What most people who reconstruct faces of Tut-ankh-amun use the tissue depth from cadavers. Most of the studies on tissue depth for Tut-ankh-amun is actually using the same as Europeans. This was pointed out to me through personal email with Dr. Ahmed Saleh. Saleh,btw, is Egyptian so you can't really build a strawman to say he is ''Afrocentric''.

He also pointed out to me that no concrete study on ancient or modern Egyptians has ever been conducted in relation to forensics of the ancient Egyptians. He mentioned that Egyptians living past Minya and above Edfu were probably the most related to the ancient Egyptians.

Read it for yourself:

These traditional 'plastic' methods (Isçan and Helmer 1993, Snow et al. 1970) use modelling clay or plasticine to build up the depth of tissue on the skull (or a cast of the skull) to that of a living individual. Tissue depths are known for 'landmark' sites on the skull; the depths elsewhere are interpolated between these points (Figure 1) and then into the interstices (Figure 2). The shape of the eyes, nose and mouth cannot be confidently predicted and are largely guesswork (Figure 3). Even for skilled practitioners, plastic reconstructions take one or two days. The results obtained will differ between reconstructions and between practitioners.

The tissue depth measurements used tend to be those collected from cadavers in the early part of the twentieth century, or before. These measurements are biased because they come from small samples, because a dead person's tissues are not the same as in life, and because they take only limited account of the average differences known to occur between people of different age, build and sex, and between the major human diversity aggregates. For over a century, forensic artists and scientists have been attempting to improve the quality of facial reconstructions from the skull, efforts which have met with very limited success. Most recently, computerised methods for 3D facial reconstruction have been developed (Ubelaker and O'Donnell 1992, Vanezis et al. 1989, Shahrom et al. 1996, Miyasaka et al. 1995). These methods employ computer programs to transform laser-scanned 3D skull images into faces. Although the results are more reproducible than sculpted reconstructions, some subjectivity can remain in the 'pegging' of a composite facial image onto the digitised skull matrix. The use of such a standardised image will reduce the influence of the individual shape of each skull, which is after all fundamental to the person's appearance. Computerised methods may be repeatable, fast and precise, but as long as they employ the old data, the quality of the reconstruction will be undermined.

Large samples of tissue depth measurements can be collected, with associated attributes of age, sex, build and, where appropriate, ethnic group. A pilot study on the collection of tissue depth measurements from CT scans has been carried out by one of our team (Nelson 1996). Digitised images of facial features not predicted by the skull contours (nose, eyes and mouth) must be added by separate means to generate a wireframe face (Figure 8), onto which colour and texture can subsequently be rendered (Figure 9). If necessary, a skull can be reconstructed 'virtually' from the separately scanned parts (Figure 10).

Facial reconstruction is destined to remain an art, albeit an increasingly informed one. The shape of the face bears only a restricted resemblance to the underlying bone structure. Facial reconstructions are inherently inaccurate, therefore, and cannot be used as a positive proof of identification ? certainly not in a court of law. Like many things in archaeology, a facial reconstruction is a scientifically-informed artistic recreation ? an interpretation. Nevertheless, a forensic facial reconstruction has value in potentially allowing the exclusion of a particular individual as the unidentified subject and, most importantly, in acting as a stimulus for recollection of an absent neighbour, friend or relative. In this sense, the accuracy of the image may not be as important as allowing the investigating agencies to benefit from timely media attention and the public eye.

The contemporary relevance of research on computerised modelling and animation may benefit archaeology intellectually and financially. Within archaeology, the enhanced cosmetic aspects of facial reconstruction further increase the amount of error incorporated into the model. Nevertheless, the drama of sensitively presented facial reconstructions may foster a greater empathy with the people whose lives we hope somehow to represent.

Archaeology continuously faces choices about how to engage with the contemporary world. In this, the first issue of Assemblage, I would like to advocate a strategy of a critical appropriation of science and technology for archaeology.

http://www.shef.ac.uk/assem/1/evison.html

So I hope that people see that Forensic reconstruction is more guess work than actual science.

