These videos have been discussed in other threads.
I want to make a thread specifically about these videos so that people can give their thoughts and opinions on them.
Keita's studies have been quoted and interpreted on this board for quite awhile. For many people this is our first time hearing Keita himself speak about Ancient Egypt.
What do you think about the presentation of both videos and the comments made by Keita in them?
How do you feel these videos have progressed our understanding of Ancient Egypt's bio-cultural origins?
Did he say some things that you find to be confusing or that need more clarification?
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
*He refused to explain "what he was saying" in layman's terms. Which obviously leaves out some/majority people as far as them grasping to "what he was saying". But then this is a matter of perspective. If you consider the type of people who would actually care to watch the video (target audience), then the language he has used is probably his best option.
*He explained "what he was saying" in precise and logical terms that in actuality debunks Eurocentric ideas about Egypt in an effective manner.
*He avoided using racial terms that could cause the confusion neccessary to misinterpret and/or miscommunicate "what he was saying".
---
Now in the layman's world, "what he was saying" = Ancient Egyptians were Indigenous Black Africans.
Posts: 3423 | From: the jungle - when y'all stop playing games, call me. | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Race is foremost an attempt to seperate every kind of physical human trait into a couple neat geographically based groups ...
(ultimately science in reverse)
the physical characteristics of any human population are really the result of diet, climate, selection and migrations over time.
So ... the variation of physical appearance within an indigenous African group of people doesn't have to conform to white people's fake stereotypes. The ancient Egyptians were Africans. End of story. ( )
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
''the physical characteristics of any human population are really the result of diet, climate, selection and migrations over time.''
...according to the principles of evolution* and the principals in evolution.
*Already noted by Mindovermatter 718 but not recognized by him nor you in the way the last part of the sentence reads.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's the thing about Keita is that he uses scientific terminology to describe as accurately as he can about who the Egyptians were and what they looked like which is nothing more than beating around the bush when it comes to laymen terms. He just needs to come right out and say that 'race' is a purely sociological and cultural concept, but judging by Western and many other social and cultural standards the Egyptians would be called 'black'. That's all he's gotta say.
Posts: 26293 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: That's the thing about Keita is that he uses scientific terminology to describe as accurately as he can about who the Egyptians were and what they looked like which is nothing more than beating around the bush when it comes to laymen terms. He just needs to come right out and say that 'race' is a purely sociological and cultural concept, but judging by Western and many other social and cultural standards the Egyptians would be called 'black'. That's all he's gotta say.
I think the reason he doesn't say that is because he doesn't believe it is appropriate to define an ancient people by modern socio-political labels.
Since the criteria for 'racial' labeling varies from region to region and country to country resulting in the same term having different standards of classification he doesn't feel the need to even talk about what they would be considered according to the various cultural standards.
I think if he were asked the right questions he would provide explanations that can be better understood by laymen.
If I were to ask him what the Ancient Egyptians looked like, based on the biological evidence, I would ask him to reference modern people and populations as well as the distinctive features the Ancient Egyptians would have had.
One thing that I did find interesting is his belief that the light-skin and strait hair of many Northwest African populations evolved in Africa. This is notable because in one of his earlier studies he says that the cranial patterns of Lower Egyptians resembled those of ancient Northwest Africans. I find it curious that Keita makes a distinction between Lower Egyptian variation and Upper Egyptian variation (who he groups with tropical Africans).
If he believes that the Lower Egyptians had light-skin and hair then that would dispel the belief that ALL indigenious Ancient Egyptians could be generalized as "Black" in complexion though they would still be Biologically African.
I would like to write him to ask this question but his yahoo email account is disabled.
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: That's the thing about Keita is that he uses scientific terminology to describe as accurately as he can about who the Egyptians were and what they looked like which is nothing more than beating around the bush when it comes to laymen terms. He just needs to come right out and say that 'race' is a purely sociological and cultural concept, but judging by Western and many other social and cultural standards the Egyptians would be called 'black'. That's all he's gotta say.
And the AE were also black according to the Ancient Egyptians own view of themselves as well.
But the point isn't social or cultural it is simply about definition of terms. Skin color is not social. It is biological. Therefore a biologist should be able to describe a populations average skin color without resorting to overly technical terminology. That is why we have words that convey meaning. Black is not a social system. Black is a word. If it is clearly defined and understood that it means someone with medium to dark brown skin complexion, then there is nothing SOCIAL about it. It only BECOMES social when a society decides TO USE skin color as the basis for the distribution of wealth, property and political power.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alive: Race is foremost an attempt to seperate every kind of physical human trait into a couple neat geographically based groups ...
(ultimately science in reverse)
the physical characteristics of any human population are really the result of diet, climate, selection and migrations over time.
So ... the variation of physical appearance within an indigenous African group of people doesn't have to conform to white people's fake stereotypes. The ancient Egyptians were Africans. End of story. ( )
So how did you mulattos come about then? Because of your white momma's diet? You idiot.
Anyway, Keita said light skin straight haired people were in africa 60,000 years ago - Eurocentrics will have a field day with that!
He said the first Africans were dark lol - Eurocentrics(and mediocentrics) will have a field day with that!
He didn't was..Ancient Egyptians were black or negro nor did he say the first AFricans were black or negro. EUROCENTRICS WILL HAVE A FIELD DAY WITH THAT!!!!!!!!!
posted
In that NatGeo video (also on youtube) he generally echoes the same line as in the Cambridge lecture: that the modern population in Egypt is roughly the same as ancient population. Hawass couldn't have said it better.
But notice he said that it was based on assumptions (i.e. conjecture) because of the lack of genetic studies on ancient populations.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
If he believes that the Lower Egyptians had light-skin and hair then that would dispel the belief that ALL indigenious Ancient Egyptians could be generalized as "Black" in complexion though they would still be Biologically African.
Actually, if that were so, it would mean his idea of indigenous variation is dispelled. Now of course, don't know if "light-skin" here is the kind many of us also call "white skin". Genetics has already shown that the skin phenotype variation seen in the tawny-looking coastal North Africans has been influenced by genetic input from northern Eurasians, whether directly from Europe, or by way of so-called Near Eastern groups. And according to the following, an examination of a small sample of predynastic Lower Egyptian specimen suggested that the limb-ratios "group them with Africans"...
Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation (Paperback) by Barry Kemp (Author) Publisher: Routledge; 2 edition (December 12, 2005)
p.54
"Moving to the opposite geographic extremity, the very small sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline of variation along the Nile Valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans"
Keita on the other hand, never studied predynastic Lower Egyptian specimens, to my knowledge.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben: In that NatGeo video (also on youtube) he generally echoes the same line as in the Cambridge lecture: that the modern population in Egypt is roughly the same as ancient population. Hawass couldn't have said it better.
But notice he said that it was based on assumptions (i.e. conjecture) because of the lack of genetic studies on ancient populations.
What he said was that the anatomical variation in Egypt today is indigenious but he also said that Modern Egyptians, especially Northern Egyptians, most likely have ancestry from other regions. We know from his studies that he is referring to gene flow from Europe and Southwest Asia ("Near East") due to foreign settlements primarily in the Greco-Roman and Islamic periods.
Logically if there were notable non-African genetic contributions to the population that would have added to the biological variation. He notes this as a possibility because his genetic research is based on the assumption that modern Egyptians have Ancient Egyptian DNA. There is no reason to doubt this but he is cautious with his language because their research is not directly based on the ancient remains.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Actually, if that were so, it would mean his idea of indigenous variation is dispelled. Now of course, don't know if "light-skin" here is the kind many of us also call "white skin". Genetics has already shown that the skin phenotype variation seen in the tawny-looking coastal North Africans has been influenced by genetic input from northern Eurasians, whether directly from Europe, or by way of so-called Near Eastern groups. And according to the following, an examination of a small sample of predynastic Lower Egyptian specimen suggested that the limb-ratios "group them with Africans"...
Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation (Paperback) by Barry Kemp (Author) Publisher: Routledge; 2 edition (December 12, 2005)
p.54
"Moving to the opposite geographic extremity, the very small sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline of variation along the Nile Valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans"
Keita on the other hand, never studied predynastic Lower Egyptian specimens, to my knowledge.
Thanks, Explorer. What I meant to say was that if he was RIGHT it would mean that "White" skin evolved in Africa.
Keita seems to have come to this conclusion about Northwest Africans based on the Y-Chromosome data which indicates that the paternal genetic lineages of these populations is indigenious to Africa. Since their mtDNA reflects European ancestry that has to be considered as the origins of light-skin.
But I'm still not clear on when these Europeans came to Northwest Africa, how they got there and why they don't have more European derived Y-Chromosomes.
I know it has been discussed before but I would appreciate it if someone who has more throughly researched the topic posted quotes from studies that can help myself and others better understand this subject or at least link to an older thread.
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would say the arrival of white skin people as a permanent fixture in North Africa dates back only 5,000 years or so. Before that, there may have been pockets here or there but not a substantial permanent population and not something that had a significant impact on the indigenous populations there.
HOWEVER, the opposite is also very true, Africans have been having a TREMENDOUS impact on the surrounding Mediterranean for over 50,000 years.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
What he said was that the anatomical variation in Egypt today is indigenious but he also said that Modern Egyptians,
especially Northern Egyptians, most likely have ancestry from other regions.
The former would seem to negate the latter, no?...unless the suggestion here, is that the Egyptians had no morphological distinctions with foreign elements they exchanged genes with, and that the genetic exchange with such elements was only short lived?
quote: Keita seems to have come to this conclusion about Northwest Africans based on the Y-Chromosome data which indicates that the paternal genetic lineages of these populations is indigenious to Africa. Since their mtDNA reflects European ancestry that has to be considered as the origins of light-skin.
First, it needs to be clear, if Keita is saying "white skin", and exactly in those terms, is supposedly indigenous to Africa. If so, that would be wrong based on logic of geography, solar UV radiation levels, and what we understand from genetics of the demography of coastal northwest Africa.
Btw, it isn't just a matter of mtDNA, that we understand about northern Eurasian influence in skin phenotype variation within the tawny-looking coast northwest Africans, but also from studying skin pigmentation allele variations.
quote: But I'm still not clear on when these Europeans came to Northwest Africa, how they got there and why they don't have more European derived Y-Chromosomes.
There is no evidence to my knowledge, of European genetic exchange with northwest Africans *within north Africa itself* prior to and during the Neolithic era. It looks like though, that there may well have been some early Holocene, or Bronze age contact with southern Europe, particularly in the Balkans [think the island of Crete for example].
There seems to be genetic indication on the other hand, of African contact in southern Europe in the Upper Paleolithic. This though, has no bearing on the contemporary Imazighen.
quote:Doug M:
I would say the arrival of white skin people as a permanent fixture in North Africa dates back only 5,000 years or so.
And you are basing this on what scientific finding? Just looking for specifics about your understanding, nothing more or less.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: He notes this as a possibility because his genetic research is based on the assumption that modern Egyptians have Ancient Egyptian DNA.
What haplogroups were said to be found amongst the Pyramid workers, that would indicate modern carriers of this lineage were indigenous, have any ideas?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: ''the physical characteristics of any human population are really the result of diet, climate, selection and migrations over time.''
