<p>Because, generally, it is one of the most protruding elements, and is relatively small.</p>
<p>Other parts regularly undergo the same fate: quite a few free-standing Greek and Roman sculptures have arms, hands, or entire heads missing (e.g. the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winged_Victory_of_Samothrace" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Nike of Samothrace</a>), because these parts were structurally the weakest.</p>
<p>This can also be seen in sculptures from later times, but their partial destruction sometimes has to do with acts of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iconoclasm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">iconoclasm</a>.</p>
<p>With ancient Egyptian sculpture, there is <a href="https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/stories/ancient-egyptian-statues-broken-noses" rel="nofollow noreferrer">another reason for the missing noses</a>: this damage was regularly done by looters, who tried to safeguard themselves from revenge. Statues accompanying the treasures for the afterlife, were inhabited by their sitters, and removing the nose (and often the eyes) was a way to kill that spirit:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Cutting off the nose would, in theory, be an effective way to cut off the statue’s source of breath with only a few blows of the chisel.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The nose of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Sphinx_of_Giza" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Great Sphinx of Giza</a> is actually presumed to have been deliberately removed, but it is unknown when or why.</p>
<p>Another interesting titbit: there exist <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasothek" rel="nofollow noreferrer">nasotheks</a>, where the noses of sculptures are kept. These are usually noses that were originally made to &quot;restore&quot; the old sculptures, but were removed due to changing policies.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-07-12T12:51:14.030Z
I think so too, it's *not* supported from *below* like the other parts of a sculpture. Do sculptors take measures to prevent such mishaps?
Hudjefa
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-07-12T13:31:32.440Z
@Hudjefa I don't believe so. Especially with those older sculptures, they were cut from solid rock, and so no internal fortification would be possible, which could be an option with wooden and clay sculptures (but probably isn't either). External measurements are bound to show and take away from the look of the sculpture.
Joachim
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-07-12T18:30:16.757Z
The weakest part of the sculpture!? Not in the least!!  It was done by the early Christians as a political statement as they were literally defacing the works of Pagans to establish their dominion over them and to mock their now powerless Gods and leaders.  It is 100% iconoclasm and it feels a little revisionist to say otherwise.
rebusB
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-07-12T18:46:05.460Z
@Hudjefa - the nose on a sculpture is well supported unless it is a sculpture of Pinocchio. This breakage is not about a mishap by the sculptor or a weakness in the work, its about projecting power (and thereby a tacit acknowledgement of the power of Art by those who fear it.)
rebusB
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-07-12T18:48:55.800Z
@Joachim, I (think I) know that sculptures are an artistic form of expression, but also their shelf life is longer, relative to other art like paintings. Was it expensive to commission a bust of oneself, as compared to e.g. a portrait?
Hudjefa
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-07-12T18:52:09.413Z
@rebusB, that's a *possibility* we can't rule out.
Hudjefa
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-07-12T18:59:12.587Z
@Hudjefa - there is a historical record of the _fact_ of "desacralization" or "deconsecration" against pagan iconography. Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_pagans_in_the_late_Roman_Empire
rebusB
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-07-12T19:32:40.820Z
@rebusB , that's sad.
Hudjefa
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-07-12T22:43:19.283Z
@rebusB yes, I mention iconoclasm in my post. It was not only Christian's (in fact, iconoclasm happens to this day). But it cannot account for so much nasal damage (and why noses in the first place? Because they protrude and are structurally weak.)
Joachim
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-07-13T14:13:07.210Z
@Joachim - actually it can. Certainly in the examples above. Just look at which statues have the damage. Yes, iconoclasm is everywhere but in this case (noses of statues from the Classical period and before) it is history.  Sure, a nose is an easier and more damageable target than say the cheek bones, but it is not really a structurally weak area.
rebusB
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-07-12T09:46:46.770Z
2024-07-12T09:46:46.770Z
Joachim
<p>My question is, why are the <em>noses</em> of sculptures the most easily damaged? I've posted several pictures of ancient sculptures that suffered <em>rhinal</em> damage. I hope my <em>sample</em> (statistically) is fairly representative.</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/6p2mr9BM.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/6p2mr9BMm.png" alt="Plato" /></a></p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/gYCBtN3I.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/gYCBtN3Im.jpg" alt="Pyrrho of Elis" /></a></p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/wVwLJDY8.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/wVwLJDY8m.png" alt="Sphinx" /></a></p>
<p><sup>Click images for larger versions</sup></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-07-12T01:22:30.003Z
The sphinx also had a stylized beard that was also destroyed.  But the missing nose is probably more noticeable, since we are so attuned to looking at faces.
Buzz
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-07-12T05:36:38.527Z
I think the nose doesn't necessarily get more damage, it's just more noticeable. Looking at the bust of Pyrrho, one eyebrow is completely missing and several parts of the hair, forehead, cheeks, beard and even the eyes are damaged. The first bust also shows surface damage of the hair, forehead and nose.
Elmy
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-07-12T18:40:31.257Z
It is because it is the most noticeable thing to break, not by accident or weakness in the works, but purposefully to make a statement against the culture that created them. Equal to book/music burning today.
rebusB
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-07-12T19:02:20.723Z
@Buzz, that, from what I've heard, is true. Another *protruding* part?
Hudjefa
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-07-12T19:03:23.460Z
@Elmy, I believe **Joachim** (*vide infra*) and **rebusB** confirm my suspicions. Your point is something to note though.
Hudjefa
<sculpting><sculpture>
Why is the nose of sculptures most susceptible to damage?
Hudjefa
# Why is the nose of sculptures most susceptible to damage?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2024-07-11)

My question is, why are the *noses* of sculptures the most easily damaged? I've posted several pictures of ancient sculptures that suffered *rhinal* damage. I hope my *sample* (statistically) is fairly representative.

