Recently there has been debates about the reconstruction of Tut-ankh-amun in the media. Most are presenting the reconstruction as the gospel truth as what Tut-ankh-amun really looked like. Some make such claims without very much scientific groups. The tactic is also often seen with parading pictures across the internet to prove ethnic affinities of such mummies. Either side of the argument are both wrong in all accounts.
Foresnic reconstruction can be used as a valuable tool for identification of burn victims,but are not 100% accurate. Most things like the nose shape and tip of the nose can only be assumed or guessed for accuracy. Other factors like tissue depth used is based solely on racial or ethnic models often employed by people. Most of the general public does not understand the following. Any person working in the field of forensics will tell you these things.
Many people migght rush to use the first Tut-ankh-amun reconstruction because it appears more ''Africoid'' but this is in error also. No matter how the reconstructions turn out to be they should not be subsitute for sculpture or tomb depictions.
I recommend you read the following link that was written by a person who actually works in the forensic science field:
Many people who complain about color redentions on the Tut-ankh-amun depiction must consider that the following is done by the artist in question.
ausar Member # 1797
posted
To all the people posting different reconstructions please read the following.
Supercar Member # 6477
posted
quote:Originally posted by ausar: No matter how the reconstructions turn out to be they should not be subsitute for sculpture or tomb depictions.
You quite right. The Eurocentric world doesn't like the message, but the Kemetians have spoken. The examples out there are just too many, to hide under the rug.
Djehuti Member # 6698
posted
Agreed! The reconstructions do present a problem, especially if there are multiple distinct looking ones for one person alone!
quote:Zulu says: guys, the reconstruction is even faker than the one i saw on t.v. there are protester-black and white who are demanding the exhibit be shut down. this thing looks like the english singer named boy george.
LOL what a joke!
King Tut, Tut, Tut, Tut, Tut:
United Kingdom Reconstruction 2002
Egyptian Reconstruction 2005
American Reconstruction 2005
French Reconstruction 2005
There is just the first reconstruction from 2001, that I'm missing, but altogether there are 5 reconstructions for Tut already!!!
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 18 June 2005).]
Atheist Member # 7741
posted
Djehuti
From now on I'm going to post those 4 pics whenever someone try to make a false claim of king tut's identity. I think really all you need to do is look at the golden mask and his other busts of how he was portrayed during that time. He was a dark black African man.
Atheist Member # 7741
posted
quote:Zulu says: guys, the reconstruction is even faker than the one i saw on t.v. there are protester-black and white who are demanding the exhibit be shut down. this thing looks like the english singer named boy george.
or maybe....
Nothing like the Ancient Egyptians or even a normal human.
[This message has been edited by Atheist (edited 19 June 2005).]
Evil Euro Member # 6383
posted
quote:Originally posted by ausar: Foresnic reconstruction can be used as a valuable tool for identification of burn victims,but are not 100% accurate.
Of course not, but the latest Tut reconstruction is billed as more accurate than all previous ones, and it was even duplicated by another forensic team working independently and without knowledge of who the subject was. Therefore, it has to be the one we defer to (until such time that an even better one is produced).
quote:No matter how the reconstructions turn out to be they should not be subsitute for sculpture or tomb depictions.
I disagree. Artistic representations are not 100% accurate either, especially in the case of Egypt where much of the art is stylized. A scientifically derived reconstruction is more valuable than a sculpture or mural because it accurately reproduces skeletal dimensions, which are more informative about race than the skin, nose, lips or any other soft part.
kenndo Member # 4846
posted
quote:Originally posted by Evil Euro: I disagree. Artistic representations are not 100% accurate either, especially in the case of Egypt where much of the art is stylized. A scientifically derived reconstruction is more valuable than a sculpture or mural because it accurately reproduces skeletal dimensions, which are more informative about race than the skin, nose, lips or any other soft part.
wrong,but so what the one above still looks like a black man but the most correct look is his art.
neo*geo Member # 3466
posted
quote:Originally posted by Evil Euro: I disagree. Artistic representations are not 100% accurate either, especially in the case of Egypt where much of the art is stylized. A scientifically derived reconstruction is more valuable than a sculpture or mural because it accurately reproduces skeletal dimensions, which are more informative about race than the skin, nose, lips or any other soft part.