...according to the principles of evolution* and the principals in evolution.
*Already noted by Mindovermatter 718 but not recognized by him nor you in the way the last part of the sentence reads.
Please do elaborate on what I did not recognize.......???
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
What haplogroups were said to be found amongst the Pyramid workers, that would indicate modern carriers of this lineage were indigenous, have any ideas?
I believe Morpheus was alluding to DNA tests done on contemporary Egyptian populations.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
What haplogroups were said to be found amongst the Pyramid workers, that would indicate modern carriers of this lineage were indigenous, have any ideas?
I believe Morpheus was alluding to DNA tests done on contemporary Egyptian populations.
Yes, but I am trying to see what haplogroups the ancient pyramid workers, of which hawass is so glad to pronounce that makes modern Egyptians descended biologically from Ancients due to this finding. Most likely an E haplogroup derivative, I presume.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: [QUOTE]I think the reason he doesn't say that is because he doesn't believe it is appropriate to define an ancient people by modern socio-political labels.
Since the criteria for 'racial' labeling varies from region to region and country to country resulting in the same term having different standards of classification he doesn't feel the need to even talk about what they would be considered according to the various cultural standards.
Evergreen Writes:
Hmmmmm, Keita uses modern social-political labels such as "Ancient Egyptian" even though this term was not used by the ancients.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: [QUOTE]One thing that I did find interesting is his belief that the light-skin and strait hair of many Northwest African populations evolved in Africa. This is notable because in one of his earlier studies he says that the cranial patterns of Lower Egyptians resembled those of ancient Northwest Africans.
Evergreen Writes:
The problem with this is that modern NW Africans descend from NE African men carryng the E-M81 haplogroup and historic era Iberian women carrying Hg V, H1 and H3.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: [QUOTE]If he believes that the Lower Egyptians had light-skin and hair then that would dispel the belief that ALL indigenious Ancient Egyptians could be generalized as "Black" in complexion though they would still be Biologically African.
Evergreen Writes:
Just because Keita believes something in no way dispels a sound belief. But you're asking the wrong questions. The real question is who were the proto, pre and early dynastic lower Egyptians during state formation.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: If he believes that the Lower Egyptians had light-skin and hair
Evergreen Writes: Just because Keita believes something in no way dispels a sound belief.
Keita doesn't "believe" what is being attributed towards him in this post.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: [QUOTE]If he believes that the Lower Egyptians had light-skin and hair then that would dispel the belief that ALL indigenious Ancient Egyptians could be generalized as "Black" in complexion though they would still be Biologically African.
Evergreen Writes:
Just because Keita believes something in no way dispels a sound belief. But you're asking the wrong questions. The real question is who were the proto, pre and early dynastic lower Egyptians during state formation.
Yes, and I'd bet they cluster skeletally with their Southern compatriots
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Originally posted by Herukhuti: *He refused to explain "what he was saying" in layman's terms. Which obviously leaves out some/majority people as far as them grasping to "what he was saying". But then this is a matter of perspective. If you consider the type of people who would actually care to watch the video (target audience), then the language he has used is probably his best option.
Actually what Keita says should be quite clear to any moderately educated layman. His list of Misconceptions about ancient Egypt for example is readily undertandable. For example:
Misconception 1- Ancient egypt was not in Africa
Misconception #2- ancient egyptian language is unconnected to other African languages
Misconception 3: Ancient Egyptian culture came from outside of Egypt
He clearly shows how these conceptions are fallacious.
His handling of questions from the audience also is very understandable. Time and time again he hooks homely examples - noting for example that the ancient Egyptians certainly used trade items and ideas from other areas, but this was on their own terms, and not evidence that their culture "came from" the outside, just as he uses a coat and tie made someplace else on his own terms. It does not mean he is Chinese if the clothes were made in China. As regards the much played up "differences" of Nubians versus the Egyptians he draws a parallel with England, asking are the Scots British? Are the Welsh British?
All in all, Keita is pretty clear in this video. It should be required viewing for anyone who has a serious interest in African history including the Nile Valley.
The bottom line is that ancient Egyptians were indigenous Africans.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Originally posted by Morpheus: Since the criteria for 'racial' labeling varies from region to region and country to country resulting in the same term having different standards of classification he doesn't feel the need to even talk about what they would be considered according to the various cultural standards.
I think if he were asked the right questions he would provide explanations that can be better understood by laymen.
What makes you think his lecture was not understandable by laymen? What laymen do you refer to? In his lecture Keita addresses a lot of questions, some from their phrasing definitely do not originate with scholars: such as "Is Egyptian history a part of African history" or "why are dark skinned people suffering with no mentors or role models?" In fact most of the questions he answered, had a political or populist flavor not scholarly. One questioner for example wanted to know why the pyramid appears on the US dollar.
Time and time again Kieta uses practical examples easily understandable to illustrate his points, like how Scots and Welsh are not a different "race" - just as Nubians and Egyptians are not a different "race". The notion that what he is saying is "not understandable by laymen" seems dubious. What is he supposed to do, jump around waving Kente cloth and a 40-oz malt liquor to be "understandable"?
If I were to ask him what the Ancient Egyptians looked like, based on the biological evidence, I would ask him to reference modern people and populations as well as the distinctive features the Ancient Egyptians would have had.
Actually he did address this issue in the videos. He said that over time, there were other peoples coming into Egypt like Arabs, or Greeks, but the ancient Egyptian people and culture are indigenous to Africa.
One thing that I did find interesting is his belief that the light-skin and strait hair of many Northwest African populations evolved in Africa. This is notable because in one of his earlier studies he says that the cranial patterns of Lower Egyptians resembled those of ancient Northwest Africans.
