What's up with king tut?

Question

recently i have read a newspaper called the south street journal that now king tut has white skin. what kind of stuff is that?!!!! why are people trying to change the faces of history. we know good and well that king tut was black. i was shocked and angry that people are trying to change this man of honor. now it is up to us to do something about it (mostly talking to african americans) i'm a teenager and i already notice these decietful things that are going on in this world. some people cant accept that this great man was black and i even heard that "they" cut off his nose to hide his black features and made a long nose instead. i think that is very disrespectful towards black history and being black i was highly offended, the next thing we know people will say that martin luther king wasn't black. it's bad enough that people are saying that jesus was white now they want to change the face of king tut which i think is stupid. what is your opinion of this.

Answer 1

He has been dead for 3000 years, can't he just be left alone? who cares black or white, he still was from Egypt. He certainly was not white.

Answer 2

Jesus was not white...or black. He was olive colored. If he lived today someone might suspect him of terrorism because he would have looked Arabic. And no, it's not fair. I'm pretty sure King Tut was not white, he was probably the color of cinnamon. We don't know what King Tut looked like, all we have is drawings and his death mask to go by. These were done by artists who may have used symbolic colors or fudged a little to make the king look better than he was. So maybe he was really purple with turquoise spots. I don't see why it matters what color a person is, white, black, cinnamon, mocha, lemon yellow or neon green. A person should be known for their accomplishments, not for what color they were.

Answer 3

The tomb paintings of ancient Egypt are very well preserved, retain their vivid original colors, and show the ancient Egyptians as more of an olive-skinned race. Neither black nor white.

What exactly Jesus looked like, no-one can say -- it was not considered proper to make paintings or statues of him until several centuries after his crucifixion, as this was held to be a violation of the commandment against making idols or graven images. Once people did begin making such icons, each culture portrayed him as one of their own -- the representations differ greatly from culture to culture. There are white, black, brown, and olive skinned portrayals of Jesus depending on where you go (since he was a Jew, he was probably olive-skinned or something close to it, but we can't say for certain). But in the case of the religion of the ancient Egyptians, they felt it extremely important to make as lifelike a depiction of the deceased as possible in order to ensure their continued existence in the afterlife. Even the things which were to go with them in the afterlife had to be properly portrayed.

Answer 4

UM thas bcuz Jesus WAS white (jewish) and no it isn't like sayin that martin luther king is white ok, bcuz we have proof that he was blACK on the other hand we really don't know WHAT king tut looks like, but. . . ii dont' know why they would make him white

Answer 5

Where on earth did you get the impression that the ancient Egyptians were black?They were white.
Race is not about skin color ,it is determined by the scull.Egyptians -including king Tut- were and still are white.

And what is all that about "black" history?History has NO color.It is one.
Just like the human race.

Mac
A European

Answer 6

king tut was not black or white he was tan

Answer 7

This is the first I've heard of this. Even so I really do wish people would know there is only ONE race. THE HUMAN RACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Answer 8

he wasn't black he was egyptian which is really tan.

Answer 9

Ancient Egyptians were Egyptian. Applying modern racial/ethnic categories to cultures of the past is not the most defensible of positions. Most modern scholars do not accept race as "real" category based on biological realities - race is a cultural construct and the definitions of races depend a great deal on cultural context.

There was a great range of physical appearances in ancient Egypt, much like there is in modern Egypt as the general physical characteristics have probably not changed all that greatly - there have been new population groups introduced, but most scholars feel that their influence has been fairly small and gradual and new population groups have been moving through Egypt since humans first arrived there.

The ancient Egyptians were African, as Egypt is in Africa. "African" is frequently conflated with "black" especially in the US and Europe, despite the vast range of physical appearance, including skin tones and facial features among various indigenous African groups. The ancient Egyptians had a variety of skin tones, roughly similar to those seen in Egypt today - that is, ranging from relatively light skinned/tan to very dark skinned, with hair that is straight, curly or very curly, noses that range in shape and eyes that are brown, blue, grey, or green. This is a standard phenotype for most North Africans.

It might be worth noting that many modern Egyptians are offended if called "black" - yet another complicated aspect of racial and ethnic categories and the way they shift meanings from context to context.

There was population movement into Egypt despite it's relative isolation from both father south in Africa and from western Asia that contributed in a slight way to the external physical characteristics of the general population.

Ancient Egyptian art had certain conventions for depicting Egyptians as well as other population groups. Egyptian males are typically shown as red or reddish brown, women in a yellowish shade, Nubians as black, and Asiatics as yellow. This may not have always reflected the reality of individual appearance as most of these depictions were not intended as portraits.

It's important to realize that most scholars in history and anthropology no longer consider race to be a reality in a genetic sense. Rather, we consider race to be a cultural construction and the definitions of race vary from culture to culture and context to context.

In the various reenactments of historic events in ancient Egypt that are shown in recent documentaries the majority of the actors are Egyptian. I've seen some these being filmed while I was in the field - Egyptian actors are less expensive to hire and filming costs are cut down by filming on-site in Egypt.

The majority of Egyptologists, anthropologists and historians will tell you that despite the Arab Conquest, modern Egyptians don't look all that different from ancient Egyptians, especially outside Cairo. It's important to note that most of the Arabs and other Muslims who migrated into Egypt following the conquest tended (with exceptions, of course) to reside primarily around Cairo and to remain fairly exclusive in their marriage habits.

The confusion comes in because of the history of the discipline of Egyptology and history, the history of European colonialism, and the history of the rise of Afrocentrism.

In the early days of Egyptology western thought was that white Europeans were superior to all other "races" and therefore a civilization like Egypt could not have arisen out of a black African "race." This lead to theories such as the "Dynastic Race" - an idea that the Egyptian state arose after the invasion of a separate race of people from Western Asia who subjugated the native Egyptians and became the ruling class, though they eventually intermarried with the "natives". This also nicely explained the features of Egyptians as shown in various ancient depictions which weren't stereotypically "black" but weren't stereotypically "white European" either.
This theory is no longer popularly accepted - nor should it be. Archaeological evidence does not support it, nor do most studies of human remains from the pertinent period of Egyptian history, though ascertaining "race" from skeletal remains has its own problems. Essentially, "race" as determined from skeletal remains is more of a continuum - as in, this skeleton shows a series of features, usually cranial features, that tend to stereotypically "*******," "Caucasian," etc. You can come close, but it's not exact, and it's not going to tell you eye color, skin tone, or hair type - the phenotypic features that most cultures rely upon to define "race."

In reaction to ideas like the "Dynastic Race Theory" and with the rise of the black pride movement, the civil rights movement and other social/political movements, certain members of the black community, especially in the US, have argued that the Egyptians were "black" which they usually define, at least in the US as looking like the majority of black Americans. In some of its most extreme forms, this movement has suggested that Europeans deliberately changed or defaced monuments to hide the "African" features of ancient Egyptians (which is totally ridiculous) and they tend to point to evidence of Egyptian "blackness" that is not really valid within the broader scholarly understanding of ancient Egypt.
The big problem with this movement and the claiming of Egypt by black pride movements is that it ignores the points of origin of most African Americans - slaves were derived primarily from sub-Saharan Africa, some distance from Egypt and in areas the had little or no contact with ancient Egypt. It also tends to treat Africa as though it is one huge cultural unit, disregarding the vast amount of diversity and individuality of various African cultures. It also tends to shortchange and direct attention away from other amazing African cultures, such as the cultural group associated with the amazing constructions at Great Zimbabwe.
Overall, the primarily problem with the Afrocentrism movement is that it tends not to meet the rigorous requirements of modern scholastic practice and that those who argue against their theories are accused of being racist, white supremacists, or of being part of a vast conspiracy to claim Egypt as a white culture. In other words, the proponents of Afrocentrism rely on ad hominem personal attacks on those they disagree with, rather than addressing their arguments.

As a scholar, I don't think the Egyptians were white, but I don't think that they were "black" in the common usage either - I think that they were Egyptian. I think, based on evidence from their own texts, artistic representations, etc., that they defined themselves as "Egyptian" in opposition to other groups. I don't think that you can apply modern categories with their own baggage to the past and I don't think that it serves any worthwhile purpose to "claim" an ancient cultural group as one's own without a wealth of evidence. I study ancient Egypt because I find it interesting, not because I feel that I need to support a modern social-political ideology and to be frank, at times I get a little tired of the ongoing arguing because I think that it distracts from the really interesting parts of Egyptian culture and because I don't think it should matter what box on a census form an ancient Egyptian would check. I say again, they were Egyptian - and that's all that should matter.

Much has been made about one of the several ancient Egyptian terms for their country - km.t - which can be translated literally as "Black Land." Yes, it is a term for "Egypt" yes, it literally means "the black land." However, it isn't the only term for Egypt or for Egyptians from ancient Egypt. Nor is it clear that it refers to skin color. It seems more likely, given that the biliteral sign "km" probably refers to the Nile banks, to refer to the color of the fertile soil on the Nile banks, especially as the term "km.t" is often used in opposition to the term "dSr.t" (deshret) which literally translates as "the red land" and refers to the desert. Such oppositions are common in literary and religious texts - the Egyptians played with their language in a number of ways. Puns are quite common, as are other plays on words that don't translate particularly well, but are clear to those who have studied the language. Thus, you have the "people of the black land" - Egyptians are the people who live along the banks of the Nile.

I can assure you that there is not a vast European-centric conspiracy among Egyptologists to deliberately mislead the public, alter artifacts, or hide evidence. I find such suggestions absolutely unacceptable. Such an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. As there is nothing resembling even un-extraordinary evidence, I think anyone with sense can draw the appropriate conclusions.
This is not to deny that there have been any number of theories, suggestions, hypotheses, and reconstructions put forth by Egyptologists in the 200 years of the existence of the discipline that most modern people would find reprehensible. But what must be remembered is that those scholars were a product of their times and a product of the social, political, historical context around them. They interpreted the evidence they had available to them in the way that made sense to them.
When additional evidence became available and/or when scholarly understanding of the nature of humans, race, ethnicity, etc., changed, so have the interpretations made. In essence, we are all doing the best job we can with the tools we have available.