerated the process, and a fifth of the paintings were lost before work began. I will provide this quote from the man,  Paolo Mora, former Chief Conservator at the Istituto Centrale del Restauro in Rome, whose team carried out the work: ‘”Our goal," says Mr. Mora, "was to stop deterioration and consolidate what was possible. We did not add color. Nothing. It was cleaning, consolidation, and stop.”’ (Source)

So the post presents this comparison image, with the one on the left supposedly being the ‘before’ and the right being the ‘after’:

The claim is that the conservation team led by Mr Mora in 1988, painted over Ma’at’s skin to make her appear ‘white’. *please just at this point imagine me pinching the bridge of my nose and sighing, because that is what I did on reading this*  

Firstly, the image on the left has been darkened. Egyptian backgrounds are bright white, not a dirty yellow. So, I did a reverse image search for that particular image. That took me to this post from 2016 on Facebook, by @egypt-museum and provided this image:

This image is fairly obviously a facsimile/altered copy of a similar scene from the tomb of Nefertari. How do I know this? Well, for starters, the art is inferior to that of the tomb itself. If you look at the original comparison image more closely, you can see that there is far less detail in the image on the left. The hair is in the wrong place. The hieroglyphs are less detailed, and cruder. The image on the right looks like it has been painted onto plaster, as you can see variations in the colour, particularly on the dress of Ma’at, wherein more paint has been applied in some areas than others. On the left image it is solid. If you’re not convinced by this particular set of information, then I can offer this:

This is an image of the original scene (highlighted on the right), taken in situ within the tomb of Nefertari. I took this screenshot from this video, from this website, which was a project to digitally scan every inch of the tomb to provide a VR experience. Since photography is not allowed in tombs in either the Valley of the Kings or the Valley of the Queens, unless academic, most people wouldn’t know where the scene sits within the tomb. In this case, it is right at the front, mirrored either side of the entrance steps of the tomb. This means it’s high up. You can see that in the video itself, as in the top left corner you can see a white circle with arrows. If you pause the video you can actually move the video around to get a better look at it. This enabled me to take this screenshot:

You can see the image is over the stairs, on a small ledge, and has a niche before it, and the ceiling is covered in stars as in typical in Egyptian tombs. A clearer image is this one from Getty Images:

Now compare this shot of the scene in situ within the tomb, to the one that says it’s the ‘original’. The ‘original’ looks like it’s in a corner, yes, but that corner seems to sit on the floor. There are no stars on the ceiling in the ‘original’ image. There is no damage at all to the scene, even though this tomb is well documented to be damaged, and damage can be see on the in situ image. You’ll also note on the image deemed to be the ‘original’ that the wall on the right comes out towards the viewer, marking the scene as one in a niche, whereas the scene shown in situ in the actual tomb is shown to be stepped out from the preceding scene. They’re not even remotely showing the same place.

Even if none of that persuades you, please know that the Egyptian gods were said, by the Egyptians, to have skin the colour of gold and hair made of lapis lazuli. Humans are shown to have dark skin tones, but Gods often do not. There are exceptions, usually the Anthropomorphic gods and always Osiris, but by and large they are depicted with golden (not white) skin tones for a reason.

The image purported to be the ‘original’ is a copy that has changed the skin tones. It is nothing like the original that I have show here in its original context. So, that’s the first falsehood in the post. Let’s move on to the next one. 

This image, you kinda have to laugh at. The largest image shows a conservator from the British Museum doing work on the banquet scene from the tomb of Nebamun. What she’s actually doing here is strengthening the edges, as these scenes were removed from the tomb and then the tomb was lost (I know, even Egyptologists think this was a shitshow). You can see the full image here:

(Source - The British Museum)

They don’t look white to me. Am I missing something? Or do people seriously think Egyptologists and Conservators would take photos of themselves actively white washing paintings and put them on the internet? *bridge of nose pinch, sigh*

So, moving on to the top image in that set. This is a scene from the tomb of Thutmose IV: 

(Source - Getty Images)

You’ll notice that the image presented by OP has been darkened ever so slightly in an attempt to present a stronger case. That’s not going to help you here. Firstly, you can see the brush strokes and how the paint has been soaked up into the plaster, secondly, if this was ‘white washing’ as is claimed, then the ‘white washers’ appear to have missed 6 figures in their attempt. Seriously, there’s a nice close up of Thutmose IV and Osiris: 

(source - Getty images)

Yeah, seems totally white. Not a black guy at all. 

Here’s another image from the same section of the tomb: 

(Source - Getty Images)

Notice how it’s only the goddesses that are paler? Might there be an Egyptian art convention, and cultural reason for this to be happening? Yes!! Not only are the goddesses here portrayed with yellow/gold skin, as I said previously gods have golden skin, but it is typical within Egyptian art decorum for women, who typically spent more time inside to be depicted in a yellow colour, rather than the deep brown of the men. They’re not white! Far from it! If you’re seeing white people then you really know nothing about Ancient Egyptian cultural norms. Just look at this close up of one of the goddesses from that scene:

(Source -Getty Images) 

This goddess (Hathor) isn’t white. Nor has she been depicted as such, as you can see through the brush strokes in the paint by the original artisan. 

