...
EgyptSearch Forums Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» EgyptSearch Forums » Deshret » The Mediterranean Myth

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: The Mediterranean Myth
Player 13
Member
Member # 7037

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Player 13     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
One of the most hoary myths of race is the postulated existence of a cohesive, trans-continental "Mediterranean race." According to this fantasy, this race includes all brunette, non-Nordish, non-Alpinid "Caucasians", from Portugal to Bangladesh, from the Alps downward through the Sahara. As we shall see, such a race does not exist and has never existed. We shall also briefly consider the motivations of those who, with complete indifference to reality, continue to promote this myth, for reasons which may have much to do with an animus toward a real sub-racial group - Sudeuropids (South Europeans: i.e., Italians, Iberians, Greeks, Balkan Slavs, Romanians, etc.). Let us examine the evidence.

http://www.brazzilbrief.com/viewtopic.php?t=9555&highlight=mediterranean
http://www.legioneuropa.org/Racediv/med.htm

Posts: 118 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
HistoryFacelift
Member
Member # 14696

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for HistoryFacelift     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree... every article I've read about it so far has called it "the so-called Mediterranean race" I don't think a lot of people really agree it's a race either way. It makes little sense to me. I am not sure why they are trying to divide Europeans into races now with mediteranean being seperate.


One of your links is not working

Posts: 105 | From: Japan | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^ Of course the premise of a "Mediterranean race" is completely false, but then again so is the premise of 'race' itself. As for this "Sudeuropids" race, it sounds like a bunch of nonsense cooked up by southern Europeans by the likes of Dienekes Pontikos. No Sudeuropid only pseudoscience! LOL
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rasol
Member
Member # 4592

Icon 1 posted      Profile for rasol     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^ correct.

the notion of race-typology exists as a platform for 'getting off' nonsense.

you have to reject the notion of race-typology at it's root.

humans can't be devided into typological races. the notion is not consistent with the biological reality of overlapping lineages and non concordant phenetic traits.

all people who defend the notion of race end up having stupid arguments with one another.

it doesn't matter whether those involved in the arguments are stupid or not.

stupid root premises make for stupid arguments.

mediterreanean race is simply a *stupid* idea.

Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King_Scorpion
Member
Member # 4818

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for King_Scorpion     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't think the belief in a literal Mediterreanean Race is widespread. I think some people just bring it up whenever the skin color of the Ancient Egyptians pops up...to take them out of Africa.
Posts: 1219 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rasol
Member
Member # 4592

Icon 1 posted      Profile for rasol     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dayna Reynolds points out in the essay, "Myth of the Meditteranean Race" that the notion was invented by Eurocentrists when they kept finding remains with portruding mouth, long heads and other features typical of africans...outside of africa.

Most famously:

quote:
BONES OF CANNIBALS A PALESTINE RIDDLE
Wireless to THE NEW YORK TIMES.
New York Times 1857; Aug 4, 1932; ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2003)
pg. 21


Negroid people of 5000 B. C. Unlike Any Modern Race Described by Keith.

ATE BODIES OF ENEMIES
Men, Short of Stature, Burned Bones of Dead After Burial, London Session Hears.
TEETH OF WOMEN DRAWN
Linking relics to Burnt Skeletons from Ur scientist speculate an old cremation custom.

Wireless to NEW YORK TIMES London Aug. 3

Seven or eight thousand years ago in what geologist call modern times a race of negroid cannibals lived In Palestine, burned the bones of their dead after burial, and devoured the bodies of their enemies.
Skulls and thighbones of this race were unearthed within the last four years, first at Shukbah near Jerusalem and later in caves at Mount Carmel, and because they puzzled the excavators who found them they received the new name “Natufians.”

Today the first authoritative account of them was given by Sir Arthur Keith to the congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences and showed them to be one of the greatest riddles of archaeology.


They were clearly a Negroid people, said Sir Arthur, with wide faces flat- noses and long large heads.

They were short of stature 5 feet 3 or 4 inches tall-and their thighs and legs were remarkably strong. While their arms and shoulders were weak.


Alone Among prehistoric peoples they had a custom of extracting the two upper central incisor teeth of their women. Jagged holes in the fronts of their skulls indicate that they ate human brains.

Unlike Any present Race.

They may have been ancestors or the Arabs or Semites of biblical times, in Sir Arthur's opinion. They had some facial characteristics like those of the Neolithic or late Stone Age men of Malta and the remoter Aurignacian men of Southern Europe. But whatever the similarities sir Arthur declared, they lived between 5000 and 6000 B. C. and cannot be identified with any race on earth today.
In addition to all these riddles, Sir Arthur propounded another linking them unaccountably to ancient Ur of the Chaldees and the prehistoric man of South Africa.

From piles of charred and fragmented bones found in Palestine-mostly women's bones- Sir Arthur concluded they did not cremate their dead, but burned them long after burial.
"By a strange coincidence," he said. "At the time the burnt remains came to me Leonard Woolley sent me a box of human remains from under the foundations of Ur. These burnt bones from Ur-of about the third dynasty also represented not ordinary cremation-cremation of dead bodies clothed with flesh-but Cremation of dried skeletons. In the remains from Ur women's bones were preponderant.
“Two years ago Miss Gertrude Catton-Thompson sent me burned bones from under the foundations of Zimbabwe in Southern Rhodesia.
These represented the skulls of two women which had been burned long after the flesh had disappeared from them.
Was there once a custom in ancient times of digging up the bones of ancestors and then subjecting them to an ordeal of fire?”
Boxes of charred bones from Palestine were on the table while Sir Arthur spoke, together with a dozen curiously shaped reddish skulls that stared across the lecture room. Scientists who listened were startled and bewildered. Miss Dorothy Garrod, British Archaeologist, who had found the remains while working for the British School of Archaeology and the American School of Prehistoric Studies, assured the audience that they were comparatively modern and they were of the Mesolithic period.
Natufian remains, it should be remembered, are in no way connected with the more recent discoveries of a new race of fossil men, also in caves, near Mt Carmel. The fossil men, so remarkably different from all others yet found, became extinct in the remotely distant past, while the Natufians may still have been living when the first city-states of Sumeria arose.
Sir Arthur based his conclusions today on twenty comparatively complete skulls of eighty-seven found by Miss Garrod.

Cites Features of Race

“Several features stand out quite definitely'' he asserted; first the Natufians were a long-headed people - they had cap-shaped occiputs (the lower back part of the head). Secondly, the dimensions or their heads were greater than in the pre-dynastic Egyptians. Thirdly, their faces were short and wide. Fourthly, they were prognathous (with projecting jaws). Fifthly, their nasal bones were not narrow and high, but formed a wide, low arch. Sixthly, their chins were not prominent, but were masked by the fullness of the teeth-bearing parts of the jaw.
“The Natufians at Shukbah seem to have practiced cannibalism, for it is only by making this supposition that one can explain the cutting and fracturing of bones. The characters of the cuts and the broken surfaces show the bones were still in a fresh state when the damage was done. I believe the Shukbah people ate human brains.”
The cannibalism theory was strongly disputed by Professor Elliott smith, eminent geologist, who said he was entirely skeptical of it. Also Professor Smith said it was not uncommon in Egypt to find burned bones in graves.
“But it is a question of remarkable interest to know what these charred bones mean,” he said. “And if it should be shown that cutting teeth was in vogue it will make us revise all our knowledge, for the earliest instance we know is in 300 B.C.”
Professor Smith objected, too, that it was hardly possible that these people had had Negro blood, but Sir Arthur speedily corrected him. By the word Negroid he meant merely Negro-like characteristics such as are found throughout Europe and even in Scandinavia. Sir Arthur drew the inference that the Natufians had carried Aurignacian culture into Palestine after the last glacier age, which was approximately 35000 years ago.

 -
negroid, caucasoid, mongoloid...negroid, caucasoid, mongoloid...negroi....

Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viriato
Member
Member # 13983

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Viriato     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
People from around the Mediterranean, and even up to India may share similar phenotype due to living in similar environments and recent common ancestry as well, but sure that hardly makes them race or creates any special connection between them.

Specially when on tries to claim "med civilizations" on the basis of simply being "med" himself.

Posts: 218 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rasol
Member
Member # 4592

Icon 1 posted      Profile for rasol     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
People from around the Mediterranean, and even up to India may share similar phenotype
Some do, some don't.

It's interesting to note that European 'medit' speak latin languages, but southwest Asian 'medit' speak completely unrelated Afroasiatic semitic languages.

Why is there no linguistic unity?

Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Historically, the populations around the Mediterranean have varied based on migrations of various peoples over time. Overlap has occurred because of migrations from one side of the Mediterranean to the other, which leads to African ancestry in Southern Europeans and European or Levantine ancestry in some Northern Africans. Depending on what time period you look, the overlap is going to differ based on the historical events and movements of the times. Therefore, at some time periods, there is more African influence and overlap around the Mediterranean. At other time periods there is more Levantine overlap around various parts of the Mediterranean. And at others there is more European overlap in various places. And this overlap wasn't simply physical it was also cultural and linguistic. So each period also brought with it cultural and linguistic overlap as well as physical. So it isn't simply the case that these people around the Mediterranean are connected solely because of environmental factors. In fact, the area around the Mediterranean is the least likely to have been an environmental factor on the human populations because MOST populations around the Mediterranean were impacted by environmental factors in the inland areas where they came from.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viriato
Member
Member # 13983

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Viriato     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Some do, some don't."

Exactçy, that's why I wrote "may".

"Why is there no linguistic unity?"

(Playing Devil's advocate)

Why should there be? Germanics, Basques, Finnics and what not are all of the "white race" despite speaking totally different languages.

Oh and Ethiopians, Igbo, Dinkas and Zulus are all part of the "black race" too.


So using linguistics would hardly convince racial minded people.
Genetics would probably be best.

Posts: 218 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | EgyptSearch!

(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3