posted                   

quote:

---

Also I wonder if that lady relizes Europeans are not the only ones on Earth to have Narrow Noses and thin lips.

---

^ thick nose, thin nose, prognathism, orthagonism.....

ah yes, the dog-chases-tail race discourse.

a mark of intelligence is to discontinue this fruitless discourse, and move on.

Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

make tese bogus claims of East Africans not being mixed

---

^ Are Europeans mixed. Are they all unmixed?

The blondes and brunettes?

The pale skinned and olive skinned?

The curely haired and the straight haired.

Those who have almost entirely R1b lineaeges from paleolithic Europe, and those who have 25% East African E3b and another 25% Arabian Peninsula J?

Those Europeans with Benin Hbs sickle haplotype?

These Europeans....



Unless you can prove Europeans are not mixed - which you can't - then mixture is irrelevant to your argument, and your reply is retarded.

Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sekhmet225:
The "race" of Ancient Egyptians will not make it belong to any one race of people because Egypt's greatness belongs to the human race;

---

quote:

---

.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by White Nord:
Anton does not explain what makes him North African vs African in general.

---

quote:

---

Anton:
"African ancestry, ***possibly** north african.

---

quote:

---

"the skull overall, including aspects of the face, spoke fairly strongly of his African origins - the nose was a bit unusual.

---

quote:

---

north african came mostly from the shape of the face including the narrow nose opening, that is not entirely consistent with an 'African'designation.

...

I did say that the narrow nose was what led me to suggest North Africa as a possibility and that a narrow nose is more typically seen in Europe.

---

quote:

---

One of the human phenotypic traits that holds the greatest diversity is cranial morphology. Because of this fact, cranial features can at times be misleading if not taken into proper context. For example, for a long time features like long narrow faces and narrow noses have been associated with “caucasian” or “caucasoid” people even though such features are present in populations throughout the globe from Africa to the Americas. The same can be said about so-called “negroid” features such as broad faces and noses which are also not just confined to Africans but various peoples in Asia, the Pacific, the Americas ('African' Olmecs anyone?) etc.

Jean Hiernaux
The People of Africa(Peoples of the World Series)

"The oldest remains of Homo sapiens sapiens found in East Africa were associated with an industry having similarities with the Capsian. It has been called Upper Kenyan Capsian, although its derivation from the North African Capsian is far from certain. At Gamble's Cave in Kenya, five human skeletons were associated with a late phase of the industry, Upper Kenya Capsian C, which contains pottery. A similar association is presumed for a skeleton found at Olduvai, which resembles those from Gamble's Cave. The date of Upper Kenya Capsian C is not precisely known (an earlier phase from Prospect Farm on Eburru Mountain close to Gamble's Cave has been dated to about 8000 BC); but the presence of pottery indicates a rather later date, perhaps around 400 BC. The skeletons are of very tall people. They had long, narrow heads, and relatively long, narrow faces. The nose was of medium width; and prognathism, when present, was restricted to the alveolar, or tooth-bearing, region......all their features can be found in several living populations of East Africa, like the Tutsi of Rwanda and Burundi, who are very dark skinned and differ greatly from Europeans in a number of body proportions.............
From the foregoing, it is tempting to locate the area of differentiation of these people in the interior of East Africa. There is every reason to believe that they are ancestral to the living 'Elongated East Africans'. Neither of these populations, fossil and modern, should be considered to be closely related to the populations of Europe and western Asia."

---

quote:

---

White Nord:Thus she classifies him as “North African.” [...] So is it African or North African? Or more specifically Caucasian [...] why Anton refuses to be specific in designating Tut a racial classification:

---

quote:

---

Anton:
I personally don't find that term all that useful and so I don't use it.

---

quote:

---

White Nord:
Ironic remark considering this is from someone who was paid to do the

---

quote:

---

Susan Anton:
“biological profile (assessment of age at death,sex and ancestry)”

---

quote:

---

Which is why we have keen observations like these:

Jean Hiernaux "The People of Africa" 1975
p.53, 54

"In sub-Saharan Africa, many anthropological characters show a wide range of population means or frequencies. In some of them, the whole world range is covered in the sub-continent. Here live the shortest and the tallest human populations, the one with the highest and the one with the lowest nose, the one with the thickest and the one with the thinnest lips in the world. In this area, the range of the average nose widths covers 92 per cent of the world range: only a narrow range of extremely low means are absent from the African record. Means for head diameters cover about 80 per cent of the world range; 60 per cent is the corresponding value for a variable once cherished by physical anthropologists, the cephalic index, or ratio of the head width to head length expressed as a percentage....."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alive-(What Box):

quote:

---

Caucasian 1. adj. Of or being a purported human racial classification traditionally distinguished by light [?] to brown skin color [?] and including peoples indigenous to Europe, N Africa, W Asia, and India. Not in scientific use. 2. Of the Caucasus. n. 1. Anthro. A member of the Caucasian racial classification. 2. A native inhabitant of the Caucasus.

---

The Caucasus is a mountain region.

There's more:

quote:

---

Caucasoid adj. Of or relating to the Caucasian racial classification. Not in scientific use.

---

But most laymen will continue to do what they're free to:

that is believe what they want to believe in regardless of factual basis or lack thereof.

---

I think these particular quotes were from my American heritage dictionary.

But you can get them from any modern dictionary.

The reason these terms are no longer in scientific use?

One reason is such skulls can be found all over the world, in the Americas, Africa, Europe, Asia, and the Pacific, and do not imply related ancetry.

For instance, Austrailians and Andaman Islanders may have a bit of a stereotypical African look, but they're actually closest related to Asians.

White Europeans and all shades of people in the Arabian peninsula in fact have more recent African ancestors than do they.

Accepting those types of racial labels is what has led to people claiming this



is a 'negro', when infact it's an indigenous Meso-American.

quote:

---

White Nord:Caucasian nose [...] "negroid" or "black,"

---

quote:

---

and African does not denote race

---

quote:

---

the American and French teams

---

..didn't do a double-blinded reconstruction, as did this double-blinded unbias American team:



Here are Africans with more narrow faces, who arez a tad wider in the nasal pathway, and who's noses (nostrils) are wider than that of Prince Tutankhamun.



The thing about racial appearances, is that 99% of the difference is in soft tissue, which skeletons don't have.

Skeleton:



Mummies:

Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

You say North African as if you think it is exclusive of African, she doesn't, that's where you're confused.

---

Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sekhmet225:
The "race" of Ancient Egyptians will not make it belong to any one race of people because Egypt's greatness belongs to the human race; as a people they belong to Egypt. And I'm sure Egypt's seen a pharoah in every shade. There can never be a fine racial line in a place where there was so much power and wealth. This term is evident even today. Egyptians where aware of racial differences but it didn't define or divide them. Let's take credit for Egypt as humanity and live all the details to the rightful owners of that great civilization: The Egyptians in every shade and hue.

---

Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alive-(What Box):
Sundiata.

I have a question for you concerning the demographics of modern Egypt.

I know that no large scale migration from Asia could have happened prior to the Middle Kingdom.

And well into it - even given the Hyksos such a diffusion claim is questionable given the sheer 'bloody', and 'take no prisoners' nature of their invasion and expulsion.

My question is this:

When do we see the most significant shift in terms of Egypt's demographic?

If I'm not mistaken it occured during Greek rule?

This would be consistant with the fact of population continuity in terms of affinities from Pre-Dynastic on through Late Dynastic times.

---

quote:

---

Of course, this was a continuity *with gradual change* - there exists today a South-North cline generally with the more indigenous (like those in the Phaoronic era) in the South and those less-so in the North. But all are admixed with foreigners. No one denies this. Heck, the Beja (of Sudan) are believed to bear the closest resemblance to the citizens of ancient Kemet.

---

quote:

---

"There is limb ratio and craniofacial morphological and metric CONTINUITY in Upper-Egypt-Nubia in a broad sense from the late paleolithic through dynastic periods, although change occured." - Keita, Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships.

...

"The variability in the population in Upper Egypt increased, as its isolation decreased, with increasing social complexity of southern Egypt from the predynastic through dynastic periods (Keita 1992). The Upper Egyptian population apparently began to converge skeletally on Lower Egyptian patterns through the dynastic epoch; whether this is primarily due to gene flow or other factors has yet to be finally determined. The Lower Egyptian pattern is intermediate to that of the various northern Europeans and West African and Khoisan." - Keita.

And you could still see many of the types of Dynastic times in modern Egypt. There was a wonderfully perfect example of this that Djehuti used to post, of these Egyptian kids wherein you could see individuals of "East African", so-called "Mediteranian", "West African", and traces of so-called 'Asian/Mongoliod/San' physical appearance.

But it got taken down.












...

---

Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundiata:
I was never really forced to think of it in those terms since as you say in this same post, I'd figured the shift was gradual. But literally, if I were to ponder where that shift was most accelerated, I'd have to agree as this is even reflected in one of Irish's dental studies. He'd found a continuity from the pre-dynastic Badarian, all the way into the late dynastic, that was abruptly broken during this era. The Greco-Roman mummy portraits of al-Fayyum also show some evidence of "mixing" among the Greek settlers (unless some of those Greeks already possessed some degree of African ancestry).

quote:

---

Of course, this was a continuity *with gradual change* - there exists today a South-North cline generally with the more indigenous (like those in the Phaoronic era) in the South and those less-so in the North. But all are admixed with foreigners. No one denies this. Heck, the Beja (of Sudan) are believed to bear the closest resemblance to the citizens of ancient Kemet.

---

Agreed. That's why it's so complicated though I do put more emphasis on the south when examining the presence of indigenous representatives of the ancient population. Despite the cline, as Keita points out:

"Cosmopolitan northern Egypt is less likely to have a population representative of the core indigenous population of the most ancient times".- Keita (2005), pp. 564

---

quote:

---

The Islamic invasions can't be overstated either. Such is ultimately responsible for the most enduring language shift, religious affiliation/shift, and cultural shift. It goes without saying that it was the source of a significant demographic shift as well. Egypt has been through a lot.

---

quote:

---

Nice pictures btw..

---

Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
From: "Susan C Anton" <susan.anton@nyu.edu> [Add to Address Book] Add to Address Book
To: email withheld


Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 12:26:22 -0400
Subject: Re: North African ''caucasoid'' and European nose opening Tut-ankh-amu

Dear name withheld,,
Thanks for your email. I actually didn't choose the term "North
African
Caucasoid" that is the term used by another team (there were three that
worked on separate reconstructions). The French team was responsible
for the reconstruction that was on the cover of National Geographic
Magazine and they also used that term.

Our team, myself and Michael Anderson of Yale, were the ones that did
the plaster reconstruction without knowledge of whose skull we were
working on. I did the biological profile (assessment of age at death,
sex and ancestry), Michael made the actual reconstruction. 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. Because their is latitudinal variation in
several aspects of the skull (including nose size/shape), the
narrowness
of the nose suggested that he might be from a northerly group. This is
also, I presume, what the French focussed on. I have not been in
direct
contact with the French group, but my understanding is that by their
definition of 'caucasoid' they include Peoples from North Africa,
Peoples from Western Asia (and the Caucasus, from where the term
derives), and Eureopean peoples. So I don't think that they were
referring to a specific set of those peoples. I personally don't find
that term all that useful and so I don't use it. That it was
attributed
to me by the media is an incorrect attribution on their part. I also
never said he had a European nose, although I am sure I did say that
the
narrow nose was what led me to suggest North Africa as a possibility
and
that a narrow nose is more typically seen in Europe. Not a great
sound-bit that, so I guess it gets shortened to European nose.

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.

I hope that helps explain.
Susan

Susan C. Antón
Joint Editor, Journal of Human Evolution
Director, MA Program in Human Skeletal Biology
Associate Professor, Center for the Study of Human Origins
Department of Anthropology NYU
25 Waverly Place,
New York, NY 10003
(212)992-9786

MA program website http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/anthro/programs/biology/index.html

---

Posts: 70 | From: Australia | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
^ White Nerd.

Please do not pollute this forum with your retarded replies.

quote:

---

make tese bogus claims of East Africans not being mixed

---

^ Are Europeans mixed. Are they all unmixed?

The blondes and brunettes?

The pale skinned and olive skinned?

The curely haired and the straight haired.

Those who have almost entirely R1b lineaeges from paleolithic Europe, and those who have 25% East African E3b and another 25% Arabian Peninsula J?

Those Europeans with Benin Hbs sickle haplotype?

These Europeans....



Unless you can prove Europeans are not mixed - which you can't - then mixture is irrelevant to your argument, and your reply is retarded.

---

Posts: 70 | From: Australia | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Egmond Codfried:
http://sankofaworldpublishers.com/Queen%20Tiye.jpg

Queen Tiye

King Tut's grandmother Queen Tiye

---

Posts: 70 | From: Australia | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged |