King Tut's Face Reconstructed
National Geographic News
May 10, 2005
Is 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, 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.
— Ted Chamberlain
Link (with full story and more photos)
13 comments
See BLACK PEOPLE, you have nothing to do with Egypt so stop lying.
Man, everybody be knowing dat national geographic be racist and shit. Dey be always making our african queens that live in africa look like dey still be living in a tribe in some mud hut and shit, showing dem topless in der magazine, wearing tribe clothing.....africa is living in 2010 like da rest of us, dey ain't primitive like national geographic shows you, dat proves racism. We built da pyramids, invents da maf and science. But in dis eurocentric world, whitey doesn't want us to realize our potential as nubian kings and queens.
Tut was black!!!!!!! And as al sharpton said, we built pyramids when the white man was living in caves, and we taught maf and filosophies before dem homo greeks new it existed!!!!! Word black dat be da realist shit eva, you cracker bitches.
And if any of you white bitches gotz sumfin to say you cans finds me on da corna of milton and federal in east b-more city, murderland, maryland. Just ax fo shorty. Cuz when u iz a thug everything comez free!!!!
As a well educated black man who is worth 6 figures, I would have to agree with the post before mine. History does indeed have a eurocentric mindset. Colored people the world over have often had their history and cultural identity concealed from them by caucasians as a tool of oppression. Arab looking people are not egyptians, dark skinned africans from Kush are infact the people who built the pyramids and invented math and science; nubian cultural migrated north to egypt, this is a fact. The truth is out there folks, just look it up. I am open to honest and sincere debate on this issue, however, I will not tolerate racial hatred. It's time to rejoice people, for we live in an Obama Noble World.
I am flabbergasted that blacks actually believe they founded ancient Egyptian civilization. Were their blacks in ancient Egypt, sure there were, but that does not mean they laid the blueprints for its eventual success. There are blacks in modern-day Europe, America, Canada and the Near East, but that by no means indicates that they built these societies. The natives of these regions did. Blacks merely migrated to them for better opportunity (or were taken as slaves/servants/laborers)... same as with Egypt.
The ancient Egyptians were Mediterranean-looking CAUCASIANS. Every genetic analysis proves this. While there was a brief time when blacks from Nubia conquered Egypt and ruled over it (roughly 100 years), it did not last long, and they contributed very little, if anything at all, to the civilization's prosperity.
What I fail to understand is what leads blacks into thinking they are responsible for Egypt's glory? There are no other examples of a major black civilization. What are you basing you claims on? All other successful societies in Africa were developed by Caucasians.
Carthage - Caucasian Phoneticians
Mali - Caucasian Arabs and
Berbers
Songhai - Caucasian Arabs and Berbers
Blacks did not even have the technology to colonize islands no more than a hundred miles off shore. The first inhabitants of Madagascar, the Canary Islands, Sao Tome, Principe, etc. were all non-black. The simple fact is that blacks are not, nor have ever been, an advanced people.
Blacks evolved in the jungle/savannah where subsistence is not that difficult. Sub-Saharan Africa is abundant with edible fruits, animals, and plants. Thus, Africans had no motivations to challenge their intellect and become smarter like Caucasians and Asians did. Africa is a land where athleticism is required. The wildlife and harsh climate/diseases produce strong bodies - which is why blacks are on average faster and have more endurance than other races. But substantial intellect was not as much as a prerequisite for survival, hence, why blacks do not possess the cognitive abilities as other races.
Europeans and North Orientals, on the other hand, evolved in an ice age. They needed to plan and use their minds to survive the winter (i.e. make efficient clothing, store food, etc). Is it a coincidence that Europeans and North Orientals (China, Japan, Korea) have the highest IQs in the world? Is it a coincidence that most of the inventions and scientific discoveries in history have been made by these people? The answer is no. These people evolved to be smart. Blacks evolved to be athletic.
The lacking of intelligence in blacks is why they have never really moved past a primitive state. From modern Africa to Haiti, Detroit, and Rio, blacks live an unrefined lifestyle. There have been no major black scientists, literary figures, painters, engineers, architects, inventors, philosophers, explorers... the list goes on and on. Their claim to fame is through the entertainment industry. They can be athletes, actors, and rappers, but rarely can they contribute anything to the true progression of humankind.
Please do not get the impression that I desire to demean blacks, because I don't. I am simply asserting the politically incorrect biology, history and behavior of black people.
Blacks have contributed nothing to society at any point in time. Not now, not 3,000 years ago, not ever. The most they have contributed to the world is AIDS, Jenkem, and crack.
