posted 28 May 2005 03:47 PM            

And know what? Tut is NOT black, his final and most accurate scan show that he was light brown, noble Egyptian nose and very healthy. And further more, his Egyptian people did not plot against him but was injured while battling the Hetit ( bad knee inury, likely with an axe like weapon .

posted 28 May 2005 04:25 PM            

Three reconstructions of Tut-ankh-amun was done by three different teams. One was American;One was a French team; and one was an Egyptian team.

Read this:

However, bearing in mind that the shape of the nose can be predicted with only about sixty per cent accuracy and the shape of the tip with only about forty per cent (Macho 1989, 1986), and that the shape of the hair and hairline is unknown, this was indeed an inspired reconstruction!

Many of Neave's reconstructions are exhibited at the Manchester Museum. Exhibitions of reconstructions have also proved popular at Jorvik in York (where facial imaging techniques are used) and at the Museum nan Eilean, Stornoway (MacLeod and Cowie 1996).

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.

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

posted 28 May 2005 04:50 PM            

And the scientists have too many discrepancies like:

• 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 alveolar prognathism and prognathism is another trait associated with "negroids". Alveolar 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!
  
• Considering all these discrepancies, I really think the forensic artists were not at all objective in their reconstruction were not double blinded. I'm not surprised that they had full clearance to the knowledge that not only is the skull and Egyptian mummy, but that of king Tut. And that the further forensic analysis as to how Tut died--that it was caused by an infection due to a broken leg, was all the excuse needed to do a re-re-reconstruction that would be more "satisfying" to Hawass's folk.

posted 28 May 2005 05:01 PM            

Three reconstructions of Tut-ankh-amun was done by three different teams. One was American;One was a French team; and one was an Egyptian team.

That is correct, but using the genetic details , they all produced an identical light face with a very much Egyptian nose unlike that one shown last week.

To me, there is nothing left to wonder about regarding our sweet Young handsome Egyptian Tut Ankh Amen.

Haluluja..!

posted 28 May 2005 05:03 PM            

Haluluja..!

posted 28 May 2005 05:16 PM            

Got tut?

Choose your tut.

All about the tale of the two Tuts: http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/kingtutankhamun.html

posted 28 May 2005 05:28 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
...All about the tale of the two Tuts...

---

Actually 3!

Apparently they cannot even come to a general consensus as how one person looked like!

I wonder why?

posted 28 May 2005 05:34 PM            

quote:

---

That is correct, but using the genetic details , they all produced an identical light face with a very much Egyptian nose unlike that one shown last week.

To me, there is nothing left to wonder about regarding our sweet Young handsome Egyptian Tut Ankh Amen.

Haluluja..!

---

You seem to seriously lack basic scientific understanding. There is no such thing as genetic details in forensic anthropology. The Color of Tut-ankh-amun was added by the Forensic artist. I repeat you cannot determine color of someone by a skeleton.

Also nose shape of a person is not easy to predict in doing reconstruction.

The French team did not even do a 3-D model of Tut-ankh-Amun. It was simply a plaster cast. The American team did.

Forensic reconstructions are not as accurate as people think.

posted 28 May 2005 05:38 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
Forensic reconstructions are not as accurate as people think.

---

Yes, and especially with all the discrepancies (listed above)!!

posted 28 May 2005 05:46 PM            

I personally don't think the earlier Discovery channel reconstruction are very accurate either. Neither one are as accurate as people make them out to be.

posted 28 May 2005 06:08 PM            

There never has been a need to find out how King Tut looked. Only someone blind as a bat or someone with a hidden agenda would need to "recreate" (note re-create) how King tut looked when we have his mummy mask, hundreds of items portraying him in and from his tomb as well as plenty of statues with his likeness. And, if that isn't enough, we have his actual face from when Carter originally removed the mummy mask, before it was destroyed in Carter's search for treasure. His face, in those pictures, looks exactly like the mask and is quite distinctly African.

With ALL of this evidence of how he looked, made by people who actually saw him face to face, now we need a reconstruction? Why? What is wrong with the evidence we have? We have more pictures of how King Tut looked than we have of any other figures from any other part of the world for the same time period. As a matter of fact, if we did find a fragment or statue of a person from that time period in any other country, we would be happy to use that as how they literally looked, without doing a scientific reconstruction. Egypt left us hundreds if not thousands of images, statues and reliefs, covering every nook and cranny of every tomb and temple, so their memory and way of life would last forever. But now, some silly foreigners come along and want to act as if they need some modern scientific explanation of how the Egyptians looked, as if the evidence is not enough. Pardon my french but WTF? That is the most absurd nonsense I have EVER heard in my whole life. Why go through all that effort, when you have all the evidence you need right in front of your face? The only thing I can think of is that the evidence doesn't reflect what the foreigner WANTS us to see and believe, so they have to INVENT an excuse to make THEIR "interpretation" seem legitimate and deny the Egyptians their due once again.

If this is so much about science and not a hidden agenda, then why aren't reconstruction s done of skeletons in Greece? Turkey? Iraq? China? South America? Why? Because we know how they looked already, they are either Greeks, Turks, Iraqis, Chinese or South Americans. And this is without any statues or paintings of the people. So why is it only in Egypt, where this is so absolutely necessary, especially given all of the evidence? The only thing it could be is a way of taking Egypt from Africa and stealing the history of Egypt for someone else. Mummies from almost every other part of the world get more respect than those from Egypt, mainly because they are the ancestors of those presently living there. However, with all of the various groups who have been trying to control Egypt, this is not the case. Therefore, everyone and their grand-daddy want to fly in from almost all parts of the earth and claim that they see THEMSELVES in ancient Egypt. There is no respect for the traditions and culture and the tombs and temples are regularly pillaged for loot they can take back home. But, in this crazy game of trying to lure tourists from foreign lands, they regularly showcase how "new" technology has found a way to make the Egyptians look more..... you get my point. And lo and behold, here come more foreigners to see themselves in a fictional ancient past.

It seems so funny to me that I think that there must be a mental disorder amongst those the propose such non-sense. I mean when their eyes see images of dark brown people, who built a fabulous civilization, their sub-conscious mind must scream "WAIT... THIS ISNT RIGHT! All my history classes taught me that these people were very light!" This then causes them to find ways to validate what their sub-conscious mind says MUST be true.

Please, stop with this nonsense, because your foolishness or outright ignorance is blatantly obvious.

posted 28 May 2005 08:13 PM            

Actually, the back of the head is the most accurate about the reconstruction. Tut-ankh-amun was Dolicephalic,and the Dolicephalic shape like in the back of Tut-ankh-amun is found amongst many Nilotic African groups.

posted 28 May 2005 08:15 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:

Actually, the back of the head is the most accurate about the reconstruction. Tut-ankh-amun was Dolicephalic,and the Dolicephalic shape like in the back of Tut-ankh-amun is found amongst many Nilotic African groups.

---

posted 29 May 2005 02:35 AM            

Okay let me guess almost 99% of the artifacts and even the reconstructions show that king tut was pure African black you would see on the street. One reconstruction done lately by Hawass (credibility already gone) shows that he was an alien with white colored face with a Negroid skull. Problem is even the corrupted anthropologist claim that the skin color could not be identified. Then why did they made his skin white when everyone even the dumbest people on earth would know that the Ancient Egyptians skin color were far from being white. That already shows that it’s corrupted and shouldn’t be taken seriously PERIOD.

Now look at the one done by the American team which was the only team that done the reconstruction unknowingly who the person was.
http://tv.ksl.com/index.php?nid=6&sid=204117

Now look at Djehuti’s post above where it shows a description of how Negroid skull should suppose to look like. It’s almost exact identical. This is same as the Nefertiti debate. You look at 99% of the artifacts and forensic evidence it shows that that Nefertiti was a black African female. Only one bust shows otherwise and that bust somehow is very questionable and is very unclear by most people. Isn’t it funny how out of the 99% of the evidence they believe in 1% of the unclear questionable evidences. Seriously this is a disease lol with all the factual evidence in front of their face they are still in denial.

posted 29 May 2005 03:11 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by multisphinx:

I know, they joined an the back of skull which appears to be an African skull, with a face of a caucasian person. Looks a little funny to me.

---

That face doesn't look "caucasian" to me. It seems more of a mixed race (mulatto) type, which would be considered black in the U.S.

posted 29 May 2005 03:19 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
Salama, Tut has not spoken, the scientists have!

And the scientists have too many discrepancies like:

• 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 Berber woman
  

• 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!
  
• Considering all these discrepancies, I really think the forensic artists were not at all objective in their reconstruction were not double blinded. I'm not surprised that they had full clearance to the knowledge that not only is the skull and Egyptian mummy, but that of king Tut. And that the further forensic analysis as to how Tut died--that it was caused by an infection due to a broken leg, was all the excuse needed to do a re-re-reconstruction that would be more "satisfying" to Hawass's folk.

[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 28 May 2005).]

---

good post,and i have seen some blacks with a more narrow nose that that,but they are not white like some folks like to say.the pic above those show the nose of the berber lady above but i could see from the sides that her nose is not narrow as a white nose because it looks kinda broad from the sides so it is to some extent hard to tell but i get what you are saying and others here with common sense.

posted 29 May 2005 03:37 AM            

You are right I have seen hundreds of African Americans that aren't mixed (saw their parents) that have thinner or pointy nose and medium to thinner lips. Bottom line is most people are born different. They all have their own uniqueness. You don't need to have "clear" Negroid features to be black. Look at Beyonce and she isn’t mixed at all. And I have seen her childhood pictures and she is all natural.
http://www.dreamsgarden.net/elsewhere/images/Beyonce%20Knowles03.jpg
http://cache.eonline.com/Features/Awards/Grammys2004/Blow/Images/prince.beyonce.jpg
http://www.famous-people-search.com/beyonce/beyonce_pictures/beyonce_004.jpg
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/MMPH/C56476.jpg
http://www.ruggedelegantliving.com/a/images/Beyonce.Carousel.jpg

Again it's very hypocritical because I have seen bunch of white people with Negroid or Asian features and most of them aren't mixed. You see white people with thick lips and broad nose or slanted eyes and they aren't questioned. This kind of thinking happens because of ignorance. But King Tut look at his skull and all of his art works he has clear undeniable Negroid features.

posted 29 May 2005 12:00 PM            

by the way some of these racist would like to call any black with a narrow nose or kinda narrow nose but still broad,not black even if they are dark skin.some of these folks could be mixed or some could have some mixture or maybe not,depending on the region,group,etc.

you are right on one point ,beyonce for instance is not mixed,but it is possible she has some mixture,because i have seen her mother,but that is different from being half of something and she is clearly still a black woman if she had only some mixture or even if she was half of something but she is not half of anything,just like a white person would still be white if they have only some black mixture.

posted 29 May 2005 12:33 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Atheist:
[B]kenndo, true I think it's just the stereotypical look of an African.

---

The native Km.t [rome] or ancient "Egyptians" were Africans, and not Asian or European.

Cau-asian is properly a reference to people who live in the caucasus region of Europe -"Caucasia" and their languages and culture.

The notion of race is predicated on the theory of using phenotype to descern lineage.

Caucasian is not legitimate as a racial classification, and when falsely used as such has been ludicrously mis-applied to everyone from Southern Sudanese to Australian Aboriginenes, who do not have either a common ancestry, or similar physical appearance to Europeans.

Black is simply a reference to dark skinned people. It is not a legitimate 'racial' classification, and when falsely used as such is applied to everyone from Southern Indians to Australian Aboriginenes, who have little in common other than dark skin.

The ancient "Egyptians" were an African people, in terms biology and culture - who had dark skin and referred to themselves as Blacks, and were referred to as Blacks by the ancient Hebrews and Greeks who knew them.

posted 29 May 2005 01:15 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Atheist: You are right I have seen hundreds of African Americans that aren't mixed (saw their parents)

---

You can't know someone's ancestry from just their parents only!

quote:

---

Look at Beyonce and she isn’t mixed at all. And I have seen her childhood pictures and she is all natural.

---

The bottom line is that a great deal of genetic diversity is also individual and not just population wise, so yes there are always exceptions.

(Regardless, Beyonce is still hott )

posted 29 May 2005 02:16 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
You can't know someone's ancestry from just their parents only!
[QUOTE]Look at Beyonce and she isn’t mixed at all. And I have seen her childhood pictures and she is all natural.

---

[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 29 May 2005).][/QUOTE]

many scholars on the subject and a anthropologist i spoke to who is white with some recent black mixture mentions that around 80 to 85% of african anmericans have some form of mixture,but the later told me a few months ago that it was closer to 80%.of course when i mean african americans i am not talking about the recent africans,or african africans or west indian blacks.in the last two groups -most blacks would be unmixed and they would be in the black american group,so if you add it up black americans as awhole would have around 65% but below 70%,so it could be around of some form of mixture. this was in another topic months ago.
about 40% of white americans have some form of recent native or black mixture,or both.

posted 29 May 2005 02:18 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
The native Km.t [rome] or ancient "Egyptians" were Africans, and not Asian or European.

Cau-asian is properly a reference to people who live in the caucasus region of Europe -"Caucasia" and their languages and culture.

The notion of race is predicated on the theory of using phenotype to descern lineage.

Caucasian is not legitimate as a racial classification, and when falsely used as such has been ludicrously mis-applied to everyone from Southern Sudanese to Australian Aboriginenes, who do not have either a common ancestry, or similar physical appearance to Europeans.

Black is simply a reference to dark skinned people. It is not a legitimate 'racial' classification, and when falsely used as such is applied to everyone from Southern Indians to Australian Aboriginenes, who have little in common other than dark skin.

The ancient "Egyptians" were an African people, in terms biology and culture - who had dark skin and referred to themselves as Blacks, and were referred to as Blacks by the ancient Hebrews and Greeks who knew them.

Referring to Km.t[rome] (Means Black People) as Blacks was never controversial, until European imperialists made it so, because they did not like it, because it contradicted their racist ideology.
http://www.geocities.com/wally_Mo/

---

posted 30 May 2005 12:42 AM            

Technically they might have very small percentage of other bloods in them but not significant enough to be a mixed-race. Beyonce might have been a bad example but most of the black Americans don't look mixed at all. And I don't believe in the assertion that blacks are automatically notion as mixed if they look different than the prototypical blacks or their skin not being dark enough.

People might say black Americans look different than the pure blooded Africans (this is true) but a lot can factor in different looks without being mixed. One of them is nutrition. I can say this because in Asia people wonder why they are so small. It has been proven scientifically that their eating habits had huge role to do with it. For instance in south korea over the last 30 years height of an average man has increased from 5'4'' to 5'7''. It's the exposure of foreign foods. Traditional Korean foods are very spicy. And the younger generation had minor changes in looks compare to the older generation and we had no mixture of any other race during the period.

I believe that before the racial classification in recent history we are really all in a broader term related to ancestors of Africans. Unfathomable amount of progression and branches have really enabled us to really have unique looks and characteristics to classify what we call today race.

Americans and US had deep foreign roots from the beginning. Asians were small part of minority even 200 years ago. It's estimated today that minorities are close to 30% of US population adding illegal immigrants. In big states like New York or California people of other race (minorities) are almost as common as the white counterparts.

I don't believe that only 40% of white Americans are mixed. Technically majority of them I believe are mixed. It’s just isn’t significant enough to really tell that they are mixed. Keep in mind that blacks played a higher role in US population during the slavery days percentage wise. Today it’s cut in half and the plausible reason is that they have blend in with white race. So black Americans are a lot more pure than we believe. White people might not realize how mixed they really are because for instance Jason kidd is 50% mixed but I don’t see anything unusual about him. I didn’t even know he was mixed; thought he was white. Imagine if you are only 1-2%. It’s the false belief that somehow if you are mixed you’ll turn darker.

If you want to go to technicality nobody is really pure in USA but I don’t think those micro drop of blood of other races make you really mixed. Again I respect all of you guys assertions. I think people have different view on this subject. Thx again and I welcome a healthy debate like this one.

posted 30 May 2005 03:18 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Atheist:
I think you guys are talking about the one-drop rule but with due all respect I don't think most of them are really mixed in terms of racial classification.

Technically they might have very small percentage of other bloods in them but not significant enough to be a mixed-race. Beyonce might have been a bad example but most of the black Americans don't look mixed at all. And I don't believe in the assertion that blacks are automatically notion as mixed if they look different than the prototypical blacks or their skin not being dark enough.

People might say black Americans look different than the pure blooded Africans (this is true) but a lot can factor in different looks without being mixed. One of them is nutrition. I can say this because in Asia people wonder why they are so small. It has been proven scientifically that their eating habits had huge role to do with it. For instance in south korea over the last 30 years height of an average man has increased from 5'4'' to 5'7''. It's the exposure of foreign foods. Traditional Korean foods are very spicy. And the younger generation had minor changes in looks compare to the older generation and we had no mixture of any other race during the period.

I believe that before the racial classification in recent history we are really all in a broader term related to ancestors of Africans. Unfathomable amount of progression and branches have really enabled us to really have unique looks and characteristics to classify what we call today race.

Americans and US had deep foreign roots from the beginning. Asians were small part of minority even 200 years ago. It's estimated today that minorities are close to 30% of US population adding illegal immigrants. In big states like New York or California people of other race (minorities) are almost as common as the white counterparts.

I don't believe that only 40% of white Americans are mixed. Technically majority of them I believe are mixed. It’s just isn’t significant enough to really tell that they are mixed. Keep in mind that blacks played a higher role in US population during the slavery days percentage wise. Today it’s cut in half and the plausible reason is that they have blend in with white race. So black Americans are a lot more pure than we believe. White people might not realize how mixed they really are because for instance Jason kidd is 50% mixed but I don’t see anything unusual about him. I didn’t even know he was mixed; thought he was white. Imagine if you are only 1-2%. It’s the false belief that somehow if you are mixed you’ll turn darker.

If you want to go to technicality nobody is really pure in USA but I don’t think those micro drop of blood of other races make you really mixed. Again I respect all of you guys assertions. I think people have different view on this subject. Thx again and I welcome a healthy debate like this one.

[This message has been edited by Atheist (edited 30 May 2005).]

---

you are right on point about this your views on this subject is close to mines.take alook at this site before you read mines below.
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/001583.html

Most black americans do not look like mixed race folks,they still look clearly black.if you break it down most african americans still look clearly black and only 80% have some form of mixture and the the rest unmixed.if you add the other black american groups than that number is around 65% have only some form of mixture,and the rest are unmixed.

most blacks in america on average do not look that much different from blacks in africa and alot look about the same or the same,of course depending on the group,and down to the person level.

there were blacks from different ethnic groups who intermarried here and still could be unmixed and look a little different but not much and others still looking like certain unmixed black groups in africa or the west indies or other places.

there are blacks and certain black groups in africa that look more like the average black american than certain other blacks and some of those black groups could be unmixed or other groups on average could have some form of mixture.there are black groups in africa that look more like african american and others to a lesser degree and still are in the same ethnic group and could be unmixed or unmixed on average.even certain black groups that look less like black americans you could find those in that same group who could look much like the average black american. The average black american by the way is clearly negriod and most are dark skin,kinky hair and thick lips. many medium tone and alot of light skin blacks in amercia still have those negriod looks,even if alot have some form of mixture.there are light skin and medium brown skin BLACKS who are unmixed in america,africa and in others places AS WELL.

there are whites too on average in europe and other places that look closer to whites in america than whites right next to them but many factors come into it as well,just like other races.
climate and marriage to other black groups that are unmixed plays a part in it too.

recent white americans in terms of some form of mixture could be higher than 40% but that might be unknown.i know this that most blacks on the planet are still unmixed and whites are not really pure pure because they come from blacks that change over time in europe.

take a look at my two new topics.

posted 30 May 2005 12:40 PM            

First off, this is a false, created 'version' of what King Tut actually looks like. The true likeness of King Tut is on his golden mask ( SEE WWW.SUDANFORUM.COM ) ALSO SEE http://community.webtv.net/nubianem AFRICAN HISTORY TIMELINE )

Furthermore, two golden statues of King Tutankamen Shows him painted pitch Black (the sacred color)

As far as racial characteristics are concerned. THE CREATORS OF THIS FAKE IMAGE MADE A TERRIBLE MISTAKE THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE UNLESS ONE IS 100 PERCENT NEGRO OR HAS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF NEGRO/BLACK NEGROID ORIGINS.

King Tut's skull was shaped like that of the typical Negro/Black people of East Africa. It shows the following:

1. Prognathism (lower jaw jutting)
2. Longheaded skull.
3. Nasal type

As far as having light skin, pictures of King Tut show him to have had brown to dark complexion. Both of his parents were Egyptians and one was darker than the other. See http://community.webtv.net/paulnubiaempire

It is not surprising that THE SETTLER ELEMENT IN EGYPT WHO ARE PRIMARILY OF ARAB, SEMITIC, GREEK, HYKSOS, PERSIAN, TURKISH, AND OTHER FOREIGN ELEMENTS AND WHO DOMINATE EGYPT TODAY, ARE ACCEPTING AN IMAGE PRODUCED BY EUROPEANS TO LOOK EUROPEAN.

They are doing so because these mixed "Egyptians" are aliens and settlers on Egyptian soil and they prefer to accept the image of a person who looks like the foreign element who have been occupying Egypt for centuries.

However, those who saw the actual Egptians during their time saw Black Negro Egyptians in most of Egypt and a mixed element in the Delta regions.

SEE WHAT NUBIANS, SUDANESE AND OTHERS HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THE EGYPTIANS AND KING TUT. WWW.SUDANFORUM.COM

Nubianem http://community.webtv.net/nubianem3 (Black Hairstyles)

posted 11 June 2005 11:17 AM            

If this is so much about science and not a hidden agenda, then why aren't reconstruction s done of skeletons in Greece? Turkey? Iraq? China? South America?...So why is it only in Egypt, where this is so absolutely necessary, especially given all of the evidence?

I would think it is exactly because there survives so many pictural representations of Tut that people might want to try and match these depictions to an actual 3D facial reconstruction. It is also because there is so much facination with Tut and ancient egypt in general that people want the see these depictions 'fleshed out'. Why must it have a political agenda?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M:
[B]Salma, I mean when their eyes see images of dark brown people, who built a fabulous civilization, their sub-conscious mind must scream "WAIT... THIS ISNT RIGHT! All my history classes taught me that these people were very light!" This then causes them to find ways to validate what their sub-conscious mind says MUST be true.

My history classes never taught me that ancient Egyptians were white, but I take your point that care needs to be taken when about skin color, as the people doing the reconstruction are representing the 3D modelling as an accurate and scienific representation.

And in reference to your points about the expolitation of Egypt and lack of repect for the culture...what about Egyptians that sell artefacts on the black market? What about Zari Hawass, does he not control what goes on within Egypt and what is broadcast out of Egypt?...Also last time I visited Egypt there was no complaints about the money handed over by tourists, white or black. Should the tour guides and caretakers of temples be taking money or keeping the site sacred according to ancient customs?

Let's keep it in perspective.

posted 11 June 2005 02:49 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by star44:

I would think it is exactly because there survives so many pictural representations of Tut that people might want to try and match these depictions to an actual 3D facial reconstruction. It is also because there is so much facination with Tut and ancient egypt in general that people want the see these depictions 'fleshed out'. Why must it have a political agenda?

---

quote:

---

My history classes never taught me that ancient Egyptians were white, but I take your point that care needs to be taken when about skin color, as the people doing the reconstruction are representing the 3D modelling as an accurate and scienific representation.

---

quote:

---

And in reference to your points about the expolitation of Egypt and lack of repect for the culture...what about Egyptians that sell artefacts on the black market? What about Zari Hawass, does he not control what goes on within Egypt and what is broadcast out of Egypt?...Also last time I visited Egypt there was no complaints about the money handed over by tourists, white or black. Should the tour guides and caretakers of temples be taking money or keeping the site sacred according to ancient customs?

---