But here is an example of a Forensic reconstruction done on a burn victim in Ontario Canada,and notice that the victim is defined as a ''Dark skinned caucasian'' coming from Egypt, Sudan,Ethiopia and Somalia:

UGHAN, ONT. - York Regional Police have released drawings of an unidentified woman whose badly burned body was found in an industrial park more than 10 years ago.

A police officer made the gruesome discovery on Sept. 1, 1994, after noticing a fire behind a building on Bradwick Drive near Highway 7 in Vaughan.

When the fire was put out, the body of a young woman was found in the remains of a suitcase. Gasoline and tires had been used to fuel the fire.

On Tuesday, investigators released drawings of a clay reconstruction of the victim's face, along with previously unpublished information that they hope may help someone identify her.

Forensic testing indicates that the victim was likely a dark-skinned Caucasian from a North African country such as Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia or Egypt. Her estimated age was 17 to 18.

She stood five feet, four inches, and had a very slim build, weighing between 85 and 100 pounds. She had dark curly hair, which may have been dyed a reddish colour, and protruding front teeth, which were in good condition.[protruding jaw-line and teeth is called proganthism;which is usually a negriod trait]

Police say the victim had suffered broken bones in her back and lower limbs that had been left to heal untreated. As a result, they say she was likely immobile and in constant pain.

Drawing of 1994 homicide victim
[IMG] http://toronto.cbc.ca/gfx/Toronto/photos/cold_case20050125.jpg http://toronto.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=to-coldcase20050125

Here is something also peculiar is that modern people living in the same area today that Tut-ankh-amun came from have features that one would associate with negriods:

As Kennedy notes:

"While the Upper Nile Egyptians show phenotypic features that
occur in higher frequencies in the Sudan and southward into
East Africa (namely, facial prognathism, chamaerrhiny, and
paedomorphic cranial architecture with specific modifications
of the nasal aperature), these so-called Negroid features are
not universal in the region of Thebes, Karnak, and Luxor."

Kennedy, Kenneth A.R., T. Plummer, J. Chinment, "Identification of the
Eminent Dead: Pepi, A Scribe of Egypt," In Katherine J. Reichs (ed.),
Forensic Osteology, 1986.

Here are the main references used in reconstructing mummies:

Krogman, W. and M. Y. Iscan, 1986. _ Human Skeleton in Forensic
Medicine_. 2nd Ed. Springfield: C.C. Thomas.

Brunton, W. 1929. The Work of Reconstruction. In J. Baikie and W.
Brunton, eds., _Great Ones of Ancient Egypt_: 23-33. London: Hodder
and Stoughton, Ltd.

David, R., ed. 1978. _Mystery of the Mummies: The Story of the
Manchester University Investigation._ London: Book Club Associates.

Neave, R. A. H. 1992. The Facial Reconstruction of Natsef-Amun. In
A. R. David and E. Tapp, eds., _The Mummy's Tale: The Scientific and
Medical Investigation of Natsef-Amun, Priest in the Temple at
Karnak_: 162-167. New York: St. Martin's Press.

ancient Egyptians to give us their precise features.

After three months of announcing the produced image of Tutankhamun, there is a great debate on the effectiveness of that image and the origin of the ancient Egyptians who produced their great civilization. The French and the American teams suggested that the CT-scan data and the facial features of Tutankhamun assure that he had a Caucasoid racial type and this gets back the old theory of the ?dynastic race? .

This theory is that separate between the ?pre-dynastic period? and the ?archaic period? . however, the believers of this theory thought that a huge immigrant people invade Egypt in Proto-dynastic period and those immigrant were advanced culturally and politically than the local people ? who came of African roots. They proves that the local people had narrow skulls while the immigrants had wide skull (such as what appeared in the late facial reconstruction of Tutankhamun ?).

As for the measurements that formed the bases of the French and American images, I could say that I had two objections :

1- the facial reconstruction is a modern and European science that depend on the studies of the physical remains in the European countries in Switzerland, Russia , England and USA.

2- Manchester Mummy Project Team had faced difficulties in reconstructing the Egyptian faces especially mummy 1770 and the two brothers because there was lack of studies of the ancient Egyptians.

