posted
After seeing that the ‘When to use black and not to’ thread continues to attract comments, I thought I’d bring a dose of reality to the discussion. BlessedbyHorus starts the thread with:
quote: No anthropologist will out right say the Ancient Egyptians were "black"! That is just a fact neither would they say the Ancient Egyptians were white or whatever.
Keita for example who is a well known anthropologist refrains from using racial terms. He never in any of his works outright said the Ancient Egyptians were "black" and yet by reading his work and using common sense we know what he is saying.
But, with respect BBHorus, it’s not just that anthropologists won’t use the term “black” (although forensic anthropologists do), it’s the fact that the scholarship accumulated by Keita et al, isn’t always adhered to within Egyptological pronouncements on population backgrounds, nor in representations of ancient Egyptians. That’s why the need remains.
Anyway, in the summer of last year, I tried to contact Elisabeth Daynes, who produces “hyper realistic” facial reconstructions in her Paris studio:
quote: 08/09/2015
Dear Elisabeth
I would [like] to ask, how does somebody become a practitioner in facial reconstruction?
What sort of qualifications do you need?
quote: 11/09/2015
Sorry not to have responded to you sooner.
We have seen your first email but we were closed for the whole month of August.
As far as Elisabeth is concerned she studied by herself. She studied special effects make-up and went into prehistory randomly after an order of prehistoric men. She then studied by herself compared anatomy and went to many congresses of anthropology abroad.
Otherwise another solution, but that concern only sapiens, is to study forensic facial reconstruction at University.
We hope this is helpful to you.
Have a very pleasant weekend.
All the best
Peggy Martin
quote: 13/09/2015
Dear Peggy Many thanks for the helpful response. I was also hoping you might be able [to help with] another question. You mentioned that she went to anthropological congresses abroad, so I wondered whether, when Elisabeth paints the flesh tones of reconstructions, she take[s] into consideration migration and population change.
For example, she paints her ancient Egyptians in light skin colours. I wanted to ask if she knew about Egyptian population change and that the indigenous dynastic population was African.
Do you know how she determines skin colour for these particular reconstructions?
quote: 14/09/2015
She always works with a scientific team (for skin color with Nina Jablowski when possible) and they all decide of the skin color depending on flora and fauna found on site or available scientific information.
About Egypt, we know what you mean and we totally agree with you, skins «should » be darker for most of them. However, we work on order and are stuck into fierce debates. So we ask museums in their explanations to the public to write that color of eyes, hair (+ amount of hair) and skin are only hypothesis. We hope the study of ancient DNA will solve definitively this issue in the future and give us more influence for this choice.
All the best
Peggy
Ahhh, seems to me that hyperrealism falls by the wayside when it comes to Africa -- the “scientific information” is not being allowed to feed through.
Think why?
When the ancient Egyptians are fairly depicted as Africans, then the descriptor “black” can be dropped.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is just proof of the point that the whole issue is one of skin color and that European racism is primarily based on skin color. The word "black" simply is rejected in Egypt because it refers to ranges of colors that European scientists have been spending the last 200 years trying to remove from the ancient Egyptian population. This is not an issue of words, it is an issue of skin color. People need to stop thinking this is an issue of words. That bullsh*t has nothing to do with it. No matter how you call it or describe it or what words you want to use, Europeans will argue and debate if you try and portray the ancient Egyptians as black Africans because of their racism based on skin color. Period. Some people just don't want to accept this fact. The whole when to use black thread just shows how some of us who should know better waste a lot of time and energy debating over nonsense rather than focusing on the fundamental facts of what this is all about.
quote: About Egypt, we know what you mean and we totally agree with you, skins «should » be darker for most of them. However, we work on order and are stuck into fierce debates. So we ask museums in their explanations to the public to write that color of eyes, hair (+ amount of hair) and skin are only hypothesis.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: This is not an issue of words, it is an issue of skin color. People need to stop thinking this is an issue of words.
^yes
tropicals redacted you are mixing up two different things.
a) accurate depiction of skin tone in reconstructions
b) application of a word
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, we work on order and are stuck into fierce debates. So we ask museums in their explanations to the public to write that color of eyes, hair (+ amount of hair) and skin are only hypothesis.
