Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What Ancient Egyptians Looked Like...?
#1
Not certain this is the correct Topic Thread for this, so Mods please move as you see fit.

Using CT-scans on a mummy researchers at the University of Chicago have come up with an image of what an ancient Egyptian may have looked like.

http://www.livescience.com/history/0906 ... -face.html


[Image: 090623-mummy-digital-02.jpg]

[size=150:3ini0upv]Ancient Mummy's Face Recreated[/size]

Clara Moskowitz
LiveScience Staff Writer
LiveScience.com – Wed Jun 24, 1:46 am ET

The face of a long-dead mummy has been brought back to life through forensic science.
Based on CT-scans of the skull of the ancient Egyptian mummy Meresamun, two artists independently reconstructed her appearance and arrived at similar images of the woman.

Meresamun, a temple singer in Thebes (ancient Luxor) at about 800 B.C., died of unknown causes at about age 30. Until recently, modern viewers of the University of Chicago-owned mummy have had to guess about the woman behind the mask.

Now scientists think they have a pretty good idea of what she looked like.

Researchers created a 3-D digital model of Meresamun's skull through multiple detailed CT-scans. Then the data was handed over to two forensic artists to extrapolate the woman's facial features.

Chicago artist Joshua Harker used the Gatliff-Snow American Tissue Depth Marker Method to calculate the contours of the face and produce a digital reconstruction. This technique is considered accurate enough that its results are admissible in court to identify victims."The skull is the driving architecture of the face - all the proportions and placements are there, if you know how to read it," Harker said. "Even the shapes of the lips, nose and eyebrows can be determined if you know what to look for."

A more traditional police sketch was made by Michael Brassell, an artist who works on cold case investigations with the Maryland Department of Justice and the State Police Missing Persons Unit. Brassell also used the CT-scan model to estimate the shape of Meresamun's face.

"The project was no different than any of the postmortem drawings I have worked on for cold case homicides," Brassell said. "The CT scans were very clear, making my job easy. If this was a homicide case, I would almost go as far to guarantee a hit on the profile drawing."

The woman inside the mummy was apparently tall for the time, with wide-spaced eyes and an overbite.

"Meresamun was, until the time of her death at about 30, a very healthy woman," said Michael Vannier, a University of Chicago radiologist who made the CT-scans. "The lack of arrest lines on her bones indicates good nutrition through her lifetime and her well-mineralized bones suggest that she lived an active lifestyle."

The reconstructed images of Meresamun's face are on display, along with her mummy and coffin, at the University of Chicago's Oriental Institute Museum through Dec. 6.

:wink:

Narukami
David Reinke
Burbank CA
Reply
#2
Very interesting work. I wonder if they've done similar things on mummies for whom there were sculptures to compare what they say, and make some assessment of the amount of artistic license in a particular statue. Hmm. We need a grant of a few dozen million to oversee that project. I'm in--you?
M. Demetrius Abicio
(David Wills)

Saepe veritas est dura.
Reply
#3
Several million $ to oversee the project... Sounds dangerous -- Count me in.

It would be interesting to see this technique applied to well known mummies but there in lies the rub -- this was done because the mummy used is in the possession of the University of Chicago and I wonder if the Egyptian Ministry of Antiquities would even allow this.

No doubt some "artistic license" does exert itself, but I'll wager this is pretty close to reality. Still, comparing CT-Scan derived drawings to known ancient images would be illuminating.

I wonder if the Getty Museum, or George Lucas or Bill Gates would be interested in funding such a study. Certainly they have the money and only NASA has more computer rendering power than Lucas & ILM. :wink:

Narukami
David Reinke
Burbank CA
Reply
#4
I'm alway puzzled by disputes about "what did ancient Egyptians look like?". Do people think that the Egyptian race was exterminated to the last individual and replaced by interlopers from somewhere else? Sure, there were Greek and Arab and Libyan and Nubian incursions through Egypt's long history, but probably not enough to affect the gene pool significantly. Ancient Egyptians probably looked pretty much like modern Egyptians, only with different clothes, hairdos and makeup. Now, the project of rebuilding of individual faces from mummified remains is interesting, but I notice that there is usually an urge, possibly unconscious, to give the features an Africanized cast in deference to modern prejudices. This is easily done with soft-tissue features that are not preserved by mummification: lips, eyelid conformation, noses (except for Ramses III's tremendous beak) and skin color.
Pecunia non olet
Reply
#5
Well, there was a significant influx of new genes when the Islamic invasion came through Egypt, so chances are their appearance changed somewhat. But essentially, I guess you are right, that people then looked like people now in a particular region where the "race" stayed more or less the same.
M. Demetrius Abicio
(David Wills)

Saepe veritas est dura.
Reply
#6
The Copts are the true Egyptians who have preserved their ancient language (in their litugy, at least) and other customs. If you see a Copt there's your ancient Egyptian. But if you can't find one, just search for Coptic religious icons and see for yourself what an Egyptian looks like.