Here’s another image of one of the goddesses: 

(Source - Getty Images) 

Yeah, she looks white. I won’t deny that. But I can tell you that the Egyptians were not portraying her as a white woman. Again, this is the goddess Hathor for goodness sake. Can you see the red lines around the eye and eyebrow? That’s line art. When the Egyptians start a scene like this, they always do an ochre red line art, and then correct themselves as they move to the final product (except in the case of the tomb of Thutmose III, whose tomb is deliberately all in line art style). They change positioning etc. Notice how you can see it here? You wouldn’t if someone had come along and painted this woman ‘white’. 

 A really good book to read on the use of colour and how people are portrayed would be Heinrich Schäfer’s ‘Principles of Egyptian Art’, or you can freely ‘borrow’ Gay Robins’ ‘The Art of Ancient Egypt’ from this link (free account needed). Also, as a final note. Thutmose IV’s tomb has never undergone modern restoration. It was restored by Horemheb c.1319-1292, and there’s graffiti in the tomb noting this restoration. You can read about that here.

Moving on to the final image in that segment: 

I’ve done a reverse search on this image, and I cannot find the original papyrus it comes from, though I can tell you that the papyrus dates to the New Kingdom based on the woman’s mode of dress. 

Edit: @sighinastorm found the original image, which is the Book of the Dead belonging to Heruben, dating to the 21st Dynasty, currently residing in the Cairo museum. Here she is:

(Source)

But it is on papyrus, and that’s something I can talk about. Notice how her face skin tone is the same colour as the papyrus colour surrounding it? That’s because the face was never painted. Either because they forgot, or they didn’t want to lose detail in the face. It’s not been painted over to hide her blackness. They would have done a real crappy job, because the rest of her is still black. Are Egyptologists stupid or incompetent in these scenarios I wonder?

The next image I’ll discuss is the side by side comparison of the wooden Bust of Tutankhamun. Here’s the image OP provides:

According to them, the lips and nose have been thinned to make Tutankhamun appear more ‘white’. The fun thing about Tutankhamun is that the Griffith Institute at Oxford University, have the entire collection of Harry Burton’s original photographs from the excavation of Tutankhamun’s tomb, just out there for anyone to look at. So I went through the photos to find the bust from the original excavation. I cannot post the full pictures here as the Griffith Institute state that the photos must not be reproduced under any circumstances without express permission from them. However, I will link to both of the photos, with their Burton photograph numbers here:

Burton Photo No. P0325  Burton Photo No. P0326

Both of those photos match the 2019 version, right down to the missing paint/varnish on the nose, and earring holes in the ears. You’ll notice the ‘1924′ version OP says is the original has neither of these. So, I did a little digging for the ‘1924′ photo. Reverse image search brought me to this image from Getty Images: 

If you click the link to the source I’ve provided, you’ll see the photo is entitled:

Restoration 1924: An artist retouches paint on a statue from the tomb of Tutankhamen for the Egyptian exhibit at Wembley. (Photo by General Photographic Agency/Getty Images)

Now that struck me as odd, as Tutankhamun’s artefacts rarely leave Egypt, and have in fact only been to the UK three times: once in 1972 at the British Museum in London, the 2007 exhibition at the O2 Arena in London, and then again in 2019 at the Saachi Gallery in London. So I looked for a 1924 exhibition, and low and behold I found that there had been an exhibition in 1924 of Tutankhamun’s treasures as part of a ‘British Empire Exhibition’ at Wembley. This was an exhibition that recreated the entirety of Tutankhamun’s tomb in replicas to show visitors what had been found. The above image, and the one that is purported to be the ‘original’ is actually a photo of an artist finishing up a replica of the wooden bust from the tomb of Tutankhamun not the actual original bust.

The final image I’ll discuss is this one:

Honey, that’s a shitty banana leaf ‘papyrus’ replica of a scene from the tomb of Nebamun. The original remains untouched, and you can’t yell at Egyptologists for shitty racist copies of original art shops sell to people. The Nebamun image exists, and is on display in all its original glory. In fact, if you scroll back up to the section where I mention Nebamun in this post before, you’ll see these two guys just chilling and enjoying their banquet. This scene is on display at the British Museum. If we’re white washing we’re doing a terrible job of it by just having this where everyone can see it. 

The other two images are of Egyptologists and Archaeologists doing conservation work on tombs. Unless someone can point me to specific white washing in those photos, then they’re just there for nonsensical reasons. 