Interesting.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
lol her excuse seems curious - but could be that the museums in question specified a certain skin color. To get paid, she has to play ball. If she was TOO realistic, commissions might be cut back by those who control the purse strings. The outcome is inevitable. And lol, museums saying such and such is a hypothesis won't make much difference, when they are paying for a certain "look". If it is "hypothetical" why don't they have a variety of models? Uh huh, I thought so.. Thankfully there are other artists who are more willing to be accurate. Richard Neave might be one on some works. Kudos to him.
It is to be expected that "the establishment" will pursue certain things. They have a lot invested in Egypt- a whole edifice of appropriation & hypocrisy centuries old. Change will not be rapid. Our part is to keep building up a strong, credible, independent base of information- that can be drawn on for analysis, synthesis, battle or public presentation, etc in multiple venues. Too often some rely on rhetoric or volume in this area rather than sober analysis. Doesn't take a college degree but will take willingness to study. Doesn't need one center but a broad, general "operational unity." Different people can work different street corners- with different angles, using the same common benchmark data and understandings.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: lol her excuse seems curious - but could be that the museums in question specified a certain skin color. To get paid, she has to play ball. If she was TOO realistic, commissions might be cut back by those who control the purse strings. The outcome is inevitable. And lol, museums saying such and such is a hypothesis won't make much difference, when they are paying for a certain "look". If it is "hypothetical" why don't they have a variety of models? Uh huh, I thought so.. Thankfully there are other artists who are more willing to be accurate. Richard Neave might be one on some works. Kudos to him.
It is to be expected that "the establishment" will pursue certain things. They have a lot invested in Egypt- a whole edifice of appropriation & hypocrisy centuries old. Change will not be rapid. Our part is to keep building up a strong, credible, independent base of information- that can be drawn on for analysis, synthesis, battle or public presentation, etc in multiple venues. Too often some rely on rhetoric or volume in this area rather than sober analysis. Doesn't take a college degree but will take willingness to study. Doesn't need one center but a broad, general "operational unity." Different people can work different street corners- with different angles, using the same common benchmark data and understandings.
Basically all her work shows white folks. No matter the timing.
quote:However, we work on order and are stuck into fierce debates. So we ask museums in their explanations to the public to write that color of eyes, hair (+ amount of hair) and skin are only hypothesis.
Interesting.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
I have seen the Tutankhamen artifacts in person. If he was portrayed in a movie with the above skin tone I would support it 100%
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: I am really annoyed by Elisabeth.
quote: It's funny how they switch up versions of this, some lighter than others
[/QB]
Above is her basic presentation without the trick switch lighting. Obviously the skin tone is too light. If you are that annoyed with her prove it by send her an email requesting that they re-do the skin tone to match the art.
It doesn't matter if they re-do it or not the point will be delivered to the one that made it.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: I am really annoyed by Elisabeth.
quote: It's funny how they switch up versions of this, some lighter than others
[/QB]
Above is her basic presentation without the trick switch lighting. Obviously the skin tone is too light. If you are that annoyed with her prove it by send her an email requesting that they re-do the skin tone to match the art.
It doesn't matter if they re-do it or not the point will be delivered to the one that made it.
Understand people, this is a reconstruction. Its is not supposed to look exactly like the real person, its only an approximation. I actually view this image in a certain light now that I saw an Egyptian who looked like this reconstruction. Does this look like king tut? I would say somewhat......in the same vein as your dead relative who doesn't look like they did in life as they sit in their casket. NO they dont look "the same" but you recognize they are the same individual and the bodies have not been switched.
I have no doubt that with any of these reconstructions you could send them back through time and their family would recognize them as the individual.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
lol!! The FB crew, man, what are they smoking in that room? Open the windows!!!! let the smoke out. Put down the bong! lol!
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
I wasn't going to post here, but since Xyyman insists on lumping us together...
