...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
they look different
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Antalas: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Djehuti: [qb] But getting back to Lioness's query, there was heterogeneity even within a single dynasty such as the 18th. [URL=https://web.archive.org/web/20130702082447/http://wysinger.homestead.com/harris_-_1991.pdf]The Identification of the Eighteenth Dynasty Royal Mummies: A Biological Perspective[/URL] by James E. Harris & Fawzia Hussein [i] Methods ..[b]When the craniofacial skeleton of first degree relatives (father, mother, brother, sister) is recorded by a cephalogram, traced and measured, the resulting variables should approach a 0.5 correlation. These same variables when measured between non-related individuals should approach 0. This was shown to be true in the study of a large series of nuclear families included in clinical studies at the University of Michigan. It must be emphasized here that soft tissue features such as shape and size of nose, lips and ears may well be inherited as sex-linked, recessive, dominant characters or traits.[/b] Where Smith made expert scholarly judgements of similarity-dissimilarity between members of the Egyptian Royal Family, our approach utilized quantification and statistical analysis of the shape and position of the components of the craniofacial skeleton. Specifically, the mandible, maxilla, dentition and cranial base were traced and measured for every mummy and then compared by computer-generated overlays (Figure I), angular measurements and ratios (Table 1) and cluster analyses (Figure 2). The overlays are particularly useful in visualizing similarities and differences in the shapes and position of the bones of the craniofacial skeleton of the royal mummies. At the same time the set of variables representing the craniofacial skeleton can be interpreted better by utilizing the overlays... Discussion For a group of investigators concerned with human craniofacial variation and malocclusion, the differences in the faces and skulls in the New Kingdom Pharaohs and Queens were especially intriguing. [b]This was hardly a homogeneous sample, and there were great differences both within and between the dynastic periods. **The most heterogeneous grouping was that of the XVIII dynasty.**[/b] What all of these mummies have in common is a tong head or cranium (dolichocephalic) and a relatively delicate face, compared with the mummies of the XIX and XX dynasties and Old Kingdom mummies that our group has examined. This study in fact will be limited to the XVIII dynasty (Table 2). Some of these mummies were obviously different from their predecessors or their successors. Thutmose I has all those craniofacial characters common to the Nubian people, i.e. skeletal-dental-alveolar prognathism. X-ray cephalograms [b]indicate for the first time that there is little craniofacial similarity between the still unwrapped mummy of Amenhotep I and Thutmose I.[/b] Further X-rays reveal that the epiphyses of Thutmose I's knees are still patent, suggesting an individual not yet in his twenties. These biological parameters strongly contradict the identification of the mummy as Thutmose I. Further, the X-rays reveal that the arms of Amenhotep I were crossed at the time of burial, whereas the arms of Thutmose I are in a pudendal position, a question proposed by Elliot Smith to be solved by X-rays in 1912 and noted by Derry in 1932.4 [b]Ahmose has little resemblance to either Seqenenre Tao II or Amenhotep I and is not circumcised, unusual for the XVIII dynasty.[/b] Amenhotep II has a long ovoid face compared with the very short face of Thutmose III. Thutmose IV has a very fine featured delicate face compared with that of Amenhotep III. Smith states that, "There is a most striking resemblance in face and cranial form between Amenthos II and Thutmosis IV, in spite of the fact that the general appearance of strength and decision of character in the face of the former are in marked contrast to the effeminate weakness of the latter. The shape of the head, with its curious sloping forehead and slender but prominent nose, is identical in these two pharaohs." In fact, Amenhotep III has a facial skeleton quite unlike all other Royal Mummies and resembles most closely that of the Statuary of Amenhotep IV. One of us (FH) has recorded that Amenhotep III's skull (maximum head length 195 mm) is two standard deviations too large for his body (slightly less than 5 ft or 149.64 cm).6 [/i] [/qb][/QUOTE]Interesting this further confirms my assumptions in regards to this dynasty and its mixed heritage. from the same paper : [QUOTE] [b]Thutmose I has all those craniofacial characters common to the Nubian people[/b] , i.e. skeletal-dental-alveolar prognathism. X-ray cephalograms indicate for the first time that there is little craniofacial similarity between the still unwrapped mummy of Amenhotep I and Thutmose I [/QUOTE]I knew that there was something strange about all these SSA looking depictions of the XVIIIth century which contrast with what the preceding dynasties produced and I'm not talking about the art itself since I know amarnian art was quite unique but I'm talking about the realistic busts and so I suspected that this dynasty might have assimilated some nubians. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3