posted
A couple of months ago I debated a poster on a message board who while an Egalitarian/antiracist strongly opposes the idea that the Ancient Egyptians were Black. During our debate among the evidence I cited for the biological affinities of the Ancient Egyptians was Mekota and Vermehren (2005) who state that a test of Ancient Egyptian noble mummies reveal that their skin is packed with melanin, "as expected for specimens of Negroid origin."
In his very next post he countered by citing an alleged study claimed to be from the same authors refuting their original study. Here were his exact words:
quote:Don't mean to complain, but the purpose of this research wasn't to determine skin melanin levels, nor are the researchers anthropologists.
You might want to read the following:
quote: Owing to extensive decomposition of the material, all immunohistochemical stains were ambiguous. There was no specific staining in any slides. The extreme background staining due to nonspecific protein fragments gave false-positive reactions; thus the results are inconclusive and not useful for analysis.
quote:The melanin study you referenced was disowned by its own authors - who were not anthropologists - because of methodological problems.
Now as you can see the Sendspace link doesn't work. It didn't work when he posted it which I found to be strange. He eventually bowed out of that discussion but yesterday I decided to make a new thread to revisit the topic and ask him to reupload the study. Then I thought about it....why didn't the link work in the first place? And how did he come up with a counter argument so fast? I posted the sendspace link itself into Google and it directed me straight to a thread from Anthroscape (The new Dodona) where a racist by the name of "Racial Awareness" was actually the one who posted the link!
In his desperation to refute me he have googled the study for a rebuttal and come across this post. I didn't think he would stoop that low but the proof is right there. The link didn't work because it is old which means he himself has not even read the study (the study isn't even identified as you can see).
Does anyone know the identity of the alleged study in question claimed to refute the original? I googled the text and came up with nothing.
Also if there are any more studies on the melanin level of Ancient Egyptian skin please post them here.
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
1Department of Biology I, Biodiversity Research/Anthropology, Ludwig-Maximilians University, Munich, Germany
2Department of Veterinary Anatomy II, Ludwig-Maximilians University, Munich, Germany Correspondence: Anna-Maria, Mekota Department of Biology I, Biodiversity Research/Anthropology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University München, Germany, Grosshadernerstr 2, 82152, Martinsried, Germany, 0049-89-2180-74319, 0049-89-2180-74-331 a.mekota@lrz.uni-muenchen.de
During an excavation headed by the German Institute for Archaeology, Cairo, at the tombs of the nobles in Thebes-West, Upper Egypt, three types of tissues from different mummies were sampled to compare 13 well known rehydration methods for mummified tissue with three newly developed methods. Furthermore, three fixatives were tested with each of the rehydration fluids. Meniscus (fibrocartilage), skin, and a placenta were used for this study. The rehydration and fixation procedures were uniform for all methods. The stains used were standard hematoxylin and eosin, elastica van Gieson, periodic acid-Schiff, and Grocott, and five commercially obtained immunohistochemical stains including pancytokeratin, vimentin, alpha-smooth-muscle-actin, basement membrane collagen type IV, and S-100 protein. The sections were examined by transmitted light microscopy. Our study showed that preservation of the tissue is dependent on the quality and effectiveness of the combination of the rehydration and fixation solutions, and that the quality of the histological and histochemical stains is dependent on the tissue quality. In addition, preservation of the antigens in the tissues is dependent on tissue quality, and fungal permeation had no influence on the tissue. Finally, the results are tissue specific. For placenta the best solution combination was Sandison and solution III (both fixed with formaldehyde) while results for skin were best with Ruffer I (using formaldehyde and Schaffer as fixatives), Grupe et al. (using formaldehyde as a fixative) and solution III (in combination with formaldehyde and Bouin fixatives). Ruffer II (using formaldehyde as a fixative) and solution III (in combination with Schaffer fixative) gave the best results for fibrocartilage.
Study was about the best methods to turn a 'raisin back into a grape' so to speak by rehydrating mummy tissues.
Negro, Negroid, Black nor African words are not found in the study.
Posts: 644 | Registered: May 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by NonProphet: Negro, Negroid, Black nor African words are not found in the study.
They're not found in the abstract, but IIRC another poster here (Bob_01 I think) was able to access the text of the paper and find the word "Negroid".
EDIT: Found the post in question, which quotes the study as saying:
quote:Skin sections showed particularly good tissue preservation, although cellular outlines were never distinct. Although much of the epidermis had already separated from the dermis, the remaining epidermis often was preserved well (Fig. 1). The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin. In the dermis, the hair follicles, hair, and sebaceous and sweat glands were readily apparent (Fig. 2). Blood vessels, but no red blood cells, and small peripheral nerves were identified unambiguously (Fig. 3). The subcutaneous layer showed loose connective tissue fibers attached to the dermis, and fat cell remnants were observed.
That said, when I used this argument in a recent debate of my own, my opponent had this to say:
quote:All melanin is not created equal. Caucasians and Asian in sunny climes (and there is no disputing that Egypt is one of the sunniest places on Earth, both in number of days per year and intensity of solar radiation) will also have cells "packed with melanin" but it is chemically different varieties of melanin. There are many variants of melanin, most divided into eumelanin (the darkest such pigments) and pheomelanin (lighter and reddish pigments). Outside of albinos, ALL humans actually have both categories of melanin, it's the proportions that determine skin and hair color.
So saying "packed" with melanin just means in life the person was exposed to a lot of sunlight. Unless you know what sort of melanin those cells are packed with, though, it doesn't really speak to skin color.
Anyone have a rebuttal to this?
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by NonProphet: Negro, Negroid, Black nor African words are not found in the study.
They're not found in the abstract, but IIRC another poster here (Bob_01 I think) was able to access the text of the paper and find the word "Negroid".
EDIT: Found the post in question, which quotes the study as saying:
quote:Skin sections showed particularly good tissue preservation, although cellular outlines were never distinct. Although much of the epidermis had already separated from the dermis, the remaining epidermis often was preserved well (Fig. 1). The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin. In the dermis, the hair follicles, hair, and sebaceous and sweat glands were readily apparent (Fig. 2). Blood vessels, but no red blood cells, and small peripheral nerves were identified unambiguously (Fig. 3). The subcutaneous layer showed loose connective tissue fibers attached to the dermis, and fat cell remnants were observed.
That said, when I used this argument in a recent debate of my own, my opponent had this to say:
quote:All melanin is not created equal. Caucasians and Asian in sunny climes (and there is no disputing that Egypt is one of the sunniest places on Earth, both in number of days per year and intensity of solar radiation) will also have cells "packed with melanin" but it is chemically different varieties of melanin. There are many variants of melanin, most divided into eumelanin (the darkest such pigments) and pheomelanin (lighter and reddish pigments). Outside of albinos, ALL humans actually have both categories of melanin, it's the proportions that determine skin and hair color.
So saying "packed" with melanin just means in life the person was exposed to a lot of sunlight. Unless you know what sort of melanin those cells are packed with, though, it doesn't really speak to skin color.
Negroid is not in the full study. Go purchase it and you will see. Intellectual integrity is a basic scientific requirement.
Posts: 644 | Registered: May 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by NonProphet: Negroid is not in the full study. Go purchase it and you will see. Intellectual integrity is a basic scientific requirement.
Yes, it is. I have access to the full study. You can download it here:
posted
Morpheus you and Truthcentric are such disappointments!
Was it really so difficult for you two to simply LOOK IT UP?
Quantitative analysis of eumelanin and pheomelanin in humans, mice, and other animals: a comparative review.
Abstract
The color of hair, skin, and eyes in animals mainly depends on the quantity, quality, and distribution of the pigment melanin, which occurs in two types: black to brown eumelanin and yellow to reddish pheomelanin.
High levels of pheomelanin are found only in yellow to red hairs of mammals and in red feathers of birds.
Detectable levels of pheomelanin are detected in human skin regardless of race, color, and skin type. However, eumelanin is always the major constituent of epidermal melanin, and the skin color appears to be determined by the quantity of melanin produced, but not by the quality.
Thus in humans, pheomelanin though present at very LOW levels, is of NO consequence in determining skin color.
posted
For once, Mike, I have to thank you. The melanin referred to in the study most likely is eumelanin. I'll keep that in mind if I have this discussion again.
Truthcentric's question is not the same as mine. I'm asking people if they have access to the Mekota study that is claim to discredit this one.
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
I had previously had 24 hour access to that article in the attempt to prove to the nay-sayers that was is being quoted is actually said in the study.
So being that I no longer have access but knowing I did read it, I did a quick googlesearch of the quote and as you will notice there is a site called informahealthcare.com, that has the article in full pdf (have to pay for it), but the site on the initial googlesearch page shows that this quote actually exists in the study.
So go to google and copy and paste the following word for word...
"although cellular outlines were never distinct. Although much of the epidermis had already separated from the dermis, the remaining epidermis often was preserved well (Fig. 1). The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin. In the dermis, the hair follicles, hair, and sebaceous and sweat glands were readily apparent (Fig. 2)."
^^^ When the page shows up, the link is the fourth one down, as you can see it shows you that the quote is in the study, but not in the abstract.
Edit; I see you've already found it. Thumbs up!!
As for a counter study, I've never heard of one.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by NonProphet: Negro, Negroid, Black nor African words are not found in the study.
They're not found in the abstract, but IIRC another poster here (Bob_01 I think) was able to access the text of the paper and find the word "Negroid".
EDIT: Found the post in question, which quotes the study as saying:
quote:Skin sections showed particularly good tissue preservation, although cellular outlines were never distinct. Although much of the epidermis had already separated from the dermis, the remaining epidermis often was preserved well (Fig. 1). The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin. In the dermis, the hair follicles, hair, and sebaceous and sweat glands were readily apparent (Fig. 2). Blood vessels, but no red blood cells, and small peripheral nerves were identified unambiguously (Fig. 3). The subcutaneous layer showed loose connective tissue fibers attached to the dermis, and fat cell remnants were observed.
That said, when I used this argument in a recent debate of my own, my opponent had this to say:
quote:All melanin is not created equal. Caucasians and Asian in sunny climes (and there is no disputing that Egypt is one of the sunniest places on Earth, both in number of days per year and intensity of solar radiation) will also have cells "packed with melanin" but it is chemically different varieties of melanin. There are many variants of melanin, most divided into eumelanin (the darkest such pigments) and pheomelanin (lighter and reddish pigments). Outside of albinos, ALL humans actually have both categories of melanin, it's the proportions that determine skin and hair color.
So saying "packed" with melanin just means in life the person was exposed to a lot of sunlight. Unless you know what sort of melanin those cells are packed with, though, it doesn't really speak to skin color.
Anyone have a rebuttal to this?
"Packed with" in this context does not mean "a lot of". Fair skin is packed with melanin but dark skins is more densely packed than fair skin. Light skin and dark skinned people have Melanocytes. Melanocytes manufacture melanin. Melanosomes take in the enzymes and tyrosine. Inside melanosomes, the enzymes, acting as catalysts within the cells, begin a long series of chemical reactions in order to convert tyrosine into the two types of melanin humans have. These are eumelanin, which is brown or black, and pheomelanin, which is red or yellow. Once melanosomes are packed with melanin, melanocytes ship them away -- to keratinocytes, barrier cells in the topmost layer of the skin and the iris in the eye -- and into our hair. How many are shipped, and the mix of pigments carried, determine our baseline skin, eye and hair colors.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
You ignore the important part: "packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin". It's not likely the authors are describing even a suntan if they chose to use a word traditionally associated with sub-Saharan Africans.
Truthcentric's question is not the same as mine. I'm asking people if they have access to the Mekota study that is claim to discredit this one.
Morpheus AKA Truthcentric, if you have access to the full Mekota study then why are you asking people if THEY have access to it? Your pdf link is unavailable too.
Oh, What a wicked web we weave, when we practice to deceive!
Truthcentric's question is not the same as mine. I'm asking people if they have access to the Mekota study that is claim to discredit this one.
Morpheus - My point is that any fool can say anything, and make whatever study, or counter-study - but that does NOT make it true.
The fact is that the statement:
Quote - "There are many variants of melanin, most divided into eumelanin (the darkest such pigments) and pheomelanin (lighter and reddish pigments). Outside of albinos, ALL humans actually have both categories of melanin, it's the proportions that determine skin and hair color."
Like the best lies, contains SOME truth, but in a convoluted form. Thus it is in fact a LIE.
Whereas this statement below, is a blatant lie.
So saying "packed" with melanin just means in life the person was exposed to a lot of sunlight. Unless you know what sort of melanin those cells are packed with, though, it doesn't really speak to skin color."
So it does not matter who's study say's what, the fact is, that as we all know, human skin color is INDEED determined by Melanin levels.
The Albinos are liars, the only defense is truth and knowledge.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by NonProphet: Negro, Negroid, Black nor African words are not found in the study.
They're not found in the abstract, but IIRC another poster here (Bob_01 I think) was able to access the text of the paper and find the word "Negroid".
EDIT: Found the post in question, which quotes the study as saying:
quote:Skin sections showed particularly good tissue preservation, although cellular outlines were never distinct. Although much of the epidermis had already separated from the dermis, the remaining epidermis often was preserved well (Fig. 1). The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin. In the dermis, the hair follicles, hair, and sebaceous and sweat glands were readily apparent (Fig. 2). Blood vessels, but no red blood cells, and small peripheral nerves were identified unambiguously (Fig. 3). The subcutaneous layer showed loose connective tissue fibers attached to the dermis, and fat cell remnants were observed.
That said, when I used this argument in a recent debate of my own, my opponent had this to say:
quote:All melanin is not created equal. Caucasians and Asian in sunny climes (and there is no disputing that Egypt is one of the sunniest places on Earth, both in number of days per year and intensity of solar radiation) will also have cells "packed with melanin" but it is chemically different varieties of melanin. There are many variants of melanin, most divided into eumelanin (the darkest such pigments) and pheomelanin (lighter and reddish pigments). Outside of albinos, ALL humans actually have both categories of melanin, it's the proportions that determine skin and hair color.
So saying "packed" with melanin just means in life the person was exposed to a lot of sunlight. Unless you know what sort of melanin those cells are packed with, though, it doesn't really speak to skin color.
Anyone have a rebuttal to this?
"Packed with" in this context does not mean "a lot of". Fair skin is packed with melanin but dark skins is more densely packed than fair skin. Light skin and dark skinned people have Melanocytes. Melanocytes manufacture melanin. Melanosomes take in the enzymes and tyrosine. Inside melanosomes, the enzymes, acting as catalysts within the cells, begin a long series of chemical reactions in order to convert tyrosine into the two types of melanin humans have. These are eumelanin, which is brown or black, and pheomelanin, which is red or yellow. Once melanosomes are packed with melanin, melanocytes ship them away -- to keratinocytes, barrier cells in the topmost layer of the skin and the iris in the eye -- and into our hair. How many are shipped, and the mix of pigments carried, determine our baseline skin, eye and hair colors.
Hey Stupid Why the hell do you hang out at this site since you have a serious learning disability? The description "Packed with melanin" is used in relation to the opposite, "Hardly ANY melanin" as illustrated in the following scientific study between Africans (normal Huemans) and Europeans (Albinos).
the first Subject, S9 is the typical European (albino) and their melanin distribution before and after intense UV exposure. The next subject is typical Asian, while the last, Subject 35 can easily be identified by it's melanoctyes being "packed with melanin".
Realizing that you are slow, I'll try repetition using pictures to overcome your metal blockage to your albinism heritage.
On the left, a albino melanin density of the typical white. Notice melanin densities can never be "normal" since the melanocyte distribution is widely scattered and where present, loosely formed in small, weak clumps. Also note how UV exposure easily penetrates the skin to internal systems which are responsible for causing extensive damage we observe today in whites relative to reproduction, mental stability, immunity compromise, etc.
On the right, the "packed" melanin density of the typical normal Hueman, the African.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Morpheus - My point is that any fool can say anything, and make whatever study, or counter-study - but that does NOT make it true.
I'm specifically asking if the study claimed by "Racial Awareness" actually exists.
I suspect that it does not because he didn't even name the study. He claims it's from Mekota and that they discredit their own paper. I'm asking for this in case I encounter this argument in the future.
What Truthcentric posted about the link being the same as the one for the study we have is interesting. They can't possibly be two different studies in that case.
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gigantic: NonProphet got caught slippin, plain and simple.
My thoughts exactly
Non-Prophet is always wrong. He is now officially on the ''usually wrong'' list. Lioness has a companion.
You can see what a bitch he is in how he handles his butkicking: ad-hominem, right after his plea for fairplay in his preceeding post.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by NonProphet: Morpheus AKA Truthcentric, if you have access to the full Mekota study then why are you asking people if THEY have access to it?
He's asking for a different Mekota study than the one he already has, moron. And Morpheus and I are not the same person.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Not too long ago Xxyman posted an additional study, I believe the authors found a high melanin level and a kinky hair on a mummy.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually nevermind I read that wrong. He's talking about the SAME study. The quote from Racial Awareness is actually in the study but I get the feeling that he is quoting them out of context because why would they release a paper refuting their own results? That makes no sense.
I recommend people read it in full to uncover the context.
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually nevermind I read that wrong. He's talking about the SAME study. The quote from Racial Awareness is actually in the study but I get the feeling that he is quoting them out of context because why would they release a paper refuting their own results? That makes no sense.
The "inconclusive results" being quoted have nothing to do with their description of the mummies' melanin content, but something different. The statement about melanin content has not been discredited and Racial Awareness was indeed taking the quote out of topic.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The melanin study you referenced was disowned by its own authors - who were not anthropologists - because of methodological problems."
You see because the person I debated said this I thought he was referring to another study. He probably did too but in reality he hadn't even read the study to know the context of that quote. I highly doubt they disowned the very study the published so basically this quote is being taken out of context.
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Here is another one. This is not rocket science.
WTF - Why debate this shyte.
ESR has the full study. There are many others.
======= Histologic findings in mummified skin Thomas A. Chapel, M.D., Amir H. Mehregan, M.D., and Theodore A. Reyman, M.D. Detroit, MJ Skin specimens from five mummies were examined histologically. The specimens ranged in age from 2,000 to 3,200 years . Material from two mummies had carbonized and showed only amorphous debris. The histology of the three remaining skin fragments retained surprising histologic architectural detail. One specimen obtained from the sole of the foot was compatible with a callus. (J AM ACAD DERMATOL 4:27-30 , 1981.)
====
Egyptian mummies were prepared by chemical dehydration, and the skin was covered with plant resin or mineral pitch prior to elaborate wrapping. Despite these factors, many areas of the skin of these mummies have been well preserved. The dehydration procedures and the passage of centuries have made the skin hard, brittle, and virtually water-free. However, following rehydration and histologic processing, surprising morphologic detail often remains . This report describes the histologic findings of skin fragments from five Egyptian mummies, although experience of one of us (T. A . R.) suggests that the changes in the Aleutian and North and South American mummies are similar.
=====
The specimens ranged in age from 2 ,000 to 3,200 years . The first four specimens were random skin sections, while the one from the Royal Ontario Museum mummy consisted of one of two contiguous papules, 0.3 to 0.5 em, from the sole of the right foot in the area of the second and third metatarsal heads
===== Fig. 1. Tissue from the nape of the neck shows a deeply pigmented epidermis. Occasional clear cells (arrow) are recognized at the dermoepidermal junction. In the papillary connective tissue are nuclei of fibroblasts. (Hematoxylin-eosin stain; X60.)
=====
Fig. 2. In the deep dermis is an acutely curved hair follicle suggesting formation of a[u] kinky hair shaft[/u]. (Hematoxylin-eosin stain; x60.)
quote:Originally posted by MelaninKing: "Packed with melanin" is used in relation to the opposite, "Hardly ANY melanin"
No it isn't. It a phrase that is used in scientific descriptions of melanin in general.
melanin level 3.5
melanin level 7
melanin level 3
melanin level 3
melanin level 7
How can you have an arbitrary chart for "melanin levels" when we have different "types" of melanin.
You would be doing some of us readers a favour if you created a chart that took melanin types into consideration if explaining why people have various skin shades and hair types/textures.
Posts: 89 | From: no blood-pressure | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
fragments from five Egyptian mummies, although experience of one of us (T. A . R.) suggests that the changes in the Aleutian and North and South American mummies are similar.
=====
The specimens ranged in age from 2 ,000 to 3,200 years . The first four specimens were random skin sections, while the one from the Royal Ontario Museum mummy consisted of one of two contiguous papules, 0.3 to 0.5 em, from the sole of the right foot in the area of the second and third metatarsal heads
posted
As skin grows older, we start to see differences in its appearance - and not only differences in our own skins but differences between people of the same age. The changes are determined fundamentally by our inherited skin type, its response to its environment and sometimes our overall health.
Human Skin Types
Skin type TYPE Unexposed skin color Sun response I White Always burns, never tans II White Always burns, tans minimally III White Burns minimally, sometimes tans IV Light brown Burns minimally, always tans well V Brown Rarely burns, tans darkly (Asian skins) VI Dark brown Never burns, tans darkly (African skins)
Human Skin Types
One way in which scientists define skin type is according to how it responds to exposure to the sun.
The system of classifying skin according to its type, shown in the table above, was developed on a two-factor basis: hair color and the ability to tan. Classification under this system also indicates the people who are especially prone to develop skin cancer. The six-point scale is based on the answers people give when questioned about how they react to sun exposure.
Individuals who are types I and II have skin more likely to burn and have difficulty developing a tan. It is also these people who are at highest risk for the development of skin cancer. During the last two centuries or so, many people of this type have moved to sunny climates like those of Australia and South Africa and are now at a much higher risk of developing skin cancer than if they had stayed in Europe.
Posts: 2403 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: "The melanin study you referenced was disowned by its own authors - who were not anthropologists - because of methodological problems."
You see because the person I debated said this I thought he was referring to another study. He probably did too but in reality he hadn't even read the study to know the context of that quote. I highly doubt they disowned the very study the published so basically this quote is being taken out of context.
You and Truthcen nailed his bogus "rebuttal." It is typical of how our "biodiversity" friends operate. And I doubt said poster is really "egalitarian" - sounds like yet another false pose-- like the bogus "black militants," reputed "Afrocentrists" and fake "concerned native Egyptians" that they trot out to spin red herrings, strawmen, and disinformation. Good work. ============================= ==================
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
ESR has the full study. There are many others.
======= Histologic findings in mummified skin Thomas A. Chapel, M.D., Amir H. Mehregan, M.D., and Theodore A. Reyman, M.D. Detroit, MJ Skin specimens from five mummies were examined histologically. The specimens ranged in age from 2,000 to 3,200 years . Material from two mummies had carbonized and showed only amorphous debris. The histology of the three remaining skin fragments retained surprising histologic architectural detail. One specimen obtained from the sole of the foot was compatible with a callus. (J AM ACAD DERMATOL 4:27-30 , 1981.)
====
Egyptian mummies were prepared by chemical dehydration, and the skin was covered with plant resin or mineral pitch prior to elaborate wrapping. Despite these factors, many areas of the skin of these mummies have been well preserved. The dehydration procedures and the passage of centuries have made the skin hard, brittle, and virtually water-free. However, following rehydration and histologic processing, surprising morphologic detail often remains . This report describes the histologic findings of skin fragments from five Egyptian mummies, although experience of one of us (T. A . R.) suggests that the changes in the Aleutian and North and South American mummies are similar.
=====
The specimens ranged in age from 2 ,000 to 3,200 years . The first four specimens were random skin sections, while the one from the Royal Ontario Museum mummy consisted of one of two contiguous papules, 0.3 to 0.5 em, from the sole of the right foot in the area of the second and third metatarsal heads
===== Fig. 1. Tissue from the nape of the neck shows a deeply pigmented epidermis. Occasional clear cells (arrow) are recognized at the dermoepidermal junction. In the papillary connective tissue are nuclei of fibroblasts. (Hematoxylin-eosin stain; X60.)
=====
Fig. 2. In the deep dermis is an acutely curved hair follicle suggesting formation of a[u] kinky hair shaft[/u].
INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, THE SAMPLES ARE FROM THE NEW KINGDOM, 1550- 1080BC, FROM TOMBS OF THE NOBLES, NOT SOMETHING WAY BACK IN THE PRE-DYNASTIC [QUOTE] "In 1997, the German Institute for Archaeology headed an excavation of the tombs of the nobles in Thebes-West, Upper Egypt. At this time, three types of tissues were sampled from different mummies: meniscus (fibrocartilage), skin, and placenta. Archaeological findings suggest that the mummies dated from the New Kingdom (approximately 1550/1080 BC)... Skin sections showed particularly good tissue preservation, although cellular outlines were never distinct. Although much of the epidermis had already separated from the dermis, the remaining epidermis often was preserved well (Fig. 1). The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin." [ENDQUOTE] ============================= ====================
AND INDEED THE SO-CALLED "INCONCLUSIVE RESULTS" HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MELANIN CONTENT OF THE SKIN - IT CONCERNS AN ANALYSIS OF THE PLACENTA. The skin showed clear melanin content identifying the samples as tropical African.
The authors looked at --Skin - pg 9 --Placenta -pg 10 --Meniscus - pg 10 and 11
It is in the placenta, that the tissues they analyzed had problems and thus yielded inconclusive results. "Racial Awareness" or "Reality" - maybe call that "unreality" lied in trying to imply that the "inconclusive results" were from the skin. It was not skin but placenta. Once again our "biodiversity" moles resort to outright lying and distortion, and yet again, they stand:
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: Actually nevermind I read that wrong. He's talking about the SAME study. The quote from Racial Awareness is actually in the study but I get the feeling that he is quoting them out of context because why would they release a paper refuting their own results? That makes no sense.
I recommend people read it in full to uncover the context.
The answer is simpler. The quote on p. 10 of the paper is in the section describing the results from staining the placenta and, thus, refers to problems encountered in this tissue. It is not a general statement or one referring to the results on the skin.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
You and Truthcen nailed his bogus "rebuttal." It is typical of how our "biodiversity" friends operate. And I doubt said poster is really "egalitarian" - sounds like yet another false pose-- like the bogus "black militants," reputed "Afrocentrists" and fake "concerned native Egyptians" that they trot out to spin red herrings, strawmen, and disinformation. Good work.
Well he does aggressively attack racist claims including against Black people. He's on the Egalitarian side of debates with racists it just seems that he takes issue with the idea that the Ancient Egyptians were Black and insists the modern Egyptian population is reflective of the ancient. He rejects the notion that the invasions had a significant impact but even goes as far to say that dark-skinned Upper Egyptians are descended from subject populations.
He's an older guy and has been involved in racial topics for awhile. He claims to have read Lefkowitz's book Not out of Africa which has influenced his opinion of Afrocentric claims generally being pseudohistorical.
I do believe he is passionate about opposing racism but I am disturbed by how aggressively he opposes the idea of any Black presence in Egypt. Actually I've known him through the internet for years and debates with him and some others are what promoted me to join Egyptsearch and learn from the veterans here.
But on this issue his tactics were clearly deceitful. He presented the information as if it was something he was familiar with when in reality he got the quote and link from some Dodona zombie and hadn't even bothered to check the source himself because he had he would see that the link doesn't work.
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: Well he does aggressively attack racist claims including against Black people. He's on the Egalitarian side of debates with racists it just seems that he takes issue with the idea that the Ancient Egyptians were Black and insists the modern Egyptian population is reflective of the ancient. He rejects the notion that the invasions had a significant impact but even goes as far to say that dark-skinned Upper Egyptians are descended from subject populations.
He's an older guy and has been involved in racial topics for awhile. He claims to have read Lefkowitz's book Not out of Africa which has influenced his opinion of Afrocentric claims generally being pseudohistorical.
I do believe he is passionate about opposing racism but I am disturbed by how aggressively he opposes the idea of any Black presence in Egypt. Actually I've known him through the internet for years and debates with him and some others are what promoted me to join Egyptsearch and learn from the veterans here.
But on this issue his tactics were clearly deceitful. He presented the information as if it was something he was familiar with when in reality he got the quote and link from some Dodona zombie and hadn't even bothered to check the source himself because he had he would see that the link doesn't work.
Ironically, Kamandi, the MootSF poster whom you are presumably talking about, is Jewish. I wonder what he makes of his own people's tradition that the Egyptians were the "black as a raven" descendants of Ham?
I know I've said this before, but it has been my experience that anti-racist liberals can be just as dogmatic as the white supremacists when it comes to this debate. I think the reason is that these liberals tend to follow what they perceive as the mainstream consensus on any issue, and since few Egyptologists or other experts have gone out and audibly declared that the ancient Egyptians were black, the theory is written off as non-mainstream and therefore kooky.
I wonder, what is the Egyptological consensus on the ancient Egyptians' biological affinities? A lot of people on our side seem to think that there's some academic conspiracy suppressing the evidence in the name of white supremacy. I don't believe that, but I have an easier time imagining that a large number of Egyptologists don't speak their minds out of fear of offending modern Egyptians. Whatever it is, someone should e-mail a bunch of Egyptologists and other relevant experts asking them about this.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: Actually nevermind I read that wrong. He's talking about the SAME study. The quote from Racial Awareness is actually in the study but I get the feeling that he is quoting them out of context because why would they release a paper refuting their own results? That makes no sense.
I recommend people read it in full to uncover the context.
The answer is simpler. The quote on p. 10 of the paper is in the section describing the results from staining the placenta and, thus, refers to problems encountered in this tissue. It is not a general statement or one referring to the results on the skin.
zarahan posted a photo of the study. The remark is about the skin sample not the meniscus sample or the placenta sample. Each of the samples is separated in the discussion with different paragraph headings.
epidermis had already separated from the dermis, the remaining epidermis often was preserved well (Fig. 1). The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin."
The placenta samples were quote “inconclusive”
The skin samples were quote “Skins showed particularly good tissue preservation” .
Although I was correct in saying "packed with melanin" is a common scientific phrase which is used to described melanin content in general in humans, in this study the author implies that it means a lot of melanin by the way he said "as expected for specimens of Negroid origin."
So I retract that the author meant in general in this instance. He did mean that.
The thing is I don't see this type of analysis mentioned in forensics. It's a stray statement until someone presents more information amount the methodology involved. It does carry some weight in my opinion for the mummies examined to have some measure of dark skin.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MelaninKing: As skin grows older, we start to see differences in its appearance - and not only differences in our own skins but differences between people of the same age. The changes are determined fundamentally by our inherited skin type, its response to its environment and sometimes our overall health.
Human Skin Types
Skin type TYPE Unexposed skin color Sun response I White Always burns, never tans II White Always burns, tans minimally III White Burns minimally, sometimes tans IV Light brown Burns minimally, always tans well V Brown Rarely burns, tans darkly (Asian skins) VI Dark brown Never burns, tans darkly (African skins)
Human Skin Types
One way in which scientists define skin type is according to how it responds to exposure to the sun.
The system of classifying skin according to its type, shown in the table above, was developed on a two-factor basis: hair color and the ability to tan. Classification under this system also indicates the people who are especially prone to develop skin cancer. The six-point scale is based on the answers people give when questioned about how they react to sun exposure.
Individuals who are types I and II have skin more likely to burn and have difficulty developing a tan. It is also these people who are at highest risk for the development of skin cancer. During the last two centuries or so, many people of this type have moved to sunny climates like those of Australia and South Africa and are now at a much higher risk of developing skin cancer than if they had stayed in Europe.
Sun reactve typing was developed to determine drug treatment for psoriasis and is not used in anthropology. So what's your point?
posted
I think this webmaster summarized it accurately Truthcentric,
"There has been a spate of controversy of late between "Afrocentric" authors and their critics, but the truth is that Egyptologists are not involved in some massive conspiracy of lies designed to subjugate black populations, as has often been charged. Indeed, most modern Egyptologists are rather taciturn when it comes to the subject of race."
I actually had a nice email with him once. I told him about my involvement in race-related debates and my interest in the subject of Ancient Egypt and their biological affinities. He said that he considered my views and outlook to be well-grounded in reality and stated that he thought it was unfortunate that Arabization had distorted the public perception of Ancient Egypt's Africanity. You'll notice that his conclusion on the subject is that Ancient Egyptians had diverse phenotypes but that by and large they were dark any many must have been what we today call "Black."
Here is what I honestly believe and this is coming from personal experiences in the real world as well as internet discussions. Everyone who lives in a racially stratified society has been influenced in one way or another by racial thinking to the point where it effects their conscious thoughts on racial issues.
However few people have taken the time to actually think about racial theories on an intellectual level. The ones that have and bother to read speak passionately about it. Unfortunately there is a lot of misinformation out there and your upbringing heavily influences the research and theories that appeal to you.
On the subject of Ancient Egypt and Race I honestly think most Western Egyptologists most of whom are White have not taken an interest in the subject. Why would they? Unless they are racially conscious it's not an aspect that would greatly interest them the way it does a lot of people who have an interest in racial/ethnic identity and history. So I fully expect most of them when asked to not have much an informed opinion.
For instance I messaged a Youtuber who uploaded videos talking about Evolution. He claimed to have a degree in evolutionary biology and his videos were committed to proving Evolution and debunking Creationists. I was interested in learning what mainstream Evolutionists have to say about the subject of race, intelligence and human differences. He stated that he honestly hadn't given the subject much thought (he did say that determinism ignored the profound effect that environment has on mental abilities).
While genetics and evolutionary theory are highly relevant to racial theories only a handful of scientists in these fields fixate on racial issues. That is the impression I get.
When I go on Youtube and look at videos about the race of the Ancient Egyptians I see alot of angry posts from Black people talking about White Supremacist conspiracies to supress the truth that Ancient Egypt was Black. They accuse Zahi Hawass and other Egyptologists of being racists that are part of the conspiracy.
While there is no question that alot of anthropologists and Egyptologists throughout history that have inquired about the race of the Ancient Egyptians had a Eurocentric bias and made it a mission to deny the Africanity and Blackness of Egypt I don't think this attitude is ingrained in the minds of most modern academics. I've read articles such as the one in National Geographic Magazine where they say that they were shocked by the backlash the King Tut reconstruction got and really get the impression that they don't have a racist bias they are just clueless.
As for Hawass I honestly think he has been influenced by modern Egyptian prejudices about the rest of Africa and has a nationalist mindset. He sees the majority of modern Egyptians as non-Black and pictures the ancients to look the way he sees himself. I don't know him personally but I don't get the impression that he is a racist hellbent on Whitening the Ancient Egyptians the way alot of racist scholars have in the past. He just sees Egypt as a unique culture and an Egyptian heritage. Some Egyptian posters that have come to Egyptsearch also feel that way (some....others are clearly racists and probably trolls).
So on the subject of Kamandi, he is a White American of Jewish descent who has an interest in racism. He is an unapologetic Zionist. He is very defensive of Jews but he opposes any form of anti-Black racism or racism against other groups. I get the impression that he feels that he is defending the ethnic heritage of modern Egyptians by opposing my position. This is a complex subject. Sometimes it isn't just black and white, there can be a grey area.
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: Ancient Egyptians had diverse phenotypes but that by and large they were dark any many must have been what we today call "Black."
Of course one must ask, what do "we" today call black.
My impression, is that the author means "true negro", otherwise what does he mean?
Which would beg the question of how many "negroes" did he actually see...
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Of course one must ask, what do "we" today call black.
My impression, is that the author means "true negro", otherwise what does he mean?
Which would beg the question of how many "negroes" did he actually see...
Well, let's look at the quote in full:
This said, we might ask, "What color were the ancient Egyptians?" Being on the continent, Egypt has always been an African civilization though it straddles two regions, Africa and the Middle East. It's fairly clear that the cultural roots of ancient Egypt lie in Africa and not in Asia. Egypt was a subtropical desert environment and its people had migrated from various ethnic groups over its history (and prehistory), thus it was something of a "melting pot," a mixture of many types of people with many skin tones, some certainly from the Sub-Saharan regions and others from more Mediterranean climes. It is impossible to categorize these people into the tidy "black" and "white" terms of today's racial distinctions. The Egyptians are better classified using evidence of their language and their material cultures, historical records, and their physical remains because so-called "racial" identification has been elusive, much for the reasons cited above. Skulls have been measured and compared and DNA tests attempted in various forms, but conclusions are few. Skulls are more similar to those found in the Northern Sudan and less similar to those found in West Africa, Palestine, and Turkey. It seems that there has been some genetic continuity from Predynastic time through the Middle Kingdom, after which there was a considerable infiltration into the Nile Valley from outside populations. That the Egyptians by and large were dark is certain, and many must have been what we today call "black."
When he says Sub-Saharan regions vs. more Mediterranean climes and claims the skulls are more similar to those from the Northern Sudan I get the impression that he feels Egypt was a blend of people from the more Southerly portions of East Africa and the coastal portion of North Africa which he sees as having diverse phenotypes.
He also quotes Batrawi at the end who speaks of Negro influences on the population. My guess is that he thinks of dark-skinned East Africans as Black but believes Egypt also had people who looked more like tan and white-skinned Berber. As we know Mediterranean has been used to describe a "Brown" race or Sub-race of Caucasian. But it is important to note that the webmaster doesn't prescribe to racial typologies and recognizes Egypt as culturally African with Black people having always been part of the indigenous diversity, regardless of what he means by "Black."
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
I wonder, what is the Egyptological consensus on the ancient Egyptians' biological affinities? A lot of people on our side seem to think that there's some academic conspiracy suppressing the evidence in the name of white supremacy. I don't believe that, but I have an easier time imagining that a large number of Egyptologists don't speak their minds out of fear of offending modern Egyptians. Whatever it is, someone should e-mail a bunch of Egyptologists and other relevant experts asking them about this.
Certainly not ALL Egyptologists have a racial agenda, but just as certainly, some do!
NO Morpheus, there is no way to sugar-coat it. The Turks who call themselves Egyptians, like Hawass-the-liar, understand that if they admit that they are NOT related to the Egyptians, that brings into question their legitimacy as occupiers and rulers of Egypt.
Like the Khazar Turks claiming Israel, they have no choice but to go down lying - which they surely will.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Morpheus: So on the subject of Kamandi, he is a White American of Jewish descent who has an interest in racism. He is an unapologetic Zionist. He is very defensive of Jews but he opposes any form of anti-Black racism or racism against other groups. I get the impression that he feels that he is defending the ethnic heritage of modern Egyptians by opposing my position. This is a complex subject. Sometimes it isn't just black and white, there can be a grey area.
If you're talking about Non-Prophet you've clearly been absent in the instances that his real character showed.
He has posted racist pictures of apes where other people post pictures of blacks. He refers to Africans as spear chuckers, he also has no problem posting pornographic and homosexual material, or caricaturing African Americans with a grotesque kind of Ebonics that doesn't even exists. He basically denies any form of black achievement in ancient times, whether it is OOA migration or simply viewing them as having the basic intelligence to be self sufficient as a society. Anything is better than OOA, from multi origin theory to a genesis of modern humans in China. An African origin for the Afrasan phylum is suspect. He cites Ehret as his source, when Ehret directly opposes his position. He disappears from discussions when he is proven wrong, only to resurface with similar material elsewhere in this forum. Artwork that depicts Khufu as the African king that he is is labeled fake. The latter attitude toward African achievements is very typical among people like him and Mathilda. He even denies (just like her) the African nature of ancient Egyptian culture, something even African Egypt critics usually agree on (Strouhall etc). Despicable character if you ask me.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
I remind you that Egyptians were NOT ASKED who should rule them.
Nor have they been ALLOWED to vote on WHO should rule them - in any LEGITIMATE way.
Rather, after the collapse of the Turkic Ottoman Empire, following WW I, Egypt was taken over by the Europeans, and then HANDED over to the local RULING TURKIC ELITES!
To me, that was raw racism, and a denial of the Egyptians right to self determination.
There is a REASON why all of the So-Called "Arab" or Berber states, are POLICE states. Their citizens know that they were screwed by racists, and they are fighting it every day.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: If you're talking about Non-Prophet you've clearly been absent in the instances that his real character showed.
I'm talking about a poster from another message board.
Indeed what you described does sound like a despicable poster.
The poster in question has never said anything demeaning about Black people and opposes anti-Black racism. But he sees Egypt as non-Black and even prescribes to the idea of a skin color divide between Ancient Egyptians and Nubians.
However I effectively shut him down in the debate.
I've also taken up this issue of the deceptive tactics he used with the Racial Awareness quote in a new thread on the other board.
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL I thought you was referring to Non-Prophet since he fronted like he had read study as well
Anyway
I'm glad to see the issue is finally resolved. As you stated earlier, this wasn't the first time it was claimed that the study either doesn't exist, or was doctored to include the ''negroid'' part.
Thanks for chiming in and keeping us posted on their latest schemes, and creating a topic where the issue can be resolved for all to see.
There are more trends from the other sides that need to be eridicated so we don't run into the lies that they devise to attempt to nullify the conclusions of the studies we like to post.
One example is the Cairo study that found genes on Amenhotep III and Ramses II that code for brown skins and eyes. It is claimed by various people that it doesn't exist.
The other one that I can think of is the limb proportion studies that are done on ancient Egyptians. It is frequently stated that the Egyptian indices, crural in the case of Stringer and Gamble, pertain to modern Egyptians (as well).
quote: Lapps 79% .25 modern Inuit 81.5% 4 Belgium 82.5% 10 S.African white 83.2% 8.5 Yugoslav 83.75% 8.4 American white 82.6% 9.8 Kalahari Bushman 83.4% 18 New Mexico Indian 84.6% 14 S.African black 86.4% 17 Arizona Indian 85.5% 18 Melanesian 84.8% 23 Pygmy 85.1% 24.2 Egyptian 84.9% 26.1 American Black 85.25% 26 (Stringer and Gamble, 1993, p. 92).
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
melanin level 3.5
melanin level 7
melanin level 3
melanin level 3
melanin level 7
Printer-friendly view of this topic