COMMENTS
These so-called reconstructions prove nothing except that caucasoids wish Tutankhamen (and ancient Egyptians generally)was white. A CT scan does not reveal skin color yet each caucasoid forensic fabricator assumes a pale complexion. This assumption reveals both racial bias and intentional avoidance of known scientific tests that could easily reveal the truth. Bone structure as an indicator of race has long been discarded as unreliable. If they really wanted to know the skin color of Tutankhamen they would do a simple melanin dosage test on a square millimeter of his mummified flesh. If they really wanted to know his racial/ethnic identity they would test his DNA. The fact that they refuse to perform the proper scientific tests and use a false method to determine skin color/race is in and of itself an admission that they fear Tutankhamen, like the original Egyptian, was a Black man.
>>> each caucasoid forensic fabricator assumes a pale complexion
Incorrect. Only the French team estimated skin tone by averaging the skin color of modern Egyptians. The American and Egyptian teams did not assign pigmentation to their reconstructions, as you can plainly see from the photographs.
>>> Bone structure as an indicator of race has long been discarded as unreliable.
Also incorrect. Race is most accurately determined from skeletal morphology. It's skin color that's adaptive and unreliable.
Hawass, in a 2007 publication of "Ancient Egypt Magazine", also asserted that none of the facial reconstructions resemble Tut, claiming for example that the French reconstruction ended up with a person that looked French, whose features do not resemble any known Egyptians. He asserts that in his opinion, the most accurate representation of the boy king is the mask from his tomb.[97] In addition, according to the LA Times, the archaeological inspector for the Supreme Council of antiquities, Ahmed Saleh, disagrees with some of Hawass' statements, stating that the procedures used in the facial re-creation made Tut look Caucasian, "disrespecting the nation's African roots".
This is a very weird cranium.
Finally the afrocentrist propagandas about egypt are disproved!
>>Bone structure as an indicator of race has long been discarded as unreliable. If they really wanted to know the skin color of Tutankhamen
Bone structure is a 100x better indicator than skin color...
First of all, I'd like to point out that there are in fact 2 reconstructions of King Tut.In 2002, a british forensic team presented a reconstruction of King Tut which looks VERY different than the French result and a LOT more realistic(as well as being considerably more negroid). The claims on Racial Reality of the ancient egyptians being 100% caucasoid are scientifically FALSE! The ancient egyptians were racially mixed with both caucasoid AND negroid ancestry. What I find suspicious about the French reconstruction is how long the skull is and flat the top of his head appears. I have NEVER seen people,even in pictures, who have skulls of that shape. Not to mention the fact that his features look excessively feminine and idealized. I cannot fathom that he truly looked like this in life.
You people are nuts.
why the hell would hawass say that his own study was unsuccessful? that "none look like king tut" And I'm sorry, but you've gotta be kidding me that this was done with bias. 3 separate teams, 1 working blind, all came up with extremely similar results. Why can't people realize that this is NORTH Africa? Ever hear of Carthage? Ancient Egyptians were not black, especially not the nobility. And to the guy commenting on the skull shape, okay you haven't seen a skull that shape? You also haven't seen anyone that deeply inbred. You cannot argue with these results.
I love how the first guy doesn't even spell Tutankhamun right either. Btw I just wanted to say that personally I've always thought Egyptians always looked more mongoloid than anything.
by the way, your "2002 British reconstruction" was done based on X rays done in 1969, such an unreliable source of data, by SPECIAL EFFECTS experts. It's laughable how unreliable that reconstruction is.
Commenting by HaloScan