I like this one of Saint Mercurius killing Julian the Apostate :

[Image: mercurius.jpg]



~Theo
Jaime
Reply
#7
I wonder if the people from Upper and Lower Egypt looked different? There is quite a long distance covered by the Nile Valley, so it's plausible that there was/is.
M. Demetrius Abicio
(David Wills)

Saepe veritas est dura.
Reply
#8
Quote:Well, there was a significant influx of new genes when the Islamic invasion came through Egypt, so chances are their appearance changed somewhat. But essentially, I guess you are right, that people then looked like people now in a particular region where the "race" stayed more or less the same.

New genes rarely make dramatic changes in the phenotype of an entire country. There's certainly some influence that may be traceable, but in general terms it doesn't change the "looks" substantially. I don't know much about Islamic history of Egypt, patterns of settlement, gene influx, etc, but I'd say that modern egyptians aren't that different from the "old" ones.

There's unfortunately a lot of misconceptions even in the cientific comunity. You can certainly see misconceptions in the illustrations in our beloved ancient history books. Grab a copy of, say, Osprey's Rome's Enemies 4 - Spanish Armies, with illustrations by the late Angus McBride, or Greece and Rome at War by Peter Conolly; the Romans always tend to look somewhat like anglo-saxons, with light rosed-skin, etc. The ancient Spanish are always portrayed in these books as if the illustrators used a stereotyped version of a mexican for inspiration. The Greeks are somewhat better portrayed in my opinion than the other two, at least they don't tend to look like anglo-saxons in disguise. And let's not even start looking at Holywood cinema...

A curious thing is that in genetic terms and according to some studies I've read, the genetic make-up of the Greeks has more in common with the genetic make-up of modern Turks than with other "europeans". They don't look that different too, although there are certainly differences. The thing is that you ask an illustrator to paint a group of ancient Greeks and a group of ancient "Turks" and you'll end up with the Greeks looking "european" (with dark to blond hair, dark to light skin, etc) while the "Turks" will end up, most often than not, completely stereotyped with only dark skin, dark thick hair, etc, just like the Spanish in Angus McBride's Spanish Armies book. Again, Holywood doesn't help much (I don't think they care for the most part) and sometimes I wonder how much of the imagery used by these illustrators is culled, consciously or uncosciously, from there.
Pedro Pereira
Reply
#9
Do you think the descendants of the Moors in Spain look like the descendants of the indigenous people from the 8th Century? Admittedly, there were many differences, including dominant languages. (You folks from Spain can chime in here, of course.) I submit that the Moors, when they conquered the lower half of Spain and stayed there for as long as they did, entirely entered the gene pool and permanently changed it. It is genes, after all, that determine bone structure, hair color, facial hair or lack of it, tooth shape, blood type, etc., ad infinitum. Isn't that why they're testing people's modern DNA against skeletal DNA from ancient burial grounds to determine (for example) if the [citizens of country A] have ancestral links to [ancient country B]?

Of course Turks and Greeks share some common genetics, look at all the interplay between those cultures over the millennia, alternately battling on one country's soil or the other. It would be astonishing if they did not.

Southern Italians (in the generations before travel outside of the home province became normal) were different in appearance from the Northern Italians. Their respective Greek and Cisalpine Gaul ancestry had a lot to do with that, don't you think? Not many native Sicilians born with red hair, but it's not uncommon in Verona or Milan, right?

As for the artists, my simple explanation agrees with yours. We project our own stereotypes onto whatever we do, for the most part, so it's expected that people will take what they think someone looked like in a particular culture and make their drawings accordingly.
M. Demetrius Abicio
(David Wills)

Saepe veritas est dura.
Reply
#10
Let me try to divide this in parts, I'm not very good at making multiple quotes Tongue
[moderator]I will help you and edit your post for the sake of clarity.[/moderator]

Quote:"Do you think the descendants of the Moors in Spain look like the descendants of the indigenous people from the 8th Century? Admittedly, there were many differences, including dominant languages. (You folks from Spain can chime in here, of course.) I submit that the Moors, when they conquered the lower half of Spain and stayed there for as long as they did, entirely entered the gene pool and permanently changed it. It is genes, after all, that determine bone structure, hair color, facial hair or lack of it, tooth shape, blood type, etc., ad infinitum."

