Posted: Thu 12 May 2005 00:22 Post subject: Is This What King Tut Looked Like?
May 10, 2005Is this the true face of Tut? This silicone- skinned bust is billed as the most accurate forensic reconstruction ever of ancient Egypt's Pharaoh Tutankhamun. It was based on recent 3-D CT scans of the mummy of the "boy king," who is believed to have been about 19 when he died some 3,300 years ago.
Led by Zahi Hawass, head of Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities, a National Geographic Society team commissioned French experts to create the lifelike bust. Using the CT scans (see "King Tut Mummy Scanned"), French forensic anthropologist Jean-Noël Vignal determined the basic measurements and features of Tutankhamun's face. Vignal deduced that Tutankhamun had a narrow nose, buck teeth, a receding chin, and Caucasian features. Such features are typical of European, North African, Middle Eastern, and Indian peoples.
Paris-based forensic sculptor Elisabeth Daynès then created the bust shown above. She used Vignal's estimates of skin thickness and other data, plus wooden sculptures of Tut made in his youth. Soft-tissue features, such as the nose and ears, had to be guessed at, though within a scientifically determined range. Daynès based the skin tone on an average shade of Egyptians today and added the eyeliner that the king would have worn in life.
Finally, National Geographic gave the CT data to a U.S. forensic team, who were to work "blind"not knowing who the subject was. Their findings validated the French team's conclusions. And their plaster cast, a photo of which will be published on the National Geographic magazine Web site later this month, turned out remarkably similar to the silicon bust.
The reconstruction will be featured in the June issue of National Geographic, in the touring exhibit "Tutankhamun and the Golden Age of the Pharaohs," and on the National Geographic Channel's King Tut's Final Secrets, airing Sunday night.
For the full story, see "King Tut's New Face: Behind the Forensic Reconstruction."
Posted: Mon 16 May 2005 19:18 Post subject: Re: Is This What King Tut Looked Like?
Liana wrote:
May 10, 2005Is this the true face of Tut? This silicone- skinned bust is billed as the most accurate forensic reconstruction ever of ancient Egypt's Pharaoh Tutankhamun. It was based on recent 3-D CT scans of the mummy of the "boy king," who is believed to have been about 19 when he died some 3,300 years ago.
Led by Zahi Hawass, head of Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities, a National Geographic Society team commissioned French experts to create the lifelike bust. Using the CT scans (see "King Tut Mummy Scanned"), French forensic anthropologist Jean-Noël Vignal determined the basic measurements and features of Tutankhamun's face. Vignal deduced that Tutankhamun had a narrow nose, buck teeth, a receding chin, and Caucasian features. Such features are typical of European, North African, Middle Eastern, and Indian peoples.
Paris-based forensic sculptor Elisabeth Daynès then created the bust shown above. She used Vignal's estimates of skin thickness and other data, plus wooden sculptures of Tut made in his youth. Soft-tissue features, such as the nose and ears, had to be guessed at, though within a scientifically determined range. Daynès based the skin tone on an average shade of Egyptians today and added the eyeliner that the king would have worn in life.
Finally, National Geographic gave the CT data to a U.S. forensic team, who were to work "blind"not knowing who the subject was. Their findings validated the French team's conclusions. And their plaster cast, a photo of which will be published on the National Geographic magazine Web site later this month, turned out remarkably similar to the silicon bust.
The reconstruction will be featured in the June issue of National Geographic, in the touring exhibit "Tutankhamun and the Golden Age of the Pharaohs," and on the National Geographic Channel's King Tut's Final Secrets, airing Sunday night.
For the full story, see "King Tut's New Face: Behind the Forensic Reconstruction."
his burial mask image looks nothing like that picture. King Tut's burial mask image is much much ahhh 'negroid'. Especially in the type of lips he had.
Posted: Mon 16 May 2005 19:26 Post subject: Re: Is This What King Tut Looked Like?
gemini072 wrote:
His burial mask image looks nothing like that picture. King Tut's burial mask image is much much ahhh 'negroid'. Especially in the type of lips he had.
When reconstructing a face from a skull, the lips, ears, and tip of the nose are sheer guesswork. From what I read, the reconstructors applied those three features so as to resemble typical north Africans of today. Personally, I would go with the burial mask.
Posted: Mon 16 May 2005 19:36 Post subject: Re: Is This What King Tut Looked Like?
fwsweet wrote:
gemini072 wrote:
His burial mask image looks nothing like that picture. King Tut's burial mask image is much much ahhh 'negroid'. Especially in the type of lips he had.
When reconstructing a face from a skull, the lips, ears, and tip of the nose are sheer guesswork. From what I read, the reconstructors applied those three features so as to resemble typical north Africans of today. Personally, I would go with the burial mask.
I think it's really hard for people to fathom a world different from what they know. People can become so indoctinated into what Egyptians past was per 'the 10 Commandments' and what we see today. I would think that the people trying to reconstruct his face would be knowledgable enough to know that people migrated to Egypt or were brought to Egypt as slaves or just thru commerce and trade(these people not looking anything like the Egyptians). It's like someone drawing a picture of Americas originators (the Native people) as the majority race of people in America as European English looking people
I agree, but one can carry it too far, as the lunatic fringe Afrocentrists do when they say that Egyptians were "Black." The paintings on the walls of the temples still have their original colors, and many of the statues in the Cairo museum also have their original paint.
Mary Lee and I spent quite a bit of time there in 1968. Judging by the paintings and statues, some ancient Egyptians had dark brown skin tone. But others were light brown or beige and still others were pink. In terms of the distribution of phenotype along the Africa-to-Europe continuum, they looked just like today's Egyptians. You really need to visit Egypt (or the Arab countries) to get a feel for their dramatic phenotype range. If you judge by their TV, you would think that they were all Nordics. (But, then if you judge by Univision, you would think all Hispanics were Nordics.)
I agree, but one can carry it too far, as the lunatic fringe Afrocentrists do when they say that Egyptians were "Black." )
Right, I find myself correcting all kinds of people when they read Black White into history. Because what happens is they actually present history(before 1618) as we know RACE in the New world. I've seen many a film of say the Roman Empire (Gladiator) where they assume 'Africans''Nubians' = Black and therefore were treated as we know Blacks to be treated, after the slave trade. And then the Roman Italians are automatically looked on as 'White' with British accents.
I find myself correcting all kinds of people when they read Black White into history. Because what happens is they actually present history(before 1618) as we know RACE in the New world.
I agree. Presentism is a pitfall that even professional historians fall into. In another thread, A.D. also mentioned how confusing/frustrating it is to read a historian who sees Black and White in times and places that actually had three castes or zero castes.
As a person who writes a lot of historical essays, I must admit that I have occassionally fallen into a presentism trap myself. I recall once trying to explain how the Union and the Confederate armies wound up with, respectively, blue and grey uniforms.
It seems that, before the Civil War, the National Guard uniform was grey and the regular Army uniform was blue. When the war started, most of the guys on both sides showed up in their grey National Guard uniforms and some were then issued blue regular uniforms but some were not. And so you had grey Union units (like the First Iowa at the battle of Wilson's Creek) standing next to blue Union units, shooting at blue Confederates (like the 3rd Louisiana at the same battle) standing next to grey Confederates. For the first few months of the war, friendly fire casualties were horrific. And so, the generals got together and agreed that the Yankees would wear their Army uniforms (blue) and the Rebels would wear their National Guard uniforms (grey).
The problem with the previous paragraph is that there was no such thing as a "National Guard" back then. This term was invented in the 1880s. What they called state troops subject to national mobilization call-up back then was "militia" not "National Guard." But if I had written the word "militia" in the above explanation, you might not have understood the situation. Using the term "National Guard" makes it all clear, but the term is inaccurate.
If something as simple as military service can be so hard to explain in a way that is both accurate and clear, just imagine how much harder it is to explain, say, the differences between the antebellum South Carolina and Louisiana color lines!
I find myself correcting all kinds of people when they read Black White into history. Because what happens is they actually present history(before 1618) as we know RACE in the New world.
I agree. Presentism is a pitfall that even professional historians fall into. In another thread, A.D. also mentioned how confusing/frustrating it is to read a historian who sees Black and White in times and places that actually had three castes or zero castes.
As a person who writes a lot of historical essays, I must admit that I have occassionally fallen into a presentism trap myself. I recall once trying to explain how the Union and the Confederate armies wound up with, respectively, blue and grey uniforms.
It seems that, before the Civil War, the National Guard uniform was grey and the regular Army uniform was blue. When the war started, most of the guys on both sides showed up in their grey National Guard uniforms and some were then issued blue regular uniforms but some were not. And so you had grey Union units (like the First Iowa at the battle of Wilson's Creek) standing next to blue Union units, shooting at blue Confederates (like the 3rd Louisiana at the same battle) standing next to grey Confederates. For the first few months of the war, friendly fire casualties were horrific. And so, the generals got together and agreed that the Yankees would wear their Army uniforms (blue) and the Rebels would wear their National Guard uniforms (grey).
The problem with the previous paragraph is that there was no such thing as a "National Guard" back then. This term was invented in the 1880s. What they called state troops subject to national mobilization call-up back then was "militia" not "National Guard." But if I had written the word "militia" in the above explanation, you might not have understood the situation. Using the term "National Guard" makes it all clear, but the term is inaccurate.
If something as simple as military service can be so hard to explain in a way that is both accurate and clear, just imagine how much harder it is to explain, say, the differences between the antebellum South Carolina and Louisiana color lines!
Now that is an interesting and crazy piece of historic info. I wonder if I was alive then if I would have thought to stress that our side has a different color than them.
I guess to some degree it would be hard to not use words that are so common to us to describe something in history as you mentioned "National Guards' and such.
How about the use of Black vs Negro in history. That is something everyone messes up on. Was it first used (Black) during the late 60's? Many poeple black & white tend to believe Black and Negro/Negre' were the same as far as a social identity, or label of class.
I agree, antebellum South Carolina vs Louisianna were 2 different worlds altogether. I try to remind people that the term white, if you use it say on 'white' Americans, French Canandians, your not going to get the complete picture of those people. the French have a whole different cultural, ethnic, sensual, sexual, moral vibe about them and the USA is predominately influenced by its puritanical English forefathers. the Franco Americans had a whole different take on sex and ethnicity and difference:Creole, Spanish, French, Negre', Marabou, Griffe, Sacatra, Mulatra, Octoroon to the Sang Mele. And they definately carried over their culture of Affairs(adultery) in to French Louisiana society.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
