...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Deshret
»
The First Europeans were Khoisan
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by The Explorer: [QB] [QUOTE] Listen, if the features in the ‘’Africoid’’ category managed to distinguish Egyptians from Europeans, and Egyptians are considered to be at the one end of the African spectrum and the so called ‘’Forest negro’’ at the other end, how can you then equate the label (‘’Africoid’’) with ‘’forest Negro’’?[/QUOTE]I just explained to you how, and yet you are still asking me how. And no, those who say ancient Egyptians are "Caucasoid" are not saying Egyptians are "at one end of the African spectrum". [QUOTE] Yes, all the more reason why Egyptians who are a part of this east African diversity shouldn’t have been classified in some label you equate with ‘’forest negro’’. [/QUOTE]Who classified Egyptians into "some label I equate with "forest negro""? Why did they make this classification; and why is the antonym classification "Caucasoid"? [QUOTE] But they did, so how can you call the category ‘’forest negro’’? This goes to show that the generalizations listed under ‘’Africoid’’ apply to a much larger range than you seem to be willing to admit. [/QUOTE]You engage in much inexplicable telepathy, perhaps through those demons and gods you claim that ancient Egyptians medically relied on, but produce little in way of making objective observations. What generalizations "listed under Africoid" are larger than "I see to be willing to admit", if the generalizations made under Africoid were already given in what you cited? Does you source give us any details about these larger generalizations? If not, then apparently your gods & demons-invoked telepathy has failed you. [QUOTE] The only point where I can see I was wrong is the lack of explanation about variation, and the usage of terms like ‘’Caucasoid’’[/QUOTE]That "wrong" is more than plenty. See above as well, for questions you decided not to answer, from my last post prior to these last two. [QUOTE] The source is: Description of X-ray images of Royal Mummies in X-ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies[/QUOTE]I thought so. First of all, your citation originally comes from a website that claims to be making references from the [i]X-ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies[/i] (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1980). This does not tell me that Jim Harris and Ed Wente actually applied those concepts themselves as your citation puts it. Secondly, that same website says this: [i]The [b]purpose of this study[/b] is to [b]refute[/b] the argument that the Pharaohs [b]did not conform[/b] to the [b]"Negroid"[/b] phenotype, but [b]not to support any biological basis of the concept of race[/b].[/i] Which suggests to me that the author is well aware of the outdated concepts that he/she is about to use, but professes to use them nonetheless just to make some point. It also speaks of "negroid", which in outdated racial typology, is essentially a euphemism for the highly idealized "forest negro". No less interesting, is that it is saying that it is using said traits to "prove" the idea wrong, that ancient Egyptians did not conform to "negroid phenotype". What does that tell you then; that the [i]other[/i] viewpoint is that ancient Egyptians were not "negroid". Gist: Your citation only reaffirms my point. [QUOTE] [QUOTE] Originally posted by The Explorer: So, "Caucasoid" traits are not African-ish? [/QUOTE]The source uses generalizations in order to make distinctions between other populations. The higher occurrence of a feature in any given continent is what justifies the placement of a feature in either one of the categories.[/QUOTE]So, the so-called "caucasoid" traits does NOT have high occurrence in the African continent, and should therefore be dismissed? What material scientific backing can you produce for the justification of this dismissal? And above all, why did your source feel compelled to "disprove" that ancient Egyptians did not conform to "negroid", and hence, [i]Africoid[/i] phenotype, if we are to take at face value what you say about "norms"? [QUOTE] NOT the notion that the features (ortochnathous or others in ‘’caucasoid’’) was either developed there or is restricted to that place. Ortochnathous profiles and other manifestations of indigenous variations listed under ‘’Caucasoid’’ are according to my knowledge not the norm in southern Egypt, so it wouldn’t be useful to list it in Africoid.[/QUOTE]So then, according to you, prognathism is the "norm" in southern Egypt; according to what comprehensive cranio-metric analysis of that region? Also, what about nasal aperture; one of the central features of the so-called "caucasoid" typology? Cephalometric index? [QUOTE] It would be far more useful to consider it in a indigenous variation context rather than as a feature you can expect to see in high frequencies in southern Egypt or in Africans in general. If we were to go to Senegal, Nilotic/Saharan populations or other African nations who are known to have ortochnathous profiles in high frequencies, it would be a different story.[/QUOTE]Your post shows a mindset embroiled in contradiction. On the one hand, you imply that African variation should be dismissed in favor of baseless "generalization", and on the other, you speak of high incidences of these very same variations amongst those "who are known to have orthognathous profiles" that we are supposed to dismiss under [i]your[/i] banner of [i]typological[/i] generalization. [QUOTE] [QUOTE] Originally posted by The Explorer: Did your source mention celphalometric index in its definition, or nasal aperture? Then how do you know those very traits would not have been implicated as well, had the source found it necessary to implicate it? [/QUOTE]Because the observations and evaluations were listed under each individual X-ray[/QUOTE]Good. Where does your source place these traits in its cranio-phsyiological dichotomy? What are we told about these "Africoid" cephalometric index and nasal aperture that distinguishes it from "caucasoid", the only other variant your source cites? [QUOTE] Sigh….. Whenever someone agrees that whatever he says is a generalization (the features listed under ‘’Africoid’’ and ‘’Caucasoid’’), he acknowledges that there is variation and exception. [/QUOTE]You mean like overlapping variations; if so, according to what source? The whole root premise of these typological concepts is to restrict variation, and compartmentalize it to rigid, clearly demarcated and idealized types. This is one of the reasons why these concepts objectively fail and can no longer be scientifically tenable, and why they have scientifically fallen out of use. Ever heard of the expression: "variations within populations tend to be greater than those between populations"? [QUOTE] That is why I said, the generalizations are only nonsense if you don’t understand the concept of variation. In my mind, there is no reason to list the features that are known to be the product of variation next to the ‘’Africoid’’ features that occur in way higher frequencies, because variation, in and of itself can include all the features in the world. [/QUOTE]That is right: it is in "your mind", and hence, baseless opinion that has no objective backing. You disagree; let's see empirical scientific demonstration of your generalization. Your source cites one variation, which is "caucasoid", and yet, in [i]your[/i] mind, you see no reason to cite "other variations" which are presumably "products of variation" :D ? Gosh, do you even read what you write? [QUOTE] What would be the useful about listing thousands of features that are not even the norm[/QUOTE]So, orthognathism is not a norm in Africa? According to what empirical continental-wide scientific study? [QUOTE] Furthermore, if ortochnathous profiles were included in the Africoid category, rather than the variation category, how would one separate them from ortochnathous non Africans? [/QUOTE]The variation category, which in your case, would be that [i]lone[/i] "caucasoid" category. The answer is: you can't separate them, and precisely why your rigid typological constructs fail. [QUOTE] Certain features can be the same without a need to cluster per se, I don’t think they would cluster at all. Icelanders and Greeks have certain features in common but their populations don't cluster in the least. Researches make distinctions between earlier hominids and moderns, and if they would cluster to moderns, they would be modern, wouldn’t they? [/QUOTE]Wrong question posed as an answer. You were asked if Africans formed their own separate cluster outside that of other recent humans, in a plot involving earlier hominids, since you generalized Africans as having "archaic" features, which they presumably share with earlier hominids. Hence, you were also asked if Africans would first cluster to these hominids than they do to other recent humans, not to mention the notion that Africans somehow cluster closer to these hominids than other recent humans. Your non-responsive posturing suggests you have no material backing for your claims. [QUOTE] I’m not arguing for clustering, I’m arguing for retained features. It also depends on what you try to measure and whether or not those ‘’things’’ are found more in Europeans or Africans. [/QUOTE]"Retained" features translates into "affinities", and "affinities" translate into clustering. Simple . If that were not so, then your whole case about "archaic" falls apart quite swiftly. Any cephalometric analysis will generally take into account the variable/features you described in your list. So, there really is no excuse for not supporting your uncorroborated opinions. [QUOTE] The back of the head and teeth of Neanderthals reminds brace of northern Europeans, while the constant sloping foreheads, forwrd projection of the mouth region, retreading chin, etc would remind [b]any objective observer[/b] of Africans (generalization).[/QUOTE]Like which "objecitve observer"; provide the name(s), and specifics of this "objective observer's" empirical scientific observations that answer the host of unanswered questions I put to you earlier, with regards to those traits. Otherwise, this is just another logical fallacy. [QUOTE] Anyone can type in the names of: Idaltu, Omo, Qafze, Skhull etc. and see that they have the features I listed, also, we all know that many Cro Magnons share features with Africans and Australians. And Australians DO have brow ridges, so why would you make noting archaic features in moderns a question of being sane?[/QUOTE]It's simple really. Variations amongst recent humans pale in comparison to stark distinctions between them and earlier hominids. The distinctions are stark, precisely because change has occurred, and hence, [i]insane[/i] to render some micro-evolutionary variations between recent humans as "archaic" while others "not archaic". Yes, Australian aborigines are known to have brow ridges, but so do recent Europeans. Now what? [QUOTE] It seems to me that you would only agree to the observation of archaic features in modern people if the people in question are not (only) Africans.[/QUOTE]On what material basis would you assume that? [QUOTE] If this is true, I didn’t expect this bias from you.[/QUOTE]I guess the answer is right here: you have no basis for that assumption. [QUOTE] Retained archaic features are archaic features to me whether they occur in other people/me or not.[/QUOTE]Then much of your own anatomy would be archaic, don't you think? [QUOTE] But to answer your question, I don’t know if the features are retained because science hasn’t reached a consensus yet about whether or not Neanderthals had anything to do with their (european) ancestors. Cold adapted body plans in Europeans arose when the Neanderthals were (nearly) extinct. Africans, Australians and the ancestors of Eurasians on the other hand, morphed from homo erectus eventually to modern people, so what would you call those shared features I listed, if not retained?[/QUOTE]You fail to answer my question, only saying that you "don't know", yet have the audacity to say other features implicated in earlier hominids are "retained" in Africans, and that they are "archaic"? Rather, you go onto merely ask me a question, which quite frankly, has nothing to do with anything I've said. [QUOTE] What would you call Australian brow ridges, if not retained from earlier hominids?[/QUOTE]Simple. I would call it "brow ridges", as you just did. I know the Australian aborigines who have them, likely have them because it is a product of micro-evolution, possibly stemming from the interplay of dietary habits, lifestyle and pressures of the external environment. It is not even certain if elements in the successful OOA a.m.h. migrants had this trait, but certainly, Africans who have [i]deeper[/i]-root clades lack it. This suggests that the trait in Australians is more than likely a matter of micro-evolution than [i]retention[/i] of the trait. If so, is it reasonable to call it "archaic"? [QUOTE] Would you also deny retaining other features we share with erectus like standing up straight, walking on two feet and having a more straighter profile compared to pre erectus hominids?[/QUOTE]Red herring. [QUOTE] [QUOTE] Originally posted by The Explorer: You are kidding right; why would you be referring to my "own usage", if I had not provided one herein? I have questioned others on their usage of the term, but I fail to see how that remotely resembles anything that needs to be attributed to me. [/QUOTE]The thing is, I don’t have to know about your personal usage of a word to know that you DO attach positive, neutral or negative meaning to it. [/QUOTE]Well, then why would you be asking me if I agreed or disagreed with my own usage of the word, if a) I had not provided one to begin with, and b)if you don't know what that usage is? [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3