So I think strongly that anyone trying to use the standard measurements of the facial reconstruction on the ancient Egyptian remains , would have the Caucasoid hypothesis figure at the end of his work. Therefore we need studies on the physical features of the

The Caucasoid hypothesis:
http://www.mummyspeaks.net/ENGLISH/false_image_of_tutankhamun.htm

*

When the anatomist His collected the measurements of the soft tissues thickness, he relied on the studies of the Caucasian people. Even Kollman and Buchly established the precise technical process on their measurements that they took from 159 European bodies. And also Manchester? Mummy team had reconstructed the Egyptian faces (the two brothers and 1770?mummy) on the same bases but R.Naeve had realized that these measurements represent the weakest point in their facial reconstruction (op.cit, p.18) and he pointed that facial reconstruction needs ?more information on soft tissue thickness of a far wider range of racial types?.

In fact, there are some studies, now, following the differences of facial reconstruction of some racial types like what the Russian Galina Lebeinskaya in 1970.

She studied about 1.795 bodies of different racial types (1993, pp. 183-198), following her the American studied Afro-Caribbean and Caucasians facial features (1982, pp. 847-858}

R.Naeve (1997, p. 19) stated the accuracy of resemblance of facial reconstruction on skull and the person when he was alive is really depend on three points:

* The experience of making Reconstruction
* The state of the skull
* The background of information of the skull

Considering this, we have difficult problems when we dealing with the Egyptian skulls because there is no studies either for ancient Egyptians or for modern Egyptians.

In fact, Naeve faced this problem when he finished the reconstruction of mummy?1770 (1998, p. 177) which seems to be like European appearance. For that reason he and Dr. Rosalie David visited the Egyptian figures, either statues or bodies? remains in British museum, and they studied the nose and the lips in these figures and Naeve made some modifications in these parts of the cast of mummy? 1770(1984, p. 144).

<http://www.mummyspeaks.net/IMAGES/face_of_1770.JPG>

In the mummies of the two brothers, he based mainly on the statues that were found on the coffins and the historical background of the two brothers, taken through examination of their bodies, as well.

Conclusion:

The results of Manchester Mummy Project? team proved more needs to many studies in facial features of ancient Egyptians either through their human remains or the ancient Egyptian art. The team had realized the problem of depending on the existing measurements of soft tissue thickness, because the Egyptian faces carrying the Caucasian features so, it needs many studies on the anthropology of ancient Egyptians.

The sources:

* A.R.David (ed.)(1978), Mysteries of the mummies: the story of the Manchester university investigation, London.
* A.R.David (ed.)(1979), The Manchester Museum Mummy Project: Multidisciplinary research on ancient Egyptian mummified remains, Manchester
* A.R.David & E.Tapp (Eds.)(1984), Evidence Embalmed: Modern Medicine and the mummies of ancient Egypt, Manchester.
* C.Renfrew & P.Bahn (Eds.)(2000), Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice, third edition, London.
* G.V.Lebedinskaya, T.S.Balueva and E.V.Veselovskaya, (1993) ?Principles of facial reconstruction? in: M.Y.Iscan and R.P.Helmer (eds.), forensic analysis of the skull?, New York.
* J.Prag & R.Naeve, (1997), Making Faces: Using Forensic and Archaeological evidence, London.
* J.S.Rhine & H.R.Campbell (1982), ?thickness of facial tissues in American Blacks?, Journal of

The accuracy of reconstruction the Egyptian faces on skulls http://www.mummyspeaks.net/ENGLISH/facial_reconstruction.htm

Read the following by Dr. Saleh also about the reconstruction:

ancient Egyptians to give us their precise features.

After three months of announcing the produced image of Tutankhamun, there is a great debate on the effectiveness of that image and the origin of the ancient Egyptians who produced their great civilization. The French and the American teams suggested that the CT-scan data and the facial features of Tutankhamun assure that he had a Caucasoid racial type and this gets back the old theory of the ?dynastic race? .