All one has to do to figure out what the Ancient Egyptians looked like is to examine the depictions of themselves and other peoples.
Egyptians depicted the Nubians with your typical Negroid appearance. They had coal-colored skin, nappy hair, and wide noses. Yet the Egyptians did not portray themselves in such a light. Rather, they were self-depicted as tan or bronze colored for the men, and white or yellow colored for the women. All of the sculptures that have survived to present-day from that era also display people with narrow Caucasoid noses. Just look at the Nefertiti bust.
If blacks built ancient Egypt than why are there depictions on that civilization's artifacts of Mediterranean-like Egyptians killing blacks and in some cases running them over with chariots.
Egyptians obviously saw themselves as distinct in appearance from the populations further south.
@Anonymous 2/05/2010 6:20 PM: You may think you sound scholarly, but here's the problem. Central Africans and far norther Europeans{Vikings} did in fact, have one thing in common; no real civilization until fairly recently. Why? Because both came of age in VERY harsh environments......it's true! Whether it was the harsh cold of the Arctic Ocean for the Northern Europeans, or the dense, and full of dangers, jungle for Central Africans, they were basically too busy to survive to be able to develop anything.
The fact is, at least most, if not all, of the earliest of the world's advanced societies, basically evolved in a temperate climate; and in most cases, without much, if any, dangerous wildlife and without common weather extremes. It doesn't matter if we're talking about Rome, or India, or China, or the Celts, or hell, even Egypt counts!
Of course, climate & environment aren't the only factors, but I DO know this; genetics, contrary to hatemongers, liars, quacks, and also-rans of all stripes, is NOT and NEVER HAS BEEN, a truly reliable factor in determining the outcome of a civilization's success or failure...........perhaps if the Central Africans had been placed in the Middle East or East Asia, they could have perhaps been the dominant ones......we'll never know for sure, of course{unless somebody develops a time machine or something wacky like that ;p}, but at least I'm one of those who knows the real truth on this issue.
Here, for those of you who may insist otherwise, I suggest you check out the work of one Francisco Gil-White, who exposed a faulty work by Jon Entine not that long ago:
http://www.hirhome.com/rr/rrintro.htm
http://www.hirhome.com/rr/rrchap1.htm
http://www.hirhome.com/rr/rrchap2.htm
http://www.hirhome.com/rr/rrchap3.htm
http://www.hirhome.com/rr/rrchap4.htm
http://www.hirhome.com/rr/rrchap5.htm
http://www.hirhome.com/rr/rrchap6.htm
http://www.hirhome.com/rr/rrchap7.htm
http://www.hirhome.com/rr/rrchap8.htm
http://www.hirhome.com/rr/rrchap9.htm
http://www.hirhome.com/rr/rrchap10.htm
http://www.hirhome.com/rr/rrchap11.htm
"@Anonymous 2/05/2010 6:20 PM: You may think you sound scholarly, but here's the problem. Central Africans and far norther Europeans{Vikings} did in fact, have one thing in common; no real civilization until fairly recently. Why? Because both came of age in VERY harsh environments......it's true! Whether it was the harsh cold of the Arctic Ocean for the Northern Europeans, or the dense, and full of dangers, jungle for Central Africans, they were basically too busy to survive to be able to develop anything."
Northern Europe didn't suddenly turn pleasant. The people living there invented and maintained ways of dealing with the climate.
In any case, there is little to compare between Scandinavia & sub-Saharan Africa (the climate of which is no worse than that of India and other places where civilization did occur). The Scandinavians built ships and sailed far from their origins. Ship building and navigation are skills that place them far in advance of sub-Saharan Africans--who were not as isolated as all that. The Portugese were teaching gold carving to west Africans in the 1400s. The Africans got quite good but when the Europeans left, they could not manage and maintain the industry; a common failing of Africans. It's not just invention that is lacking, but the ability to maintain what has been built. There are intelligent individuals among them but the percentage is not high enough to override the general intellectual torpor and emptiness.
So far, there has been nothing done on a comprehensive scale among blacks that leads me to think they are changed. It is not entirely correct to say there are no people of achievement among them but these are mixed race people, some of them so white in appearance, only the "one drop rule" allows them to be attributed to the black race.
Average IQ of Finns: 94. And that's even though they have the highest european literacy rates.
I2 has nothing to do with building western civilization, that happened in anatolia, italy and franco-iberia.
Olá primeiramente essa questão de fenótipo caucasiana e negroide e uma bela de uma mentira pôs se levamos em consideração que vários grupos africanos têm características próprias de leste a oeste norte sul os núbios têm narizes finos boca fina e orelhas pequenas mais tem um fator que difere dos brancos à pele negra, esse fenótipo não e raro na África sub saariana essa questão de fenótipos de que negro só pode negro se tiver lábios e narizes grossos pode ser facilmente derruba se temos em vistas que a cor da pele não acompanha as características faciais, a pessoas no mundo inteiro que não podem ser qualificadas por características faciais um exemplo e que pessoas de pele negra pode ter todos os fenótipos do planeta uma pessoa de pele negra pode ter cabelos lisos e crespo podem ter narizes finos e grossas orelhas grandes e pequenas, as pessoas tem que sair da sua zano de conforto e conhecer a divecidade dos povos do mundo a mídia só cria estereótipos, que sabemos sobre os núbios? As informações são escassas não a muito material acadêmico sobre eles não a muita informação credível na intermete sobre eles não e possível que aja tantas pesquisas inúteis sobre animais selvagens africanos e não conhecemos os Hauçás, Iorubas, Oromo, Zulus e os Khoisan cada c um com suas características esse dogma de que um negro só pode ser negro se tiver nariz grande bocar larga e uma construção da mídia pôs varias tribos negras da África sub saariana tem características opostas que fogem essa regra. Rei Tut pode ser perfeitamente negro dizer que ele não poder ser negro porque uns grupos de pessoas acham que negros africanos não têm narizes finos boca finas e um mito sendo assim varias tribos indígenas não seriam negras pelo fato de não terem características chamadas (negroides) que pode ser facilmente derruba com os seguintes fatores.
1 º a cor da pele não esta relacionado com as características facial, características faciais não estão correlacionado com cor de pele.
2º a África e um continente não um pais.
3º E dentro desse continente existe varias etnias não raça que tem características próprias com nariz grade pequenas baca grande pequena pessoas altas baixas.
4º Somos todos iguais com características diferentes Negar essas particularidades e um grande erro não podemos negligenciar a diversidades humana.
5º No mundo não existe só pessoas brancas e negras, mais entre o branco e o negro a uma gigantesca diversidade de cores e características uni laterais, pessoas com olhos orientas pele escura pessoas de pele escura e olhos orientais etc..
O Conceito de "raças" foi criado para justificar dominação, biologicamente não existem raças as raças uma criação cultural Como disse o epidemiologista americano Jay S. Kaufman, as raças não existem em nossa mente porque são reais, mas são reais porque existem em nossa mente.
Perversamente, o conceito tem sido usado não só para sistematizar e estudar as populações humanas, mas também para criar esquemas classificatórios que parecem justificar o status quo e a dominação de alguns grupos sobre outros. Assim, a sobrevivência da ideia de raça é deletéria por estar ligada à crença continuada de que os grupos humanos existem em uma escala de valor. Essa persistência é tóxica, contaminando e enfraquecendo a sociedade como um todo.
King Tut was black, the argument stating that king Tut wasn't black and resembled a north African Caucasoid is a lie that the archaeological record refutes. Why does King tut typically resemble a Southern Egyptian Beja, Tut had dark skin also something these teams purposefully omitted why did tut in all his depictions have dark skin, on his throne he is depicted with typically reddish brown skin and a blue Nubian wig. I find it shocking that scientists and Egyptologists today can spend so much time around those artifacts then come up with this modern day fallacy of the so called true face of king tut. I am sure through genetic testing and skin sample analysis a true interpretation of his skin color would have been possible.
So why on the walls of the Sphinx, the obvious color of the Egyptians and the Hebrews are black? Even the mummies that are exhumed are black! Even the skulls gives proof that they were not Cacusioid.
They're not painted black. The men are tanned (and the women are not):
"An Egyptian male, for example, was always depicted with a reddish-brown skin.... This color for the male's skin was chosen for realism in the piece, in order to symbolize the outdoor life of most males, while Egyptian women were painted with lighter skin (using yellow and white mixes) since they spent more time indoors."
https://www.ancient.eu/article/999/color-in-ancient-egypt/
Mummies look black/brown because the processes that are used to make them cause the skin to darken:
https://www.howitworksdaily.com/why-are-mummies-brown/
And skulls prove that they were Caucasoid, and so does ancient DNA:
https://racialreality.blogspot.com/2019/10/ancient-egyptians-nubians-caucasoid.html
https://racialreality.blogspot.com/2017/03/first-ancient-egyptian-genomes.html
Post a Comment