The video is hilariously bad. It’s painfully obvious that it’s an early 2000′s production, using actors to pretend to be Egyptologists, while saying terrible racist things. I mean just look at this woman’s face as she says ‘replace african names with arabic and european names’

That’s some really bad acting there bud. Everyone is looking shifty and pulling their best ‘evil plot face’ and I just cannot take it seriously. 

So, yeah, that post is bunk. If you’re not convinced by the evidence presented, then that’s fine. Just please look into it more, and ask yourself ‘do I believe that a very narrowly defined infographic by an unknown author is telling me the absolute god honest truth?’ Think critically, not reactionary. 

Long Eared Jerboa

a sichuan takin bull and his daughter

ESPECIALLY BABY ECHIDNAS

Originally posted by lovefloridauk

They’re just big lumps that float around the sea. They’re non-aggressive, non-territorial herbivores that spend most of their time sleeping or eating, or they might be socializing with other manatees or investigating interesting objects.

Maine coons!! So soft and friendly!!!

Look at these babies!!!

Coati! They are native to my country of Panama and they are basically raccon, possum, civet, meerkat hyrbid aka an animal straight outta Avatar the Last Airbended

This is a baby South American Tapirs or Tapirus terrestris are unique for their stripes. It is also called Brazilian Tapir and is the second largest land mammal in South America next to the Baird’s Tapir.

Here’s a full grown one with it’s baby for reference.

And then there is the Malayan (or Asian) Tapir and it looks like a panda that mated with an anteater.

Cacomixtle.

Bats.

Dinotopia - Between the ages of 6 and, er, 27+, I’m pretty sure I’ve logged about 5,000,000,000,000 hours or so of daydreaming to this particular world’s credit.

The pyramids were built by contemporary workers who received wages and were fed and taken care of during construction

The Dendera “lightbulb” is a representation of the creation myth and has nothing to do with electricity

We didn’t find “““copper wiring””” in the great pyramid either

Hatshepsut wasn’t transgender

The gods didn’t actually have animal heads

Hieroglyphs aren’t mysteriously magical; they’re just a language (seriously we have shopping lists and work rosters and even ancient erotica)

The ancient Egyptian ethnicity wasn’t homogeneous

While the Egyptians were fine-ass astronomers they didn’t align any of their enormous and/or important buildings to modern star constellations, because constellations look very different now than they did ~5000 years ago 

Speaking of that particular sphinx, the Napoleonic expedition is not responsible for its missing nose

Akhenaten was not a “heretic” by contemporary standards

Ramses II appropriated a lot of his predecessors’ buildings/reliefs and isn’t really deserving of the epithet “the Great”

It was not, in fact, practice to shave off eyebrows after cats died; Herodotus lied about that

Here are some vetted Egyptological books/sources (that are by and large appropriate for a lay-audience) you can find most, if not all of the above:

Lehner, M., The Complete Pyramids

Wilkinson, R. H., The Complete Temples of Ancient Egypt

Hornung, E., The One and the Many: Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt

Dunand, F. & Zivie-Coche, C., Gods and Men in Egypt

Kemp, B., Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization

Bard, K., An Introduction to the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt

Stevenson Smith, W., The Art and Architecture of Ancient Egypt

Kitchen, K. A., The Life and Times of Ramesses II, King of Egypt

Sweeney, D., Sex and Gender (in Ancient Egypt)

McDowell, A. G., Village Life in Ancient Egypt:  Laundry Lists and Love Songs

The thing about Seth is that he is half of a whole. Not only in the sense of “without chaos there is no order”, but also in that the Egyptians liked to see joined in their king both the aspects of Horus (faithfullness, respect for parents) as well as Seth (strength, cunning). 

Hatshepsut describes herself as follows:

(…) as I wear the White Crown, as I appear in the Red Crown, as Horus and Seth have united for me their two halves, as I rule this land like the son of Isis (Horus), as I have become strong like the son of Nut (Seth). (After Sethe & Helck, 1906)

Turner (2016) likens Seth to a minister of foreign affairs rather than a foreigner himself. He served a purpose, even as he was worshipped by the Hyksos, the invading foreigners - foreigners who were eventually driven out. Only after Seth “failed” to aid in the driving out of further invading foreigners did he become villified.

As for the appearance of the gods: certain gods were portrayed with animal heads, but this does not mean that the Egyptians thought of their gods as being anthropomorphic with an animal head tacked on - it means that the gods had two (or more) distinct forms, and that they could appear as either. 

Hathor, for example, was portrayed as both a cow and a woman, as well as a woman with a cow’s head, or a ureaus snake, or a lioness, or the cow’s head (with feminine characteristics) seen on columns. There is a statue on the Louvre that shows four of these forms side by side:

The iconography of the gods is, as Hornung (1971/1982) puts it, “an attempt to indicate something of [their] complex nature.” So in our example Hathor can appear in many forms, indicating her many-faceted nature. She’s not simply a woman with a cow’s head; she can be in the woman and she can be in the cow.

Ancient Roman gold nipple cover, 1st century AD.