This theory is that separate between the ?pre-dynastic period? and the ?archaic period? . however, the believers of this theory thought that a huge immigrant people invade Egypt in Proto-dynastic period and those immigrant were advanced culturally and politically than the local people ? who came of African roots. They proves that the local people had narrow skulls while the immigrants had wide skull (such as what appeared in the late facial reconstruction of Tutankhamun ?).

As for the measurements that formed the bases of the French and American images, I could say that I had two objections :

1- the facial reconstruction is a modern and European science that depend on the studies of the physical remains in the European countries in Switzerland, Russia , England and USA.

2- Manchester Mummy Project Team had faced difficulties in reconstructing the Egyptian faces especially mummy 1770 and the two brothers because there was lack of studies of the ancient Egyptians.

So I think strongly that anyone trying to use the standard measurements of the facial reconstruction on the ancient Egyptian remains , would have the Caucasoid hypothesis figure at the end of his work. Therefore we need studies on the physical features of the

The Caucasoid hypothesis:
http://www.mummyspeaks.net/ENGLISH/false_image_of_tutankhamun.htm

*

When the anatomist His collected the measurements of the soft tissues thickness, he relied on the studies of the Caucasian people. Even Kollman and Buchly established the precise technical process on their measurements that they took from 159 European bodies. And also Manchester? Mummy team had reconstructed the Egyptian faces (the two brothers and 1770?mummy) on the same bases but R.Naeve had realized that these measurements represent the weakest point in their facial reconstruction (op.cit, p.18) and he pointed that facial reconstruction needs ?more information on soft tissue thickness of a far wider range of racial types?.

In fact, there are some studies, now, following the differences of facial reconstruction of some racial types like what the Russian Galina Lebeinskaya in 1970.

She studied about 1.795 bodies of different racial types (1993, pp. 183-198), following her the American studied Afro-Caribbean and Caucasians facial features (1982, pp. 847-858}

R.Naeve (1997, p. 19) stated the accuracy of resemblance of facial reconstruction on skull and the person when he was alive is really depend on three points:

* The experience of making Reconstruction
* The state of the skull
* The background of information of the skull

Considering this, we have difficult problems when we dealing with the Egyptian skulls because there is no studies either for ancient Egyptians or for modern Egyptians.

In fact, Naeve faced this problem when he finished the reconstruction of mummy?1770 (1998, p. 177) which seems to be like European appearance. For that reason he and Dr. Rosalie David visited the Egyptian figures, either statues or bodies? remains in British museum, and they studied the nose and the lips in these figures and Naeve made some modifications in these parts of the cast of mummy? 1770(1984, p. 144).

<http://www.mummyspeaks.net/IMAGES/face_of_1770.JPG>

In the mummies of the two brothers, he based mainly on the statues that were found on the coffins and the historical background of the two brothers, taken through examination of their bodies, as well.

Conclusion:

The results of Manchester Mummy Project? team proved more needs to many studies in facial features of ancient Egyptians either through their human remains or the ancient Egyptian art. The team had realized the problem of depending on the existing measurements of soft tissue thickness, because the Egyptian faces carrying the Caucasian features so, it needs many studies on the anthropology of ancient Egyptians.

The sources:

* A.R.David (ed.)(1978), Mysteries of the mummies: the story of the Manchester university investigation, London.
* A.R.David (ed.)(1979), The Manchester Museum Mummy Project: Multidisciplinary research on ancient Egyptian mummified remains, Manchester
* A.R.David & E.Tapp (Eds.)(1984), Evidence Embalmed: Modern Medicine and the mummies of ancient Egypt, Manchester.
* C.Renfrew & P.Bahn (Eds.)(2000), Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice, third edition, London.
* G.V.Lebedinskaya, T.S.Balueva and E.V.Veselovskaya, (1993) ?Principles of facial reconstruction? in: M.Y.Iscan and R.P.Helmer (eds.), forensic analysis of the skull?, New York.
* J.Prag & R.Naeve, (1997), Making Faces: Using Forensic and Archaeological evidence, London.
* J.S.Rhine & H.R.Campbell (1982), ?thickness of facial tissues in American Blacks?, Journal of

The accuracy of reconstruction the Egyptian faces on skulls http://www.mummyspeaks.net/ENGLISH/facial_reconstruction.htm