I agree with you that there is added genetic and phenotypical (lets call it "racial" to simplify this no matter how incorrect it actually is) variance, yes. But I also think that that variety is more noticiable in the gene pool than as an actual manifestation in "racial" characteristics. It's true that if you go to southern Spain and then to Northern Spain (or Portugal for that matter) you may notice a slight tendency for light skin in the North. But is it substantial? Not really. Pick an average southerner and an average northener and you won't be abble to pick one from the other. Genetically you probably could (and even that MAYBE). On the other hand people do tend to move a lot so that would have to be taken into acccount for such an extended period from past to present.

The important point to me is that unless you have a huge input of new genes, a very significant percentage, the "racial" characteristics of the "new comers" won't really make much an impact, except as a gene-pool mark. It's not really enough to change the visual appearance of a substantially larger "indigenous" population.

Let me give you a concrete example regarding Portugal. I read once in a (more or less) recent medical article that the genetic make-up of the Portuguese has a somewhat above-average percentage of "black african" genes when compared to other european countries (including Spain). It's not hard to see where that comes from; the Portuguese started the so called "European Age of Discoveries" in the 15th century and they also started the black african slave trade in Europe. Obvioulsy many of those slaves went not only to the New World and other parts of Empire but also to Portugal proper.
So, what happened to them? WHERE are they? They certainly didn't die out without descendants or else the US, Brazil, and other north and south american countries would have no black and mestizo people either.
We have their imprint in our gene pool, but before the late 20th century when many of the population from our ex-colonies, now freed, started coming over here after the fall of the empire there where as many blacks in Portugal as there where in Sweden. And you certainly couldn't see any black african "racial" features in the "white" population back then. We looked just like any other southern european would look. The "african" racial features that you see now (in all europe actually) are the result of intercourse in the last decades, recent immigration, etc.
So what happened? What happened is simply that although tens or hundreds of thousands of black slaves where absorbed and left their genetic mark on the genetic pool of the Portuguese, and this is the important point, they didn't leave any "racial", visual marks at all on the actual physical appearence of the vastly superior white population.

Another study that I read pointed to the genetic make-up of the British as having more incommon with the Iberians than with anyone else. I don't remember where I read this, so untill I check it again I'm not present this as factual, but if confirmed it just shows how genetic make-up means so little for the type of variety we see in human beyings.

More, and this is vastly more relevant, there's more genetic variety among african blacks from different regions in "black africa" than between a Spaniard and a Noruegian or any southern and northen european! Still, for us europeans, its hard to see how two "blacks" (this sounds bad but no offense is meant, its just for simplicities sake) have more different genetic make-ups than an dark-skinned Italian and a Norwegian "snow-white".

Quote:"Of course Turks and Greeks share some common genetics, look at all the interplay between those cultures over the millennia, alternately battling on one country's soil or the other. It would be astonishing if they did not."

Yes, but would you expect the Greeks to have a genetic make-up more similar to the Turks than to other Europeans? Ionia was certainly a big influence in the genetic make-up of the turkish, but nowhere near the vastly bigger "native population. Add to that the influence of the Persians, Arabs, etc, and I think it is curious to see those genetic results in the Greeks (although not really that unexpected either). Helenism after Alexander didn't really leave much marks, neither in Turky or anywhere else up to Afghanistan. Sure you can find some blu and green eyed afghans, but did it really affect their looks that much? Hardly. Again, you can find those influences in the gene-pool, but there's very little to see in "racial" terms.

Quote:"Southern Italians (in the generations before travel outside of the home province became normal) were different in appearance from the Northern Italians. Their respective Greek and Cisalpine Gaul ancestry had a lot to do with that, don't you think? Not many native Sicilians born with red hair, but it's not uncommon in Verona or Milan, right?"

True. And that's why it would probably be a good thing when making an illustration to take the time period and history into account. I don't expect the latin armies fighting the Samnites in the fourth century to be full of blond-red haired "romans" from Cisalpine Gaul gallic descent. Neither the ones fighting the 1st and 2nd Punic Wars for that matter. In fact, except for the non-citizen auxiliarie contingents comming from the northern parts of Italy, I don't expect the latin citizen armies to be full of anglo-saxonic look-a-likes untill well into the Principate. Obviously I generalize here.

Quote:"We project our own stereotypes onto whatever we do, for the most part, so it's expected that people will take what they think someone looked like in a particular culture and make their drawings accordingly."

Just as an end note: I certainly agree that this whole hot-pot of melting genetics and carnal passions did result in "racial" changes as time went by. But as an historical illustrator you have to look at the historical evidence. The so called Iberians, as far as we know, inhabited only the southern parts of Spain along the costlines and had little penetration in the much vaster expanses of the western litoral and middle-northern regions of Spain. Not even one fourth was occupied by the Iberian culture (whatever that was). We suppose that these Iberians where of North African descent and crossed to Iberia. However most of Iberia was occupied by either Celts (so called Celt-Iberians) or pre-Celtic Indo-Europeans. So why would an illustrator use as a representative model for all these Spanish peoples a typically stereotyped view of a Mexican/Venezuelan/Guatemalan7Whatever? It's like using the average modern day Argelian as a model for the average "french" Gaul at the time of Caesar.

I'm interested in reading your further comments. Anyway, hope this is usefull at least to foster further discussion. Smile
Pedro Pereira
Reply
#11
Quote: And let's not even start looking at Holywood cinema...
Again, Holywood doesn't help much (I don't think they care for the most part) and sometimes I wonder how much of the imagery used by these illustrators is culled, consciously or uncosciously, from there.

Indeed. Hollywood makes a lot of noise about "color blind" casting and authenticity but then violate both.

For the Spielberg production of Memories of a Geisha they cast Chinese actors to play the main female roles. When objections were raised the production team claimed "Color Blind" casting. That rang hollow, but they were not the first to follow the "all Asians look alike" dictum. In The Sand Pebbles the actor Mako was cast as a Chinese coolie (wonderful performance) and James Hong has played both Korean and Vietnamese military officers in a number of films.

Of course there has always been some "cross pollination" (so to speak) among the Chinese, Koreans, Vietnamese and Japanese. During World War Two there were wholesale migrations, particularly of Koreans transported to Japan for use as labor in the war effort and of Japanese colonists to Korea and Manchuria.

That being said, there are differences between these different groups.

On stage, "color blind" casting is well accepted. Denzel Washington as Mack Antony in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar or Lawrence Olivier as Othello do not even raise an eyebrow. When we performed kabuki plays our cast came from all over the world (Mainland US, local Hawaiian, South America, UK, etc) and no one thought anything of it. Indeed, I would arrive at a local school to conduct a lecture/demo on kabuki the teachers would express surprise that I was white -- they had expected a local Japanese American or at least Asian American to be conducting the class.

However, with film, this color blindness is more problematic.

Most films use a naturalistic acting style and strive for an authenticity that is impossible for stage productions. Unless of course the film is clearly fantasy or theatrical.

In Much Ado About Nothing Denzel Washington can play Don Pedro and Keanu Reeves his brother -- no problem. Likewise in the Mummy South African actor Arnold Vosloo can play the part of High Priest Imhotep to good reviews.

Yet when the film is set in the "real world" this color blindness does not apply -- not totally.

Would we accept Denzel Washington in the part of Captain Miller in Saving Private Ryan?
Should we accept Bob Balaban as the Indian computer expert Dr. Chandra in the film 2010 (a sequel to the ultra realistic 2001)?

When is comes to Asians, South, East or South East, there seem to be no concerns for authenticity or honesty.

My apologies for high jacking the topic. :oops:

:|

Narukami
David Reinke
Burbank CA
Reply
#12
Quote:My apologies for high jacking the topic. :oops:

:|

Narukami

Not at all, you made some good points. Smile
Pedro Pereira
Reply
#13
Quote:but I notice that there is usually an urge, possibly unconscious, to give the features an Africanized cast in deference to modern prejudices. This is easily done with soft-tissue features that are not preserved by mummification: lips, eyelid conformation, noses (except for Ramses III's tremendous beak) and skin color.
As said in the article, if you know what to look for then you can accurately estimate the shape and proportions of the soft tissues. The modelling technique is well attested and proven to be incredibly accurate, and is more a science than an art. It's such a well developed technique by now that the results, I believe, aren't even questioned in court as to the identity of remains. It's a proven scientific technique (hence its acceptance in courts), not an artistic endeavour with guesswork and artistic license.

As much as it's fair to point out that although other peoples dominated Egypt at various times but probably wouldn't influence the gene pool that much, the original gene pool was African, although the original migrants from Africa displayed facial features that are fairly distinct from many Africans today (larger jaw, more oriental eyes, etc). But as Egypt was one of the earliest settlements from that migration (the archaeological record shows this), then you should apply the same gene pool theory to Egyptians, but from the opposite direction.

Compare with this similarly made reconstruction (physical not digital, but the principal is the same) of the 35,000 year old remains found in Europe (note: The darker skin colouring is thought to be more likely, based on the latest science. Pigment lightening happened gradually, due to the lower levels of sunlight at more northern latitudes and to compensate for less vitamin D therefore being produced):

[Image: article-0-04CC6112000005DC-990_468x550.jpg]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... s-ago.html

[Image: 090623-mummy-digital-02.jpg]
TARBICvS/Jim Bowers
A A A DESEDO DESEDO!
Reply


Forum Jump: