About the limb ratios of the ancient Egyptians, and I actually thought it raised some fairly decent points (although overall ignoring the fact that their limb ratios put them closer to American blacks than whites)
Just curious as to the comments you at Egyptsearch may have regarding this video (I will eventually respond to it anyways)
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
maybe some of yall centrics can go cause some trouble there, I approve
It will no doubt turn out to be a biased website where people who have opposing views will get banned.
Do you have comments on the Limb Ratio video? I wanted to see comments from people like Zaharan, Explorer etc., who know what they're talking about.
Note: It isn't Phoenician7's forum. Another member is listed as the admin. The Admin doesn't really know what he's talking about, as he asks more questions and opinions rather than cite counter evidence for the studies he claims "Afro-centrics" use.
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: I noticed Phoenician7 has a new website
maybe some of yall centrics can go cause some trouble there, I approve
Yeh, its all fun for you until the myth of the six million is brought up. Posted by Whatbox (Member # 10819) on :
WOW! Ohmoigwawsh! lol
Let's see where do i begin.
I mean wow, i have to say though that i like htat he read the study. A lot of anti-afrocentrists here have oft neglected to do just that even with the studies they felt initially served their own interests.
Firstly, why not warn us to skip the whole first minute of the video which just accuses people of omitting like a line in some citation of the Zakrzewski statue study presumably cited "far and wide" cross the net? I've posted the, as he titles it, "actual quote from the real study" - the one not missing the sentence or whatever. I thought if anything it enhances the quote, if ever i forgot it it'd have to have been because of quoting someone else, not my own decision. I'm not even sure whether or not i'm an afrocentrist so i'm not sure whether or not i care to review that simple point of the video for a whole minute to some techno music.
The guy misleadingly mentions in text, "the study emphasizes the [tropical] body plan was due to diet".
However, in the actual citation he shows right above it it just says that some "pattern suggests that the Badarian sample may have suffered from some degree of growth inhibition. The increase in stature over the Predynastic period supports the model that as agriculture became more reliable, growth stunting was reduced"
This is funny because for the entire prior whole minute he went over a citation containing this text:
"The values for the brachial and crural indices show that the distal segments of each limb are longer relative to the proximal segments than in many “African” populations (data from Aiello and Dean, 1990). This pattern is supported by Figure 7 (a plot of population mean femoral and tibial lengths; data from Ruff, 1994), which indicates that the Egyptians generally have tropical body plans. Of the Egyptian samples, only the Badarian and Early Dynastic period populations have shorter tibiae than predicted from femoral length. Despite these differences, all samples lie relatively clustered together as compared to the other populations."
i.e. they, the Badarians were less tropically adapted outliers -- so even if we are to assume the diet remarks were talking about how tropical the stature was (as opposed to plain height maybe), it would actually serve to reverse his point. In other words, the ones the least tropically adapted also had irregular growth issues (likely in a time period btw when the region was becoming more arid) -- big whoopdi. ~
Phoenician7 cites more as the study notes that after a maximum mean height in the Early Dynastic height declined especially during the Middle Kingdom (or MK) period. All the MK samples are noted as of being from Gebelein and p7 explains this as due to an influx of "Nubians", as Gebelein per i think the same study was noted as having a colony of "Nubian" mercenaries, whatever those actually were. Ancient Egyptians did actually employ the Medjai, so i'll go with it. It's funny that just before this the Egyptians themselves would have undergone an increase in height and yet then it's acknowledged as diet and not racial. ~
He mentions Zakrzewski says the super-negroid classification doesn't mean they were that race and interprets it to mean they weren't negros as if he accepts the usage of this racially loaded term. He then goes on to mention that C. Loring Brace says it'd be better labeled super-tropical than super-negroid as the former is a less racially loaded term and assumes afrocentrists to be in disagreement to this. He also basically begs you to think this hyper tropical phenotype means nothing -- a subtropical people appearing super tropical (in ways more tropical than Afro Americans -- Raxter et. al. 2007) being nothing other than adaptation. Of course it's adaptation! You do the maths. ~
Later he cites again, as the study notes that the sole other Gebelein sample taken in the Early Dynastic was "significantly distant" and that there is "no simple continuity there" -- he then concludes there was no continuity at the site. Nevermind the fact that his Badarians and EDP are the ones the scientist felt the need to mention were outliers and nevermind the fact that it was previously said that all samples lie relatively clustered together as compared to the other populations. Yawn. ~
He talks about the mummy "Ginger" found near Gebelein and portrays this as an example of it. ~
He shows more citations on Gebelein irregularity, this time in the form of sexual dimorphism and attributed to Egyptians of Nubian descent. ~
He then takes a citation that compares the female height with respect to male height in percentage form in three different groups: white Americans, black Americans, and Badarians. The Badarians show the least sexual dimorphism (which isn't uncommon for Palaeolithic era Africans and they are Neolithic and early Historic), blacks show the greatest difference between the sexes. He interprets this to mean they, Badarians, the outlier in terms of tropicality if you will, show greater affinity for whites and this over mere measurements of height. ~
He goes on to cite Brace '93 and other old studies claiming to have something to say about relying on bone measurements .. while relying on the same -- he cites a peculiarity they had which is shoulder to pelvis width being about the same in males and females which, just for the males, it is mentioned is identical to Europeans (i thought it was the case for all males).
I did this for the heck of it but upon reading the vid's comments it looks like i wasted time on a production for a bunch of slow people. Sigh.
Posted by Near (Member # 18223) on :
^Nice post. I just made three videos in response to some of his, and will upload them tommorrow.
Wait, so the body plans are not the result of diet? Rather, Badarian had stunted growth, which changed when agriculture became more reliable? And according to the study, they were extremely tropically adapted (more so than other African populations). And the MK "Nubian" sample, Zakrzewski states all samples lie clustered together as compared to other populations including "Nubians" right?
Sorry if my questions are stupid >_>
Are tropical body plans more than just height?
Posted by Whatbox (Member # 10819) on :
Thanx.
I wrote nothing more about him citing Brace '93 because, as that very study itself states, it was designed to verify what populations could not at all be part of eachother, population inaffinity rather than affinity and should not at all be taken as evidencing in the way of the latter.
TABLE 4. Intra-limb bone length indices in US and Egyptian samples
********************* Crural indexA__ | ___Brachial indexB ******************* Males_ \ _Females | __Males___ \ _Females_ **************** Mean - SE \ Mean - SE | Mean - SE__ \ Mean - SE ****** U.S. Whites: 81.9 - 0.4 \ 82.0 - 0.4 | 74.3 - 0.4__ \ 73.5 - 0.5 ****** U.S. Blacks: 83.7 - 0.4 \ 83.8 - 0.5 | 77.1 - 0.5_ \ 76.5 - 0.5 Ancient Egyptians: 83.6c - 0.2 \ 82.8 - 0.3 | 77.9c - 0.5 \ 77.5c - 0.6
- courtesy Raxter et. al. 2007
Posted by Near (Member # 18223) on :
quote:Originally posted by Whatbox: Thanx.
I wrote nothing more about him citing Brace '93 because, as that very study itself states, it was designed to verify what populations could not at all be part of eachother, population inaffinity rather than affinity and should not at all be taken as evidencing in the way of the latter.
TABLE 4. Intra-limb bone length indices in US and Egyptian samples
********************* Crural indexA__ | ___Brachial indexB ******************* Males_ \ _Females | __Males___ \ _Females_ **************** Mean - SE \ Mean - SE | Mean - SE__ \ Mean - SE ****** U.S. Whites: 81.9 - 0.4 \ 82.0 - 0.4 | 74.3 - 0.4__ \ 73.5 - 0.5 ****** U.S. Blacks: 83.7 - 0.4 \ 83.8 - 0.5 | 77.1 - 0.5_ \ 76.5 - 0.5 Ancient Egyptians: 83.6c - 0.2 \ 82.8 - 0.3 | 77.9c - 0.5 \ 77.5c - 0.6
- courtesy Raxter et. al. 2007
Thanks again. In one of his responses to me, he cited Brace '93 regarding Naqada crania (even though Brace apparently left out several African groups according to Keita's critique) in turn I brought up his 2005 study which shows Naqada closest to Somali, and modern and ancient Nubians. Apparently, he likes that study Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Near: ^Nice post. I just made three videos in response to some of his, and will upload them tommorrow.
Wait, so the body plans are not the result of diet? Rather, Badarian had stunted growth, which changed when agriculture became more reliable? And according to the study, they were extremely tropically adapted (more so than other African populations). And the MK "Nubian" sample, Zakrzewski states all samples lie clustered together as compared to other populations including "Nubians" right?
Sorry if my questions are stupid >_>
Are tropical body plans more than just height?
The main item is the limbs in proportion to the body. In the tropical body plan the limbs are long relative to the trunk. In cold adaptation the limbs shorten so there is less surface area to be exposed to the cold. Allen's rule is a biological rule posited by Joel Asaph Allen in 1877. It states that endotherms from colder climates usually have shorter limbs (or appendages) than the equivalent animals from warmer climates.
The term endotherm refers to animals (birds, mammals, some fishes and insects, and even some plants) that are capable of generating sufficient amounts of heat energy to maintain a high core temperature (e.g. 37-40 °C in birds and mammals) by metabolic means – usually derived from aerobic activity of locomotor muscles in animals and by unique biochemical mechanisms in plants (e.g.,skunk cabbage). Endotherms differ from an ectotherm because they typically have core temperatures above that of the surrounding environment, whereas the core temperatures of ectotherms depend on external sources of heat – primarily from solar radiation.
-how can you have a three video reply lined up and ask a basic question like that? sorry to point to this
Posted by Near (Member # 18223) on :
Posted by Near (Member # 18223) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Near: ^Nice post. I just made three videos in response to some of his, and will upload them tommorrow.
Wait, so the body plans are not the result of diet? Rather, Badarian had stunted growth, which changed when agriculture became more reliable? And according to the study, they were extremely tropically adapted (more so than other African populations). And the MK "Nubian" sample, Zakrzewski states all samples lie clustered together as compared to other populations including "Nubians" right?
Sorry if my questions are stupid >_>
Are tropical body plans more than just height?
The main item is the limbs in proportion to the body. In the tropical body plan the limbs are long relative to the trunk. In cold adaptation the limbs shorten so there is less surface area to be exposed to the cold. Allen's rule is a biological rule posited by Joel Asaph Allen in 1877. It states that endotherms from colder climates usually have shorter limbs (or appendages) than the equivalent animals from warmer climates.
The term endotherm refers to animals (birds, mammals, some fishes and insects, and even some plants) that are capable of generating sufficient amounts of heat energy to maintain a high core temperature (e.g. 37-40 °C in birds and mammals) by metabolic means – usually derived from aerobic activity of locomotor muscles in animals and by unique biochemical mechanisms in plants (e.g.,skunk cabbage). Endotherms differ from an ectotherm because they typically have core temperatures above that of the surrounding environment, whereas the core temperatures of ectotherms depend on external sources of heat – primarily from solar radiation.
-how can you have a three video reply lined up and ask a basic question like that? sorry to point to this
I just wasn't sure about the exact specifications of tropical body plans, aside from the fact that they are the result of adaption to environment. I haven't found much material to read about this subject either; on the other hand, I have read a lot of studies on Egyptian biological affinities, ABO blood types etc., Haven't found much on tropical body plans besides being adaptions to tropical environments. I'll try searching for articles via wileyonline and also see what articles I can access via NEU
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
The tropical-body indexes cannot be deemed as "nothing more than adaptation", as it is appearing in a people situated in the sub-tropical area of earth. All the ancient Egyptian specimens tested here report tropical body proportions, so saying one group is "more" tropically adapted than another makes little sense.
I suppose pressures meted out by access to dietary and social stresses may influence in growth, development and sexual dimorphism in some ways, but it has no bearings on the differences in modal indexes of body proportion ratios as a function of annual mean temperature differences between tropical and sub-tropical temperate regions of earth. In the case of our Egyptian specimens, this squarely points to recent origins in the tropics, which is why the researchers were hard-pressed to notice significant changes of this element with respect to time [i.e. within the space of time studied].
As for the issue about "Nubian" mercenaries in the MK samples, it is mainly conjectural--i.e. no solid proof. Zakrewski's only justification for this is hearsay about "Nubian" mercenaries in Egypt, and the switch in coefficient of variation from females reporting higher values to males reporting higher values than females...but this was also the trend before the Early Dynastic and Old Kingdom specimens.
^She also adds to the above, that there is declining tragectory in length of the humerus bone vis-a-vis change seen in the ulna bone, with change in time. But this change is more or less in tune with those seen in other individual segments of the limbs. The only difference here, is that the ratio of humerus/ulna parallels this trend in concordance with change in time, while the ratios of the humerus/radius and the femur/tibia appear to be discordant with change in time. Nowhere is it demonstrated that there is change in the following fundamental pattern, despite variation in size:
their physical proportions were more like modern negroes than those of modern whites, with limbs that were relatively long compared with the trunk, and distal segments that were long compared with the proximal segments.
^Robins, regarding both predynastic and Dynastic Egyptian specimens. As for the verbal gymnastics, saying that they "look like Negroes but not necessarily Negroes", it is not the first time we come across such in Eurocentric discourse. I've demonstrated it on another thread, that Robins is guilty of this. Also see: Blog link Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: [QB] The tropical-body indexes cannot be deemed as "nothing more than adaptation", as it is appearing in a people situated in the sub-tropical area of earth.
Can you rephrase this sentence?
Did you mean tropical body indexes cannot be deemed as "nothing more than adaptation", because people in the sub-tropical regions also have the same indexes people as in the tropical regions?
Are you distinguishing tropical and sub tropical but then saying they have the same limb ratios?
Also what if one were to just say that tropical and sub tropical environments are too similar to show differences in people's limb indexes, that differences appear in regions that are more significantly colder?
You are saying that tropical body indexes are due to more than adaptation. -what else?
Also, what are the limb ratios of tropical people in various places that are not Africa? are they similar?
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
^I can't believe that at this stage, that I have to help you read what is otherwise very direct and plain language. Use your head: if am making a contrast between modal body proportion ratios prevalent in residencies of sub-tropical temperate latitudes and tropical ones, how can I be saying they are the same in the same breath?!
I hope you understand that sub-tropical essentially means outside the tropics. If one wants to be rather specific about it, such latitudes can also be called supra-tropical and sub-tropical respectively.
If you are making the case that sub-tropical and tropical environments are too similar to make a distinction between average body-limb proportion ratios of populations residing them, then it is your task to elaborate on this.
As for examples of limb-proportion scores, a link was provided for interested parties. Moreover, you should be familiar with these scores, as they have been cited multiple times in discussions involving yourself. If you are a slow learner, that is something you have to deal with.
Posted by Whatbox (Member # 10819) on :
@liness:
= more than just adaptation = genetic affinity with and migration involving folks from climate where such adaptation comes about.
quote:Originally posted by Near: Are tropical body plans more than just height?
This explains your first question (answered below).
Let me explain this citation in my first post.
Follow the bolded and this should answer your question easy.
In the more Tropically adapted:
"The values for the brachial and crural indices show that the distal segments of each limb are longer relative to the proximal segments than in many “African” populations (data from Aiello and Dean, 1990). This pattern is supported by Figure 7 (a plot of population mean femoral and tibial lengths; data from Ruff, 1994), which indicates that the Egyptians generally have tropical body plans."
- Zakrzewski et. al. 2003
If tropical body plans were height this would be dumb, it wouldn't be able to tell anyone anything at all.
There are tell groups of people on every continent (Swedes of Sweden and certain Sudanese groups i think the Shilluks being some of the tallest in the world .. and Kenyan Maasai are pretty tall) and most if not all pygmy (abnormally short) populations that i know of live in more tropical climates than whites: they are found in inner Africa and Southern Asia.
By the way, Badarians here are on the lower end of the Egyptian tropically adapted scale:
quote:"Of the Egyptian samples, only the Badarian and Early Dynastic period populations have shorter tibiae than predicted from femoral length. Despite these differences, all samples lie relatively clustered together as compared to the other populations."
Do you know what a Tibia or Femur bone is? The Tibia is your major lower leg bone another word for shin, and the femur is your thigh bone.
The more tropically adapted you are the longer your distal (distant) limbs relative to your proximal (close) in *intra-limb* (limb part to limb part) indices or measurements. Limb-trunk (limb to trunk) measurements are supposedly more accurate though as per a newer 2007 study involving ancient Egyptian - black and white American comparisons done by Raxter.
Does this clear it up for you?
quote:Originally posted by Near: Wait, so the body plans are not the result of diet?
No. She does mention though, their stunted growth. It isn't even apparent from the video however if this at all affected their measurements in terms of tropical adaptation as opposed to just stunting their growth. If it did affect how tropical they were, stunted outlier people as an example of his least tropically adapted ancient Egyptians (who all still mostly cluster together) is not evidence i would use were i him. Makes him seem desperate.
quote: And according to the study, they were extremely tropically adapted (more so than other African populations).
Ancient Egyptians in general yes.
quote: And the MK "Nubian" sample, Zakrzewski states all samples lie clustered together as compared to other populations including "Nubians" right?
On the vid he shows a part where she says she's holding them as a potential out group of outlier because of their apparent admixture with Nubians. Really though, as we know here there were plenty of Dynasties and regions with influence from folks people today lazily call "Nubians". The original ancient "Egyptian" term comes from a city going by the name Nub.t or "Golden" and there i think was a vocational title along the same lines (gold miner).
I'm not sure whether or not she actually did exclude or include the sample and frankly you'll have to read the study yourself, i'm more interested in the fairly new field genetics now if anything (the picture is still clearing up, it's current, fresh, more intriguing for me) and less in such a video.
By the way, just as you edited you post with more questions i'd before you finished editing edited mine in terms of my commentary to clarify. Someimtes i'm incoherent when i write fast and have to recheck my text, hope i didn't cause any confusion.
Posted by Near (Member # 18223) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: The tropical-body indexes cannot be deemed as "nothing more than adaptation", as it is appearing in a people situated in the sub-tropical area of earth. All the ancient Egyptian specimens tested here report tropical body proportions, so saying one group is "more" tropically adapted than another makes little sense.
I suppose pressures meted out by access to dietary and social stresses may influence in growth, development and sexual dimorphism in some ways, but it has no bearings on the differences in modal indexes of body proportion ratios as a function of annual mean temperature differences between tropical and sub-tropical temperate regions of earth. In the case of our Egyptian specimens, this squarely points to recent origins in the tropics, which is why the researchers were hard-pressed to notice significant changes of this element with respect to time [i.e. within the space of time studied].
As for the issue about "Nubian" mercenaries in the MK samples, it is mainly conjectural--i.e. no solid proof. Zakrewski's only justification for this is hearsay about "Nubian" mercenaries in Egypt, and the switch in coefficient of variation from females reporting higher values to males reporting higher values than females...but this was also the trend before the Early Dynastic and Old Kingdom specimens.
^She also adds to the above, that there is declining tragectory in length of the humerus bone vis-a-vis change seen in the ulna bone, with change in time. But this change is more or less in tune with those seen in other individual segments of the limbs. The only difference here, is that the ratio of humerus/ulna parallels this trend in concordance with change in time, while the ratios of the humerus/radius and the femur/tibia appear to be discordant with change in time. Nowhere is it demonstrated that there is change in the following fundamental pattern, despite variation in size:
their physical proportions were more like modern negroes than those of modern whites, with limbs that were relatively long compared with the trunk, and distal segments that were long compared with the proximal segments.
^Robins, regarding both predynastic and Dynastic Egyptian specimens. As for the verbal gymnastics, saying that they "look like Negroes but not necessarily Negroes", it is not the first time we come across such in Eurocentric discourse. I've demonstrated it on another thread, that Robins is guilty of this. Also see: Blog link
Thanks and great blog
Posted by Near (Member # 18223) on :
Whatbox- Yeah, I was confused by your original response. And yes, I know what the Tibia and Femur is. Thanks
Posted by Whatbox (Member # 10819) on :
Your welcome.
Well, i was just explaining in pretty straight forward fashion p7's video. I guess the video's the true source of the confusion.
Apologies.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
Near, I'm glad that you found my post useful.
quote:Originally posted by Whatbox:
quote:Originally posted by Near:
And the MK "Nubian" sample, Zakrzewski states all samples lie clustered together as compared to other populations including "Nubians" right?
On the vid he shows a part where she says she's holding them as a potential out group of outlier because of their apparent admixture with Nubians. Really though, as we know here there were plenty of Dynasties and regions with influence from folks people today lazily call "Nubians". The original ancient "Egyptian" term comes from a city going by the name Nub.t or "Golden" and there i think was a vocational title along the same lines (gold miner).
I'm not sure whether or not she actually did exclude or include the sample and frankly you'll have to read the study yourself,
I can positively say that She did NOT exclude the MK sample. It is precisely because the MK sample is included, that she describes the trends in long bone lengths through time, save for the fibula, the measurements of which is said to have no correlation to the change in the time frames under study.
Again, as I noted earlier, she provides no concrete evidence about the MK supposedly containing "Nubian" mercenaries other than to say that Stele tell us about their presence in the region in the Middle Kingdom, and that coefficient of variance reverts back to the trend of the male samples having larger variance than the female counterparts of the same time frame. I highlight "reverts back to", because that is how it was in specimens prior to the Early Dynastic and Old Kingdom. So, in this regard, the MK sample really is NOT an outlier; it has precedences. The only question is, why is there this "boomerang-like" effect in variance?
Let's examine what the measurements tell us, according to Zakrzewski:
1)Reduction in humerus length accompanies increase in ulna length, through the time frames under study...
The ratio of maximum humerus length to maximum ulna length (XLH/XLU) shows a reduction through time. Plotting each of the lengths separately by time period shows that maximum humerus length (XLH) follows the same bow-like pattern seen in Figures 3 and 5, while maximum ulna length (XLU) increases in length through time, especially in males.
Effect: There is yet another reversion back to a trend seen in specimens preceding the Early Dynastic and Old Kingdom specimens!
2)Aforementioned coefficient of variance...
The coefficients of variation for the computed statures for each time period are plotted in Figure 4. Figure 4 indicates that over the start of the Dynastic period, greater variation is found in the computed statures of females than males, and that the reverse is true by the MK.
Effect: Reversion back to pre-Early Dynastic trend.
3)Reduction in tibial length after the Early Dynastic sample...
See fig. 5 for details. We are told that this reduction is the general trend...
A reduction in stature and long bone lengths was found through the Dynastic periods, although the decrease occurred most in the MK sample.
We are not clued in on the precise magnitude of reduction in the humerus reduction, except that it follows the pattern [the values through time produce the so-called "bow-like" trajectory] seen in stature and tibial length reduction.
Effect: Another reversion to pre-Early Dynastic era trend!
In light of this, I would NOT say that the MK is an outlier, but rather, I'd ask why there is a reversion of trends. This is what Zakrzewski sought to disentangle, as she acknowledges:
The same bow-shape pattern is also seen in all long bone lengths (e.g., Fig. 5). This pattern suggests that the Badarian sample may have suffered from some degree of growth inhibition. The increase in stature over the Predynastic periods supports the model that as agriculture became more reliable, growth stunting was reduced. The later reduction in stature is harder to explain from this model, and is more likely to be related to changes in social ranking and how well the samples represent and cross-cut the social hierarchy of the period.
It is against this backdrop, the "harder to explain" situation that Zakrzewski implicates "Nubian" presence, and/or invokes "changes in social ranking". There is a caveat to the second possibility, which is: if it is assumed that the specimens from the Old Kingdom and Early Dynastic period represented socially "high-ranking" personalities, with better access to resources. Should this be so, then "Nubian presence" justification would not be necessary. In other words, the MK represented less well-off individuals than those of the Old Kingdom and Early Dynastic period, and hence, the reason for the reduction trend in long bone lengths and stature. If push comes to shove, just based on objective assessment of trends in specimens before and after the Early Dynastic specimens, this would be the more likely scenario than the invocation of "Nubian presence". Otherwise, one would have to assume that "Nubian presence" was there in pretty much all the specimens preceding the Early Dynastic specimens, because what we see is essentially a reversion of trends, as opposed to a totally new trend. It should be kept in mind that a segment of Early pre-Dynastic specimens too had been sourced from a Gebelein site, and they show more or less the similar trends in stature and tibial lengths as that seen in the MK specimens.
Short of specifying the names on the burial sites pointing specifically to "Nubian" personalities, her assessment is largely circumstantial and conjectural, as I pointed out earlier. And even if one were to take her words at face value, "Nubian" presence doesn't account for "tropical-body" proportions in preceding specimens, presumably with "little to no Nubian presence"!
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: The tropical-body indexes cannot be deemed as "nothing more than adaptation", as it is appearing in a people situated in the sub-tropical area of earth.
by this you mean diet?
Posted by Whatbox (Member # 10819) on :
Funny Brace et. al. 2006 Diagram for phoenhome7 to digest, lol:
Notice the position of the Natufian of Israel, "originators of the Neolithic" (precedent and requisite for "civilization"), with respect to Niger-Congo.
Look at modern mediterraneans. Compare to "Northeast Africans ancient and modern". Ouch.
quote:the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: The tropical-body indexes [....]
by this you mean diet?
^^Not just tropical, super tropical, and not just size @ near & lioness, but proportions so no its not diet.
Posted by Near (Member # 18223) on :
quote:Originally posted by Whatbox: Funny Brace et. al. 2006 Diagram for phoenhome7 to digest, lol:
Notice the position of the Natufian of Israel, "originators of the Neolithic" (precedent and requisite for "civilization"), with respect to Niger-Congo.
Look at modern mediterraneans. Compare to "Northeast Africans ancient and modern". Ouch.
quote:the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: The tropical-body indexes [....]
by this you mean diet?
^^Not just tropical, super tropical, and not just size @ near & lioness, but proportions so no its not diet.
Not sure how to post images, but Brace also shows the Naqada group to cluster with Somalis, Bronza Age Nubians, and Modern Nubians. Also noted by other authors (i.e.,Ricaut et al., 2008)
Posted by Whatbox (Member # 10819) on :
See the link to the left of the text box (left of box where you type) saying UBB Code[tm] is enabled.? Click on it (or on this one) and the instructions on how to do things are there.
******************
Back on topic: And the above is Brace et. al. 2006
The one anti-afrocentrists find more appealing is 1993 which interestingly does a sample of folks from Kom Ombos in the early holocene or extra late pleistocene and they group with modern West Africans.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: [QUOTE]Originally posted by The Explorer: The tropical-body indexes cannot be deemed as "nothing more than adaptation", as it is appearing in a people situated in the sub-tropical area of earth.
somebody please explain what Explorer means when he says cannot be deemed "nothing more than adaptation" Is there something more than adaptation involved in tropical indexes?
Posted by Whatbox (Member # 10819) on :
At your service.
No -- but migration is involved when you find super-negroid or super tropical types outside of the tropics. Do you get this or is it hard to ingest?
Posted by Near (Member # 18223) on :
quote:Originally posted by Whatbox: At your service.
No -- but migration is involved when you find super-negroid or super tropical types outside of the tropics. Do you get this or is it hard to ingest?
Isn't southern Egypt in the tropics? If so, couldn't they have adapted in Egypt?
Posted by Whatbox (Member # 10819) on :
Interestingly, the current Paleantological evidence suggests, for Egypt's main ancient paternal strain and when and where it may have derived, may have been in an isolated group of folks relegated to a Lake Nubia refuge during this hyper-arid phase (corresponding with the Ogolian) in which the Sahara was drier and more expansive than it now is. Keep in mind water is slower to give up heat and where there is less it is hot - today when you look at Earth on weather maps deserts are like frying pans, though I'm sure it can get cold and windy at night.
So on that pretext I'd say you have an interesting hypothesis.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
A portion of modern Southern Egypt lies in the tropics, Ancient Egypt didn't. I'm not sure what the tropic of cancer has to do with it though, even though it's mentioned often. Limb elongation correlates with mean annual temperature.
Posted by Whatbox (Member # 10819) on :
Whoops, meant to put instead of "ancient paternal strain" "ancient paternal genetic strain" for the line of the pharaohs and many other peoples back then in the region.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: A portion of modern Southern Egypt lies in the tropics, Ancient Egypt didn't. I'm not sure what the tropic of cancer has to do with it though, even though it's mentioned often. Limb elongation correlates with mean annual temperature.
Hey, read my post, i'm talking about when people were confined to Lake Nubia in the Ogolian era (before ancient egypt's existence) when the archaeological records of North Africa in general indicate there was a complete hiatus in the Sahara (think Tichitt-Walata on the West African end) so "ancient egypt's" at times ambiguous borders have entirely nothing to do with the points about his little hypothesis in my post. And "Ancient Egypt's" size oscillated through time, over the coarse of their over three millenniums long existence in any event.
It's not that i believe his theory; just makes things more interesting. I'm not a "white washer" and am no egalitarian "mix-centrist", lets ignore these and other such labels when it comes to general pursuits of truth shall we?
By the way, see the black in the infrared image below where the desert is and how it's not simply a line of black neatly across and reflecting our "equator"? It reflects the temperature thing i was referring to. Temperature correlates to longitude to a degree but also to topography.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
Yeah, I didn't disagee with what you was saying though, it was more in the open giving ma 2 cents
Posted by Whatbox (Member # 10819) on :
okie, cool suspected so
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
The limb-ratio studies of the Egyptians are very clear. Only idiots and lyingasses can misconstrue them. Idiots like Phoenician7 want to talk around the conclusions or perform mental acrobats around them, but there is no other way around the salient FACT that the Egyptians had tropical body builds like Africans further south. This follows the biological principle of Allen's rule and shows that Egyptians have recent ancestry from further south in Africa.
Posted by Spiralman (Member # 16230) on :
^ Erm. Modern Egyptians have the same body plan. Tropical body plans do not indicate race.
The authorities made it clear that the Tropical body plan of the Ancient Egyptian does not indicate that they were Negroes. Stop acting like you know more than the authorities themselves when you have no credentials on matter to make such a claim.
Posted by Calabooz (Member # 18238) on :
quote:Originally posted by Spiralman: ^ Erm. Modern Egyptians have the same body plan.
Please provide evidence for this claim.
quote:Tropical body plans do not indicate race
Perhaps you should have read this thread before making such an asinine comment. Super tropical body plans appearing in a supra-tropical people (i.e., outside the tropics) is very significant and indicates migration from a tropical place, which in this case would be sub-Saharan Africa.
quote:The authorities made it clear that the Tropical body plan of the Ancient Egyptian does not indicate that they were Negroes.
Nobody uses the term negro anyways. The extreme tropical adaptions of the ancient Egyptians does mean that they are descended from Recent migrants from a tropical place i.e., sub-Saharan Africa. Egypt is NOT in the tropics
quote:Stop acting like you know more than the authorities themselves when you have no credentials on matter to make such a claim
Which authorities? I think The Explorer and Whatbox did a pretty good job at explaining things here, and Explorer already briefly explained Robins (1983) claim and posted a link to his blog. Even C.Loring Brace mentions:
quote:skin color intensification and distal limb elongation is apparent wherever people have been long-term residents of the tropics.
Note: Brace's 1993 study is extremely flawed, I just cited it to prove the point that tropical adaption and skin color are Correlated.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Spiralman: ^ Erm. Modern Egyptians have the same body plan. Tropical body plans do not indicate race.
Modern Egyptians have the same amount of African ancestry as other North Africans (around 50% depending on the study). North Africans have bodyplan proportions that are intermediate between Africans and Europeans.
Explain what mechanisms would have AE retain their ancestral bodyplan when they've experienced significant geneflow?
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Spiralman: ^ Erm. Modern Egyptians have the same body plan.
The Trinkaus study commonly cited to back up this claim used predynastic Egyptians, not modern ones.
Posted by Calabooz (Member # 18238) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
quote:Originally posted by Spiralman: ^ Erm. Modern Egyptians have the same body plan.
The Trinkaus study commonly cited to back up this claim used predynastic Egyptians, not modern ones.
Right, I know of that
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
quote:Originally posted by Spiralman: ^ Erm. Modern Egyptians have the same body plan.
The Trinkaus study commonly cited to back up this claim used predynastic Egyptians, not modern ones.
You can keep saying that but after I asked you about your statement that Trinhaus ''Egyptians'' were predynastic ones earlier in another thread, you didn't answer me.
I hope my request will not fall on deaf ears again. Can I get a clear citation on this?
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
quote:Originally posted by Spiralman: ^ Erm. Modern Egyptians have the same body plan.
The Trinkaus study commonly cited to back up this claim used predynastic Egyptians, not modern ones.
You can keep saying that but after I asked you about your statement that Trinhaus ''Egyptians'' were predynastic ones earlier in another thread, you didn't answer me.
I hope my request will not fall on deaf ears again. Can I get a clear citation on this?
^ Okay. So that answers that. So where is Spiralbrains now? LOL I notice he has a stupid habit of repeating things that were corrected many times before (like all trolls).
Posted by Calabooz (Member # 18238) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
quote:Originally posted by Spiralman: ^ Erm. Modern Egyptians have the same body plan.
The Trinkaus study commonly cited to back up this claim used predynastic Egyptians, not modern ones.
You can keep saying that but after I asked you about your statement that Trinhaus ''Egyptians'' were predynastic ones earlier in another thread, you didn't answer me.
I hope my request will not fall on deaf ears again. Can I get a clear citation on this?
Keita 1993: Studies and comment on ancient Egyptian biological relationships
Hadn't realised you had already posted the link for Kalonji- ah well. Spiralman, look at how Keita states the limb ratios in the ancient Egyptians indicates they were NOT COLD ADAPTED IMMIGRANTS Which only means their ancestors were tropical adapted immigrants from a TROPICAL place. Where is the nearest tropical place to Egypt, Spiralman? Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Like all cowardly trolls, Spiralbrains has long fled the scene when Truth posted the link debunking his LIES.
Posted by Calabooz (Member # 18238) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Like all cowardly trolls, Spiralbrains has long fled the scene when Truth posted the link debunking his LIES.
I actually don't think Spiralman had any paper in mind when saying that. I think instead of simply misinterpreting a study, he just didn't know what the hell he was talking about Posted by Whatbox (Member # 10819) on :
Pretty comprehensive thread on Egyptian stature and other indices (click) here. The studies seem to say the same thing 99.989% of the time.
To me the picture clears more so when you look at the history in the mediterranean bordering region in general and genetics sheds light as well.
Infact, the last study cited (click) here (Whatbox, in reply #7, the eighth post) sheds light on this.
Posted by Calabooz (Member # 18238) on :
^Thanks for the link. Too bad ESR has few posters...
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
Calabooz Too bad ESR has few posters... Yeah but you know what? if all we have is folks viewing and retrieving info rather than conversating then my time was not wasted and viewer ship is up E.S.R is a great clearing house for info untarnished by troll/spam and thats a good thing so yes I encourage yall to use the info posted in your various battles and conversations.. Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
Thanks Truthcentric and Calabooz
Now I can have at least some sort of objective retord that constitutes more than ''It's so because I say it's so'' when these claims surface.
Do any of you notice that non-black AE asserting people are intentionally way more dishonest than black asserting people? Sure the latter camp has made/is making some idiotic claims that I think arise more out of ignorance than out of blatent lying, but the former camp is literally lying their asses off.
Remember the Mekota and Vermehren (2005) pigment study and Non-Prophet literally daring people to go purchase the study and find the ''expected for a Negroid origin'' portion, insisting it contained no words like ''Negroid''.
In the same thread references were made to the Eurocentric claim of a 2nd study by the same authors who supposedly retracted the claims, when all they did was take a misleading piece out of the first and presenting it as a 2nd. Just mind bogling.
(scroll to Lioness post [Nr 12] for a quick laugh. WTF is wrong with this lady? )
Posted by Calabooz (Member # 18238) on :
Yes indeed. Euro-centrics resort to lying 99% of the time. Then, once they encounter someone who exposes their idocy, the automatically shout "Afro-centric" then they block you if they can. Lioness is just very stupid... just look at her posts here, obviously unable to comprehend anything being said.
If you notice the link Lioness posted at the top of this thread, to the one forum, it is literally crawling with Euro-centrists. As someone noted earlier, the admin of that forum has only his opinion, first posting studies he claims "Afro-centrists" to use, then writes his opinion/interpretation never actually refuting anything. Then you have phoenician7 responding to his comments with ignorance The creator of that forum is most definitely not ready to run a forum, which is why it will ultimately fail IMO (Unless, people go there after watching the forums #1 video advertisor... Phoenician7)
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Thanks Truthcentric and Calabooz
Now I can have at least some sort of objective retord that constitutes more than ''It's so because I say it's so'' when these claims surface.
Do any of you notice that non-black AE asserting people are intentionally way more dishonest than black asserting people? Sure the latter camp has made/is making some idiotic claims that I think arise more out of ignorance than out of blatent lying, but the former camp is literally lying their asses off.
Remember the Mekota and Vermehren (2005) pigment study and Non-Prophet literally daring people to go purchase the study and find the ''expected for a Negroid origin'' portion, insisting it contained no words like ''Negroid''.
In the same thread references were made to the Eurocentric claim of a 2nd study by the same authors who supposedly retracted the claims, when all they did was take a misleading piece out of the first and presenting it as a 2nd. Just mind bogling.
(scroll to Lioness post [Nr 12] for a quick laugh. WTF is wrong with this lady? )
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
^LOL
You just gave me an idea. I will discuss it with the two of you later on Facebook.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: ^LOL
You just gave me an idea. I will discuss it with the two of you later on Facebook.
Where are you on Facebook?
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
Search for Kalonji Daniels
My account is a mock though so you won't find much of value there
You can add our Egyptsearch group and tune in to our conversations if you want though, we're on the brink of creating several joint venture YT accounts, to inform the public as an organised unit what we know about AE. Check Calabooz's YT thread to read more about this.
Posted by Calabooz (Member # 18238) on :
Posted by Calabooz (Member # 18238) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: I noticed Phoenician7 has a new website
maybe some of yall centrics can go cause some trouble there, I approve
Quick comment, I was reading a thread over there by phoenician7, where he cites Keita's 2005 paper. The citation stating that the Badarian were not identical to other Africans, he then uses Strouhal (1981) to claim them as Europid. This is the exact reason why that forum is so stupid, he did not include Keita's statement that the Badarian cluster towards tropical Africans no matter which algorithim employed He then goes on to claim that Keita "fabricates" Strouhal in regards to Egyptian hair. Now, who should I believe, SOY Keita who interpreted Strouhal's work in his PEER REVIEWED work, or some racist idiot? Such stupidity is comical and frustrating at the same time. So much so, that I don't know if I should go over there and debate him and his lies, or burst out laughing!!
Posted by Calabooz (Member # 18238) on :
^Decided to change my mind and head on over there. Strangely, you need approval from an admin to create your account LOL Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
Calabooz not worth your time they are as gutless as they are incompetent and they will band you, you are not dealing with folks who have disagreements over this or that study but folks with an agenda.
Posted by Bkwrm1989 (Member # 19198) on :
That Phoenician7 guy blocked me for saying that the sphinx of Giza has been reported by white historians, not afrocentrists, to be negroid in appearance.
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
Bkwrm1989 they have no interest in any truth or Egyptology what's so ever propagating White Supremacy is what they are all about, but they do come here to get their asses handed to them on a daily basis but try not to get too caught up in their insanity they are nothing if not repetitive,and will out right lie, watch out for the one called Cassiterides he will make quote that resemble nothing like the original text or leave relevant parts out.
Posted by Bkwrm1989 (Member # 19198) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Bkwrm1989 they have no interest in any truth or Egyptology what's so ever propagating White Supremacy is what they are all about, but they do come here to get their asses handed to them on a daily basis but try not to get too caught up in their insanity they are nothing if not repetitive,and will out right lie, watch out for the one called Cassiterides he will make quote that resemble nothing like the original text or leave relevant parts out.
Thank you for warning me. I'm new here so I haven't seen Phoenician7 come on here trying to spew his nonsense yet. It would be nice to see his type be slaughtered in intellectual debate lol
Posted by Calabooz ' (Member # 18238) on :
^I think he may just be a p7 drone though name: "Iah".
We also made a video response to phoenician7 before. Actually, I think the response was influenced in part by this thread
Posted by Bkwrm1989 (Member # 19198) on :
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz ': ^Phoenician7 did post here. He ran away:
^I think he may just be a p7 drone though name: "Iah".
We also made a video response to phoenician7 before. Actually, I think the response was influenced in part by this thread
Can you link me to the video?
Posted by SirInfamous (Member # 16497) on :
I think Phoenician7 raised some interesting points, bBut honestly I don't know much about limb lengths.
But they are irrelevant when compared to cranio-facial analysis.
Posted by SirInfamous (Member # 16497) on :
quote:Originally posted by SirInfamous: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Djehuti: [qb] The limb-ratio studies of the Egyptians are very clear. Only idiots and lyingasses can misconstrue them. Idiots like Phoenician7 want to talk around the conclusions or perform mental acrobats around them, but there is no other way around the salient FACT that the Egyptians had tropical body builds like Africans further south. This follows the biological principle of Allen's rule and shows that Egyptians have recent ancestry from further south in Africa.
It doesn't matter, we already know the Pharaohs were Caucasian.
"Vignal deduced that Tutankhamun had a narrow nose, buck teeth, a receding chin, and Caucasian features. Such features are typical of European, North African, Middle Eastern, and Indian peoples." National Georgraphic 2005.
We examined radiographs of 12 Egyptian royal mummies obtained by two of the authors (W.R. and J.E.H.) and never before published... These people were caucasian " (1988 Braunstein, M.D. et al)
Posted by SirInfamous (Member # 16497) on :
bump
Posted by Sahel (Siptah) (Member # 17601) on :
@SirInfamous
quote:"Vignal deduced that Tutankhamun had a narrow nose, buck teeth, a receding chin, and Caucasian features. Such features are typical of European, North African, Middle Eastern, and Indian peoples." National Georgraphic 2005.
Vignal's deduction on King Tut is nonsensical, and there are other studies proving him wrong i.e Susan Anton.
quote:We examined radiographs of 12 Egyptian royal mummies obtained by two of the authors (W.R. and J.E.H.) and never before published... These people were caucasian " (1988 Braunstein, M.D. et al)
Your quotation is a distortion.
quote:We examined radiographs of 12 Egyptian royal mummies obtained by two of the authors (W.R. and J.E.H.) and never before published. These radiographs demonstrate findings not previously described in Egyptian mummies, including congenital lunate-triquetral fusion and destructive skeletal lesions not explainable on the basis of vandalism by tomb robbers. Antemortem fractures, degenerative joint disease, and arterial vascular calcification were also seen. In 11 of the 12 cases, there was chondrocalcinosis of intervertebral discs or menisci, probably an artifact of embalming. Visceral packing and skeletal deformity due to wrapping were observed, as well. Radiology provides important paleopathologic and archeologic information for the accurate, comprehensive study of Egyptian mummies.
We examined radiographs of 12 Egyptian royal mummies obtained by two of the authors (W.R. and J.E.H.) and never before published...
to be found.
You Eurocentrics will continue losing credibility when you resort to misreporting studies for the sake of politics.
Posted by SirInfamous (Member # 16497) on :
"These people were caucasian" is in the study, just not in the abstract. Henced why I put the ....
King Tut was labeled caucasian by the French team. Anton did not say he was not a caucasian btw, just that she refused to give him a race.
King Tut = cuacasian, like Europeans, west Asians, and FELLOW North Africans.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
You Eurocentrics will continue losing credibility when you resort to misreporting studies for the sake of politics =========
Says the retard who claims race is a ''social construct'', because that's not politically motivated is it?
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by Whatbox: WOW! Ohmoigwawsh! lol
Let's see where do i begin.
I mean wow, i have to say though that i like htat he read the study. A lot of anti-afrocentrists here have oft neglected to do just that even with the studies they felt initially served their own interests.
Firstly, why not warn us to skip the whole first minute of the video which just accuses people of omitting like a line in some citation of the Zakrzewski statue study presumably cited "far and wide" cross the net? I've posted the, as he titles it, "actual quote from the real study" - the one not missing the sentence or whatever. I thought if anything it enhances the quote, if ever i forgot it it'd have to have been because of quoting someone else, not my own decision. I'm not even sure whether or not i'm an afrocentrist so i'm not sure whether or not i care to review that simple point of the video for a whole minute to some techno music.
The guy misleadingly mentions in text, "the study emphasizes the [tropical] body plan was due to diet".
However, in the actual citation he shows right above it it just says that some "pattern suggests that the Badarian sample may have suffered from some degree of growth inhibition. The increase in stature over the Predynastic period supports the model that as agriculture became more reliable, growth stunting was reduced"
This is funny because for the entire prior whole minute he went over a citation containing this text:
"The values for the brachial and crural indices show that the distal segments of each limb are longer relative to the proximal segments than in many “African” populations (data from Aiello and Dean, 1990). This pattern is supported by Figure 7 (a plot of population mean femoral and tibial lengths; data from Ruff, 1994), which indicates that the Egyptians generally have tropical body plans. Of the Egyptian samples, only the Badarian and Early Dynastic period populations have shorter tibiae than predicted from femoral length. Despite these differences, all samples lie relatively clustered together as compared to the other populations."
i.e. they, the Badarians were less tropically adapted outliers -- so even if we are to assume the diet remarks were talking about how tropical the stature was (as opposed to plain height maybe), it would actually serve to reverse his point. In other words, the ones the least tropically adapted also had irregular growth issues (likely in a time period btw when the region was becoming more arid) -- big whoopdi. ~
Phoenician7 cites more as the study notes that after a maximum mean height in the Early Dynastic height declined especially during the Middle Kingdom (or MK) period. All the MK samples are noted as of being from Gebelein and p7 explains this as due to an influx of "Nubians", as Gebelein per i think the same study was noted as having a colony of "Nubian" mercenaries, whatever those actually were. Ancient Egyptians did actually employ the Medjai, so i'll go with it. It's funny that just before this the Egyptians themselves would have undergone an increase in height and yet then it's acknowledged as diet and not racial. ~
He mentions Zakrzewski says the super-negroid classification doesn't mean they were that race and interprets it to mean they weren't negros as if he accepts the usage of this racially loaded term. He then goes on to mention that C. Loring Brace says it'd be better labeled super-tropical than super-negroid as the former is a less racially loaded term and assumes afrocentrists to be in disagreement to this. He also basically begs you to think this hyper tropical phenotype means nothing -- a subtropical people appearing super tropical (in ways more tropical than Afro Americans -- Raxter et. al. 2007) being nothing other than adaptation. Of course it's adaptation! You do the maths. ~
Later he cites again, as the study notes that the sole other Gebelein sample taken in the Early Dynastic was "significantly distant" and that there is "no simple continuity there" -- he then concludes there was no continuity at the site. Nevermind the fact that his Badarians and EDP are the ones the scientist felt the need to mention were outliers and nevermind the fact that it was previously said that all samples lie relatively clustered together as compared to the other populations. Yawn. ~
He talks about the mummy "Ginger" found near Gebelein and portrays this as an example of it. ~
He shows more citations on Gebelein irregularity, this time in the form of sexual dimorphism and attributed to Egyptians of Nubian descent. ~
He then takes a citation that compares the female height with respect to male height in percentage form in three different groups: white Americans, black Americans, and Badarians. The Badarians show the least sexual dimorphism (which isn't uncommon for Palaeolithic era Africans and they are Neolithic and early Historic), blacks show the greatest difference between the sexes. He interprets this to mean they, Badarians, the outlier in terms of tropicality if you will, show greater affinity for whites and this over mere measurements of height. ~
He goes on to cite Brace '93 and other old studies claiming to have something to say about relying on bone measurements .. while relying on the same -- he cites a peculiarity they had which is shoulder to pelvis width being about the same in males and females which, just for the males, it is mentioned is identical to Europeans (i thought it was the case for all males).
I did this for the heck of it but upon reading the vid's comments it looks like i wasted time on a production for a bunch of slow people. Sigh.
Nice analysis - but "slow" I've discovered - is understating things a bit. lol! Posted by Sahel (Siptah) (Member # 17601) on :
quote:Originally posted by SirInfamous: "These people were caucasian" is in the study, just not in the abstract. Henced why I put the ....
King Tut was labeled caucasian by the French team. Anton did not say he was not a caucasian btw, just that she refused to give him a race.
King Tut = cuacasian, like Europeans, west Asians, and FELLOW North Africans.
The abstract is not part of the full quotation.
Simply because the passage is in the study doesn't mean you are free to cut out specific sections of the document and misleadingly spread it as an accurate quotation. We do not know the specifics the passage references therein which is why it is deceiving.
Susan Anton did refuse to give him a race but she did say the physiognomy of the skull overall identified a person strongly of African origins.
In her own words:
quote:"Our group did not, in fact, find Tut to be a 'Caucasoid North African."
"We classified him as African based on many of the [skull's facio-cranial] features...."
Yet Vignal and his team deduced:
quote: Tutankhamun had a narrow nose, buck teeth, a receding chin, and Caucasian features. Such features are typical of European, North African, Middle Eastern, and Indian peoples.
It is interesting to see how many different teams arrived at different results and conclusions upon the examination of the skull.
quote: King Tut = cuacasian, like Europeans, west Asians, and FELLOW North Africans.
It's not that simple.
The statistic association is low and becomes even lower if we include European populations since African is the appropriate designation for the skull. Any sort of association existing for Caucasians is decided by their level of African ancestry. From this we can rightfully protest that the statistic association is the highest with African people possessing the highest amount of indigenous ancestry to the African continent.
Posted by Sahel (Siptah) (Member # 17601) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: Says the retard who claims race is a ''social construct'', because that's not politically motivated is it?
Instead of trying to distract from the topic how about you direct me to the thread containing the extract so we can further discuss the topic pertaining to the thread rather than this one.
Posted by Calabooz ' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sahel (Siptah): The abstract is not part of the full quotation.
Simply because the passage is in the study doesn't mean you are free to cut out specific sections of the document and misleadingly spread it as an accurate quotation. We do not know the specifics the passage references therein which is why it is deceiving.
Here is the full context of the quote:
"To the physician, the paleopathologic findings are of great importance. In our study, there were findings ranging from developmental anomalies to advanced geriatric disease. Although lunate triquetral fusion has never before been described in the ancient Egyptian population it was seen in two of the 12 mummies. These people were Caucasian, presumably Semetic"
So they offer no evidence in their paper to suggest an affinity to the populations Sir Infamous deems "Caucasoid", as their study only addresses "findings from developmental anomalies to geriatric diseases". One of the reasons they believed the Egyptians were "Caucasian" is because they presumed they were "Semetic", which is false.
Matter of interest: Their samples were from the New Kingdom-Roman period time.
Posted by Sahel (Siptah) (Member # 17601) on :
Thank you for the accurate quotation in full context.
quote: Although lunate triquetral fusion has never before been described in the Ancient Egyptian population it was seen in two of the twelve mummies. These people were Caucasian, presumably Semitic (1988 Braunstein, M.D. et al)[/b]
Despite the absurdity on the ethnicity of the mummies it is interesting that only two of the twelve mummies under examination were considered Caucasian Semitic.
In contrast to the document Eurocentrics misleadingly spread as an accurate quotation:
quote:We examined radiographs of 12 Egyptian royal mummies obtained by two of the authors (W.R. and J.E.H.) and never before published... These people were caucasian " (1988 Braunstein, M.D. et al)
We can see why the above misquoted passage is misleading, especially since we are familiar with the specifics mentioned of the said study;
1. Their samples date to the New Kingdom-Roman period time.
2. Only Two of the Twelve mummies were considered Caucasian Semitic.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
You do the maths.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
)
