...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
they look different
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Antalas: [qb] You actually can even though it's not perfectly reliable but you can quickly check things like nasal spine, alveolar prognathism, zygomatics, occipital bun, frontal profile, nasal bridge, etc. etc.[/qb][/QUOTE]Unfortunately for YOU, all these features were examined on the royal mummies and the conclusion is that they all display Africoid (negroid) features as explained [URL=http://www.realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Misc/Data/data7.htm]here[/URL]. [QUOTE][qb]These are not outdated "racial notions" but are still used in forensic anthropology. Moreover you don't see any problem when you labelled many of those skulls "negroid" or as having "negroid traits"[/qb][/QUOTE]No surprise that you're obviously ignorant of the salient fact that while racial models are used in forensic anthropology, they are not entirely accurate and carry a margin of error. This is because any physical anthropologist worth his salt knows that racial models are based on typological stereotypes in which there are always exceptions. [URL=https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4648&context=jclc]Identification of Skeletal Remains[/URL] (1958) [i] RACE DETERMINATION One of the most interesting aspects of identification, to the anthropologist, is the determination of race. [b]The features by which race is judged are almost all features of the skull, and particularly of the face[/b]; racial differences in the rest of the skeleton are few and uncertain. [b]This means that racial features must be sought in the very area where individual variation is most rampant.[/b] Further, race mixture sometimes confuses the picture; and it is not all of recent origin, for it has been such a constant factor in the development of the human species that most anthropologists would hesitate to assert that pure races in the popular sense of the word have ever had a chance to develop. [b]This means that few characteristics can be counted on to be entirely absent or universally present in any racial group[/b], and only by the consideration of a number of indications can the race of the skull be judged. Occasionally, a physician without special training will endeavor to judge race of a skull by certain generalizations which were formerly (not often at the present time) given in small print in anatomy books. These generalizations, mostly expressed in terms of certain measurement and ratios, represent moderate differences in average values between different races, arrived at by study of the general trends of racial groups [b]and of no value in assigning a single skull to a particular race.[/b] In general, measurements of the skull are of less value for judging race than are certain morphological (i.e. shape) differences which are not susceptible to exact measurement... ..The greatest difficulty in such diagnosis is the fact that the anthropologist's judgment of race may be adequate biologically but fail sociologically. [b]We have all seen individuals with a very black skin, but with facial features showing few if any negroid contours. Conversely, blond individuals may sometimes reveal distinct Negro features to a careful examination; both individuals may have the same mixture of White and Negro, but one will be living as a Negro and the other as a white person.[/b] If the features of the skull indicate a mixture of White and Negro traits, we have to allow a wide leeway as regards the apparent race of the individual in life, since skin color and hair, which largely determine the lay diagnosis of race, are unknown. [/i] This is why for decades Egyptians and other Africans have been classified as "Hamitc Caucasoids" that is black-skinned caucasoids, with their caucasoid status being based on certain traits they happen to share in common with Europeans while those traits they share with Sub-Saharans gets downplayed or ignored. Even Blumenbach, the father of modern racial categories admitted regarding the varieties of mankind he called 'races', “varieties . . . run into one another by insensible degrees.” [URL=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2151154/]The beautiful skull and Blumenbach’s errors: the birth of the scientific concept of race[/URL] [i] He gave examples of people fitting his five varieties. He stated that Turkish and Hindostan women were Caucasians but that people from Bengal and Esquimaux people were Mongolians. He identified New Zealanders (Maoris) as Malays. [b]He thought that Egyptians could be Ethiopian, Indian, or a type with “short chin and prominent eyes.” He was surprised that other people attributed Egyptians to one type. Blumenbach recognised the heterogeneity within populations in one land or nation, something that was overlooked in his time, as it often is now.[/b][/i] [QUOTE][qb]one-third? source? And I already acknowledge the presence of caucasoid types in SSA especially in the Horn but that's because they have substantial amount of west Eurasian ancestry. [/qb][/QUOTE][b]LOL[/b] You ask me for a source but then make a baseless claim of your own! We already have evidence showing that Eurasian ancestry not only in the Horn but other parts of Africa where they have "caucasoid" features is negligible to none, yet you keep pushing the debunked Eurasian excuse (Hamitic hypothesis) as the reason! [/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