I disagree. Distinictive racial or ethnic features like skin color, nasal, lip, and ear shape is almost always going to be inaccurate in reconstructions because the artist has to guess.
But in the case of King Tut, we have 4 or 5 reconstructions that all look different versus, dozens of sculptures and paintings of King Tut that look consistent. He usually was depicted with chocolate brown skin, thick lips, and prognathism. In paintings he sometimes was depicted in the same color as Nubian soldiers. It's wrong to call the sculpters and wall painters of ancient Egypt artists, because their intention wasn't to create art. They were writing history. I doubt King Tut would be happy with the French reconstruction that makes him look androgenous, almost feminine.
Djehuti Member # 6698
posted
quote:Stuid-Euro says: Of course not, but the latest Tut reconstruction is billed as more accurate than all previous ones, and it was even duplicated by another forensic team working independently and without knowledge of who the subject was. Therefore, it has to be the one we defer to (until such time that an even better one is produced).
Yes but the skin color, again was based on speculation using modern-day Egyptians and from the looks of it, ones from the Lower Egypt. Also, there are the discrepancies:
quote:
Not only are there now 3 reconstructions, but you would expect that each newer one would be more accurate, instead this recent bears little resemblence to the tomb portraitures, let alone ancient Egyptians!
Speaking of tomb portraitures, it seems that the artists did not them into account at all, even though they were made during Tut's lifetime. It's like doing a reconstruction of George Washington and totally ignoring painted portraits that Washington actually posed in!
The cranial features were described as African, yet the nose alone was called European on account of the nasal index being narrow! As if a narrow nose is a European feature, considering that there are non-"caucasoid" populations around the globe that have such noses including peoples in East as well as North Africa!!
ex: this Ethiopian girl
Another facial feature highly noted is his "overbite" or protruding teeth, which archaeologist use as a family trait linking him with other members of the 18th dynasty. But as already mentioned numerous times this feature is maxillary prognathism and prognathism is another trait associated with "negroids". Maxillary prognathism, in which the dental lining protrudes, was common among African peoples especially in East Africa!! I've actually seen on other forums, some whites who made racists remarks about "buck-toothed" Somalian immigrants!
How did the artists reach the conclusion as to how soft tissue structures like the nose and lips look? The lips look somewhat smaller than the previous 2 constructions.
It is said the artists base the skin color on modern day Egyptians, when we know that the people of modern day Egypt are, for the most part, different from ancient Egypt. If they were going to use a modern Egyptian they should have used a Fellahin, specifically one from Upper Egypt where Tut's family originated, if not, at least a Baladi. Instead the coloring looks like that of an Arab Egyptian from Cairo or Tell el Daba or something!
Then again, you are a person who believes in facial features as being "caucasoid".
quote:I disagree. Artistic representations are not 100% accurate either, especially in the case of Egypt where much of the art is stylized. A scientifically derived reconstruction is more valuable than a sculpture or mural because it accurately reproduces skeletal dimensions, which are more informative about race than the skin, nose, lips or any other soft part.
The art work may not be 100% accurate but at least it is a heck of a lot more consistent than the reconstructions! Plus it is true that Egyptian art is stylized and conventional. Which means the artwork portrays what an Egyptian is supposed to look like!! Besides, I have said many times, this latest reconstruction looks just like my light-skinned black Puerto-Rican friend, except more effeminent!
Evil Euro Member # 6383
posted
Dumb Negroes, try reading what I actually write before throwing together knee-jerk replies. And Djehuti, buy a dictionary and look up the word "stylized".
Kem-Au Member # 1820
posted
quote:Originally posted by neo*geo: But in the case of King Tut, we have 4 or 5 reconstructions that all look different versus, dozens of sculptures and paintings of King Tut that look consistent.
posted 
what a joke!