[![Plato](https://i.sstatic.net/6p2mr9BMm.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/6p2mr9BM.png)

[![Pyrrho of Elis](https://i.sstatic.net/gYCBtN3Im.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/gYCBtN3I.jpg)

[![Sphinx](https://i.sstatic.net/wVwLJDY8m.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/wVwLJDY8.png)

Click images for larger versions

**Tags:** sculpting, sculpture

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: The sphinx also had a stylized beard that was also destroyed.  But the missing nose is probably more noticeable, since we are so attuned to looking at faces.  
> **username_2**: I think the nose doesn't necessarily get more damage, it's just more noticeable. Looking at the bust of Pyrrho, one eyebrow is completely missing and several parts of the hair, forehead, cheeks, beard and even the eyes are damaged. The first bust also shows surface damage of the hair, forehead and nose.  
> **username_3**: It is because it is the most noticeable thing to break, not by accident or weakness in the works, but purposefully to make a statement against the culture that created them. Equal to book/music burning today.  
> **username_0**: @username_1, that, from what I've heard, is true. Another *protruding* part?  
> **username_0**: @username_2, I believe **username_4** (*vide infra*) and **username_3** confirm my suspicions. Your point is something to note though.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2024-07-12. Score: 3 | Accepted answer

Because, generally, it is one of the most protruding elements, and is relatively small.

Other parts regularly undergo the same fate: quite a few free-standing Greek and Roman sculptures have arms, hands, or entire heads missing (e.g. the [Nike of Samothrace](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winged_Victory_of_Samothrace)), because these parts were structurally the weakest.

This can also be seen in sculptures from later times, but their partial destruction sometimes has to do with acts of [iconoclasm](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iconoclasm).

With ancient Egyptian sculpture, there is [another reason for the missing noses](https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/stories/ancient-egyptian-statues-broken-noses): this damage was regularly done by looters, who tried to safeguard themselves from revenge. Statues accompanying the treasures for the afterlife, were inhabited by their sitters, and removing the nose (and often the eyes) was a way to kill that spirit:

> Cutting off the nose would, in theory, be an effective way to cut off the statue’s source of breath with only a few blows of the chisel.

The nose of the [Great Sphinx of Giza](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Sphinx_of_Giza) is actually presumed to have been deliberately removed, but it is unknown when or why.

Another interesting titbit: there exist [nasotheks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasothek), where the noses of sculptures are kept. These are usually noses that were originally made to "restore" the old sculptures, but were removed due to changing policies.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: I think so too, it's *not* supported from *below* like the other parts of a sculpture. Do sculptors take measures to prevent such mishaps?  
> **username_4**: @username_0 I don't believe so. Especially with those older sculptures, they were cut from solid rock, and so no internal fortification would be possible, which could be an option with wooden and clay sculptures (but probably isn't either). External measurements are bound to show and take away from the look of the sculpture.  
> **username_3**: The weakest part of the sculpture!? Not in the least!!  It was done by the early Christians as a political statement as they were literally defacing the works of Pagans to establish their dominion over them and to mock their now powerless Gods and leaders.  It is 100% iconoclasm and it feels a little revisionist to say otherwise.  
> **username_3**: @username_0 - the nose on a sculpture is well supported unless it is a sculpture of Pinocchio. This breakage is not about a mishap by the sculptor or a weakness in the work, its about projecting power (and thereby a tacit acknowledgement of the power of Art by those who fear it.)  
> **username_0**: @username_4, I (think I) know that sculptures are an artistic form of expression, but also their shelf life is longer, relative to other art like paintings. Was it expensive to commission a bust of oneself, as compared to e.g. a portrait?  
> **username_0**: @username_3, that's a *possibility* we can't rule out.  
> **username_3**: @username_0 - there is a historical record of the _fact_ of "desacralization" or "deconsecration" against pagan iconography. Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_pagans_in_the_late_Roman_Empire  
> **username_0**: @username_3 , that's sad.  
> **username_4**: @username_3 yes, I mention iconoclasm in my post. It was not only Christian's (in fact, iconoclasm happens to this day). But it cannot account for so much nasal damage (and why noses in the first place? Because they protrude and are structurally weak.)  
> **username_3**: @username_4 - actually it can. Certainly in the examples above. Just look at which statues have the damage. Yes, iconoclasm is everywhere but in this case (noses of statues from the Classical period and before) it is history.  Sure, a nose is an easier and more damageable target than say the cheek bones, but it is not really a structurally weak area.  

---

