quote:Originally posted by Gor: There's a good quote in Brues (1977) somewhere, where she states that 1 in 100,000 Northern Europeans inherit dark/brown skin. So like I said you can find the "full diversity" pretty much anywhere. The traits just differ by frequency.
My question to you is, from where do they inherit this trait, in upper or latter?
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: So they got Ramses and Moses and Tuya as pale Europeans in Exodus, principal roles Yet when there's a token black in a medieval flick he cries. They have been whitenizing Egyptians in Hollywood for years. And now the excuse for is they throw in a couple token side parts in medieval films ( and there were a few blacks around even) Or Merlin which is not even historical
No, not at all. I don't watch these things, and I don't care who stars in them. My simple point was that if we remove all the white actors from Egypt-set films, shouldn't we also remove all the blacks from programmes/films like Merlin, and Thor? Otherwise there would be a double standard.
I think you should reread Lioness's post, a few times. And let it marinate for a while.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: So they got Ramses and Moses and Tuya as pale Europeans in Exodus, principal roles Yet when there's a token black in a medieval flick he cries. They have been whitenizing Egyptians in Hollywood for years. And now the excuse for is they throw in a couple token side parts in medieval films ( and there were a few blacks around even) Or Merlin which is not even historical
No, not at all. I don't watch these things, and I don't care who stars in them. My simple point was that if we remove all the white actors from Egypt-set films, shouldn't we also remove all the blacks from programmes/films like Merlin, and Thor? Otherwise there would be a double standard.
This is the skin tone, the should be using to depict dynastic Egyptians in reconstructions and film >>>
>>>
Amenhotep II
Rameses II
but instead they purposely lightenize the skin tones in the Hollywood movies and puposley leave out actors who actually have that natural skin tone That is unfair
You have no sense of proportion If a period in history is being represented then most of the people should look as the ancient people looked So in an Egyptian movie if you you have a couple of light skinned men in a larger group of darker skinned people and where the main characters are brown skinned as above, no problem the vast majority are brown skinned. They could be played by black or white actors as long as the skin tone is realistic to the period achieved by makeup or hopefully by some of the actors actually having that skin tone The Egyptians were largely African yet in decades of Egyptian themed movies, they never put actors of African ancestry in principal roles and not many at all generally. And in a medieval Europe film the reverse would be done, mainly light skinned with one or two blacks. Merlin for instance, the rest of the cast is white (not that this fluff T.V. fantasy is on par with a serious adult drama anyway) That is the proper balance, no need to strictly segregate these things as you were talking about, an extreme solution rather than making reasonable, significant adjustments
It is even more important on scientific reconstructions to be historically accurate, sculpture and re-enatcted historical documentary film But National Geographic and the BBC falsify reconstuctions by skin lightening to market to a white audience and make themselves feel like they were most similar to the ancient Egyptians and it's corrupt for them to present this as scientific All it is is promoting lighter skin as an ideal as opposed to representing history accurately
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Apricot-colored skin as seen in ancient Egypt, southern Africa, Arabia, Mali, Sahel and central Congo was the norm, before the advent of agriculture, when the forest periphery was converted to grow crops, and the black residents greatly increased their numbers.
kaffir was a term used by Boers in South Africa, I don't know the root, but seems similar to capricorn/apricot/apries/aries/afar/African, perhaps linked to early sheep-goat herding.
posted
Gor says: All populations have virtually the "full diversity", they just differ in their frequencies and sub-Saharan Africans cover most of the world's mean range/have the highest mean variation.
Witless one. If your own "mean frequencies" which you mention show greater African diversity than non-Africans, why then do you, in a most asinine display of logic, still keep insisting that the very same "supporting data" you yourself brought up, is wrong, and that Africans do not have that greater diversity? Don't you get it dummy- how you are contradicting yourself? Let's look at your statement:
"All populations have virtually the "full diversity", they just differ in their frequencies"
Dullard. If they "just differ in their frequencies" doesn't that tell you all are NOT the same? Why do the "differences" show Africans have the highest diversity? Call it "mean" or whatever- it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference. I mean, can't you "HBD" geniuses come up with better talking points to repeat, rather than your dismal display of logic? Oh wait- Big Mike and I have shown numerous times online that "logic" is a foreign concept to people like you.
Originally posted by Gor: There's a good quote in Brues (1977) somewhere, where she states that 1 in 100,000 Northern Europeans inherit dark/brown skin. So like I said you can find the "full diversity" pretty much anywhere. The traits just differ by frequency.
^You are now trying to shift the ground and wriggle away by saying that well Europeans are all not alike. But that was never at issue. Everyone knows they don;t all look alike. Your diversionary shift still won't work. In a stunning display of "logic" you say that Euros and others differ in trait frequencies. But almost in the next breath you insist that Euro variation is on the same level of Africans- a clearly bogus assertion.
Diversions won;t work. Old chup, carry on if you will, exposing your ignorance, but do explain why you still keep trying to duck and avoid the question above- what scholars specifically support your contention that Eurasians have higher diversity than Africans? Whether it be "mean" variation or otherwise. What's taking you so long in producing a credible scholar that actually supports your bogus claim?
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Gor: I created an ES-reloaded account to download Angel's paper on the Egyptians several months back. I hardly posted there and I don't see anything offensive I posted. Someone made a post claiming they were sick of seeing white actors playing roles in Egyptian-based films, I merely responded by pointing out blacks have been in stuff like Merlin for years, which is also out of place, and it was hypocritical of them to complain. This is supposedly again 'racism' or "hate propaganda" in Claus' view. Whatever.
I've already explained enough above, so there's no more point in wasting time with it. However I will say that Claus' is/was expecting for too much with his "reform" agenda, which are tied to his own cranky far-left views. The guy is by no means a moderate himself. I am not going to convert to a tree-loving hippy, sorry Claus.
Are you telling that there is a movie, wherein the roleplay of Merlin is done by a black actor? Can you link it?
To elaborate quickly on Merlin.
I just bumped into something called The Moorish Dance.
It was on an iTunes channel. And looked it up quickly on the net, when I encountered this:
Moriskentänzer, one of 16 (now 10) wood Morris Dancers by Erasmus Grasser, Munich Stadtmuseum, 1480. Plaster cast in Pushkin museum. (Are missing the most important persons of dance - Fair lady, Musician and Jester).
A small statue of a "Moriskentänzer" made by Erasmus Grasser in 1480 for Old Townhall in Munich, one of a set of 16, of which only 10 remain. This dancer is clearly "moorish", but all the other 9 surviving carvings have caucasian features. All wear bells on their legs.
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Gor says: All populations have virtually the "full diversity", they just differ in their frequencies and sub-Saharan Africans cover most of the world's mean range/have the highest mean variation.
Witless one. If your own "mean frequencies" which you mention show greater African diversity than non-Africans, why then do you, in a most asinine display of logic, still keep insisting that the very same "supporting data" you yourself brought up, is wrong, and that Africans do not have that greater diversity? Don't you get it dummy- how you are contradicting yourself? Let's look at your statement:
"All populations have virtually the "full diversity", they just differ in their frequencies"
Dullard. If they "just differ in their frequencies" doesn't that tell you all are NOT the same? Why do the "differences" show Africans have the highest diversity? Call it "mean" or whatever- it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference. I mean, can't you "HBD" geniuses come up with better talking points to repeat, rather than your dismal display of logic? Oh wait- Big Mike and I have shown numerous times online that "logic" is a foreign concept to people like you.
Originally posted by Gor: There's a good quote in Brues (1977) somewhere, where she states that 1 in 100,000 Northern Europeans inherit dark/brown skin. So like I said you can find the "full diversity" pretty much anywhere. The traits just differ by frequency.
^You are now trying to shift the ground and wriggle away by saying that well Europeans are all not alike. But that was never at issue. Everyone knows they don;t all look alike. Your diversionary shift still won't work. In a stunning display of "logic" you say that Euros and others differ in trait frequencies. But almost in the next breath you insist that Euro variation is on the same level of Africans- a clearly bogus assertion.
Diversions won;t work. Old chup, carry on if you will, exposing your ignorance, but do explain why you still keep trying to duck and avoid the question above- what scholars specifically support your contention that Eurasians have higher diversity than Africans? Whether it be "mean" variation or otherwise. What's taking you so long in producing a credible scholar that actually supports your bogus claim?
"there are more than 7,500 varieties of apples worldwide"
A bag of apples with more variation than another, will have more varieties, lacking in the other (say one has 14 varieties, the other only 5).
In contrast:
Two bags, both with the same varieties but of different amounts are not more 'diverse' than the other (they just vary in quantity or frequency).
Like with the apples, this was the simple contrast I was making between craniometric variation and mean craniometric variation.
Apparently you still don't understand it, and have been posting the same lies/errors across the internet for years.
Europeans do not lack the "full diversity" like you claim, they have the same variation or diversity as Africans; they only differ in their frequency. And Africans are not more diverse than anyone else - they only show higher frequency variation.
I'm not the one confusing (average) frequency variation with actual variation in these studies.
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also note that there is a reason I emphasis: "in these studies".
You can change who has the highest mean variation depending on what populations you sample or contrast.
If you compare Europeans vs. Asians vs. Africans it is Africans who have the highest mean variation.
However if you compare Eurasians vs. Africans, it is Eurasians who have the highest mean variation.
Evidence for the latter is in Relethford. Just combine his data for Europe, East Asia, India etc for "Eurasia" and then compare to Africa. Eurasians easily come out showing the higher mean variation. This is simply a result of population size.
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Genetic diversity refers to :Single nucleotide polymorphism;Copy number variants;Short tandem repeats;private haplotypes;alu insertions;micro-satellites. Africans have more genetic diversity than the rest of humanity combine and the least Linkage disequilibrium in their genome.
Posts: 121 | From: Guyana | Registered: Mar 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ponsford: Genetic diversity refers to :Single nucleotide polymorphism;Copy number variants;Short tandem repeats;private haplotypes;alu insertions;micro-satellites. Africans have more genetic diversity than the rest of humanity combine and the least Linkage disequilibrium in their genome.
I believe it is just whatever larger population size you sample and since most, if not all studies, choose Africa as the largest continent you get those results. None of this supports a recent African origin (RAO) of "modern humans":
Relethford, J. H., & Harpending, H. C. (1995). Ancient differences in population size can mimic a recent African origin of modern humans. Current Anthropology, 667-674.
See how population size mimics RAO.
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
"...effect of population growth has had even more influence on present genetic diversity. More people mean more mutations (Tennessen et al., 2012)" (Caspari & Wolpoff, 2013)
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
^^It is obvious that you do not have a clue what limb proportion ratios are about despite several explanations above by Patrol, me and others. They do not have to do with "wingspan." And they are not height to "wingspan" ratios. You are clueless.
I understand what they are what I dont understand is how they tell a different story than arms length which you can discern from looking at wingspans, standing reach and height.
quote: "Wingspan" is not a credible ratio measurement of tropical adaptation. They way appear in dubious white "biodiversity" gobbledegook and propaganda, but appear in no credible study as as credible measurements of the adaptations in question. NBA draft measurements are miles away from the topic. Can you post any study where your so-called "wingspan" model is used to measure limb proportions? From whence
Lol like hell it doesn't. Wingspan in relation to height absolutely positively can discern what populations are more tropically adapted however there is diversity and overlap so you cant look at one individual and tell anything. My question was how are joint ratios more accurate. I suspect that they have a similar range of diversity.
quote: this mysterious "metrical data"? Where do you see your "wingspan" referenced below? Is there a "wingspan" indice that indicates tropical adaptation? Where and who? Trinkhaus? Holliday? Keita? Raxter? Who are these scientists using your mysterious measure of wondrous "wingspans"?
This is the fallacy of authority. The reason why we don't use wingspan or better yet standing reach and height is because we are much less likely to work with full skeletons in anthropology than we are in NBA combines. Which bring me back to my question above.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Gor that 1995 reference is too dated in the field of molecular biology-genetics.
Posts: 121 | From: Guyana | Registered: Mar 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: [QB] Fourtytribes says Based on this study limb length is more adaptive than brachial and crural indicies. I would have thought they were the same thing. This suggest that those NBAdraft measurements are more relevant not less. It validates my point.
Actually the study says nothing about "wingspan" or any height to wingspan ratio. Far from "validating" what you are saying, it actually debunks your claims.
The study states that limb length is more variable. We can determine limb length with standing reach and height which is a little better than wingspan because it doesn't factor shoulder width. Despite being more adaptive which makes them more variable there is clear overlap. White people are not Neanderthals. They are barely or newly cold adapted in comparison. Funny to think about those brown skin Neanderthals. I'm starting to warm up to the albino theory.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ponsford: Genetic diversity refers to :Single nucleotide polymorphism;Copy number variants;Short tandem repeats;private haplotypes;alu insertions;micro-satellites. Africans have more genetic diversity than the rest of humanity combine and the least Linkage disequilibrium in their genome.
I believe it is just whatever larger population size you sample and since most, if not all studies, choose Africa as the largest continent you get those results. None of this supports a recent African origin (RAO) of "modern humans":
Relethford, J. H., & Harpending, H. C. (1995). Ancient differences in population size can mimic a recent African origin of modern humans. Current Anthropology, 667-674.
See how population size mimics RAO.
This is not true. Most studies in Africa are of relatively recent times. The first to do keen genome mapping in Afrcia was Sarah Tishkoff and her team.
The actual question here is. Do you actually understand any of what Ponsford mentioned?
Even after reading your citation, and the remaining part of the page I see you fail to acknowledge.
The Origins of Modern Humans: Biology Reconsidered -- Fred H. Smith,James C. Ahern
(Page 377-387)
(Human populations have inherited many African genes, yet we claim that modernity did not...)
posted
Oh the irony, you even got Zahi Hawass complaining about this latest reconstruction.
Talk about a change of face.... pun intended:
quote: Tutankamun: the Truth Revealed” is the title of a TV show produced by a private company in England for the BBC and the Smithsonian Channel in the United States. But the show reveals lies, not the truth.
It quotes scientists whose real intention is to become famous in the media, and one of them, a former member of the Egyptian mummy project, uses the Egyptian team’s CT and DNA analysis without permission to spread lies about Tutankhamun, claiming that the ancient Egyptian boy king was handicapped, born with a club foot.
This golden boy has entered the hearts of people all over the world, and this person wanted to take him out of our hearts. This person and the film producer have made a huge mistake and in so doing they have lost the respect of all reasonable people. Scholars all over the world disagree with them, and, again, instead of revealing the truth all they have done is to propagate lies.
The UK’s Daily Mail newspaper has published an article on the new documentary on Tutankhamun, produced by STV and already aired. The documentary distorts what Tutankhamun looked like: the boy king, whose treasure and tomb still fascinate people across the world, was presented in a completely fantastic way, humiliating not only the Egyptian king but also rewriting the history of the ancient world.
The face of the king was reconstructed by a French team that rebuilds the features of the dead using special computer programmes. This reconstruction was not based on science or on the study of the anatomy of the face of the mummy, however. Another Egyptian-American team had already reconstructed the king’s face, but for some reason the programme used the image produced by the French.
It is obvious that there is a clear difference between the features of Tutankhamun’s mummy, preserved in his tomb in the Valley of the Kings, and the image shown in the programme. In my own lectures on the golden king, I always show three reconstructed images of Tutankhamun, and when I show the French reconstruction I am careful to say that it is not borne out by the facts.
Furthermore, the documentary makers stated that Tutankhamun had feminine hips, but this is not based on scientific evidence. First, the study of Tutankhamun’s mummy by X-ray and CT scan has not shown any indication of such female features. The hips of the mummy are tied up with linen, and it is not possible to show that he had the kind of female hips seen, for example, in statues of the pharaoh Akhenaten.
How did the television team, which did not perform any scientific studies or even touch the mummy, reach these results? The purpose was to tarnish the image of the Egyptian pharaoh.
Second, the idea behind focusing attention on Tutankhamun’s hips was to attract attention to the statues of Akhenaten, the father of Tutankhamun. These statues are expressions of the god Aten, whom Akhenaten worshiped as a sole god and creator of the universe. Thus, the statues and images of Akhenaten with female features are reflections of religion. In fact, the skeleton of Akhenaten, which was buried in tomb KV55, has no feminine features.
Scientific studies carried out by the Egyptian team on the mummy of Tutankhamun have shown that the king was generally in good health in spite of suffering from flat feet, meaning that blood did not reach his left toes. The archaeological evidence proves that the king grew up and lived in Memphis, the administrative capital of Egypt during the 18th Dynasty of the New Kingdom.
He lived in a palace at Memphis and his wet-nurse Maya took care of him: the French archaeologist Alan Zivie has found her tomb, which contains an image of Tutankhamun sitting on her lap.
Tutankhamun also built a small rest house to the south of the temple of Khafre at Giza. The desert between Giza and Saqqara was called the Valley of Ghazal (the valley of deer) and Tutankhamun used this rest house to relax after hunting wild animals. This fact alone shows that he was not the invalid claimed in the television programme.
In addition, the king appears in many scenes depicted on golden shrines and wooden boxes, as well as on fan holders, sitting or standing in his chariot. This also shows that he was fond of shooting and hunting.
One of the new discoveries found beneath the houses of a village located between Abusir and Saqqara is a block that depicts Tutankhamun seated and shooting wild animals, while his wife, Ankhesenamun, is kneeling by his feet. If he had looked like the image broadcast in the TV documentary he would never have been able to hunt wild animals.
This documentary did not entertain at all, and, despite its efforts, it will not make me forget the beauty of Tutankhamun. But this is not the first time that a foreign team has damaged the golden boy.
The first occasion was in 1925, when Tutankhamun’s British discoverers, Howard Carter and Douglas Derry, opened the sarcophagus and coffins and found that the face of the mummy was covered with a golden mask and 150 amulets. Carter looked at the mask and saw the face as an idealised portrait of the young king executed in precious materials with unsurpassed craftsmanship.
I myself go to see the mask every time I visit the Cairo Museum. It served as a place in which Tutankhamun’s soul could dwell if some ill fate befell his body and thus was an essential item of the royal burial objects.
When the tomb was opened, the king’s head was adhered to the inside of this marvellous object because of the resins used to preserve the mummy. To remedy this situation, Carter and Derry heated knives to melt and cut through the resins. As a result, the process of freeing the mask removed the mummy’s head as well.
I can well imagine being in Carter’s place, seeing this exquisite face for the first time and knowing that within it was the real face of the king. Should I remove the mask and do damage to the royal mummy?
Or should I leave the two joined together and exhibit the mummy with the mask in place? My choice would have been the same as Carter’s: take the mask off, even at the price of damaging the head beneath.
The ancient Egyptians thought that the flesh of the gods was made of gold, so, fittingly, their artisans used this metal to create this masterpiece. They hammered together two thick gold sheets and then gave them the features of the king. Recent X-ray examination of the mask has revealed that the artisans added thin layers of gold, silver, and copper alloy to the gold body of the mask to increase its brilliance.
After the mask was taken off the mummy was broken into 18 pieces, but the head was in good condition. Harry Burton, a member of Carter’s expedition, took a photograph at the time that shows that Carter and his team left the head of the mummy covered with linen, turquoise beads and a diadem.
This seems to show that although Carter damaged the body of the king when he removed the bandages and the objects wrapped with them, he did not damage the head. What happened to the head to make it appear as it does today? The only possible explanation is that later investigators were responsible when they used chemicals to treat this part of the body.
The story began in 1968 when R G Harrison, an anatomist at the University of Liverpool in the UK, intended to X-ray the body. A sweet smell greeted him when he removed the lid of the coffin. The dismemberment was discovered, along with Carter’s poor job of rewrapping the mummy.
Harrison’s team also realised that Tutankhamun was missing one of his thumbs, as well as his penis. Harrison confirmed some of Derry’s observations, including the king’s age at death, though he believed it was at the younger end of the range of 18 to 22 years. He confirmed the similarities between the skulls of Tutankhamun and the KV 55 tomb mummy. These mummies were about the same height and similarly proportioned. Clearly, there was a family resemblance....
But I guess he must be mad because they didn't pay him as a consultant of this documentary. So what else do you expect when you accept money from those you know have less than the truth at heart......
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor[/qb]This is not true. Most studies in Africa are of relatively recent times. The first to do keen genome mapping in Afrcia was Sarah Tishkoff and her team.
The actual question here is. Do you actually understand any of what Ponsford mentioned?
Even after reading your citation, and the remaining part of the page I see you fail to acknowledge.
The Origins of Modern Humans: Biology Reconsidered -- Fred H. Smith,James C. Ahern
(Page 377-387)
(Human populations have inherited many African genes, yet we claim that modernity did not...)
^Indeed. But whatever the merits of multi-regionalism there is no question of the flow out of Africa, which Relethford freely acknowledges under BOTH approaches. Whether multi-regional or rao- whether smaller or larger population size- or whether a single African population made the OOA running, or several diverse African groups- doesn't make a dime's worth of difference.
"Several analyses have shown that more recent modern samples are morphologically more similar to earlier samples from Africa and the Middle East than to earlier samples within their geographic re- gion. For example, it has been sug- gested that recent modern samples from Europe (e.g., Cro-Magnon) are more similar to older samples from Africa and the Skhul-Qafzeh samples in the Middle East than to earlier Europeans (Neandertals). These findings are often taken as support for a recent African origin because this is the type of pattern we would expect to see if all recent modern humans came from Africa within the last 100,000 years."
"Given a larger long-term population size in Africa, both recent African ori- gin and multiregional models predict that temporally recent fossil samples across the Old World will more closely resemble earlier populations in Africa."
--Relethford. 1999. Models, Predictions, and the Fossil Record of Modern Human Origins. Evo Anthro
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh great. Now that I'm back I see Euronuts invading the forum.
Not only did I have work, my social life, and the elections, but I was also doing some research and have plans to post findings in this forum.
However, I really don't want my threads being polluted with the racial nonsense.
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish GeborThis is not true. Most studies in Africa are of relatively recent times. The first to do keen genome mapping in Afrcia was Sarah Tishkoff and her team.
The actual question here is. Do you actually understand any of what Ponsford mentioned?
Even after reading your citation, and the remaining part of the page I see you fail to acknowledge.
The Origins of Modern Humans: Biology Reconsidered -- Fred H. Smith,James C. Ahern
(Page 377-387)
(Human populations have inherited many African genes, yet we claim that modernity did not...)
^Indeed. But whatever the merits of multi-regionalism there is no question of the flow out of Africa, which Relethford freely acknowledges under BOTH approaches. Whether multi-regional or rao- whether smaller or larger population size- or whether a single African population made the OOA running, or several diverse African groups- doesn't make a dime's worth of difference.
"Several analyses have shown that more recent modern samples are morphologically more similar to earlier samples from Africa and the Middle East than to earlier samples within their geographic re- gion. For example, it has been sug- gested that recent modern samples from Europe (e.g., Cro-Magnon) are more similar to older samples from Africa and the Skhul-Qafzeh samples in the Middle East than to earlier Europeans (Neandertals). These findings are often taken as support for a recent African origin because this is the type of pattern we would expect to see if all recent modern humans came from Africa within the last 100,000 years."
"Given a larger long-term population size in Africa, both recent African ori- gin and multiregional models predict that temporally recent fossil samples across the Old World will more closely resemble earlier populations in Africa."
--Relethford. 1999. Models, Predictions, and the Fossil Record of Modern Human Origins. Evo Anthro [/QB]
Has anyone ever denied most gene flow was from Africa? This mostly seems to be your straw man. You've also cut off the important part from Relethford (via your own bias):
quote:Based on these findings and the hypothesis of a larger long-term African population, I suggest that the multiregional model predicts that biological distances based on many traits will show that recent modern fossil samples are more similar to earlier samples from Africa than they are to samples from the same geographic region. I also suggest that regional continuity will be found in a small number of traits, but not all traits.
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: White people are not Neanderthals. They are barely or newly cold adapted in comparison. Funny to think about those brown skin Neanderthals. I'm starting to warm up to the albino theory. [/QB]
Except the reverse is true. Neanderthal faces were not cold adapted, but 'white people' today clearly are, e.g. any European population has a very high frequency of narrow noses, while Neanderthal noses were virtually all broad.
"Neanderthals possess a prognathic face and wide nose, both of which are the opposite of the condition most often seen in arctic mammals, including humans (Wolpoff, 1968; Prestrud, 1991)."
And this is explained by the nasal aperture in Neanderthals being constrained by wide intercanine distances, so nasal narrowing could not occur until dental reduction which happened only in the last 100,000-50,000 years in Europe (see any of Brace's studies on tooth size).
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Mostly cultural aspects of ancient Egypt as well as other areas of the Nile Valley.
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's your take on Toby Wilkinson's book The Rise And Fall of Ancient Egypt which posits Egypt's kingship system in part, as sort of an early "totalitarian" model?
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: White people are not Neanderthals. They are barely or newly cold adapted in comparison. Funny to think about those brown skin Neanderthals. I'm starting to warm up to the albino theory.
Except the reverse is true. Neanderthal faces were not cold adapted, but 'white people' today clearly are, e.g. any European population has a very high frequency of narrow noses, while Neanderthal noses were virtually all broad.
"Neanderthals possess a prognathic face and wide nose, both of which are the opposite of the condition most often seen in arctic mammals, including humans (Wolpoff, 1968; Prestrud, 1991)."
And this is explained by the nasal aperture in Neanderthals being constrained by wide intercanine distances, so nasal narrowing could not occur until dental reduction which happened only in the last 100,000-50,000 years in Europe (see any of Brace's studies on tooth size). [/QB]
I find the location questionable with the way tropical Africa produces narrow features and non-prognathic faces but it does explain why Neanderthals were far more cold adapted from the neck down and under the skin.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: What's your take on Toby Wilkinson's book The Rise And Fall of Ancient Egypt which posits Egypt's kingship system in part, as sort of an early "totalitarian" model?
This is a very good question for everybody in this forum. A question which may be more appropriate in its own thread.
A 2 minutes google search on cynicism and The Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt provided me with those results:
quote:The only real false note is Wilkinson's cynical view of pharaonic statecraft is bracing. However, it stems from a [post modern political cynicism] perspective, which he manages to drag into every chapter in ways that are sometimes gratingly anachronistic and a-historical.
I added the text in [] myself.
quote:I own several other books by this distinguished, veteran Egyptologist; all of them quite wonderful. This volume seems to have been written with the intention of integrating old and new data about the subject in a more relevant and convenient manner. But, perhaps the desire to entertain won out. I was shocked to find a frequently dim, even cynical view of the Egyptians' sincerity, integrity, and religious sensitivity.
The book is well written and entertaining but I was also questioning Wilkinson's post-modern political cynicism point of view in relation to Ancient Egypt. As the first quote above say it, I think it was anachronistic and a-historical.
It seems Wilkinson let his own cynical outlook on anything politic cloud his judgment and analysis of the Ancient Egyptian Kingdom and state. Instead of studying it from their perspective, he studied it from his own modern perspective and cynical outlook on politics. All along my reading I found this perspective anachronistic and a-historical.
I'm curious to know other people's takes on it including yours Zarahan.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Excuse me, Amun, but the second quote is referencing Rosalie David's Religion and Magic in Ancient Egypt, not Wilkinson's book.
For what it's worth, I thought Rise and Fall was adequate as a general overview of ancient Egyptian history, but I agree that it had a pervasive polemical tone against the Egyptians or at least their monarchy. In fact Wilkinson outright states in the preface that he's grown disillusioned with the subject of his research and how his colleagues view it with rose-tinted glasses. Like you, I got a cynical vibe from the whole project.
I can accept that the ancient Egyptian state wasn't the most humane institution in the history of human civilization. Thing is, this was the Bronze Age, when oppressive autocracies were the norm throughout the "civilized" world. I don't think an overview of Mesopotamian or Greco-Roman history, viewed with the same critical glasses, would make them look much better than the Egyptians.
Furthermore, I don't know if the general public really does view ancient Egypt with "rose-tinted glasses". Maybe that's the case with Egyptologists, "Afrocentrics", and certain lay enthusiasts, but Joe and Jane Average probably associate Egypt with vengeful mummies and Hebrew slavery more than anything else. Whatever idealization of ancient Egypt exists hasn't made it to Hollywood at least.
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: What's your take on Toby Wilkinson's book The Rise And Fall of Ancient Egypt which posits Egypt's kingship system in part, as sort of an early "totalitarian" model?
I very much disagree with that premise. I will explain the reasons why in a thread I plan on creating about divine kingship in Africa in general and Egypt specifically. There seems to be much misunderstanding of this concept and institution as it was practiced. I will say that while the king's power was in theory supreme, in practice it was well regulated by a sacred mandate i.e. maat. Also, while the centralized/federal government was under the authority of the king, the various sepati (provinces) and cities and villages within still had autonomy of their own.
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: What's your take on Toby Wilkinson's book The Rise And Fall of Ancient Egypt which posits Egypt's kingship system in part, as sort of an early "totalitarian" model?
I very much disagree with that premise. I will explain the reasons why in a thread I plan on creating about divine kingship in Africa in general and Egypt specifically. There seems to be much misunderstanding of this concept and institution as it was practiced. I will say that while the king's power was in theory supreme, in practice it was well regulated by a sacred mandate i.e. maat. Also, while the centralized/federal government was under the authority of the king, the various sepati (provinces) and cities and villages within still had autonomy of their own.
I'm looking forward to that thread. It would be refreshing to see a portrayal of ancient Egyptian and other African kingship that is more respectful than how they're usually portrayed.
Posts: 7083 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Yes, it's typical Eurocentric Doctrine # 8: IF IT WAS NOT WHITE, AND ITS GREATNESS IS UNDENIABLE, THEN IT MUST BE DEPRECATED IN SOME WAY. Note Wilkinson was not the first scholar to call Egyptian society "totalitarian" nor was ancient Egypt the only society that this term was applied to by Westerners. What's ironic is that in Egyptian society and other societies which practiced divine kingship in general, the common people had far more civil rights than the common folk who lived under petty kings and other nobility of Europe during Medieval times! Also, the common people who lived under their divine monarchs in pre-colonial Africa also had more rights than in colonial or even today's corrupt post-colonial governments!! I will describe all of this in my thread as well.
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I still see that stupid and retarded white supremacist Gor/Faheembunker is still trying to character assassinate ,me out of the blue when I haven't been on here(or Topix) in a long time to even defend myself. Real classy. That "black pride" thread I made a LONG, LONG time ago when I was young and ignorant before I even became educated on the subject of anthropology to know that race is a mere subject.
Seriously get off my nuts already. Stop following me around the net and character assassinating me when I am not here to defend myself. When I finally come back to ES to see whats up I see you back having my name in your mouth. Me who hardly beefed with you, until you got salty on Historum(and also banned) on posts from me you didn't like and so the character assassination began.
Again get off my nuts. Your beef is you and Zaharan.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
I did not 'character assassinate' anyone, that is what you did, alongside Tropicals Redacted. The slander and baseless accusations from last year were then used by an actual white supremacist against me at Anthroscape:
quote:Apart from Atlantid, we know he has posted across the web under the names Anglo_Pyramidologist, Faheemdunkers, Pyramidologist, White Nubian, Facts, White Nord, Sython Flter and Thule, and Cassiterides.
White Nubian, Facts, White Nord, Sython Flter, are not me, and I've never posted as these names across the web. So congratulations for just making up four names that aren't mine and then bizarrely posting I own or post as them.
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: I find the location questionable with the way tropical Africa produces narrow features and non-prognathic faces
Can you find a single Pleistocene fossil from Africa with these features?
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Son of Ra: I still see that stupid and retarded white supremacist Gor/Faheembunker is still trying to...
He's changed his philosophy this is the the new Cass:
quote:Originally posted by Gor:
There never was "divergence" between any human population: this would require branching through isolation.
Yes, I have for over a year. Hence I shifted from Metapedia's "race realism" to Rationalwiki's "race realism". I have then countered what was being posted at Metapedia, even correcting what I was formerly posting.
^ Note though that this sort of stuff still appears all over this forum where posters like Amun are trying to assert there is an "African" genetic cluster.
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: I find the location questionable with the way tropical Africa produces narrow features and non-prognathic faces
Can you find a single Pleistocene fossil from Africa with these features?
If there there never was divergence between any human population because this would require branching through isolation and there is was no isolation and not single Pleistocene fossil from Africa produces narrow features and non-prognathic faces Then what accounts for that? Why do people look different?
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: What's your take on Toby Wilkinson's book The Rise And Fall of Ancient Egypt which posits Egypt's kingship system in part, as sort of an early "totalitarian" model?
This is a very good question for everybody in this forum. A question which may be more appropriate in its own thread.
A 2 minutes google search on cynicism and The Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt provided me with those results:
quote:The only real false note is Wilkinson's cynical view of pharaonic statecraft is bracing. However, it stems from a [post modern political cynicism] perspective, which he manages to drag into every chapter in ways that are sometimes gratingly anachronistic and a-historical.
I added the text in [] myself.
quote:I own several other books by this distinguished, veteran Egyptologist; all of them quite wonderful. This volume seems to have been written with the intention of integrating old and new data about the subject in a more relevant and convenient manner. But, perhaps the desire to entertain won out. I was shocked to find a frequently dim, even cynical view of the Egyptians' sincerity, integrity, and religious sensitivity.
The book is well written and entertaining but I was also questioning Wilkinson's post-modern political cynicism point of view in relation to Ancient Egypt. As the first quote above say it, I think it was anachronistic and a-historical.
It seems Wilkinson let his own cynical outlook on anything politic cloud his judgment and analysis of the Ancient Egyptian Kingdom and state. Instead of studying it from their perspective, he studied it from his own modern perspective and cynical outlook on politics. All along my reading I found this perspective anachronistic and a-historical.
I'm curious to know other people's takes on it including yours Zarahan.
I read about 3/4 of the book and it has a lot of good detail, but I would agree that it at times has an unnecessarily cynical tone throughout. Some of what he says portrays as cynical political maneuvering or exploitation may not be that at all, but simply the religious and cultural expression of the Egyptians of that era. Erection of a grand temple might very well be just that- a grand temple to honor whatever god was prominent at the moment, not a cynical politician's ploy to consolidate power against some rival. In a sense, Wilkinson is doing what he warned about in earlier books- imposing our (or his) own modern obsessions or spin on to a quite different ancient context and reality. Were there cynical political motives at play in various times? Sure. We can tell by the propaganda inscriptions different rulers left- the alleged victories they claimed, or how they sometimes effaced monuments of previous rulers to "doctor" or "spin" the record. Wilkinson's book would be a reminder not to accept everything about ancient Egypt at face value. But at times he goes too far in the other direction.
Some detail is excellent. He points out for example how the Egyptians propagandized Nubia's holiest mountain, gebel barkal, to be the southern home of the god Amun, and how the shape of the rock resembled a rearing cobra wearing the white crown of Upper Egypt, and that Gebe barkal tied into the Egyptian monarchy and as a result, Nubia as far south as the holy mountain was merely an extension of Upper Egypt. Wilkinson then points out that this was ironically turned back on the Egyptians when the Nubian/Kushite restorationists tookover during the 25th Dynasty. They too pointed back to such concepts to solidify their claim to be the real heirs of the "true" Egypt, and the true followers of Amun. I only quibble with his describing the Nubian conqueror as "the black crusader", as if a black ruler was somehow an exception in Egypt, when in fact they have been in Egypt from earliest times. It does not take the 25th Dynasty to deliver "black" rulers.
But all in all-this is reasonable stuff- a long book - over 600 pages but solid detail. I think the above interpretation is reasonable in part. Sure every conqueror will seek to exploit local religious imagery to justify his actions. Alexander did this, as did Atilla the Hun, who styled himself a legitimate "scourge of God."
But, again, isn't religion and politics closely intertwined particularly in the ancient era? What's the difference with the Roman Caesars invoking the gods before a campaign, or the Inca relocating the gods of conquered peoples to their own homeland and incorporating them under an Inca framework? AND, was more than mere political posturing or propaganda involved? COuld not the Egyptians have actually regarded Gebel Barkal as a sacred site in its own right, above and beyond any particular political "spin" at play? Anyonehave any info on this?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: What's your take on Toby Wilkinson's book The Rise And Fall of Ancient Egypt which posits Egypt's kingship system in part, as sort of an early "totalitarian" model?
I very much disagree with that premise. I will explain the reasons why in a thread I plan on creating about divine kingship in Africa in general and Egypt specifically. There seems to be much misunderstanding of this concept and institution as it was practiced. I will say that while the king's power was in theory supreme, in practice it was well regulated by a sacred mandate i.e. maat. Also, while the centralized/federal government was under the authority of the king, the various sepati (provinces) and cities and villages within still had autonomy of their own.
^^Cool. If you can, post a link here as well to that thread so we can jump to it, in case it gets buried in the new activity list and people miss it.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: I find the location questionable with the way tropical Africa produces narrow features and non-prognathic faces
Can you find a single Pleistocene fossil from Africa with these features?
If there there never was divergence between any human population because this would require branching through isolation and there is was no isolation and not single Pleistocene fossil from Africa produces narrow features and non-prognathic faces Then what accounts for that? Why do people look different?
No biologist denies a geographical structure to a small number of genetic or phenotypic traits, or rather their frequencies. It is estimated of the 0.1% genetic variation found between human individuals: 90-95% is inter-individual, and 10-5% is found between populations. But virtually all the later match either clines or continuous gradients across space (isolation by distance) and not discontinuous "races" or "clusters". However if you polarize data you can produce the latter. This is often how "race" still creeps into many population genetic studies, which is what I criticized in the other thread.
The clinal reality opposes claims that the ancient Egyptians were "African", "Black" etc. They would have been 'intermediate' between South Europeans and Sub-Saharan Africans, which is why as I posted if you wanted an abstract oid they would be Saharanoid (Krantz, 1980). Therefore like I said a while back: none of the data changes - it just has to be reinterpreted. Old anthropologists with a racial outlook (Coon, Strouhal etc) considered the ancient Egyptians to be a Caucasoid-Negroid blend. They were looking at the same data but just didn't understand the correct model of human biological variation.
And the stuff about nose sizes I've covered before: small teeth, orthognathism and narrow noses are the result of dental reduction. Nasal narrowing first occurred in West Eurasia between 100,000-50,000 years ago: this is why Europeans on average have the smallest teeth today. C Loring Brace has put out several papers explaining this. So "Caucasoid" features like narrow noses were virtually or entirely absent from Africa until recently (Holocene). Even take a look at the terminal Peistocene Afalou crania. Not one is leptorrhine (narrow):
"The nasal index, which lies just over the border of chamaerrhiny, furnishes a real metrical difference between Afalou and [European] Cro-Magnon. The elevation of the index is due to a shorter height as well as to a greater width. Not one of the Afalou skulls is actually leptorrhine - Coon, 1939 http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/chapter-II08.htmPosts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DD'eDeN: Tropical humid forest/foraging: broad nose, large cutting teeth
Temperate arid grain-plains/farming: narrow nose, large grinding teeth
Temperate arid grain-plains/milling: small teeth
No population from Africa has a mean tooth-size index that is microdont (small):
"Most of our Sub-Saharan African samples fall into the "megadont" [large] category used by Flower to indicate relative tooth size (Brace and Hunt 1990; Brace, Smith, and Hunt 1991; Flower 1885), but the Somalis from the Horn of East Africa sit right on the diving line between "mesodont" [medium] and "microdont" [small]." (Brace et al., 1993)
Somalis obviously on average have smaller teeth than other Sub-Saharan Africans, but they are still not microdont (small) like Europeans.
Average tooth-size reduction (calculated by Brace):
Europe = 40-45% [microdont] North Africa + Somalia = 35-40% [mesodont] Sub-Saharan Africa = 20-25% [macrodont] Australia = 10-15%
You can pretty much see the north-south gradient here. No African population is microdont by mean frequency.
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
Still useful after 100 years. I would just combine this with Hierneux's nasal measurements for Sub-Saharan African populations, along with some others. I might compile a huge table one day.
This is what Hierneux (1974) reported for 'elongated Africans' means:
Warsingali Somali, Nasal Index: 66.0 Galla(Oromo), Nasal Index: 69.0 Tutsi of Rwanda: Nasal Index: 69.5 Masai: Nasal Index: 72.0 Sab Somali, Nasal Index: 72.8
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
I did not 'character assassinate' anyone, that is what you did, alongside Tropicals Redacted. The slander and baseless accusations from last year were then used by an actual white supremacist against me at Anthroscape:
quote:Apart from Atlantid, we know he has posted across the web under the names Anglo_Pyramidologist, Faheemdunkers, Pyramidologist, White Nubian, Facts, White Nord, Sython Flter and Thule, and Cassiterides.
White Nubian, Facts, White Nord, Sython Flter, are not me, and I've never posted as these names across the web. So congratulations for just making up four names that aren't mine and then bizarrely posting I own or post as them.
Thats not me... I never registered to that site and I never tried to character assassinate you. You out of nowhere started character assassinating me once I joined Historum. Don't try to lie, because I can quote the exact post where you begun to do it.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Son of Ra: Thats not me... I never registered to that site and I never tried to character assassinate you. You out of nowhere started character assassinating me once I joined Historum. Don't try to lie, because I can quote the exact post where you begun to do it. [/QB]
All your posts in that thread were deleted. The thread has gone entirely. It doesn't even show on the forum (it was binned by an Admin). However one of your posts, or rather a segment of it, was copied to Anthroscape by "Mikemikev" before the thread was removed.
This is all pretty irrelevant now from nearly 2 years ago. But you have someone who still uses your quotes against me ( Mikemikev). He's still on Anthroscape claiming I am those 4 or 5 user-accounts like White Nubian or White Nord (when they are his) and he's very recently made a post claiming I am Charlie Bass at Anthroscape. Again, this is him as I showed in a recent thread.
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know who that "Mikemikev" guy is. I've have been off the internet for a while due to family. The only sites I frequented when online were this, Topix, ES Facebook group and a hip hop/sports forum. Other than that I have no use or objective in trying to smear your name.
If anything I THOUGHT you changed when you made that apology and I actually applauded it. I don't know who used that quote against you. And why would I claim your Charlie Bass when I consider him to be a good poster?
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Son of Ra: I don't know who that "Mikemikev" guy is. I've have been off the internet for a while due to family. The only sites I frequented when online were this, Topix, ES Facebook group and a hip hop/sports forum. Other than that I have no use or objective in trying to smear your name.
If anything I THOUGHT you changed when you made that apology and I actually applauded it. I don't know who used that quote against you. And why would I claim your Charlie Bass when I consider him to be a good poster?
I cant be bothered to waste anymore time with it; you can bring the thread back on track, or just let this be buried. And yes I apologized for any insensitive race stuff or views I formerly held.
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Oh the irony, you even got Zahi Hawass complaining about this latest reconstruction.
Talk about a change of face.... pun intended:
quote: Tutankamun: the Truth Revealed” is the title of a TV show produced by a private company in England for the BBC and the Smithsonian Channel in the United States. But the show reveals lies, not the truth.
It quotes scientists whose real intention is to become famous in the media, and one of them, a former member of the Egyptian mummy project, uses the Egyptian team’s CT and DNA analysis without permission to spread lies about Tutankhamun, claiming that the ancient Egyptian boy king was handicapped, born with a club foot.
This golden boy has entered the hearts of people all over the world, and this person wanted to take him out of our hearts. This person and the film producer have made a huge mistake and in so doing they have lost the respect of all reasonable people. Scholars all over the world disagree with them, and, again, instead of revealing the truth all they have done is to propagate lies.
The UK’s Daily Mail newspaper has published an article on the new documentary on Tutankhamun, produced by STV and already aired. The documentary distorts what Tutankhamun looked like: the boy king, whose treasure and tomb still fascinate people across the world, was presented in a completely fantastic way, humiliating not only the Egyptian king but also rewriting the history of the ancient world.
The face of the king was reconstructed by a French team that rebuilds the features of the dead using special computer programmes. This reconstruction was not based on science or on the study of the anatomy of the face of the mummy, however. Another Egyptian-American team had already reconstructed the king’s face, but for some reason the programme used the image produced by the French.
It is obvious that there is a clear difference between the features of Tutankhamun’s mummy, preserved in his tomb in the Valley of the Kings, and the image shown in the programme. In my own lectures on the golden king, I always show three reconstructed images of Tutankhamun, and when I show the French reconstruction I am careful to say that it is not borne out by the facts.
Furthermore, the documentary makers stated that Tutankhamun had feminine hips, but this is not based on scientific evidence. First, the study of Tutankhamun’s mummy by X-ray and CT scan has not shown any indication of such female features. The hips of the mummy are tied up with linen, and it is not possible to show that he had the kind of female hips seen, for example, in statues of the pharaoh Akhenaten.
How did the television team, which did not perform any scientific studies or even touch the mummy, reach these results? The purpose was to tarnish the image of the Egyptian pharaoh.
Second, the idea behind focusing attention on Tutankhamun’s hips was to attract attention to the statues of Akhenaten, the father of Tutankhamun. These statues are expressions of the god Aten, whom Akhenaten worshiped as a sole god and creator of the universe. Thus, the statues and images of Akhenaten with female features are reflections of religion. In fact, the skeleton of Akhenaten, which was buried in tomb KV55, has no feminine features.
Scientific studies carried out by the Egyptian team on the mummy of Tutankhamun have shown that the king was generally in good health in spite of suffering from flat feet, meaning that blood did not reach his left toes. The archaeological evidence proves that the king grew up and lived in Memphis, the administrative capital of Egypt during the 18th Dynasty of the New Kingdom.
He lived in a palace at Memphis and his wet-nurse Maya took care of him: the French archaeologist Alan Zivie has found her tomb, which contains an image of Tutankhamun sitting on her lap.
Tutankhamun also built a small rest house to the south of the temple of Khafre at Giza. The desert between Giza and Saqqara was called the Valley of Ghazal (the valley of deer) and Tutankhamun used this rest house to relax after hunting wild animals. This fact alone shows that he was not the invalid claimed in the television programme.
In addition, the king appears in many scenes depicted on golden shrines and wooden boxes, as well as on fan holders, sitting or standing in his chariot. This also shows that he was fond of shooting and hunting.
One of the new discoveries found beneath the houses of a village located between Abusir and Saqqara is a block that depicts Tutankhamun seated and shooting wild animals, while his wife, Ankhesenamun, is kneeling by his feet. If he had looked like the image broadcast in the TV documentary he would never have been able to hunt wild animals.
This documentary did not entertain at all, and, despite its efforts, it will not make me forget the beauty of Tutankhamun. But this is not the first time that a foreign team has damaged the golden boy.
The first occasion was in 1925, when Tutankhamun’s British discoverers, Howard Carter and Douglas Derry, opened the sarcophagus and coffins and found that the face of the mummy was covered with a golden mask and 150 amulets. Carter looked at the mask and saw the face as an idealised portrait of the young king executed in precious materials with unsurpassed craftsmanship.
I myself go to see the mask every time I visit the Cairo Museum. It served as a place in which Tutankhamun’s soul could dwell if some ill fate befell his body and thus was an essential item of the royal burial objects.
When the tomb was opened, the king’s head was adhered to the inside of this marvellous object because of the resins used to preserve the mummy. To remedy this situation, Carter and Derry heated knives to melt and cut through the resins. As a result, the process of freeing the mask removed the mummy’s head as well.
I can well imagine being in Carter’s place, seeing this exquisite face for the first time and knowing that within it was the real face of the king. Should I remove the mask and do damage to the royal mummy?
Or should I leave the two joined together and exhibit the mummy with the mask in place? My choice would have been the same as Carter’s: take the mask off, even at the price of damaging the head beneath.
The ancient Egyptians thought that the flesh of the gods was made of gold, so, fittingly, their artisans used this metal to create this masterpiece. They hammered together two thick gold sheets and then gave them the features of the king. Recent X-ray examination of the mask has revealed that the artisans added thin layers of gold, silver, and copper alloy to the gold body of the mask to increase its brilliance.
After the mask was taken off the mummy was broken into 18 pieces, but the head was in good condition. Harry Burton, a member of Carter’s expedition, took a photograph at the time that shows that Carter and his team left the head of the mummy covered with linen, turquoise beads and a diadem.
This seems to show that although Carter damaged the body of the king when he removed the bandages and the objects wrapped with them, he did not damage the head. What happened to the head to make it appear as it does today? The only possible explanation is that later investigators were responsible when they used chemicals to treat this part of the body.
The story began in 1968 when R G Harrison, an anatomist at the University of Liverpool in the UK, intended to X-ray the body. A sweet smell greeted him when he removed the lid of the coffin. The dismemberment was discovered, along with Carter’s poor job of rewrapping the mummy.
Harrison’s team also realised that Tutankhamun was missing one of his thumbs, as well as his penis. Harrison confirmed some of Derry’s observations, including the king’s age at death, though he believed it was at the younger end of the range of 18 to 22 years. He confirmed the similarities between the skulls of Tutankhamun and the KV 55 tomb mummy. These mummies were about the same height and similarly proportioned. Clearly, there was a family resemblance....
But I guess he must be mad because they didn't pay him as a consultant of this documentary. So what else do you expect when you accept money from those you know have less than the truth at heart......
Never saw this article. Thanks for sharing.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: I find the location questionable with the way tropical Africa produces narrow features and non-prognathic faces
Can you find a single Pleistocene fossil from Africa with these features?
Why do you have to find it in the Pleistocene? We find it just out of the Pleistocene regardless a narrow nose does not make you more cold adapted than a Neanderthal.
They are simply more ball shaped. You can tell by the skeleton. That is a warmer individual.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic