posted
^^So you're disconnecting Dr. Ben from his mother now? Tell him his education is a fraud as well. Dr. Clarke is a commie? Arturo Schomburg, I can keep his library in Harlem as well?
"The Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture is a national research library devoted to collecting, preserving and providing access to resources documenting the experiences of peoples of African descent throughout the world. The Center's collections first won international acclaim in 1926 when the personal collection of the distinguished Puerto Rican-born Black scholar and bibliophile, Arturo Alfonso Schomburg, was added to the Division of Negro Literature, History and Prints of the 135th Street Branch of The New York Public Library. Schomburg served as curator from 1932 until his death in 1938. Renamed in his honor in 1940, the collection grew steadily through the years. In 1972 it was designated as one of The Research Libraries of The New York Public Library and became the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture. Today, the Schomburg Center contains over 5,000,000 items and provides services and programs for constituents from the United States and abroad."
The Center is located at 515 Malcolm X Boulevard with its entrance at 103 West 135th Street. N.Y.C.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm saying he was African and Clarke was a commie....??
Dr. Ben has said if it wasnt for his pay check he would flush his degrees down the toilet. so much for your spic education. And yes, didn't stttutter Clarke was a commie. And Schomburg can keep his library.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
akoben, so you're saying there were no Africans when Puerto Rico was originally founded? akoben is about to be schooled. Stay tuned....
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^So you're saying these Africans who were in Puerto Rico from the late 14,000's early 15,000 are not Puerto Rican, considering they have been in there from the beginning, and part of the outcome, with numerous descendants in and outside of the sland, influence on culture straight from Africa, food, music, language etc... no longer African, and Puerto Rico has nothing African about it?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Look, Black Puerto Ricans have made valuable contributions to the struggle. I don't mean to give the impression that they are spics. If in my exchanges with you that was the impression given, then I apologise.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
I thought so. Akoben has chumped out, considering I was about to administer an intellectual thrashing towards him.... Bwahahahahahahahahaa Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The hate needs to stop. We are all on this forum to find *TRUTH* and preach it. The back and Forth namecalling and ignorant posts needs to change.
You two are too knowledgable about the truth, to hate each other like this. Trying to seperate Ricans from Africa, is exactly what the people that control us want. They want stupid division and ethnic groups thinking there superior to each other. This is how they can control the truth and distort it to fit there own agenda. We have so much facts on our side, but it seems that posters would rather hate on each other, instead of spreading it. The powers that control this world, is afraid of people spreading this truth and uniting the "Races" around the truth.
Theres a war going on, and we are wasting time attacking each other and holding each other back. We can change peoples minds and show them where they error, but when people are always seeing people insulting each other, it probably scares them from posting questions.
People need to understand that we have a common enemy. The same enemy that puts police in schools, puts 50 bullets into a man at his wedding, and allows hate between different "races" to fester. It's target is complete control and subjection of all "Races". Also known as NWO. This enemy is tricky because it is not one person, its *MANY* people all over the world united to control the masses and leave us divided. Thats why I look to this forum to stop the hate and realize, the less we hate the more scholars will come on this forum. This is what we can accomplish by working together and just posting facts, and let the facts speak for themselves.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
I thought so. Akoben has chumped out, considering I was about to administer an intellectual thrashing towards him.... Bwahahahahahahahahaa
Actually King is right, it makes no sense to argue over Afro Puerto Rico versus African just because I disagree with you on certain things. It doesn't matter where Dr. Ben was educated or who influenced Clarke; playing this game I could very well say Garvey's influence on black leaders and the struggle in general was far more "superior" to Schomburg's. But again, that wouldn't prove being "Jamaican" is any more superior than being "Puerto Rican".
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
I thought so. Akoben has chumped out, considering I was about to administer an intellectual thrashing towards him.... Bwahahahahahahahahaa
Actually King is right, it makes no sense to argue over Afro Puerto Rico versus African just because I disagree with you on certain things. It doesn't matter where Dr. Ben was educated or who influenced Clarke; playing this game I could very well say Garvey's influence on black leaders and the struggle in general was far more "superior" to Schomburg's. But again, that wouldn't prove being "Jamaican" is any more superior than being "Puerto Rican".
Well, arguing over it, to me, is another form of separatism a.k.a divide and conquer. This is a technique promoted by Europeans, gee, I wonder why you adhere to it.... Btw, what do you disagree with me on?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
Oh gtfoh with that. You were intellectually thrashed, and left to die originally by rasol. I just felt like taking out the trash
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
This is Mansa Musa (I can't log into my original account).
I just recently watched Keita's workshop at Cambridge on Ancient Egypt. It was very interesting. Keita is a first rate scientist and he is very good at explaining his research. The questions by the scholars in attendance shows how far behind mainstream academia is when it comes to understanding the bio-history of Ancient Egypt. I could detect frustration from Keita when he had to explain to those in attendance that their questions were based on typological and stereotypical thinking which is unscientific.
I consider it to be a major step in the right direction that National Geographic has consulted Keita on the biological affinities of the Ancient Egyptians although their publishers are still adhering to Eurocentric biases and misconceptions.
The way they handle discussion of the appearance of the Ancient Egyptians and Ancient Nubians is proof of their bias. They are all to happy to condescendingly parade around the Nubians as "Black Pharaohs" even to the extent of displaying the African King and Queens artwork.
But when it comes to the Ancient Egyptians they come up with these ridiculous quizzes on their race and culture full of misinformation and make comments about Queen Tiye's bust indicating Nubian ancestry because of the darkened wood. They pass off these reconstructions of Tut and say it is anyone's guess what his skin color looked like yet refuse to take his brown-skinned artwork into consideration.
Then ofcourse there is that video of Zahi Hawass making his typical strawmen arguments about the Ancient Egyptians using some artistic conventions in their depictions of themselves as if to say that none of their artwork is meant to reflect reality. That is his way of dismissing the artwork altogether.
Progress is being made as the backlash against these Eurocentric representations of classical African civilization has forced organizations like National Geographic to think critically about the subject of Ancient Egypt's bio-history. But it is up to the concerned public to be more forceful in their requests that they acknowledge the anthropological and genetic evidence which reveals that Ancient Egypt was an African culture and its people biologically so.
At the end of the workshop one of the attendees asked Keita if he could be more direct about the physical appearance of the Ancient Egyptians. He wanted to know if the research revealed that they were Negroes and while Keita refused to acknowledge that term because of potential misconceptions it may cause he made it clear that they were dark-skinned and a Biologically African people.
When discussing the appearance of the Ancient Egyptians rather than get into a semantic argument about who is Black I think it is most helpful to reference living populations. They looked like aboriginal Saharans and tropical East Africans because that is where their ancestors migrated from to settle the Nile Valley. These populations had a variety of anatomical traits and were all dark-skinned. Keita did his best to express this fact.
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
My only comment on Keita is that he is being OVERLY ambiguous. For example, if Negroid is not valid and he doesn't use it, how does that mesh with the current scientist that DO use it and other studies which speak of typologies like Caucasoid and negroid? If he is not going to use Negroid he should explain more fully what the typology of Negroid means and why it isn't valid. Just NOT using the term and NOT addressing the CORE issue behind WHY it isn't valid is to miss the point. If you are dispelling myths then you have to ADDRESS those myths and typologies which propose dividing people up into typological conventions like negroid and Caucasoid. If you do not address this, especially since many people STILL DO use this typology in their research, you are not dispelling anything. A word is a word and using black is no less meaningful as saying dark. What does dark mean? Using dark doesn't help explain anything and does not make the term black as a similar description of the same thing "dark skin" any less valid.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: My only comment on Keita is that he is being OVERLY ambiguous. For example, if Negroid is not valid and he doesn't use it, how does that mesh with the current scientist that DO use it and other studies which speak of typologies like Caucasoid and negroid? If he is not going to use Negroid he should explain more fully what the typology of Negroid means and why it isn't valid. Just NOT using the term and NOT addressing the CORE issue behind WHY it isn't valid is to miss the point. If you are dispelling myths then you have to ADDRESS those myths and typologies which propose dividing people up into typological conventions like negroid and Caucasoid. If you do not address this, especially since many people STILL DO use this typology in their research, you are not dispelling anything. A word is a word and using black is no less meaningful as saying dark. What does dark mean? Using dark doesn't help explain anything and does not make the term black as a similar description of the same thing "dark skin" any less valid.
This is the first time I have 100 percent agreed wtih you all you have to do is look at the lecture and see how he is running and I mean RUNNING from answering a very simple trivial question. It does not surprise me that the only two African students in the class were asking the most logical questions that the European sycophant Keita wants to run from to keep a pay check and to stay friendly with the Eurocentrics with his ambiguous, arbitrary and nebulous explanation of Ancient Egyptian and African phenotypes and the differences of non Africans.
Keita is a Eurocentric shill with a pay check and for the life of me I don't know why people on this site support the same guy that their enemies support. Now that I have seen his lecture IN PERSON I know why smh. Very sad how inept Afrocentricity has become. Keita made the Eurocentrics proud and they can celebrate a HUGE victory in their favor.
Still waiting on the Keita lovers to answer some questions.
quote:There were always people in Northern Africa that were lighter skinned and had straight hair from 60,000 years ago -S.O.Y Keita
Skin color can flip back around every 15,000 years -S.O.Y Keita
LOL, so much for R underived being a "black" haplogroup.
LOL okie dokie, yep this guy is a Eurocentric shill.
The black guy in the audience is just like me, he is asking valid questions about the limits of phenotype and where it starts and where it end and Keita is saying there isn't one. He and I are just as baffled as to how you classify someone without definite measures smh.
So the answer to "are Egyptians black, White, Arab, Mixed" is "They are human" [Roll Eyes] LOLOL Great job Keita you make the white liberal man very proud as do most Western negro shills smh
posted
Keita's lecture is consistent with the writing in his articles. The way I see it NatGeo is taking advantage of the scientific jargon in Keita's speeches because laymen have trouble comprehending what he is saying. You have to understand that Keita is a Biological Anthropologist. He speaks in hard scientific terms and dismisses typological concepts because they are misleading. There is nothing Eurocentric about his comments and accusing him of being a shill is offensive.
Take a look at these quotes from one of his articles. You're calling this the writings of a Eurocentrist?
quote:...Hiernaux has dismissed the Hamitic racial construct and concept; instead the characteristic features are seen as the product of a hot-dry climatic microadaptation or genetic drift. Hiernaux calls this phenotype "elongated African", and parsimoniously lays to rest all doubts about the fundamental Africanity of more southern groups called Hamitic. In spite of this, even modern biologists occasionally make the error of assuming that all "black Africans" (Saharo-tropical variants) necessarily have a specific characteristic, for instance notable prognathism.....
....This review has addressed several issues regarding the biological affinities of the ancient inhabitants of the northern Nile Valley. The morphological metric, morphometric, and nonmetric studies, demonstrate immense overlap with tropical variants. General scholars must understand that a "shift in paradigm" from "Negro"-only-as-African has occured, just as Nordic-only-as-European was never accepted. Actually, it was always biologically wrong to view the Broad phenotype as representative of the only authentic "African," something understood by some nineteenth century writers.
Early Nile Valley populations are best viewed as part of an African descent group or lineage with tropical adaptations and relationships. This group is highly variable, as would be expected. Archaeological data also support this position, which is not new. Overtime, gene flow (admixture) did occur in the Nile valley from Europe and the Near East, thus also giving "Egyptians" relationship with those groups. This admixture, if it had occurred by Dynasty I, little affected the major affinity of southern predynastic peoples as illustrated here. As indicated by the analysis of the data reviewed here, the southern predynastic people were Saharo-tropical variants.
Source: Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships, S.O.Y. Keita, History in Africa, 20: 129-154 (1993)
Richard Poe consulted Keita for his insights on what the Ancient Egyptians looked like and summarized his research in more laymen friendly lingo:
quote:
Were the Ancient Egyptians black? That is entirely up to you. But were they biologically African? It would seem that they were. After considering the full range of anatomical, linguistic, cultural, archaeological, and genetic evidence, Shomarka Keita feels confident in concluding that the original Egyptians --- by which he means the pre-dynastic people of Southern Egypt, who founded Egyptian civilization--evolved entirely in Africa. Both culturally and biologically, he says, they were more related to other Africans than they were to non-Africans from Europe or Asia.
Through the years, Keita believes, the Egyptians appear to have blended with many immigrants and invaders, many of whom were lighter-skinned and more Caucasoid in appearance than the original Egyptians. Libyans, Persians, Syro-Palestinians, Assyrians, Greeks, and Romans all left their imprint on the faces of Egypt. But Egyptian civilization remain profoundly African to the very end.
Keita himself rarely resorts to such crudely racial expressions as black and white. But if we might be forgiven a momentary lapse into everyday speech, it would probably not hurt to conceive of Keita's theory as the polar opposite of the Hamitic Hypothesis. Whereas the Hamitic theorists saw Egypt as a nation of white people that was gradually infiltrated by blacks, the biological evidence seems to suggest that it was more like a black nation that was gradually infiltrated by whites.
Source: Black Spark, White Fire: Did African Explorers Civilize Ancient Europe? Chapter 77. Black, White or Biologically African? page. 471
Now as far as pre-dynastic Lower Egyptians are concerned I'm still not clear on what Keita believes they looked like. He clearly implied in the video that he believes some light-skinned populations in North Africa evolved within North Africa. And I am aware that people from the Maghreb have East African derived Y-Chromosomes and Southern European mtDNA lineages but I'm not clear on when these Southern Euros arrived in North Africa and whether or not the light-skin of many North African populations is an exclusive trait of Eurasians.
I tried to email Keita about these questions but his address has been deactivated.
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Through the years, Keita believes, the Egyptians appear to have blended with many immigrants and invaders, many of whom were lighter-skinned and more Caucasoid in appearance than the original Egyptians. Libyans, Persians, Syro-Palestinians, Assyrians, Greeks, and Romans all left their imprint on the faces of Egypt.
The point many in here are making is that he did not state this more clearly in the Cambridge lecture. Thus giving the impression (through his ambiguity) that light skin (or pale skin) was always a feature in North Africa and down played the impact of foreign invasion on the modern Egyptian population. This is staple feature in Eurocentric misinformation about AE. He knew the issues yet avoided them intentionally and cowardly in my view.
This coupled with his reluctance to discuss the pictures of Egyptians showing them as black people, choosing instead to dismiss them in typical Eurocentric fashion by bringing up the are-they-symbolic line, is deeply disturbing. He also dodges the question on common bonds and identities between ancient Egyptians and Nubians/Sudanese preferring instead to talk about contemporary bonds such as common "Arabic identity" and instances of contemparary Pan African shared identities. This I suspect is due to the fact that the former it might lead to an obvious discussion on the "racial" or "ethnic" identity and bonds between the two peoples, thus offending his audience. The latter is more kosher.
He has no problems stating Sudan means land of the blacks, no doubt because Sudan/Nubia is not in contention in the Eurocentric world. Why then couldn't he have spoken equally on the "blacks" and Egypt?
There's a convergence of evidence here. What does it say for Keita?
That quote and Keita's presentation before this largely white Cambridge audience shows that he is either a shill or a bit schizophrenic. Lots of black academics suffer from schizophrenia because they have to (or think they have to) appease whites yet deep down inside they do know the truth. Some blacks don't know how to handle this existential dichotomy. Keita is obviously one of them.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: Keita's lecture is consistent with the writing in his articles. The way I see it NatGeo is taking advantage of the scientific jargon in Keita's speeches because laymen have trouble comprehending what he is saying. You have to understand that Keita is a Biological Anthropologist. He speaks in hard scientific terms and dismisses typological concepts because they are misleading. There is nothing Eurocentric about his comments and accusing him of being a shill is offensive.
posted
^ I too agree, as well as the fact that Keita is all too apeasing to the Eurocents. Welcome back Musa, by the way.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Through the years, Keita believes, the Egyptians appear to have blended with many immigrants and invaders, many of whom were lighter-skinned and more Caucasoid in appearance than the original Egyptians. Libyans, Persians, Syro-Palestinians, Assyrians, Greeks, and Romans all left their imprint on the faces of Egypt.
The point many in here are making is that he did not state this more clearly in the Cambridge lecture. Thus giving the impression (through his ambiguity) that light skin (or pale skin) was always a feature in North Africa and down played the impact of foreign invasion on the modern Egyptian population. This is staple feature in Eurocentric misinformation about AE. He knew the issues yet avoided them intentionally and cowardly in my view.
This coupled with his reluctance to discuss the pictures of Egyptians showing them as black people, choosing instead to dismiss them in typical Eurocentric fashion by bringing up the are-they-symbolic line, is deeply disturbing. He also dodges the question on common bonds and identities between ancient Egyptians and Nubians/Sudanese preferring instead to talk about contemporary bonds such as common "Arabic identity" and instances of contemparary Pan African shared identities. This I suspect is due to the fact that the former it might lead to an obvious discussion on the "racial" or "ethnic" identity and bonds between the two peoples, thus offending his audience. The latter is more kosher.
He has no problems stating Sudan means land of the blacks, no doubt because Sudan/Nubia is not in contention in the Eurocentric world. Why then couldn't he have spoken equally on the "blacks" and Egypt?
There's a convergence of evidence here. What does it say for Keita?
That quote and Keita's presentation before this largely white Cambridge audience shows that he is either a shill or a bit schizophrenic. Lots of black academics suffer from schizophrenia because they have to (or think they have to) appease whites yet deep down inside they do know the truth. Some blacks don't know how to handle this existential dichotomy. Keita is obviously one of them.
I don't think Keita is reluctant to discuss the issues for worry that he might offend his audience at all.
He had no problem questioning the genetic uniformity of Europeans. If you've ever debated Nordicists and Medicentrists you know all too well that the idea that they are not the lily White pure race they like to think they are drives them insane! Keita made it very clear that he approaches this discussion from the perspective of a critical scientist not an Afrocentrist or Eurocentrist.
He is willing to discuss modern ethnic identities and social perceptions however he stresses that it is important to put an ancient culture in its proper historical context and avoid misconceptions.
As far as pale-skin being native to Africa is concerned, if that is what the evidence shows Keita is not going to hesitate to say so, nor do I believe should he. He made it very clear in that interview and past writings that people who migrated to the Nile Valley and founded Ancient Egyptian civilization were a dark-skinned people. The reason he is reluctant to talk about racial labels and what such people would be considered today is because that can lead to certain misconceptions.
We must remember that for instance the term Negro was traditionally used in anthropology to describe stereotypical features that were ascribed to what was believed to be the authentic African and thus limited the true variability of indigenious Africans. That is the very thing Keita has been fighting all of his professional life against.
So when he said he doesn't use that word he has good reason not to. This may cause confusion for the listener but his point is that if you don't LISTEN and try to comprehend the research you will continue to ask questions that will not provide you with useful info when answered.
He also avoids terms like Black and White even in a socio-political context because that context varies from region to region.
As for the artwork it is true that the Ancient Egyptians followed several artistic conventions when depicting people (different skintones for Gods, spiritual beings and sometimes genders etc.). That doesn't mean that none of their art reflected reality but it is a reason why modern anthropologists like Keita don't rely on artistic depictions to tell them about the biological affinities of ancient people.
In both the NatGeo video and the Cambridge lecture Keita says it is important to acknowledge the possibility that the various invasions of Egypt led to immigration and intermarriage with Europeans and Near Easterners. There is genetic evidence supporting this but the historical support for extensive immigration has been called into question. So Keita seems hesitant to make a definitive statement on that issue.
Overall I'd say that Keita has tried to be as objective as possible. His main points first and foremost are that Ancient Egypt was an African civilization, not only geographically but culturally and its people, while possessing a variety of anatomical traits, were biologically African as well.
If we want more forceful answers to the issues that concern us we need to ask the right questions.
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well in response just a couple of days ago two posters mentioned Mr. Keita needs a job too. The man is skirting a fine line between what he knows to be true and what the establishment will let him get away with. And the video showed how he has to maneuver within that line.
Mr. Keita did make an unusual comment, in my opinion, considering he may be a methodological naturalist. He stated, depending on how one views the origins of humans, that God, if this be the case, and evolution, if this be the case, both work in mysterious ways. Now, how is there room for both? It's easy to say this means nothing more than an acknowledgement to the opposing camp, the God factor. Yet the God factor is fundamentally opposed to evolution as it stands considering the former factor requires no proof and the latter claims it does.
Considering the limited number of people in the conference room and the small size of it I would think time constraints would be a bit more agreeable considering this type of topic. The woman from Brazil at the table seemed petrified if they went over the limit. Now I say this knowing full well the conference room could have been rented out to someone else. On the other hand maybe the guy that locks the building had to go home and watch his favorite show on television.
At any rate I don't envy the man having to stand in front of people knowing he will be asked difficult questions and have to measure his responses within the framework of the establishment. But that's his position in academia.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ That is, the way it be when surrounded by the opposition. Don't make the mistake that brothers are free. Keita agrees with the Albinism theory but there is no way he can say this without sacrificing a ton of green, as well as his rep.
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: Well in response just a couple of days ago two posters mentioned Mr. Keita needs a job too. The man is skirting a fine line between what he knows to be true and what the establishment will let him get away with. And the video showed how he has to maneuver within that line.
Mr. Keita did make an unusual comment, in my opinion, considering he may be a methodological naturalist. He stated, depending on how one views the origins of humans, that God, if this be the case, and evolution, if this be the case, both work in mysterious ways. Now, how is there room for both? It's easy to say this means nothing more than an acknowledgement to the opposing camp, the God factor. Yet the God factor is fundamentally opposed to evolution as it stands considering the former factor requires no proof and the latter claims it does.
Considering the limited number of people in the conference room and the small size of it I would think time constraints would be a bit more agreeable considering this type of topic. The woman from Brazil at the table seemed petrified if they went over the limit. Now I say this knowing full well the conference room could have been rented out to someone else. On the other hand maybe the guy that locks the building had to go home and watch his favorite show on television.
At any rate I don't envy the man having to stand in front of people knowing he will be asked difficult questions and have to measure his responses within the framework of the establishment. But that's his position in academia.
First of all,
Having read several of Keita's writings I don't believe him to be anything other than an objective scholar. He does not depend on his lectures for income. He is a surgeon who works in Washington D.C. He has continually challenged the status quo when it comes to understanding the bio-history of Ancient Egypt. So he has the luxury of being able to speak freely on a subject that he is an authority on.
I think his comment about God was an acknowledgment that some people in his audience may be religious and do not prescribe to the theory of evolution, concerning the origins of man. Clearly, as an evolutionary biologist he does. There is such a thing btw, as theistic evolution. Some scientists who believe in God consider evolution nothing more than part of God's grand design.
This is a highly complicated subject and Keita expected to have to dispel several misconceptions which he was prepared to do. I don't believe he pandered to the 'establishment' or anyone elses agenda. He tried to address the questions as best he could while staying true to his research.
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: ^ That is, the way it be when surrounded by the opposition. Don't make the mistake that brothers are free. Keita agrees with the Albinism theory but there is no way he can say this without sacrificing a ton of green, as well as his rep.
If you're referring to the belief that Europeans are descended from exiled Albino Africans or that pale-skin is exclusively product of albinism I don't believe that Keita prescribes to that theory.
The mainstream consensus among anthropologists is that pale-skin is an adaptation to Northern climates in order to help the body produce Vitamin D because they were not getting enough UV rays from the sun.
Albinism is an unrelated mutation and albinos are nearly depleted of melanin to the point where they have white hair.
I think you guys are wrong. Keita does not strike me as a man who is afraid to speak his mind. I suspect that he is saying things some of you don't want to hear or don't feel he has been clear enough to your liking on some of his answers. But if you read Keita's articles he speaks about these topics in very much the way he writes.
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is interesting that some in here who have taken it upon themselves to apologize for Keita's shortcomings have lapsed into justifying (even if tacitly) Eurocentrism's most insidious themes. I mean I feel like I'm debating a Eurocentric!
One theme: all of a sudden "black" and "white" becomes ambiguous.
We all know damn well what these terms mean which is why "black" is only in contention when it comes to AE; it is not that controversial when we deal with, say, Nubia or Great Zimbabwe or the usual "West African kingdoms". Here there is no problem using "unscientific" terms such as "black" or "black Africans" to these places. And like I said he had no problem saying Sudan meant land of the blacks, so how is it all of a sudden "black" becomes problematic when it concerns AE? This is typical Eurocentric tactic!
No one is saying we rely only on artistic depictions to tell us about the biological affinities (or race) of ancient people. But it is one of the many evidence that they were indeed what we call today black! No different from Nubians. Or are we going to argue this point? I mean if some of us are going to go subtly Eurocentric then why not go all out? Say (like some "veterans" have suggested) that Nubians and Egyptians were different peoples phenotypically!
Also, why you do present Afrocentricity as if its some sort of mirror image of Eurocentrism? Who made you think this way? This is standard Eurocentric line meant to cut down the growing challenge to Eurocentrism.
And, the issue is not whether AE were "pure white races", even Eurocentrics don't argue this anymore. The issue is whether or not the AE looked like what we would call blacks today. You don't have to adhere to the "true negro" line to do this. This is another underhand argument that doesn't hold water. If you are willing to discuses modern ethnic identities in the same region why cant you (for clarity) apply these said identities, in proper context, to ancient times? Diop and others did it, why couldn't he? There seems to be a perception that you are more "scientific" when you tacitly conform to Eurocentric themes and deliberate ambiguities that serve not science but political agendas. So again they are "scientific"/rational while blacks are unscientific and irrational. Same nineteenth century racial essentialism being played out here.
Yes I agree the way in which the question was raised was inaccurate and quite stupid given the volumes of work done on the improper and misleading nature of the word "negro", but I think Keita knew exactly what the student was asking. In failing to clarify he did the guy a disservice.
And as far as pale-skin being native to Africa is concerned, what "evidence" do you think he was alluding to that somehow "shows" this. Are you saying he knows of such evidence and that's why it was necessary to be vague on this question? And who has called into question the historical support for extensive immigration?
I can guess who, but who are you referring here. And what evidence do they have that five non African (six if you argue that white Arabs also came in after founding of Islam) peoples invading didn't alter the "complexion" of the population that much?
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
One theme: all of a sudden "black" and "white" becomes ambiguous.
We all know damn well what these terms mean which is why "black" is only in contention when it comes to AE; it is not that controversial when we deal with, say, Nubia or Great Zimbabwe or the usual "West African kingdoms". Here there is no problem using "unscientific" terms such as "black" or "black Africans" to these places. And like I said he had no problem saying Sudan meant land of the blacks, so how is it all of a sudden "black" becomes problematic when it concerns AE? This is typical Eurocentric tactic!
Take note of the excerpt I quoted from Richard Poe's book where he states that Keita rarely resorts to using racial labels. Now I agree that National Geographic is exercising hypocrisy when they are reluctant to talk about the appearance of the Ancient Egyptians but then talk about "Black" Nubian Pharaohs.
Keita however is not making an exception for Ancient Egypt. Notice that throughout the interview he did not ONCE (as I recall) refer to any other people including himself as Black. He used nationalities, ethno-nationalities, ethno-ancestries, regions, continental designations and even references to famous people to make his points about identity and origins. Poe was clearly not exaggerating and if you refer back to Keita's 1993 article he tells you why he doesn't use racial labels to classify people, even in a socio-political context.
quote:There is little interest in this review in "social race," since this varies from place to place. "Black" and "White" are differently defined in American than Panama or Brazil. The interest is in "real" affinities.
Source: Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships, S.O.Y. Keita, History in Africa, 20: 129-154 (1993)
Now obviously this nihilistic mindset towards racial labels can be problematic when communicating with laymen and can be seen as making a rather simplistic view unnecessarily complicated. But Keita is far from being Eurocentric in his explanations. I should point out that even Mary Lefkowitz acknowledged that the Ancient Egyptians would be considered Black by American social standards (she cites Keita for her conclusions about the origins of the Ancient Egyptians).
I have no doubt that if Keita were asked directly:
"Would the Ancient Egyptians be considered Black by American social standards and most of the Western world?"
He would answer yes. He was descriptive in the lecture, acknowledging that they were dark-skinned, stating that many of the statues had "Somali-like" Elongated features but his vocabulary is advanced well beyond normal speech when it comes to ethnic labeling.
quote:And as far as pale-skin being native to Africa is concerned, what "evidence" do you think he was alluding to that somehow "shows" this. Are you saying he knows of such evidence and that's why it was necessary to be vague on this question? And who has called into question the historical support for extensive immigration?
Like I said earlier, I intend to ask him about the light-skin of some North Africans myself if I can find another way to contact him.
The person I'm referring to about the immigrations is Joel Irish who cited comments by Keita on the subject in one of his studies, then cited an essay from The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt to call it into question:
quote:Lastly, following the relative cultural stability of the dynastic, Egypt came to be wholly dominated by foreign rulers during Ptolemaic (332–30 BC) and Roman (30 BC– AD 395) times. In general, the Egyptian administrative system was maintained and traditional culture mostly continued throughout these periods; regardless, Egypt began to accumulate characteristics of the occupying powers (Watterson, 1997; Lloyd, 2000a,b; Peacock, 2000). To what extent this influence involved gene flow into the native peoples is unknown. Keita (1992, p. 251) suggested that migrations resulting in a ‘‘major genetic impact’’ might have occurred immediately prior to and during this period. However, the numbers of Greek and Roman immigrants (Peacock, 2000), particularly outside the major centers of government, were probably low. As such, indigenous Egyptians may not have differed significantly from their dynastic predecessors. Again, affinities among samples from these two time-successive periods can help gauge the amount of biological influence these outside groups had on the local peoples.
Source: Who Were the Ancient Egyptians? Dental Affinities Among Neolithic Through Postdynastic Peoples, Joel D. Irish, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 129(4):529-43 (2006)
Now Keita has sought to support this hypothesis through DNA studies but he acknowledges that are done on modern populations and not ancient remains they are not entirely conclusive.
Are there any historical sources supporting massive immigrations during the Greco-Roman and Islamic periods? I was recommended the book Egypt after the Pharaohs by Ausar. If anyone has info to share on that subject it would be appreciated.
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Would the Ancient Egyptians be considered Black by American social standards and most of the Western world?"
Again this is a typical Eurocentric tactic. This question is phrased for a reply that would still maintain the Eurocentric propaganda line, that is, the ancient Egyptians looked no different from the modern day inhabitants. The line of Hawass and Co. would still prevail.
You see "American standards" employ the "one drop" rule, which would include the present day white Arab majority inhabitants of Egypt.
So Eurocentrics like Lefkowitz can always say they were "black" - by American standards - and still say they were different from Nubians and other "black Africans" south of the Sahara. This is why clarity is very important. And if Keita decides to sit on the fence knowing damn well what the issues involved are, then I refer you to King's quote about fence sitters and how they end up maintaining the status quo.
Yes, as I suspected, in would be in Oxford's interest to down play the impact of invasions; "probably low", give me a ******* break! Five or six foreign invasions over centuries and their impact would be "probably low"? America before the changes of the 1960s was majority WASP. Post 60s today it's a very different place, not just in terms of ideology and values but complexion. And this is only forty years due mostly to the impact of just ONE ethno-national group, the Latinos!!! In the not too distant future American complexion is projected to change even more! Compare this with what Egypt suffered, you will have to bring more than some white man citing Peacock, 2000 saying the impact was "probably low".
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are there any historical sources supporting massive immigrations during the Greco-Roman and Islamic periods? I was recommended the book Egypt after the Pharaohs by Ausar. If anyone has info to share on that subject it would be appreciated.
It doesn't necessarily have to be those two periods. I think there was a study by two guys named Berry decades back that found that there was some change in craniofacial morphology during the New Kingdom. This would coincide with increased contact between Egypt and SW Asia; maybe that had a genetic impact?
BTW, I am actually a bit bothered by Keita's use of the word "dark-skinned". What precisely does he mean by that? Some people in his audience could consider "brown" populations such as Southwest Asians, Southeast Asians, Polynesians, or Native Americans "dark-skinned" even though most of us here would call them medium-toned instead of dark or black.
Posts: 7083 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ exactly "dark skin" or "Somali-like" is no more "advanced", "scientific" or "well beyond normal speech" as an ethnic label than say "black". Both require explanation and clarity if you want to be as "scientific" and precise as possible. He could very well have said "black" and explained what he meant by this, like Diop and others.
Like I said, he choose to fence sit, which is not that "objective" when you really think about it.
quote:I think there was a study by two guys named Berry decades back that found that there was some change in craniofacial morphology during the New Kingdom.
I think youre referring to this guy (or individuals) Van Sertima talks about "This is a hasty misreading of the work of scholars like A.C. Berry, R. J. Berry and Ucko who point out that there is a remarkable degree of homogeneity in this area for 5000 years. What a superficial reading of this fails to note is that the period ends with the close of the native dynasties BEFORE the invasions of the Assyrian, Persian, Greek, Roman and Arab foreigners"Reply to My CriticsPosts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Through the years, Keita believes, the Egyptians appear to have blended with many immigrants and invaders, many of whom were lighter-skinned and more Caucasoid in appearance than the original Egyptians. Libyans, Persians, Syro-Palestinians, Assyrians, Greeks, and Romans all left their imprint on the faces of Egypt.
The point many in here are making is that he did not state this more clearly in the Cambridge lecture. Thus giving the impression (through his ambiguity) that light skin (or pale skin) was always a feature in North Africa and down played the impact of foreign invasion on the modern Egyptian population. This is staple feature in Eurocentric misinformation about AE. He knew the issues yet avoided them intentionally and cowardly in my view.
This coupled with his reluctance to discuss the pictures of Egyptians showing them as black people, choosing instead to dismiss them in typical Eurocentric fashion by bringing up the are-they-symbolic line, is deeply disturbing. He also dodges the question on common bonds and identities between ancient Egyptians and Nubians/Sudanese preferring instead to talk about contemporary bonds such as common "Arabic identity" and instances of contemparary Pan African shared identities. This I suspect is due to the fact that the former it might lead to an obvious discussion on the "racial" or "ethnic" identity and bonds between the two peoples, thus offending his audience. The latter is more kosher.
He has no problems stating Sudan means land of the blacks, no doubt because Sudan/Nubia is not in contention in the Eurocentric world. Why then couldn't he have spoken equally on the "blacks" and Egypt?
There's a convergence of evidence here. What does it say for Keita?
That quote and Keita's presentation before this largely white Cambridge audience shows that he is either a shill or a bit schizophrenic. Lots of black academics suffer from schizophrenia because they have to (or think they have to) appease whites yet deep down inside they do know the truth. Some blacks don't know how to handle this existential dichotomy. Keita is obviously one of them.
I don't think Keita is reluctant to discuss the issues for worry that he might offend his audience at all.
He had no problem questioning the genetic uniformity of Europeans. If you've ever debated Nordicists and Medicentrists you know all too well that the idea that they are not the lily White pure race they like to think they are drives them insane! Keita made it very clear that he approaches this discussion from the perspective of a critical scientist not an Afrocentrist or Eurocentrist.
He is willing to discuss modern ethnic identities and social perceptions however he stresses that it is important to put an ancient culture in its proper historical context and avoid misconceptions.
As far as pale-skin being native to Africa is concerned, if that is what the evidence shows Keita is not going to hesitate to say so, nor do I believe should he. He made it very clear in that interview and past writings that people who migrated to the Nile Valley and founded Ancient Egyptian civilization were a dark-skinned people. The reason he is reluctant to talk about racial labels and what such people would be considered today is because that can lead to certain misconceptions.
We must remember that for instance the term Negro was traditionally used in anthropology to describe stereotypical features that were ascribed to what was believed to be the authentic African and thus limited the true variability of indigenious Africans. That is the very thing Keita has been fighting all of his professional life against.
So when he said he doesn't use that word he has good reason not to. This may cause confusion for the listener but his point is that if you don't LISTEN and try to comprehend the research you will continue to ask questions that will not provide you with useful info when answered.
He also avoids terms like Black and White even in a socio-political context because that context varies from region to region.
As for the artwork it is true that the Ancient Egyptians followed several artistic conventions when depicting people (different skintones for Gods, spiritual beings and sometimes genders etc.). That doesn't mean that none of their art reflected reality but it is a reason why modern anthropologists like Keita don't rely on artistic depictions to tell them about the biological affinities of ancient people.
In both the NatGeo video and the Cambridge lecture Keita says it is important to acknowledge the possibility that the various invasions of Egypt led to immigration and intermarriage with Europeans and Near Easterners. There is genetic evidence supporting this but the historical support for extensive immigration has been called into question. So Keita seems hesitant to make a definitive statement on that issue.
Overall I'd say that Keita has tried to be as objective as possible. His main points first and foremost are that Ancient Egypt was an African civilization, not only geographically but culturally and its people, while possessing a variety of anatomical traits, were biologically African as well.
If we want more forceful answers to the issues that concern us we need to ask the right questions.
But the point is that words are used for communication and as long as they are used in such a way were the communication is meaningful and the underlying concept is clear and unambiguous, then that is obviously what is best. Therefore, saying black is not a meaningful term in a biological context is fine. But that does not mean that the fact that humans have skin color that varies as a biological trait is something so complex that the fact of this biological trait being different from one population to the next in a historical context cannot be communicated clearly. That is not a social system that is scientific understanding of biological facts based on the available data. Keita has not addressed the concerns raised but avoided them. If he says he does not use terms of black or negroid, then fine, but what terms would he use to reflect the biological trait of skin color among ancient Africans in North Africa? Calling someone light skinned is a relative term that is no more meaningful than the term black or brown. So why take offense to one term as ambiguous and unscientific and then replace it with another that is equally unscientific and ambiguous?
Likewise, how does saying that light skinned straight haired people have existed since 60,000 years ago clarify anything? What is light skin? What I call light and someone else calls light could be totally different. Likewise, without context how does that statement add value? Were there a LOT of "light skinned" people 60,000 years ago? And how did these features come about? Did light skin develop first and then straight hair? Did straight hair develop first and then light skin? Did they both develop together? Did "dark skinned" people in North Africa have straight hair 60,000 years ago? Did the dark skinned people in North Africa with straight hair evolve solely in North Africa alone or did other populations elsewhere evolve dark skin and straight hair independently? What factors suit the development of such traits? And, how many other types of features were found among North Africans 60,000 years ago along with those "light skinned" types? How can we tell who was light skinned 60,000 years ago? All of these questions are valid and as a biologist he should be able to address them directly.
There should be no reason why he cannot using any clear and concise language, address the actual biological trait of skin color as a objective scientific fact without resorting to weasel words and half truths.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Morpheus says: ''He does not depend on his lectures for income. He is a surgeon who works in Washington D.C. He has continually challenged the status quo when it comes to understanding the bio-history of Ancient Egypt. So he has the luxury of being able to speak freely on a subject that he is an authority on.''
Well then, in light of what you offered just now, what kind of response can come after this one from Doug M (below), and others here.
''There should be no reason why he cannot using any clear and concise language, address the actual biological trait of skin color as a objective scientific fact without resorting to weasel words and half truths.''Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
The person I'm referring to about the immigrations is Joel Irish who cited comments by Keita on the subject in one of his studies, then cited an essay from The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt to call it into question:
quote:Lastly, following the relative cultural stability of the dynastic, Egypt came to be wholly dominated by foreign rulers during Ptolemaic (332–30 BC) and Roman (30 BC– AD 395) times. In general, the Egyptian administrative system was maintained and traditional culture mostly continued throughout these periods; regardless, Egypt began to accumulate characteristics of the occupying powers (Watterson, 1997; Lloyd, 2000a,b; Peacock, 2000). To what extent this influence involved gene flow into the native peoples is unknown. Keita (1992, p. 251) suggested that migrations resulting in a ‘‘major genetic impact’’ might have occurred immediately prior to and during this period. However, the numbers of Greek and Roman immigrants (Peacock, 2000), particularly outside the major centers of government, were probably low. As such, indigenous Egyptians may not have differed significantly from their dynastic predecessors. Again, affinities among samples from these two time-successive periods can help gauge the amount of biological influence these outside groups had on the local peoples.
Source: Who Were the Ancient Egyptians? Dental Affinities Among Neolithic Through Postdynastic Peoples, Joel D. Irish, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 129(4):529-43 (2006)
Now Keita has sought to support this hypothesis through DNA studies but he acknowledges that are done on modern populations and not ancient remains they are not entirely conclusive.
Are there any historical sources supporting massive immigrations during the Greco-Roman and Islamic periods? I was recommended the book Egypt after the Pharaohs by Ausar. If anyone has info to share on that subject it would be appreciated.
I'm not sure where else Keita proposed massive migration in either the pre-dynastic era [which he rejects based on evidence] or the dynastic period, other than perhaps raise the question of a "possible" impact [but not definitive] from the folks who were referred to as "Hyksos", and yes, gene flow from non-African groups during and from the Ptolemic era onwards, presumably in Greek and Roman settlement centers in the Nile Valley. I suspect this is what Joel Irish was referring to, when he said:
Keita (1992, p. 251) suggested that migrations resulting in a ‘‘major genetic impact’’ might have occurred immediately prior to and during this period.
Not sure Keita suggested anywhere that the Greeks and Romans *outside of* their main areas of settlements or administration had a "major impact" on the indigenous populations; however, he obviously took note of the influence that would have been brought about by subsequent migrations, after Greco-Roman rule. To cite him, we have the following from previous discussions...
Howells’ (1973) study which included the late dynastic northern “E” series, shows its “intermediateness,” since with a synthetic cluster technique it groups with northern Europeans but with a divisive method with tropical Africans (and of the Broad, not Elongated physiognomy)...
The “E” series comes from the most cosmopolitan area of the country and from the era of foreign domination and settlement from northern Libya and the Near East. The “intermediateness” of the “E” series illustrates the nature of populations below the species or subspecies level (Abott et al., 1985)." - Keita
And this:
No ongoing major mass movements of new groups into the valley are postulated between the early pre-dynastic and the latest dynastic period, with the possible exception of the Asiatic Hyksos.
But reiterates this:
By the time of the unification they were all “indigenous” and primarily African in origin.
No major migrations need be invoked in most cases in dynastic times to explain variation. The next migrations of probable major genetic impact were during the *late dynastic* periods and beyond, after Assyrian, Persian, Greek, and Roman ascensions. - Keita.
Anyway, Keita had this to say about Joel Irish's work, in relation to what is seen as a "change" in a cranial pattern, and how this can be interpreted:
"Recently Irish (Joel D.) and Turner (1990) and Turner and Markowitz (1990) have suggested that the populations of Nubia and Egypt of the agricultural periods were not primarily descendents of the geographical populations of mesolithic/epipaleolithic times. Based on dental morphology, they postulate as almost total replacement of the native /African epipaleolithic and neolithic groups by populations or peoples from further north (Europe or the near east?)
They take issue with the well-known post-pleistocene/hunting dental reduction and simplification hypothesis which postulate in situ microevolution driven by dietary change, with minimal gene flow (admixture).
However, as is well known and accepted, rapid evolution can occur. Also, rapid change in northeast Africa might be specifically anticipated because of the possibilities for punctuated microevolution (secondary to severe micro-selection and drift) in the early Holocene sahara, because of the isolated communities and cyclicial climatic changes there, and their possible subsequent human effects.
The earliest southern predynastic culture, Badari, owes key elements to post-dessication Saharan and also perhaps "Nubian" immigration. Biologically these people were essentially the SAME. It is also possible that the dental traits could have been introduced from an external source, and increased in frequency primarily because of natural selection, either for the trait or for growth pattern requiring less energy.
There is no evidence for sudden or gradual mass migration of Europeans or Near Easterners into the valley, as the term 'replacement' would imply.
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.
And indeed body proportion ratios of ancient Egyptians suggested a body plan described as "super tropical" [for e.g., see Sonia Zakrzewski].
In case anyone wants to have a clue about where Keita came up with such an idea about Joel Irish & co.'s work, the following might provide one...
The present study revisits a subject that has been a source of long-standing bioarchaeological contention, namely, estimation of Nubian population origins and affinities. Using the Arizona State University dental anthropology system, frequencies of 36 crown, root, and intraoral osseous discrete traits in 12 late Pleistocene through early historic Nubian samples were recorded and analyzed. Specifically, intersample phenetic affinities, and an indication of which traits are most important in driving this variation, were determined through the application of correspondence analysis and the mean measure of divergence distance statistic. The results support previous work by the author and others indicating that population discontinuity, in the form of replacement or significant gene flow into an existing gene pool, occurred sometime after the Pleistocene. This analysis now suggests that the break occurred before the Final Neolithic. Samples from the latter through Christian periods exhibit relative homogeneity, which implies overall post-Pleistocene diachronic and regional population continuity. Yet there are several perceptible trends among these latter samples that: 1) are consistent with documented Nubian population history, 2) enable the testing of several existing peopling hypotheses, and 3) allow the formulation of new hypotheses, including a suggestion of two post-Pleistocene subgroups predicated on an age-based sample dichotomy. - Irish JD, Population continuity vs. discontinuity revisited: dental affinities among late Paleolithic through Christian-era Nubians.
And finally, Keita leaves no doubt about within-population phenotype variation of ancient Upper Egyptian samples...
In most cases, the morphological descriptions of early southern "Egyptian" crania clearly fall within Broad to Elongated Saharo-tropical African ranges of variation. If treated as an unknown, Egyptian variation has to be judged in the context of the range of early Saharo-tropical African variation (Broad to Elongated) and not be analyzed in terms of one abstracted phenotype deemed to be the only "African." In other words, the baseline definition of biological African has to take in the entire range of tropical African variability, including fossil and subfossil data, and not be based on the baised (for whatever reason) misusing of race theorists from the earlier part of this century. - Keita
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Minibrainer wrote: Why do you HATE Keita and Kettles, robot?
Who said I hated them or anyone??! Again, I'm not a robot but it's obvious that CPU you call your brain is malfunctioning as usual.
Anyway, I agree that Keita is trying to be as scientific as possible by straying away from racial or ethnic labels. But using such labels may be necessary for clarification. He could just say plain and simple that by today's 'racial' standards YES the Egyptians were black and NO they were not an ethnically mixed group (as is the trend of belief among many liberals today) but rather as all my findings show them to be indigenous to the African continent and that there is no division between 'Sub-Sahara' and North Africa. Indigenous Africans whom we know as black range throughout the continent have vary in certain features and form and Egyptians are part of that continuity. There. Now isn't that simple? And didn't Keita himself point this out in so many other terms??
By the way, when he said lighter skin was indigenous to North Africa, the question is how light? Remember that lighter skin evolved in subtropical southern Africa as seen among Khoisan people, so similar complexions among subtropical Northern Africa? Did he really say the pale or 'white' skin exhibited by coastal Berbers like the Rif or Kabyle are indigenous??
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If treated as an unknown, Egyptian variation has to be judged in the context of the range of early Saharo-tropical African variation (Broad to Elongated) and not be analyzed in terms of one abstracted phenotype deemed to be the only "African."
Both broad and elongated (the "Somali like" features) omit the modern day majority white Arab inhabitants and thus the perception (left unaddressed in the Cambridge lecture because of his ambiguity) that modern day inhabitants are not so different from the ancient inhabitants.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: They take issue with the well-known post-pleistocene/hunting dental reduction and simplification hypothesis which postulate in situ microevolution driven by dietary change, with minimal gene flow (admixture).
However, as is well known and accepted, rapid evolution can occur. Also, rapid change in northeast Africa might be specifically anticipated because of the possibilities for punctuated microevolution (secondary to severe micro-selection and drift) in the early Holocene sahara, because of the isolated communities and cyclicial climatic changes there, and their possible subsequent human effects.
Biological Changes in Human Populations with Agriculture
Clark Spencer Larsen Department of Anthropology and Research Laboratories of Anthropology, The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3120
Agriculture has long been regarded as an improvement in the human condition: Once Homo sapiens made the transition from foraging to farming in the Neolithic, health and nutrition improved, longevity increased, and work load declined. Recent study of archaeological human remains worldwide by biological anthropologists has shown this characterization of the shift from hunting and gathering to agriculture to be incorrect. Contrary to earlier models, the adoption of agriculture involved an overall decline in oral and general health. This decline is indicated by elevated prevalence of various skeletal and dental pathological conditions and alterations in skeletal and dental growth patterns in prehistoric farmers compared with foragers. In addition, changes in food composition and preparation technology contributed to craniofacial and dental alterations, and activity levels and mobility decline resulted in a general decrease in skeletal robusticity. These findings indicate that the shift from food collection to food production occasioned significant and widespread biological changes in human populations during the last 10,000 years.
Dr. Pritchard's scan of the human genome differs from the previous two because he has developed a statistical test to identify just genes that have started to spread through populations in recent millennia and have not yet become universal, as many advantageous genes eventually do. The selected genes he has detected fall into a handful of functional categories, as might be expected if people were adapting to specific changes in their environment. Some are genes involved in digesting particular foods like the lactose-digesting gene common in Europeans. Some are genes that mediate taste and smell as well as detoxify plant poisons, perhaps signaling a shift in diet from wild foods to domesticated plants and animals. Dr. Pritchard estimates that the average point at which the selected genes started to become more common under the pressure of natural selection is 10,800 years ago in the African population and 6,600 years ago in the Asian and European populations.Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Indeed dental changes don't say much about biological affinity of populations, as the tropical body plans of ancient Egyptian specimens demonstrate, in the sense that it necessarily shows 'replacement' or 'significant gene flow' from some exotic group(s); like Keita alluded to, they could well be the product of micro-evolution, brought about by change or alteration in feeding habits. Plus, parallels in dental forms could be the product of happenstance or parallel evolution.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: [QUOTE]Originally posted by The Explorer: They take issue with the well-known post-pleistocene/hunting dental reduction and simplification hypothesis which postulate in situ microevolution driven by dietary change, with minimal gene flow (admixture).
However, as is well known and accepted, rapid evolution can occur. Also, rapid change in northeast Africa might be specifically anticipated because of the possibilities for punctuated microevolution (secondary to severe micro-selection and drift) in the early Holocene sahara, because of the isolated communities and cyclicial climatic changes there, and their possible subsequent human effects.
Biological Changes in Human Populations with Agriculture
Clark Spencer Larsen Department of Anthropology and Research Laboratories of Anthropology, The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3120
Agriculture has long been regarded as an improvement in the human condition: Once Homo sapiens made the transition from foraging to farming in the Neolithic, health and nutrition improved, longevity increased, and work load declined. Recent study of archaeological human remains worldwide by biological anthropologists has shown this characterization of the shift from hunting and gathering to agriculture to be incorrect. Contrary to earlier models, the adoption of agriculture involved an overall decline in oral and general health. This decline is indicated by elevated prevalence of various skeletal and dental pathological conditions and alterations in skeletal and dental growth patterns in prehistoric farmers compared with foragers. In addition, changes in food composition and preparation technology contributed to craniofacial and dental alterations, and activity levels and mobility decline resulted in a general decrease in skeletal robusticity. These findings indicate that the shift from food collection to food production occasioned significant and widespread biological changes in human populations during the last 10,000 years.
Dr. Pritchard's scan of the human genome differs from the previous two because he has developed a statistical test to identify just genes that have started to spread through populations in recent millennia and have not yet become universal, as many advantageous genes eventually do. The selected genes he has detected fall into a handful of functional categories, as might be expected if people were adapting to specific changes in their environment. Some are genes involved in digesting particular foods like the lactose-digesting gene common in Europeans. Some are genes that mediate taste and smell as well as detoxify plant poisons, perhaps signaling a shift in diet from wild foods to domesticated plants and animals. Dr. Pritchard estimates that the average point at which the selected genes started to become more common under the pressure of natural selection is 10,800 years ago in the African population and 6,600 years ago in the Asian and European populations.
^ I'm surprised you didnt find some way to throw in your favorite white Christopher Ehret.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben: ^ I'm surprised you didnt find some way to throw in your favorite white Christopher Ehret.
Do you think every white scholar is irrelevant to the study of Ancient Egypt? Has it ever occurred to you that objective white people do exist? There aren't a whole lot of them to be sure, but they do exist.
Posts: 7083 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Of course, but you know assopen-- a pathetic white loser prentending to be a black Africanist-- all part of his cover in his crusade against 'those damn Jews'. Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben: ^ I'm surprised you didnt find some way to throw in your favorite white Christopher Ehret.
Do you think every white scholar is irrelevant to the study of Ancient Egypt? Has it ever occurred to you that objective white people do exist? There aren't a whole lot of them to be sure, but they do exist.
Of course objective white scholars do exist, but others not so white do exist also. Tell this to mindless718 (who claims to be La-tino Africanst) who posts gringo Chris every chance he gets.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic