|
Post by anansi on Aug 2, 2024 23:23:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by archaeologist on Sept 7, 2024 1:02:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by anansi on Sept 7, 2024 4:24:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by archaeologist on Sept 12, 2024 1:50:57 GMT -5
A new video where kings Monologue introduces artist Nidia Senegal whose facial reconstructions of ancient Egyptians he thinks is much better than most mainstream ones. Seems she mostly uses ancient art as template for her reconstructions.
|
|
|
Post by djehuti on Sept 28, 2024 15:09:31 GMT -5
^ Obviously the problem with past reconstructions is that they were white-washed. Even forensic artists have admitted that there are tissue depth differences based on ethnic/racial differences which effect the outcome of facial reconstructions on skulls yet the general rule was to use European/Caucasian tissue depth measurements. The most objective reconstructions come from forensic artists who are double-blinded meaning they don't know where the skulls come from or who they are. In this regard, some artists tend to be confused or puzzled over the suite of features. Susan Anton for example notes that an Egyptian skull like Tut tend to have a calvarium shape that's African while the face looks more 'European' especially traits like the nasal opening. Then there are other forensic artists who are more experienced or knowledgeable enough to know that Africans are diverse and have experience dealing with skulls from say the Horn of Africa who bear a close resemblance to ancient Egyptians.. That said, one has to acknowledge that even among African populations there are differences which leads to my point that the problem I see now with these newer reconstructions from Black Americans is, although they solve the issue of white-wash, they tend to project Black American/West African traits onto the reconstructions. Again, we know from anthropology that East Africans from the Horn bear a much closer resemblance metrically, but those who resemble them the best would be none other than Nile Valley Nubians and especially Baladi Egyptians are are the direct descendants! This is why these type of American/West-Afrocentric reconstructions are just fodder for white racist and Eurasiocentrics who can dismiss them as black-painting or rather their bizarre term of "black-washing". Nobody resembles the ancient Egyptians best than their descendants the Baladi Egyptians and their Nubian kinsmen. reconstruction of priest Irethorroumodern BaladiAkhenatenanother Baladi
|
|
|
Post by archaeologist on Oct 5, 2024 7:44:24 GMT -5
Here one can compare reconstructions (made from art) of ancient Egyptians as more light skinned
With reconstructions (also made from art) where they have darker skin
|
|
|
Post by djehuti on Oct 6, 2024 15:49:02 GMT -5
^ White-wash has always been an issue when it comes to reconstructions of ancient Egyptians. Even the old school racist Egyptologists like Petrie, Reisner, and Breasted have always maintained Egyptians to be very dark skinned or 'black' just not "negro" and their racial type was 'Hamitic' akin to Saharan Berbers or Nubians and Ethiopians. I have personally met Baladi Egyptians and even Ethiopians who resemble the pharaonic portraits than the popular Hollywood images, yet the latter image of the Egyptian has been olive toned or tanned 'Arabesque' types, and when Jada Pinkett Smith makes a movie about Cleopatra using the starring actress who looks no different from modern Baladi, there is huge fuss from the Afrangi Egyptians who are largely of foreign descent. Go figure. One example would be Queen Tiye, of which I've several cases of white-wash. Interestingly I've seen more examples of Beja women who resemble her more than Baladi women. Zeinab BadawiBeja woman in Kassala, Sudan
|
|
|
Post by djehuti on Oct 6, 2024 18:05:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by djehuti on Oct 6, 2024 22:22:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by thelioness on Oct 8, 2024 19:04:07 GMT -5
Reconstruction by Kings Monologue (of youtube) aka Andrew Adetitun-King aka Andrew Ade King aka Narmermenes of Egyptsearch
|
|
|
Post by thelioness on Oct 8, 2024 21:23:36 GMT -5
Harris and Wente were convinced that the mummy labeled “Amenhotep III,” No. 61074, was not that king. Certainly, the analysis of his craniofacial morphology proved that he was wholly unlikely to have been the father or even the grandfather of either Tutankhamen or Smenkhkare. Study of the No. 61074 remains subsequent to An X-Ray Atlas has convinced Harris (and apparently Wente) that the skull of that individual — too large for the body by two standard deviations — has craniofacial features consistent with sculpted portraits of Akhenaten. Should No. 61074, in fact, be the heretic pharaoh’s remains, it would help explain two factors regarding their condition when discovered in 1898: the terribly battered state which they are in (having suffered more violence at the hands of tomb robbers than any of the Royal Mummies except Rameses VI); and the embalmers’ insertion of resinous material under the skin of the limbs and neck to give them a more life-like appearance, a practice otherwise unknown in the New Kingdom and not seen again until the Twenty-first Dynasty. But Akhenaten was historically, and inarguably, the son of Amenhotep III; and the only one of the Thutmosid mummies which Harris and Wente saw as possibly the father of No. 61074 is the individual found in the sarcophagus of Amenhotep II, and clearly thought by the ancient necropolis priests to be that king. Thus, was “Amenhotep II” actually Amenhotep III? If so, which of the Royal Mummies is Amenhotep II’s?
For reasons they did not make clear, Harris and Wente also offered another candidate for No. 61074: King Ay, Tutankhamen’s immediate successor, who was not related by blood to the Thutmosid line. By taking “Amenhotep III” completely out of the sequence of pre-Tutankhamen rulers, the orthodontist and Egyptologist were able to move “Thutmose IV” sequentially closer to Tutankhamen and Smenkhkare, casting No. 61073 (“Thutmose IV”) as actually Amenhotep III. But where does that leave No. 61069, the putative “Amenhotep II”?
Because their Royal Mummies musical chairs was quite clearly complicated — and in some ways internally contradictive — Harris and Wente came up with three separate “schemes” to reorder the identifications of the Eighteenth Dynasty kings. In all of these the mummy of the founder of the dynasty, Ahmose I, is unknown; and the mummy labeled “Amenhotep I” remains Amenhotep I. In Scheme 1, “Thutmose II” is Thutmose I; “Seti II” is Thutmose II; “Thutmose III” is Thutmose III; Amenhotep II is unknown; “Amenhotep II” is Thutmose IV; “Thutmose IV” is Amenhotep III; Akhenaten is the KV55 individual; Smenkhkare is unknown; Tutankhamen is Tutankhamen; and “Amenhotep III” is Ay.
Scheme 2 has “Thutmose II” as Thutmose I; “Seti II” as Thutmose II; “Thutmose III” as Thutmose III; Amenhotep II unknown; “Amenhotep II” as Thutmose IV; Akhenaten unknown; Smenkhkare as the KV55 individual; Tutankhamen as Tutankhamen; and “Amenhotep III” as Ay.
In Harris’s and Wente’s Scheme 3, “Thutmose II” becomes Thutmose I; “Seti II” becomes Thutmose II; Thutmose III is possibly unknown; “Thutmose III” becomes possibly Amenhotep II; “Thutmose IV” remains Thutmose IV; “Amenhotep II” becomes Amenhotep III; “Amenhotep III” becomes Akhenaten; Smenkhkare is the individual in KV55; Tutankhamen is Tutankhamen; and Ay is unknown. To help explain the problem that Tutankhamen and Smenkhkare would not seem to be the biologic sons of either the reassigned “Amenhotep II” or “Amenhotep III,” Harris and Wente proposed that Tutankhamen, at least, was the product of a marriage between a son of Thutmose IV and a daughter of Amenhotep III, the assertion that he was a king’s “bodily son” notwithstanding. This rather startling concept would go to explain Tutankhamen’s claim in a text that Thutmose IV was his “father’s father.” Wente pointed out that even in the Old Kingdom the title “king’s son of his body” was used to refer, occasionally, to a king’s grandson.
Certainly, by their implied admission, there is nothing conclusive in James Harris’s and Edward Wente’s well-meaning attempt(s) to scientifically sort out the apparent misidentifications made in the Twenty-first Dynasty of several of the Royal Mummies. Indeed, some of their suggested reassignments of identity seem implausible, especially their wish to see both Nos. 61071 (“Amenhotep II”) and 61073 (“Thutmose IV”) as possibly Amenhotep III, when neither set of remains bears any resemblance to the third Amenhotep as represented in the scores of representations of him which have survived from antiquity. Elliot Smith described “Thutmose IV” as an extremely emaciated individual at the time of his death, whereas several extant art works strongly suggest that the historical Amenhotep III was somewhat corpulent in his last years. Additionally, there is in the Luxor Museum a small limestone ostracon with raised-relief sketch portraits of two kings, one to a side. Albeit uninscribed, these are generally thought to represent a young Amenhotep III (at the time of his accession?) and Thutmose IV at the end of his reign.
www.kmtjournal.com/musicalchairs1.htm
Amenhotep III by Cicero Moraes (based on photographs of skull) Amenhotep III by Cicero Moraes (based on photographs of skull, 3D computer program) pennews.substack.com/p/amenhotep-iii-face-reconstruction-egypt-pharaohMeet the 'richest man who ever lived' Face of pharaoh who became a living god revealed for first time in over 3,300 years
Pen News May 16, 2024 Michael Habicht, an archaeologist at Flinders University in Australia, said he looked quite different to the pharaoh seen on statues... He continued: “It is difficult to know the cause of death by analysing the available remains. “Research carried out in the 1970s described Amenhotep III as an obese, sick, and sedentary man, who was almost bald, and suffered from dental problems in the last years of his life. “Although he was one of the truly great kings of Egypt, his body height is about 156cm, making him one of the smallest kings we know from their preserved mummies. He continued: “It is difficult to know the cause of death by analysing the available remains.... Brazilian graphics expert Cicero Moraes, who brought the face back to life, said the reconstruction began by digitally recreating the pharaoh’s skull, using images and data from his mummy. Additional data from living donors was then used to inform the likely dimensions and position of the king’s nose, ears, eyes, and lips. Mr Moraes said: “Based on historical knowledge, Amenhotep III had a robust appearance, which is why we used data from individuals with a high body mass index.” Cicero Moraes
FACIAL RECONSTRUCTION OF PRINCESS BAQT (18th Dynasty, Ancient Egypt) FAPAB and Flinders University in close collaboration with the famous forensic artist Cicero Moraes.
academic.oup.com/hmg/article/30/R1/R24/5924364^^ I'm a little unclear if they got mtDNA Hap H from Amenhotep or just guessed he was H __________________________________________________________ King's Monologue sommentary videos on Cicero MoraesMy answers to The Kings Monologue on Amenhotep III's facial approximation Cicero Moraes3D Designer, Arc-Team Brazil, Sinop-MT, Brazil. Bachelor in Marketing. Dr. h. w. FATELL/FUNCAR(Brazil). Member of Mensa Brazil and Intertel (High IQ societies, 98th and 99th percentile). Guestreviewer: Elsevier, Springer Nature and Public Library of Science. Guinness World Records 2022 - First3D-printed tortoise shell www.ciceromoraes.com.br scholar.google.com.br/citations?user=u33uvHUAAAAJ&hl=pt-BR www.researchgate.net/profile/Cicero-Moraes
This document is a formal response to the live broadcast on The Kings Monologue (TKM)channel about our work on the facial approximation of Pharaoh Amenhotep III. The video entitled "Mainstream Egyptology just lost ALL credibility" is available online(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufJXnnVLd98), has content that is highly critical of our work and is mainly focused on these points:
1. That the statues and artistic images made by the ancient Egyptians should beused as a structural basis for facial approximation;
2. That he made facial approximations more coherent with the pharaohs;3. That DNA proves that Amenhotep III is a black African.
3. There are problems related to the use of DNA results in relation to defining Amenhotep III as a black African.I must document that, despite the differences in approach and criticism, when I participated in the live with comments, both The Kings Monologue and I behaved politely, within the limits of good coexistence. I used an automatic subtitle generation system to collect the words spoken by The Kings Monologue during the live (if there is any error let me know please), in order to comment on them. This document clarifies some questions and refutes some points basically as follows:
1. The statues and works of art do not serve as a reference for facial features, as they are not compatible with known skulls, such as Tutankhamun, Ramses II andAmenhotep III himself, potentially being more of a standardized form of art than a realistic element;
2. Despite the effort and working well with 2D computer graphics, The Kings Monologue did not make forensic facial approximations, it is more of an artisticwork not based on anatomical match and statistical data used in the forensic field;
3. There are problems related to the use of DNA results in relation to defining Amenhotep III as a black African. I must document that, despite the differences in approach and criticism, when I participated in the live with comments, both The Kings Monologue and I behaved politely, within the limits of good coexistence.I used an automatic subtitle generation system to collect the words spoken by The Kings Monologue during the live (if there is any error let me know please), in order to comment on them.
article continues:
link
|
|
|
Post by thelioness on Oct 8, 2024 21:41:25 GMT -5
Cicero Morares Here are the two reconstructions side by side. They might bother be wrong as per what he actually looked like. In my opinion these facial reconstructions don't do much at all to advance scientific knowledge, they are mainly to entertain the public and sell magazine articles. With the exception of National Geographic, UK tabloids seem to take to these reconstructions more than in the U.S. , Daily Mail, The Sun, The Independent, etc. But I must say the Cicero Morares is peculiar looking with it's pencil thin lips lips and alien gray skin tone. He says he disregarded the art while King's Monolgue adds his interpretation of some of the Egyptian art depictions The reconstruction looks like Cicero himself somewhat but an older gray version
|
|
|
Post by djehuti on Oct 9, 2024 0:42:29 GMT -5
I really need that book-- X-Ray Atlas of Royal Mummies. I've only read excerpts in the internet and I've come across the speculative identifications of the mummies. Egyptologist Edward Wente provides the textual and cultural evidence while Dr. James Harris who is both an orthodontist and geneticist assesses craniofacial, especially cranio-oral traits, to establish familial relations. Even though the cranial traits Harris uses are mostly metric, he has an established system in place that has a high percentage of accuracy and is even used by forensic scientists in regards to cranio-oral traits that are heritable via parents across several generations. So I am curious what exactly is the basis for these scenarios in regards to the mummies. Also, I think the accuracy of identification would increase if nonmetric traits of other parts of the skull is used.
Also, there is a popular theory that Tut's successor Aye is a maternal relative since Aye is thought to be Tiye's brother and therefore uncle to his father Akhenaten. Aye is also said to be the probable father of Nefertiti also.
In regards to the genetics, I won't be satisfied until they identify the specific SNPs instead of STRs.
|
|
|
Post by archaeologist on Oct 9, 2024 18:00:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by archaeologist on Oct 9, 2024 21:16:30 GMT -5
|
|