Of course. Light skin and straight hair is part and parcel of built-in African genetic diversity. This ain't nothing new. Narrow noses for example are common in various parts of West and East Africa. As for northwest Africans and Lower Egyptian resemblance, in at least two research studies he notes that some crania of Lower Egypt has some variable characteristics like those of Northwest Africa, BUT ALSO like those of Upper Egypt as well. Northwest Africa also includes parts of the Sahara, an Keita specifically cites some studies such as Paoli (1972) which link blood types of the Haratin a "black" Berber population of the Northwest more with the ancient Egyptians than with Europeans.
"Northwest" Africans and "Lower Egypt" thus do NOT equal "white" or "Caucasoid" as alleged in some quarters. Lower Egyptians are more closely related to thweir "brothers" in the south than to distant Northwest, Mediterranen, European or "Middle Eastern" populations, making artifical attempts at "racial" division dubious. Indeed Keita specifically rejects attempts to paint some sort of "racial" divide between north and south. They were all indigenous Africans.
I find it curious that Keita makes a distinction between Lower Egyptian variation and Upper Egyptian variation (who he groups with tropical Africans).
If he believes that the Lower Egyptians had light-skin and hair then that would dispel the belief that ALL indigenious Ancient Egyptians could be generalized as "Black" in complexion though they would still be Biologically African.
Nothing curious about it. Keita never says that all Egyptians or Africans look alike. "Black" is a very vague term, that Keita avoids in a scholarly and scientific sense. It could mean people who are not as pale as Europeans. It could cover a mixed heritage person like Barack Obama. It could mean a dark skinned Iranian who was made to ride in the back of segregated Jim Crow US buses in the 1950s. As for light skin, it is found in several parts of Africa- such as among certain San tribes of Southern Africa. It is by no means confined to people up near the Mediterranean.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: [QUOTE]One thing that I did find interesting is his belief that the light-skin and strait hair of many Northwest African populations evolved in Africa. This is notable because in one of his earlier studies he says that the cranial patterns of Lower Egyptians resembled those of ancient Northwest Africans.
Evergreen Writes:
The problem with this is that modern NW Africans descend from NE African men carryng the E-M81 haplogroup and historic era Iberian women carrying Hg V, H1 and H3.
^Exactly. "Northwest African" does not equal 'Caucasoid". As noted above, blood type analysis links the ancient Egyptians more to the Negroid Haratin of the northwest than to Europeans. Keita himself notes in his 'Crania' studies (1990, and 1992) for example that so called "Negroid" crania and remains have been found in Carthage, a hardly surprising result given the wide distribution of African diversity.
"Negroid" as noted elsewhere on ES is basically one kind of tropical African variant, among several types of native variants of Africa. "Negroid" also covers various straight and loosely curled haired, thin-lipped, narrow-nosed peoples of East, Northeast and West Africa hard as this is for some people to believe.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Alive initially said: ''the physical characteristics of any human population are really the result of diet, climate, selection and migrations over time.''
I responded with: ''...according to the principles of evolution''[much earlier post by you and someplace else] ''and the principals in evolution.''
Mindovermatter 718 wrote: ''Please do elaborate on what I did not recognize.''
Okay, I will. And the bold print directly above your post still makes it 'according to' doesn't it.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan: What is he supposed to do, jump around waving Kente cloth and a 40-oz malt liquor to be "understandable"? ...Nothing curious about it. Keita never says that all Egyptians or Africans look alike. "Black" is a very vague term, that Keita avoids in a scholarly and scientific sense. It could mean people who are not as pale as Europeans. It could cover a mixed heritage person like Barack Obama. It could mean a dark skinned Iranian who was made to ride in the back of segregated Jim Crow US buses in the 1950s. As for light skin, it is found in several parts of Africa- such as among certain San tribes of Southern Africa. It is by no means confined to people up near the Mediterranean.
^ its funny, this "zarahan" fellow has the same contempt for blacks of a different class as Sundiaja. Hmmm....
Anyway, "Black" as a descriptive term is no more vague and subjective than "light skin". If you put black in quotes (a "black" Berber) why can't you put light skin in quotes too? Or are you going to argue that one is more scientific than the other?
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan: What makes you think his lecture was not understandable by laymen? What laymen do you refer to? In his lecture Keita addresses a lot of questions, some from their phrasing definitely do not originate with scholars: such as "Is Egyptian history a part of African history" or "why are dark skinned people suffering with no mentors or role models?" In fact most of the questions he answered, had a political or populist flavor not scholarly. One questioner for example wanted to know why the pyramid appears on the US dollar.
Time and time again Kieta uses practical examples easily understandable to illustrate his points, like how Scots and Welsh are not a different "race" - just as Nubians and Egyptians are not a different "race". The notion that what he is saying is "not understandable by laymen" seems dubious. What is he supposed to do, jump around waving Kente cloth and a 40-oz malt liquor to be "understandable"?
Don't get me wrong, Keita answered every question in a very eloquent and objective manner.
Most people watching the video should clearly understand that Ancient Egypt was an indigenious African culture. But in both the NatGeo video and workshop I don't think the average person is very clear on what the Ancient Egyptians looked like.
He used some descriptive language such as the statues of Early Dynastic Pharaohs having "Somali-like" facial features and tropically adapted people having dark-skin. If he were asked more questions about physical appearance I think his position would be more clear.
The biggest problem with the workshop was definitely the questions being asked, not Keita's explanations.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: Just because Keita believes something in no way dispels a sound belief. But you're asking the wrong questions. The real question is who were the proto, pre and early dynastic lower Egyptians during state formation.
Keita makes it abundantly clear that they were indigenious Africans. I'm just not clear on what he believes they looked like.
He appears to imply that light-skin and straight hair of some Northwest Africans are indigenious to Africa (i.e. their features evolved in Africa not in Eurasia).
This is news to me. As The Explorer suggests that would not be consistent with ecological principles for skin adaptation, if Keita is referring to pale-skin.
I think it would be good to write Keita and ask him directly about what physical features he believes are indigenious to North Africa and ask for the reference of living populations and people.
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan: Originally posted by Herukhuti: *He refused to explain "what he was saying" in layman's terms. Which obviously leaves out some/majority people as far as them grasping to "what he was saying". But then this is a matter of perspective. If you consider the type of people who would actually care to watch the video (target audience), then the language he has used is probably his best option.
Actually what Keita says should be quite clear to any moderately educated layman. His list of Misconceptions about ancient Egypt for example is readily undertandable. For example:
Misconception 1- Ancient egypt was not in Africa
Misconception #2- ancient egyptian language is unconnected to other African languages
Misconception 3: Ancient Egyptian culture came from outside of Egypt
He clearly shows how these conceptions are fallacious.
His handling of questions from the audience also is very understandable. Time and time again he hooks homely examples - noting for example that the ancient Egyptians certainly used trade items and ideas from other areas, but this was on their own terms, and not evidence that their culture "came from" the outside, just as he uses a coat and tie made someplace else on his own terms. It does not mean he is Chinese if the clothes were made in China. As regards the much played up "differences" of Nubians versus the Egyptians he draws a parallel with England, asking are the Scots British? Are the Welsh British?
All in all, Keita is pretty clear in this video. It should be required viewing for anyone who has a serious interest in African history including the Nile Valley.
The bottom line is that ancient Egyptians were indigenous Africans.
First off, I consider myself at least to be a half-layman regarding these matters.
I think perhaps you're one of those fortunate people who have mostly (or at least moderately) educated people around you. I remind you that most people in the world today are badly educated (or miseducated).
In a country like Nigeria for example, it is very difficult to explain to the average person (who is in fact, educated - fyi, most Nigerians I meet are educated) that modern North Africans are not Arabs. They equate that common "look" in North Africa with Arabs as far as they're concerned. They will laugh if you try to correct them for an Arab is just a "look" to them. Nothing to do with ancestry.
I almost went crazy trying to explain these things this past Xmas to Nigerians. They're simply not running the Operating System required to grasp these concepts the way Keita has presented them. They are not the target audience.
What the intellectuals need to understand is that the layman is a very confused man. Sometimes you just have appeal to their illogical mentality to get them to start seeing things logically. Most Nigerians do not even understand the concept of race. In that country, to many people, my gf is white (she's actually an offspring of a Black man and an English-Indian woman). But the funny thing is, the yellow man who lives down the road is also white, lol, even though he is more Yoruba than they are - and they know it. They basically label people by the percieved colour of their skin, not based on ancestry. Most Nigerians are not "hip" to this DNA/ancestry thing, it's Greek to them.
They understand that an English person is a very different person to that yellow man (i.e. the yellow man is family and the English person is a stranger), but they are both "light skinned" people. This is how the MAJORITY of laymen in Nigeria (and I suspect most of Africa) think.
quote:Originally posted by zarahan:
All in all, Keita is pretty clear in this video. It should be required viewing for anyone who has a serious interest in African history including the Nile Valley.
This is the point I'm trying to make. It's for people with "serious interest", people who think and think-again. Also, trying to appeal to the laymen, in my opinion would have tainted the effectiveness of that video, especially in the long-term.
Posts: 3423 | From: the jungle - when y'all stop playing games, call me. | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: Mindovermatter,
Alive initially said: ''the physical characteristics of any human population are really the result of diet, climate, selection and migrations over time.''
I responded with: ''...according to the principles of evolution''[much earlier post by you and someplace else] ''and the principals in evolution.''
Mindovermatter 718 wrote: ''Please do elaborate on what I did not recognize.''
Okay, I will. And the bold print directly above your post still makes it 'according to' doesn't it.
You're not making any sense. So you're telling me I don't understand the principles in evolution? If so, please do elaborate on what I do not understand/recognize, and what gives you this impression in the first place? I'll wait......
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Herukhuti: They understand that an English person is a very different person to that yellow man (i.e. the yellow man is family and the English person is a stranger), but they are both "light skinned" people. This is how the MAJORITY of laymen in Nigeria (and I suspect most of Africa) think.
I can relate to the whole post actually.
It goes for people of any color here too (trying to explain any anthropology related concept).
People (black people) know that the "yellow man" thing just has to do with skin color, which is why I don't go around advocating in the "educated audience" of this forum that light skin (individually) = non-African.
I'm not so much concerned with the "yellow" thing as I am with the "north African Arab" thing.
I think the fact that so many of them identify with and as Arabs is one of the main reasons there all seen and lumped as Arabs.
quote:(Still me, Alive:) On "race", which to many lay-people just means ethnicity:
It's probably good they don't "get" the "western" mythical race concept, which serves as a more thourough and concrete aspect of ones perceived identity that only serves to confuse via creating more opinions/beliefs (which are like asses everyone has 'em) that obfuscate facts and wisdoms.
Note, that whether or not a person appears to or professes to believe in race isn't really the inportant thing. It's the expression of harmful related beliefs that is the problem. The object for me is to try to push for people simply thinking of people as people again - not as evil antagonists, sheep, Gods, etc (these are common among people who are secluded from "other races" .. it's as funny sometimes when secluded whiteboys find themselves among "many" blacks as the vice-versa with young "ghetto"-boys).
"Race" aside, North Africa is seen as spiritually Arab, even though alot of them in spirits seem to be detached [sort of on-guardish] from Western Asia.
