...Based on the physical characters of the skull, I concluded that this was the skull of a male older than 15 but less than 21, and likely in the 18-20 year range and of African ancestry, possibly north african. The possibly north african came mostly from the shape of the face including the narrow nose opening, that is not entirely consistent with an 'African' designation. A narrow nose is more typical of more northerly located populations because nose breadth is thought to be at least in part related to the climate in which ancestral populations lived. A narrow and tall nose is seen most frequently in Europeans. Tut's head was a bit of a conundrum, but, as you note, there is a huge range of variation in modern humans from any area, so for me the skull overall, including aspects of the face, spoke fairly strongly of his African origins - the nose was a bit unusual.As you also note, skin color today in North Africa can range from much lighter than what they chose to much darker. And we don't know how well today's range matches that of the past, although I suspect there was also a range of variation in the past, as is normal for any biological population. Michael's reconstruction did not include an inference of skin color (or eye color), the French team's did and their inference was, I understand, based on a 'average' skin tone for Egypt today. I don't know the specifics of how they did that. I think, however, it would have been as accurate to have had the same facial reconstruction with either a lighter tone or a darker tone to the skin. That said, skin and eye color will always be an inference...That said, skin and eye color will always be an inference.