[CPProt.net] Re: Artistic assumptions skew what science and history tell us

[Charles V. Sabba]

What Sudarkasa left out: 'An esteemed Paris based forensic sculptor, 
Elizabeth Daynes, created a bust of King Tut.  Daynes based the skin tone on 
an average shade of an Egyptian today. National Geographic gave the CT data 
to a US forensic team who were to work blind- not knowing who the subject 
was. Their findings validated the French teams conclusions.'
    I shared Sudarkasa's article with a group of forensic artist friends and 
it caused a little riot, partly because of the 'guesstimation' wisecrack, 
but also due to the fact that we are loyal to Betty Pat Gatliff who also did 
a King Tut facial reconstruction which corresponded to the French team's 
results. Betty Pat is the expert's expert in the U.S. on facial 
reconstruction.
    There are three classifications of Homo sapien skulls- the Negroid, 
Caucasoid and Mongoloid. Tut probably fell in between the Negroid and 
Mongoloid , but examination of the skull would indicate which classification 
the artist would need to rely on. The result is more then a "guesstimation".
   My good friend Sgt. Paul Moody from the Illinois State Police submitted 
this for my web site and I want to share it.

> Posting for "New face renews an old debate", specifically to the posting 
> by Niara Sudarkasa on Dec. 5, 2005.
>
> Let's set the record straight
>
> by Paul Moody
> December 11, 2005
>
> Being a Fine Artist, a Forensic Artist and having some success in 
> identifying decendents using Forensic Art techniques, I take exception 
> with the tone and context of the posting by someone touting themselves as 
> an academically trained anthropologist.  I, too, have studied a bit of 
> Anthropology; enough to know that anthropologists make a thorough 
> examination of all facts and data available in order to make an unbiased, 
> scientific conclusion, and rarely do they make such wild accusations or 
> comments.  Let's take a quick look at Forensic Art for the doctor's 
> benefit.
>
> Art, in any form, is not a science.  But Forensic Art relies upon science 
> to provide the specific data to guide us to the final product.  Forensic 
> Art is a multi-discipline endeavor, utilitizing input from experts in a 
> variety of science fields, including Anthropology, Pathology, Psychology, 
> Odontology, Opthamology and Radiology, to mention just a few.  The 
> Forensic Artist takes no "artist license" and "assumes" very little.  We 
> do not "guesstimate" critical parts of a reconstruction; we rely on the 
> data that is presented to us by the Forensic Anthropologist to guide us to 
> the correct tissue-depth tables for application.  There are specific 
> calculations and equations to use to locate the width of the nose, the 
> length of the ears.  Calculations using the nasal spine will bring us very 
> close to the length of the projection of the nose as well as which 
> direction the tip of the nose takes.  We rely on the research and studies 
> of such well known greats as Wilton Krogman, Mehmet Yasar Iscan, S. Rhine, 
> and T.D. Stewart.  The results of their research, if followed, leave 
> little room for "creativity".
>
> No one disputes the fact that the ancestors of Egyptians migrated millions 
> of years ago from Africa.  A hallmark fact presented by the study of 
> anthropology is that ALL homo sapiens evolved from Africa (perhaps the 
> good doctor was absent that day).  But the repetitious use of the word 
> "race" was uncalled for, especially when anthropologists are the first to 
> condemn the word "race" as over-used, misused, antagonistic and 
> inflammatory.  However, like it or not, everyone has an origin and that 
> origin, due to natural selection and gene flow over millions of years of 
> evolution, may be extremely diverse.  No doubt the skull of King Tut 
> displayed traits of both Negroid and Caucasoid origin and neither were 
> drastically predominant over the other.  Nor was the skin color selected 
> for the reconstruction a statement in "racist" assertion as the doctor 
> would have everyone believe.  The skin color would've been determined, 
> again, by the available data, and a good deal of that would have come from 
> ancient Egyptian art found in the tombs and paintings, where Egyptians 
> portrayed themselves as light-skinned with an almost yellow tone.  I 
> seriously doubt that the Egyptians would have intentionally misrepresented 
> themselves in their artistic documentation of their existence in the 
> world.  It's amazing how closely the reconstruction comes to a likeness 
> with the carving in the lid of the King's crypt.