This is happens when you get a room full of ideologues together. They start gassing each other up to the point where they start believing their own fantasies. The same thing happened with the looney tune who made the OP. He gets exposed to people like you and within no time he tries to bite the hand that feeds him and lecture me on how ancient Egyptian reconstructions are suspect unless they look racially 'black'. You people don't even progress. You're going backwards compared to early ES days.
What's mainly wrong about that reconstruction is his skin color and maybe aspects of his nose. Not the general look of the reconstruction. Look at his reconstructed aunt (KV35YL) and reconstructed father (KV55) and tell me how Tut's reconstructed face differs substantially in terms of facial structure. Also look at the other Tut reconstructions. Do you mean to tell me that the facial structure of this reconstruction is a complete outlier?
Don't implicate me in dumb sh!t Xyyman. I have no time for your "FB group vs Egyptsearch" bs. If you want to think that Tut looked like something else, you're free to delude yourself. But don't make me out to be the fringe guy.
^Tut and his father—two completely different reconstructions but there is an obvious overlap. Same with his aunt:
EDIT: Correction. KV35YL is his mother, not his aunt.
EDIT: Actually, she's both his aunt and his mother.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: I took pictures...give me a minute.
The images are **** as it is under low light and not with the persons knowledge.
You can still get the overall impression of the face. Upon seeing the individual I immediately knew he was Egyptian and I thought he looked like king Tuts reconstruction.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
I wasn't going to post here, but since Xyyman insists on lumping us together...
This is happens when you get a room full of ideologues together. They start gassing each other up to the point where they start believing their own fantasies. The same thing happened with the looney tune who made the OP. He gets exposed to people like you and within no time he tries to bite the hand that feeds him and lecture me on how ancient Egyptian reconstructions are suspect unless they look racially 'black'. You people don't even progress. You're going backwards compared to early ES days.
What's mainly wrong about that reconstruction is his skin color and maybe aspects of his nose. Not the general look of the reconstruction. Look at his reconstructed aunt (KV35YL) and reconstructed father (KV55) and tell me how Tut's reconstructed face differs substantially in terms of facial structure. Also look at the other Tut reconstructions. Do you mean to tell me that the facial structure of this reconstruction is a complete outlier?
Don't implicate me in dumb sh!t Xyyman. I have no time for your "FB group vs Egyptsearch" bs. If you want to think that Tut looked like something else, you're free to delude yourself. But don't make me out to be the fringe guy.
^Tut and his father—two completely different reconstructions but there is an obvious overlap. Same with his aunt:
EDIT: Correction. KV35YL is his mother, not his aunt.
EDIT: Actually, she's both his aunt and his mother.
No, the point of the OP was to show that there is an agenda in European institutions based around skin color when it comes to representing ancient Egyptians. This isn't about the reconstruction having a similarity to any generic Egyptian ancient or modern. It is about the accuracy of the reconstruction relative to the remains and ancient depictions of the boy King Tutankhamun. And in all aspects the reconstruction is totally unlike that person, in skin color and features. Not to mention the funny looking lips which are totally unrealistic. This shows that not only were they not interested in realistic skin colors but also making sure that the lips don't match the reality of the African features of the deceased.
That is a perfectly valid and logical observation.
To sit here and claim that this is 'scientifically objective' is simply to deny the reality of the facts of racism within Egyptology and to give them some sort of 'objective cover' when most folks should know better, as evidenced in the claimed correspondence from the OP. But we didn't need that to know this. The point being that one aspect of white supremacist propaganda is to promote the idea that the white phenotype has always been dominant throughout the history of mankind no matter how far you go back, which is an absolute lie.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
You don't have the slightest clue what I was talking about, do you? In the post you're addressing right now it says the level of skin pigmentation is wrong. So why are you trolling me by trying to 'convince' me that there is an agenda to give the wrong levels of skin pigmentation as if I didn't just acknowledge that? I only referred to the OP once in my post and that was in relation to the following 2014 statement the OP keeps trying to defend, to this day:
quote:I don't think I'm being radical, or diverging from the evidence here, but I'm pretty confident that if you took every indigenous ancient Egyptian skull ever found, and where possible, subjected them to 'blind' reconstruction under the supervision of someone with Keita-like knowledge...then most of the reconstructions would evoke someone of black African descent.
What do you think about this use of 'black' that centers around reconstructible facial features as opposed to skin pigmentation? And do you agree that that 'most' observation is necessarily true? Straight answers, please. And post evidence if you agree.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The point being that one aspect of white supremacist propaganda is to promote the idea that the white phenotype has always been dominant throughout the history of mankind no matter how far you go back, which is an absolute lie.
I thought you were of the mindset that 'white' strictly referred to a level of skin pigmentation and not a set of reconstructible facial features? That's what you tried to defend over dozens of thread pages in the other thread. Now what am I supposed to think right now? See how you leave me no other choice than to conclude that you're flip flopping?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Understand people, this is a reconstruction. Its is not supposed to look exactly like the real person, its only an approximation. I actually view this image in a certain light now that I saw an Egyptian who looked like this reconstruction. Does this look like king tut? I would say somewhat......in the same vein as your dead relative who doesn't look like they did in life as they sit in their casket. NO they dont look "the same" but you recognize they are the same individual and the bodies have not been switched.
I have no doubt that with any of these reconstructions you could send them back through time and their family would recognize them as the individual.
Geographically Tut's burial was found in the South. How come and why not demographically represent him as the average boy from the South.
King Tut died from sickle-cell disease, not malaria
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
The profile sketch does not resemble the profile reconstruction as any portrait artist can attest.
The recon * nose isn't flat at all, the bridge sticks out at the eyes * nose tip is angular * cheek is rather flat and high at eye not the jaw * mouth has overbite * top lip is thin * bottom lip is tiny * chin recedes
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: The profile sketch does not resemble the profile reconstruction as any portrait artist can attest.
The recon * nose isn't flat at all, the bridge sticks out at the eyes * nose tip is angular * cheek is rather flat and high at eye not the jaw * mouth has overbite * top lip is thin * bottom lip is tiny * chin recedes
Also the nasion to chin angle is lesser.
Radiologists Attempt to Solve Mystery of Tut's Demise
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: [QB] The profile sketch does not resemble the profile reconstruction as any portrait artist can attest.
(reconstruction (drawing of Akhenaten)
The recon * nose isn't flat at all, the bridge sticks out at the eyes * nose tip is angular * cheek is rather flat and high at eye not the jaw * mouth has overbite * top lip is thin * bottom lip is tiny * chin recedes
Also the nasion to chin angle is lesser.
Akhenaten drawing compared to Elisabeth Daynes reconstruction outlined
In my opinion they are pretty similar, the red line is derived mechanically from the Elisabeth Daynes
the differences with the Elizabeth Daynes is mainly, has a smaller lower lip, receding lower jaw, nose slightly longer. The fleshy and cartilage areas like the lip and nose are least predicted by the skull Otherwise they are quite similar Of course he would also have to compared to his mother
Here is the Akhenaten skull. A large portion is missing so the nose portion is guessed by the artist
Same Akhenaten skull full profile angle
_________________________________
Tutankhmun left profile Tutankhmun left flipped right the chin looks quite receding
BBC One documentary Tutankhamun: The Truth Uncovered reveals the first ‘virtual autopsy’ scans of the boy king 014 (BBC = Better to Be Caucasian)
Elisabeth Daynes Tutankhamun 2005 in normal lighting, National Whitographic
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
I showed by standard. anthropological survey how the two differ so thanks for proving it via the overlap. The nose alone is enough to show no resemblance ('flat' vs 'Grecian').
I recommend Manual of Physical Anthropology. Juan Comas. Thomas, Springfield, Ill., 1960. xxi + 775 pp. Illus
and will not further discuss this without reference to forensic anthropology measure vs unguageable opinion.
''and will not further discuss this without reference to forensic anthropology measure vs unguageable opinion.''
I like it. :) That is way to improve the quality of posting.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Heptune's purpose is humor and information, preferably both at the same time!
In this drawing by Megaera Lorenz, we see (from left to right) Anguirus, Data, Dr. Smith, Akhenaten and Cab Calloway playing poker for rotifers. Betty Boop is the rotifer girl, providing rotifers (in the little jars) as needed. Click on the various parts of the image to explore Heptune's pages!
___________________________________________
Megaera Lorenz Educational Programming Specialist at Oriental Institute Public Education Office, Chicago
This is my attempt at a portrait in colored pencil. I am still learning the medium, but hopefully I will have it under control soon.
This is one of my few portraits of Nefertiti. I often get frustrated trying to draw her, and still have not really managed to produce a really satisfying portrait of her. The medium is pencil.
This was an early reconstruction of the KV55 mummy, which I did when I was about 12 or 13. I did not actually trace the skull, so the result is pretty different from what I got later
I made this drawing by tracing the skull of the mummy from tomb KV55 and then adding flesh to the outline of the skull, so hopefully this is a fairly accurate rendering of what the person would have looked like in life. The identity of this mummy is still disputed. Some believe it to be Akhenaten himself, and others believe it to be his youger co-regent, Smenkhkare. In any case, this young man has a classic Amarna family profile. The medium is pencil on tracing paper.
___________________________________
So we have an employee of Oriental Institute Public Education Office making some amateur pictures of Egyptians on a private website described as " Heptune's purpose is humor and information"
-- this is a forensic specialist ???
are you kidding me ???
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Don't be such a dumbassed liar.
The anthropology is comparing the sketch to the recon bitch.
Not that one is more forensic than the other, what ever that whack idea of yours is sposed to mean, lol.
But then intelligent readers aren't swayed by your over obvious ridiculing distortion in lack of comparing measures or non metrics, something you don't know how to do and refuse to learn as easy as it is.
Any serious readers wanna talk about it fine I'll entertain them but you can keep up the clowning for the set who are swayed by ridicule and reverse cheerleading. And, on top of it all, I'm not the one who posted the sketch or proposed it for serious consideration.
1 <- this img cannot be restored 2 3
1 and 2 have much more in common than do 2 and 3 or 1 and 3.
3 would belong to s different anthro set or grouping were one to consider craniology in the least.
That's all Not iinterested in the type of readership who goes by who had the last word.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
I challenge anybody to produce metrics describing the sinus cavity on this skull
Also don't address me with low class language
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
The recon * nose isn't flat at all, the bridge sticks out at the eyes * nose tip is angular * cheek is rather flat and high at eye not the jaw * mouth has overbite * top lip is thin * bottom lip is tiny * chin recedes
Also the nasion to chin angle is lesser.
^ as if this is forensic terminology what a joke
Look at the skull
Now read this
"* nose isn't flat at all, the bridge sticks out at the eyes * nose tip is angular"
how ridiculous
*note: craniology is not sculpture, and stop using my pics
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
You don't have the slightest clue what I was talking about, do you? In the post you're addressing right now it says the level of skin pigmentation is wrong. So why are you trolling me by trying to 'convince' me that there is an agenda to give the wrong levels of skin pigmentation as if I didn't just acknowledge that? I only referred to the OP once in my post and that was in relation to the following 2014 statement the OP keeps trying to defend, to this day:
quote:I don't think I'm being radical, or diverging from the evidence here, but I'm pretty confident that if you took every indigenous ancient Egyptian skull ever found, and where possible, subjected them to 'blind' reconstruction under the supervision of someone with Keita-like knowledge...then most of the reconstructions would evoke someone of black African descent.
What do you think about this use of 'black' that centers around reconstructible facial features as opposed to skin pigmentation? And do you agree that that 'most' observation is necessarily true? Straight answers, please. And post evidence if you agree.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The point being that one aspect of white supremacist propaganda is to promote the idea that the white phenotype has always been dominant throughout the history of mankind no matter how far you go back, which is an absolute lie.
I thought you were of the mindset that 'white' strictly referred to a level of skin pigmentation and not a set of reconstructible facial features? That's what you tried to defend over dozens of thread pages in the other thread. Now what am I supposed to think right now? See how you leave me no other choice than to conclude that you're flip flopping?
My point is your post contradicts itself. On one hand you admit the skin color is off but on the other say this matches with other similar depictions (as if to say it is somewhat accurate. Overall my opinion it is off on all aspects period, color only being one aspect.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
F u c k you.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by the lioness,:
Also don't address me with low class language
and stop using my pics.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: My point is your post contradicts itself. On one hand you admit the skin color is off but on the other say this matches with other similar depictions (as if to say it is somewhat accurate. Overall my opinion it is off on all aspects period, color only being one aspect.
When I compared the pale Tut reconstruction with his aunt/mother and his father I was strictly referring to the general appearance of the facial structure of that Tut reconstruction and how people are trying to disown it by implying it's a complete outlier.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Overall my opinion it is off on all aspects period, color only being one aspect.
This is exactly what I mean when I say that most people on this forum have no idea what the population affinities of Nile Valley populations are. You're stuck in the same forum, high-fiving each other's fantasies and doling out co-signs. But at the end of the day you're clueless. Go read what Susan Anton said happened when she plugged measurements from Tut's Xray into Fordisc. How is that Fordisc assignment even remotely possible if, as you say, the reconstruction is "off on all aspects, period". Susan agreed the cranium was African and she said it looked North African to her (which she said doesn't mean coastal North African). You people supposedly read papers on ancient Egyptian population affinity for decades, but in the things you say it tells me that you don't have a grasp on the subject. It's just embarrassing at this point.
Anyway, can you respond to the below, please. Then I can be on my way again.
quote:I don't think I'm being radical, or diverging from the evidence here, but I'm pretty confident that if you took every indigenous ancient Egyptian skull ever found, and where possible, subjected them to 'blind' reconstruction under the supervision of someone with Keita-like knowledge...then most of the reconstructions would evoke someone of black African descent.
^What do you think about this racial use of 'black'? Is it acceptable? And what about this opinionated drivel that it's necessarily the case that someone with tropically adapted skin would have to have facial features that look a certain way? What do you make of this brainless racial essentialism?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
lips and chin altered only (Adobe blackalizer filter)
Now without touching the nose, the nose looks different for some reason -but it's not, it's the brain hardwiring
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Swenet, is this supposed to be Akhenaten? Do you have a link where I can see more views of this reconstruction?
Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
FORDISC is a known flawed application.
Please update if down level I remember the below from a while back
-----------------------
NCBI Skip to main content Skip to navigation Resources How To About NCBI Accesskeys Sign in to NCBI PubMed US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health Search databaseSearch termSearch AdvancedHelp Result Filters AbstractSend to: Biol Lett. 2009 Dec 23;5(6):849-52. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2009.0462. Epub 2009 Jul 8.
FORDISC and the determination of ancestry from cranial measurements.
Elliott M1, Collard M.
Author information
Abstract
Determining the ancestry of unidentified human remains is a major task for bioarchaeologists and forensic anthropologists. Here, we report an assessment of the computer program that has become the main tool for accomplishing this task.
Called Fordisc, the program determines ancestry through discriminant function analysis of cranial measurements. We evaluated the utility of Fordisc with 200 specimens of known ancestry. We ran the analyses with and without the test specimen's source population included in the program's reference sample, and with and without specifying the sex of the test specimen. We also controlled for the possibility that the number of variables employed affects the program's ability to attribute ancestry.
PMID: 19586965 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] PMCID: PMC2827999 Free PMC Article Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on Google+ Publication Types, MeSH Terms
LinkOut - more resources
PubMed Commons home PubMed Commons
0 comments How to join PubMed Commons Supplemental Content Full text links
Save items Add to Favorites View more options Similar articles Accuracy of metric sex analysis of skeletal remains using Fordisc based on a recent skull collection. [Int J Legal Med. 2007] Accuracy and reliability in sex determination from skulls: a comparison of Fordisc® 3.0 and the discriminant function analysis. [Forensic Sci Int. 2011] Application of FORDISC 3.0 to explore differences among crania of North American and South African blacks and whites. [J Forensic Sci. 2013] Review Determination of Race from the Skeleton through Forensic Anthropological Methods. [Forensic Sci Rev. 1995] Review [Cranial morphology of modern kyongsangnam-do Koreans]. [Kaibogaku Zasshi. 1995] See reviews... See all... Cited by 1 PubMed Central article Using CRANID to test the population affinity of known crania. [J Anat. 2012] Related information References for this PMC Article Free in PMC Cited in PMC Recent Activity ClearTurn Off FORDISC and the determination of ancestry from cranial measurements. PubMed Punctuated bursts in human male demography inferred from 1,244 worldwide Y-chrom... PubMed Tracing the paths of modern humans from Africa Testing modern human out-of-Africa dispersal models and implications for modern ... PubMed Concordance of cranial and dental morphological traits and evidence for endogamy... PubMed See more... You are here: NCBI > Literature > PubMedWrite to the Help Desk Simple NCBI Directory GETTING STARTED NCBI Education NCBI Help Manual NCBI Handbook Training & Tutorials Submit Data RESOURCES Chemicals & Bioassays Data & Software DNA & RNA Domains & Structures Genes & Expression Genetics & Medicine Genomes & Maps Homology Literature Proteins Sequence Analysis Taxonomy Variation POPULAR PubMed Bookshelf PubMed Central PubMed Health BLAST Nucleotide Genome SNP Gene Protein PubChem FEATURED Genetic Testing Registry PubMed Health GenBank Reference Sequences Gene Expression Omnibus Map Viewer Human Genome Mouse Genome Influenza Virus Primer-BLAST Sequence Read Archive NCBI INFORMATION About NCBI Research at NCBI NCBI News NCBI FTP Site NCBI on Facebook NCBI on Twitter NCBI on YouTube NLM NIH DHHS USA.gov National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda MD, 20894 USA Policies and Guidelines | Contact
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
A more favorable report
_---------------;
NCBI Skip to main content Skip to navigation Resources How To About NCBI Accesskeys Sign in to NCBI PubMed US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health Search databaseSearch termSearch AdvancedHelp Result Filters AbstractSend to:
Application of FORDISC 3.0 to explore differences among crania of North American and South African blacks and whites.
L'Abbé EN1, Kenyhercz M, Stull KE, Keough N, Nawrocki S.
Author information
Abstract Using discriminant function analysis, classification accuracies for ancestry and sex in white and black South Africans were compared using North American (FDB), African groups in Howells (HDB), and South African (SADB) databases in FORDISC 3.0. (FD3).
Twenty-four standard linear measures were collected from a total of 86 black and 101 white crania obtained from the Pretoria Bone Collection.
White and black South Africans classified 73% correctly in FDB, 55% correctly in HDB, and 71% correctly in SADB.
The percentage of atypical cases was higher with FDB than SADB.
In all three databases, misclassification occurred more with sex than ancestry revealing differences in sexual dimorphism between population groups.
Broad ancestral differences may explain low misclassification rates for ancestry.
FD3, with a modern South African reference sample, can assist South African anthropologists to standardize methodology and to justify procedures for estimating ancestry.
PMID: 23865813 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on Google+ Publication Types, MeSH Terms
LinkOut - more resources
PubMed Commons home PubMed Commons
0 comments How to join PubMed Commons Supplemental Content Full text links
Save items Add to Favorites View more options Similar articles Sexual dimorphism in cranial morphology among modern South Africans. [Int J Legal Med. 2015] Craniometric determination of population affinity in South Africans. [Int J Legal Med. 1999] An evaluation of non-metric cranial traits used to estimate ancestry in a South African sample. [Forensic Sci Int. 2011] Review Bone quality: a determinant for certain risk factors for bone fragility. [Calcif Tissue Int. 1993] Review Determination of Race from the Skeleton through Forensic Anthropological Methods. [Forensic Sci Rev. 1995] See reviews... See all... Recent Activity ClearTurn Off Application of FORDISC 3.0 to explore differences among crania of North American... PubMed FORDISC and the determination of ancestry from cranial measurements. PubMed Punctuated bursts in human male demography inferred from 1,244 worldwide Y-chrom... PubMed Tracing the paths of modern humans from Africa Testing modern human out-of-Africa dispersal models and implications for modern ... PubMed See more... You are here: NCBI > Literature > PubMedWrite to the Help Desk Simple NCBI Directory GETTING STARTED NCBI Education NCBI Help Manual NCBI Handbook Training & Tutorials Submit Data RESOURCES Chemicals & Bioassays Data & Software DNA & RNA Domains & Structures Genes & Expression Genetics & Medicine Genomes & Maps Homology Literature Proteins Sequence Analysis Taxonomy Variation POPULAR PubMed Bookshelf PubMed Central PubMed Health BLAST Nucleotide Genome SNP Gene Protein PubChem FEATURED Genetic Testing Registry PubMed Health GenBank Reference Sequences Gene Expression Omnibus Map Viewer Human Genome Mouse Genome Influenza Virus Primer-BLAST Sequence Read Archive NCBI INFORMATION About NCBI Research at NCBI NCBI News NCBI FTP Site NCBI on Facebook NCBI on Twitter NCBI on YouTube NLM NIH DHHS USA.gov National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda MD, 20894 USA Policies and Guidelines | Contact
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: My point is your post contradicts itself. On one hand you admit the skin color is off but on the other say this matches with other similar depictions (as if to say it is somewhat accurate. Overall my opinion it is off on all aspects period, color only being one aspect.
When I compared the pale Tut reconstruction with his aunt/mother and his father I was strictly referring to the general appearance of the facial structure of that Tut reconstruction and how people are trying to disown it by implying it's a complete outlier.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Overall my opinion it is off on all aspects period, color only being one aspect.
This is exactly what I mean when I say that most people on this forum have no idea what the population affinities of Nile Valley populations are. You're stuck in the same forum, high-fiving each other's fantasies and doling out co-signs. But at the end of the day you're clueless. Go read what Susan Anton said happened when she plugged measurements from Tut's Xray into Fordisc. How is that Fordisc assignment even remotely possible if, as you say, the reconstruction is "off on all aspects, period". Susan agreed the cranium was African and she said it looked North African to her (which she said doesn't mean coastal North African). You people supposedly read papers on ancient Egyptian population affinity for decades, but in the things you say it tells me that you don't have a grasp on the subject. It's just embarrassing at this point.
Anyway, can you respond to the below, please. Then I can be on my way again.
quote:I don't think I'm being radical, or diverging from the evidence here, but I'm pretty confident that if you took every indigenous ancient Egyptian skull ever found, and where possible, subjected them to 'blind' reconstruction under the supervision of someone with Keita-like knowledge...then most of the reconstructions would evoke someone of black African descent.
^What do you think about this racial use of 'black'? Is it acceptable? And what about this opinionated drivel that it's necessarily the case that someone with tropically adapted skin would have to have facial features that look a certain way? What do you make of this brainless racial essentialism?
You are spouting contradictory nonsense.
It can't be accurate and inaccurate at the same time. In all respects it is inaccurate. Period.
Of course the skull is accurate, but that fleshy reconstruction is totally off.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: You are spouting contradictory nonsense.
It can't be accurate and inaccurate at the same time. In all respects it is inaccurate. Period.
Of course the skull is accurate, but that fleshy reconstruction is totally off. [/QB]
Typical Doug, no methodology. He says the "fleshy reconstruction is totally off." why? "take my word for it" would be the best that he's got. There is no way for anybody to be sure about the fleshier parts of the reconstruction whether they are accurate or not. Yet we are supposed to agree they are "totally off" with no supporting references.
That's it Doug is banned.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Of course the skull is accurate, but that fleshy reconstruction is totally off.
Even before Tut's fleshy parts were reconstructed, Fordisc didn't assign his cranio-facial measurements to the Teita, Dogon or Zulu samples. Instead, he had a weak assignment to a male European sample. If you want to think that adding flesh on top of that will yield a radically different facial appearance than that reconstruction, you're free to latch onto that belief all you want if that's what you need to cope.
You've been reduced to nagging and pouting. You're basically saying "it's either my way or the highway". I have no intentions of staying longer in this thread than I have to. I made my point. The level of skin pigmentation on that pale reconstruction is completely wrong. But the craniofacial features of that reconstruction is not radically far off from what he would have looked like. Whether you want to accept it or not.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic