RE: Long Skull, Narrow Face: Tut Gets New Look

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:

I don’t understand the recent obsession with reconstructing the faces of famous ancient Egyptian persons from the New Kingdom.

---

Thought Writes:

Neo, is it that you REALLY don't understand why they want these reconstructions or were you being sarcastic?

Were the scientists who did the reconstructions objective in their approach? Were they aware that the CT scan images those of Tut? Why three different reconstructions on one skull? Why is such a big deal made on this recent reconstruction and not so much the previous one (the more African looking one). And why did the scientists model theirs after modern day Egyptians if the populations today are strikingly different from ancient ones?

These are the questions I would ask?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

Neo, is it that you REALLY don't understand why they want these reconstructions or were you being sarcastic?

---

Hawass clearly wasn't pleased with the very African reconstructions of Nefertiti and Tut so I'd say his involvement in the most recent ones is a reaction to the past results. I'm just pondering why anyone would want to reconstruct the faces of people from the Amarna period at all. That was one period where there is no question what most members of the royal family looked like. However, I wouldn't mind seeing a reconstruction of someone a little less depicted like Smenkare.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
What you should really ask the New York Times are:

[b]Were the scientists who did the reconstructions objective in their approach? Were they aware that the CT scan images those of Tut? Why three different reconstructions on one skull? Why is such a big deal made on this recent reconstruction and not so much the previous one (the more African looking one). And why did the scientists model theirs after modern day Egyptians if the populations today are strikingly different from ancient ones?

These are the questions I would ask?

[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 14 May 2005).][/B]

---

Good questions.

You can write the NY Times too:

Letters to the Editor

Letters to the editor should only be sent to The Times, and not to other publications. We do not publish open letters or third-party letters.

Letters for publication should be no longer than 150 words, must refer to an article that has appeared within the last seven days, and must include the writer's address and phone numbers. No attachments, please.

We regret we cannot return or acknowledge unpublished letters. Writers of those letters selected for publication will be notified within a week. Letters may be shortened for space requirements.

Send a letter to the editor by e-mailing letters@nytimes.com or faxing (212)556-3622.

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:

Hawass clearly wasn't pleased with the very African reconstructions of Nefertiti and Tut so I'd say his involvement in the most recent ones is a reaction to the past results.

---

Thought Writes:

Hawas has little knowledge of modern biological anthropology and a high profile position. Bad combination.

a bientot
DMc

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
I'm not sure if this will be published in the NY Times but I responded to their recent article about the King Tut reconstructions:

RE: Long Skull, Narrow Face: Tut Gets New Look

I don’t understand the recent obsession with reconstructing the faces of famous ancient Egyptian persons from the New Kingdom. There are many depictions of King Tutankamun from his early childhood years till his late teens created by artists who had seen him in life but these portraits are not as recognized outside of museums as the Golden Mask. In contrast to earlier time periods in Egypt when most of the depictions of Kings were idealistic, the portraiture of the New Kingdom was realistic and candid. We don’t need a reconstruction of the face of King Tut anymore than we need to reconstruct the face of Abraham Lincoln.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
Send a letter to the editor by e-mailing letters@nytimes.com

---

They are using the color of modern Egyptians for the reconstructions. Forensic reconstruction can tell us very little about the bridge of the nose or color of the deceased person. Obviously, they are using the color of northern Egyptians,and not southern Egyptians were Tut-ankh-amun came from.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:

Obviously, they are using the color of northern Egyptians,and not southern Egyptians were Tut-ankh-amun came from.

---

Thought Writes:

Does anyone know how many of Tut's ancestors were northern Egyptian?

We don't know the idenity of Tut-ankh-amun's mother. Some have suggested it was Tiye,and others have said it was Queen Kiya. If its Tiye then Amenhotep III is Tut-ankh-amun's father. If its Kiya then Tut-ankh-amun's father is Akenaten. The same goes if Neferiti is his mother.

Thuya and Yuya were the mother and father of Tiye. Suggestions have been made that Yuya might be of foreign extraction because early anatomist Sir Grafton Smith noticed the peculiarities of features compared to other Egyptians. Thuya was definately an Upper Egyptian.

Let me also add the another problem is identification of the mummies. We are really not sure whose mummies we have. Lots of mummies got swtiched or stolen. Many were destoyed. If you notice that most of the mummy collection that dates to the 18th dyansty are severly damaged.

I am not either. They made them look very much like African with big blotched nose and lumby lips which are very far from typical Egyptian features.

Does not matter what you or any body says. Egypt is Egyptian, neither African nor Arab.
Full stop.

quote:

---

Originally posted by salama:
Does not matter what you or any body says. Egypt is Egyptian, neither African nor Arab.
Full stop.

---

What, Egypt is floating in space, and has no historical, cultural, geographical and political ties with other Africans?

quote:

---

I am not either. They made them look very much like African with big blotched nose and lumby lips which are very far from typical Egyptian features.

Does not matter what you or any body says. Egypt is Egyptian, neither African nor Arab.
Full stop.

---

Tut-ankh-amun came from modern day Luxor. Many modern Luxor Egyptians have those features you call a-typical of modern Egyptians.

Tut-ankh-amun would have looked more like these Saidi children from Luxor than a Bohary Egyptian from the Delta or Cairo. See the following:

Perhaps not, the Egyptians are known mixers- their features have changed a lot since then . The southern of Egypt population have very much mix married with Africans from the numbian boders down to Somalia.

If you again at the pic.you provided you will see that these kids are of the same race. The kid at the far right hand side, is very Saidi, while the kids to the left are mixed with African ancestery.

Tut, Nuffer-titi and Ra-m-sis all more like the kid at the right side of the pic.

Somalis were brought into Egypt as gifts ( not slaves ) some of them saw their way to the heart of Egyptian pricesses like Noffrit .

No, neither somali nor any other race could ever, ever link with the Egyptian race.
Once more , Egypt is Egyptian, neither African nor Arab regardless of what some of them try to convince us with otherwise.

Ha, ha, ha.
Egyptians were never negros. Don't waste your breathe.
If you like us to dye on you, well come nearer.

quote:

---

Ha, ha, ha.
Don't waste your breathe.

---

Why do say that, are you ineducable?

One thing many of us try to do is present evidence and not just make statements without proof.

For example, many scholars have examined the remains of Southern Egyptians and concluded that they were of tropical African type, and physically resembling other Africans, including East and West Africans.

Here are a couple of examples:

Shomarka Keita:
The Badarian crania have a modal metric phenotype that is clearly 'southern'; most classify into the Nubian, Gaboon, and Kenyan groups NO Badarian cranium in any analysis classified into the EUROPEAN SERIES.
"Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," 1993

Sir Alan Gardiner -
". Whatever may be said of the northerners, it is safe to
describe the dwellers in Upper Egypt as of essentially African stock,
a character always retained despite alien influences brought to bear
on them from time to time." (pg. 392; Egypt of the Pharaohs 1966

Do you have evidence to the contrary of the above scholars?

We can provide more [MUCH MORE] evidence if you need it.

quote:

---

Perhaps not, the Egyptians are known mixers- their features have changed a lot since then . The southern of Egypt population have very much mix married with Africans from the numbian boders down to Somalia.

If you again at the pic.you provided you will see that these kids are of the same race. The kid at the far right hand side, is very Saidi, while the kids to the left are mixed with African ancestery.

Tut, Nuffer-titi and Ra-m-sis all more like the kid at the right side of the pic.

Somalis were brought into Egypt as gifts ( not slaves ) some of them saw their way to the heart of Egyptian pricesses like Noffrit .

No, neither somali nor any other race could ever, ever link with the Egyptian race.
Once more , Egypt is Egyptian, neither African nor Arab regardless of what some of them try to convince us with otherwise.

---

Actually, they have mixed with nobody. Their African ancestors came into Egypt during the pre-dyanstic times. You ever heard of the Badarian culture?

Somalis never came to Egypt in large numbers during the Dyanstic times.

If we want to get technical about it Cairene Egyptians mixed with imported white slaves,and Sudanese slaves. Your modern Cairene Egyptians probably has more admixture than these Saidi children.