On North Africa, I just try and focus on facts: Berber language is native to Northern Africa and no where else, and ancient Egytpian/Sudanese culture is native to Africa and no where else, Arabb language and white skin are not, so it's desperate for them to claim them or have a problem with black people/"us" claiming them.
Furthermore, if we could find a way to relate that ancient Egypt's culture stems in large part from wet-phase Saharan culture, and the ancient Nile Valley even has ties to things that occur/originate in the Western half. When the Sahara was Savannah, people from South of the Sahara moved up into it (a region that was before this sparsely populated).
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I'm not telling you you don't understand the principles in evolution I'm telling you in plain English that you understand it according to the principals that establish it as it stands. Now since it was you who said 'according to the principles in evolution' in the first place you can continue to use 'according to' with some scientific hesitation or you can call it for what you know it to be, not according to. So then, do you know it to be this way or will you still say according to?
To the others here I'm not trying to derail the topic, just trying to figure out what Mindovermatter 718 knows to be fact instead of according to.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Everything I know and post is according to scientific fact . Better for you, laymen?
Now, if you want to argue against the scientific facts that I post, you are more than welcome.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Europeans being a hybrid of Asian and Africans, consisting totally of derived lineages from Asia and Africa, is a scientific genetic fact, yes. Problem?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok? This has what to do with modern Europeans being Asian and African derived?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your confusion over what Bowcock and Sforza actually argues is symptomatic of what Grumman noticed about you. You're one confused gringo, gringo.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Originally posted by Morpheus: Most people watching the video should clearly understand that Ancient Egypt was an indigenious African culture. But in both the NatGeo video and workshop I don't think the average person is very clear on what the Ancient Egyptians looked like.
He used some descriptive language such as the statues of Early Dynastic Pharaohs having "Somali -like" facial features and tropically adapted people having dark-skin. If he were asked more questions about physical appearance I think his position would be more clear. The biggest problem with the workshop was definitely the questions being asked, not Keita's explanations.
Agreed as to some of the questions. Keita's position is pretty clear in the Nat Geo and Cambridge videos. He doesn't believe in simplistic models and categories, and he warns against the use of race categories and repeating the mistakes of the past. The question about what the ancients looked like is not a simple pat answer, and this is what Keita was saying. Some laymen may want an easy, simplistic "black-white" solution. But the data does not give such quickie answers. Other laymen want a simplistic "they were mixed" solution, but the data does not give that answer either, because the notion of being "mixed" is rooted on flawed race categories- i.e. "blacks" versus "whites".
Africa has such a genetic variety as Keita notes elsewhere, that the notion of "mixed" is flawed. A thin-lipped, narrow nosed Kenyan with loosely curled hair does not necessarily mean that the Kenyan is "mixed" in any way with some outside Caucasian. It most likely means that said Kenyan is just another built-in African variant, another different looking type. There need not be any race "mix" at all. A lot of the racial categorizing springs from Europe's obsession with such "race card" groupings and their hierarchal rankings.
Another point to consider relates to the oft heard statement by various Egyptian "nationalists" or claimed nationalists who say "the ancients were neither black or white, they were just Egyptian." This sounds commendably neutral but in some ways it is just as simplistic as stark black-white categorization. For one thing, the people who laid the foundations for the dynasties were rooted in the Sahara and the Sudan, with tropical body plans and limb proportions.
Too often these ancestors are airbrushed out of the picture or defined away as "Nubian", when in fact they are central to Egyptian civilization. It is in the "darker" south, close to Nubia that the dynasties began. The much-maligned "negroid" or "darker" south conquered and absorbed the north to start the dynastic era. Assorted "nationalists" too often act as if the people known as "Egyptians" just materialized out of thin air, as if the great forerunners of the Sahara and the Sudan never existed, but were just a "foreign" add-on, conveniently "Nubian", when in fact they were there from the beginning. But as even the conservative Encylopedia of pre-colonial Africa notes:
"The period when sub-Saharan Africa was most influential in Egypt was a time when neither Egypt, as we understand it culturally, nor the Sahara, as we understand it geographically, existed. Populations and cultures now found south of the desert roamed far to the north. The culture of Upper Egypt, which became dynastic Egyptian civilization, could fairly be called a Sudanese transplant."(Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa: Their Interaction. Encyclopedia of Precolonial Africa, by Joseph O. Vogel, AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California (1997), pp. 465-472 http://www.geocities.com/nilevalleypeoples/Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've already schooled you on this, no need to make a big deal as if other posters don't already know you're an intellectual lightweight.
Anyway, the following proves what Bowcock and Sforza posted in their results is correct, which is that modern Europeans are consisted totally of Asian and African derived lineages.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Independent originating lineages are available for geneticists to detect(Asian, African etc..). I.e, E3b is post OOA African, J is Asian. Both present in Europeans as well. Feel free to disprove the fact that we are able to tell when a population is admixed or not through genes...??
E3b appears in southern Europe, but we know it's a post OOA African lineage and so does J, but we know this is an Asian lineage.
Now, take a bunch of these specific post OOA African lineages and these specific Asian lineages and put them together, you'll end up with the modern European gene pool.
Feel free to name the non Asian, and non African derived lineages in the European gene pool, that would refute the fact that Europeans are totally Asian and African derived as the two maps below confirm.. Feel free to name European specific underived lineages.....
Still waiting........
^^^If you can't do this, obviously there is no more to discuss..
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan: Originally posted by Morpheus: Most people watching the video should clearly understand that Ancient Egypt was an indigenious African culture. But in both the NatGeo video and workshop I don't think the average person is very clear on what the Ancient Egyptians looked like.
He used some descriptive language such as the statues of Early Dynastic Pharaohs having "Somali -like" facial features and tropically adapted people having dark-skin. If he were asked more questions about physical appearance I think his position would be more clear. The biggest problem with the workshop was definitely the questions being asked, not Keita's explanations.
Agreed as to some of the questions. Keita's position is pretty clear in the Nat Geo and Cambridge videos. He doesn't believe in simplistic models and categories, and he warns against the use of race categories and repeating the mistakes of the past. The question about what the ancients looked like is not a simple pat answer, and this is what Keita was saying. Some laymen may want an easy, simplistic "black-white" solution. But the data does not give such quickie answers. Other laymen want a simplistic "they were mixed" solution, but the data does not give that answer either, because the notion of being "mixed" is rooted on flawed race categories- i.e. "blacks" versus "whites".
Africa has such a genetic variety as Keita notes elsewhere, that the notion of "mixed" is flawed. A thin-lipped, narrow nosed Kenyan with loosely curled hair does not necessarily mean that the Kenyan is "mixed" in any way with some outside Caucasian. It most likely means that said Kenyan is just another built-in African variant, another different looking type. There need not be any race "mix" at all. A lot of the racial categorizing springs from Europe's obsession with such "race card" groupings and their hierarchal rankings.
Another point to consider relates to the oft heard statement by various Egyptian "nationalists" or claimed nationalists who say "the ancients were neither black or white, they were just Egyptian." This sounds commendably neutral but in some ways it is just as simplistic as stark black-white categorization. For one thing, the people who laid the foundations for the dynasties were rooted in the Sahara and the Sudan, with tropical body plans and limb proportions.
Too often these ancestors are airbrushed out of the picture or defined away as "Nubian", when in fact they are central to Egyptian civilization. It is in the "darker" south, close to Nubia that the dynasties began. The much-maligned "negroid" or "darker" south conquered and absorbed the north to start the dynastic era. Assorted "nationalists" too often act as if the people known as "Egyptians" just materialized out of thin air, as if the great forerunners of the Sahara and the Sudan never existed, but were just a "foreign" add-on, conveniently "Nubian", when in fact they were there from the beginning. But as even the conservative Encylopedia of pre-colonial Africa notes:
"The period when sub-Saharan Africa was most influential in Egypt was a time when neither Egypt, as we understand it culturally, nor the Sahara, as we understand it geographically, existed. Populations and cultures now found south of the desert roamed far to the north. The culture of Upper Egypt, which became dynastic Egyptian civilization, could fairly be called a Sudanese transplant."(Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa: Their Interaction. Encyclopedia of Precolonial Africa, by Joseph O. Vogel, AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California (1997), pp. 465-472 http://www.geocities.com/nilevalleypeoples/
Terms such as "light skin" and "dark" are just as ambiguous and subjective as black and white. Running from one group of ambiguous subjective terms to another and calling it "science" is rubbish in my view.
Re Mindless, so now its "modern" Europeans (euros are ancient?) are hybirds?
Didnt Bowcock say Europeans arose as a result of mixture, not that "modern" Europans arose from Asian and African mixture.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Keita makes it abundantly clear that they were indigenious Africans. I'm just not clear on what he believes they looked like.
In the video Keita deals with how they may have looked by saying the answer is a complex one rooted in anthropology, DNA, location, etc etc.. Keita's 1990 and 1992 Crania studies for example notes that northern populations are more variable than in the south, but such variation shows substantial overlap with the south as well. In other words the simplistic "blacks down south" versus "whites up north" doesn't exist. Laymen looking for such easy explanations are wasting their time it could be said because such models or related "race mix" models are not supported by the data, Latecomers to Egypt such as Hyskos, Arabs, Greeks etc added their own variations as Keita notes, but fundamentally the people of the north were native Egyptians.
He appears to imply that light-skin and straight hair of some Northwest Africans are indigenious to Africa (i.e. their features evolved in Africa not in Eurasia). This is news to me. As The Explorer suggests that would not be consistent with ecological principles for skin adaptation, if Keita is referring to pale-skin.
Keita doesn't refer to pale skin and straight hair re Northwest Africa in the video in the context of waht you are saying. In fact he spends most of the time discussing NORTHEAST Africa, not Carthage, Morocco, Tuniaia, etc.. I don't see where he deals much with the Northwest at all. As for skin coloration, in Africa, very dark skinned peoples live in quite temperate climates, whether it be near the Mediterranean or in the high altitudes of Eastern Africa, or on the veldts of Southern Africa. Africa is so diverse that dark skin is not confined to so-called "tropical" environnments. It is all over the continent.
Also you have to be careful in speaking about dark skin in Egypt. Dark skin is a routine part of the population mix- it is not "foreign". Dark skin does not and never equalled "foreign" or "Nubian" in Egypt but is part and parcel of routine variability from the beginning in the Nile valley, where amazingly, people vary in how they look. Dark brown Egyptians are shown on tomb paintings working alongside light-brown Egyptains contradicting attempts to portray the ancients as some sort of mythical “light brown” race.
A dark-brown Egyptian on some tomb paintings might be contrasted with an even darker Nubian from outside Egypt's borders, but the contrast is related to point or territory of origin, something often reinforced by depictions of differences in dress, hair-styles, etc, not European-style 'race' analysis by the ancients. The bottom line is that both peoples are still dark-skinned.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
People, please ignore jackassoben and don't afford that shameless trolling white monkey anymore attention by arguing with him again about Sforza. He'll been lead to water, its his choice to drink and be full or be dead.
Posts: 2596 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben: Didnt Bowcock say Europeans arose as a result of mixture, not that "modern" Europans arose from Asian and African mixture.
This is what Bowcock said....
Tree constructed by maximum likelihood, assuming a model of admixture between ancestral Africans and ancestral Asians, fitting the distances of the lower triangle of Table 1. According to this model two divergent populations contribute in specified proportions to form a new population. *Various* pairs of *ancestral populations* from which the European branch *may have* descended by *admixture were tested* for choosing ancestral types that contributed to the admixture. Data were found to be most consistent with this tree; ancestral Europeans are estimated to be an admixture of 65% ancestral Chinese and 35% ancestral Africans. -- Bowcock et al.
This is what Keita interprets Bowcocks conclusions as....
"Nuclear DNA studies also contribute to the deconstruction of received racial entities. Ann Bowcock and her colleague's interpretation (Bowcock et al. 1991; Bowcock et al. 1994) of analyses of restriction-site polymorphisms and microsatellite polymorphisms (STRPs) suggests that Europeans, the defining Caucasians, are descendants of a population that arose as a consequence of admixture between already differentiated populations ancestral to (some) Africans and Asians. Therefore, Caucasians would be a secondary type or race due to its hybrid origin and not a primary race". - S.O.Y Keita
Now, this is what is further confirmed through analysis of uni-parentals, from the maps I posted, (since you like to see with your own eyes) , Y-dna and Mtdna.....
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Why haven't you answered the question? Instead you're spamming your ignorance of Bowcock and Sforza again, much to the dismay of Charlie Brown.
Mindless, if according to you, there is a "modern" European gene pool then obviously you must have an ancient one or else the "modern" wouldnt make any sense in this context. This is the mixed up contradictory rubbish that Grumman identified. You really don't know what you are reading from the internet so you end you looking like a fool.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben: Mindless, if according to you, there is a "modern" European gene pool then obviously you must have an ancient one or else the "modern" would make any sense in this context.
Yes ancient early Europeans, as in first humans to arrive in Europe and have descendants today in the same place 40ky later were totally Asian derived, so now what's your point?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan: Originally posted by Morpheus: Most people watching the video should clearly understand that Ancient Egypt was an indigenious African culture. But in both the NatGeo video and workshop I don't think the average person is very clear on what the Ancient Egyptians looked like.
He used some descriptive language such as the statues of Early Dynastic Pharaohs having "Somali -like" facial features and tropically adapted people having dark-skin. If he were asked more questions about physical appearance I think his position would be more clear. The biggest problem with the workshop was definitely the questions being asked, not Keita's explanations.
Agreed as to some of the questions. Keita's position is pretty clear in the Nat Geo and Cambridge videos. He doesn't believe in simplistic models and categories, and he warns against the use of race categories and repeating the mistakes of the past. The question about what the ancients looked like is not a simple pat answer, and this is what Keita was saying. Some laymen may want an easy, simplistic "black-white" solution. But the data does not give such quickie answers. Other laymen want a simplistic "they were mixed" solution, but the data does not give that answer either, because the notion of being "mixed" is rooted on flawed race categories- i.e. "blacks" versus "whites".
Africa has such a genetic variety as Keita notes elsewhere, that the notion of "mixed" is flawed. A thin-lipped, narrow nosed Kenyan with loosely curled hair does not necessarily mean that the Kenyan is "mixed" in any way with some outside Caucasian. It most likely means that said Kenyan is just another built-in African variant, another different looking type. There need not be any race "mix" at all. A lot of the racial categorizing springs from Europe's obsession with such "race card" groupings and their hierarchal rankings.
Another point to consider relates to the oft heard statement by various Egyptian "nationalists" or claimed nationalists who say "the ancients were neither black or white, they were just Egyptian." This sounds commendably neutral but in some ways it is just as simplistic as stark black-white categorization. For one thing, the people who laid the foundations for the dynasties were rooted in the Sahara and the Sudan, with tropical body plans and limb proportions.
Too often these ancestors are airbrushed out of the picture or defined away as "Nubian", when in fact they are central to Egyptian civilization. It is in the "darker" south, close to Nubia that the dynasties began. The much-maligned "negroid" or "darker" south conquered and absorbed the north to start the dynastic era. Assorted "nationalists" too often act as if the people known as "Egyptians" just materialized out of thin air, as if the great forerunners of the Sahara and the Sudan never existed, but were just a "foreign" add-on, conveniently "Nubian", when in fact they were there from the beginning. But as even the conservative Encylopedia of pre-colonial Africa notes:
"The period when sub-Saharan Africa was most influential in Egypt was a time when neither Egypt, as we understand it culturally, nor the Sahara, as we understand it geographically, existed. Populations and cultures now found south of the desert roamed far to the north. The culture of Upper Egypt, which became dynastic Egyptian civilization, could fairly be called a Sudanese transplant."(Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa: Their Interaction. Encyclopedia of Precolonial Africa, by Joseph O. Vogel, AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California (1997), pp. 465-472 http://www.geocities.com/nilevalleypeoples/
Hmm you know i got another beef with Keita, besides him beating around the Bush all the time. He seems to imply that all Egyptians had a the elongated, thin-nosed, "East African" look..while ignoring that many, Egyptians had the "stereotypical" broad-nosed, very prognathous black look.
quote:Originally posted by akoben: Mindless, if according to you, there is a "modern" European gene pool then obviously you must have an ancient one or else the "modern" would make any sense in this context.
Yes ancient early Europeans, as in first humans to arrive in Europe and have descendants today in the same place 40ky later were totally Asian derived, so now what's your point?
So there are two sets of Europeans. One is modern and a "hybrid" - African and Asian derived. And one is ancient and is not - "totally Asian derived". Exactly where did Bowcock et al. say this again? lol
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic