quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Not only does the reconstruction I posted look like what westerners may call 'ethnic' (as opposed to looking like living Europeans), but he has the ancestral pigmentation genes for hair, skin and eyes. This was conveyed in the post and linked content which seem to challenge Doug's reading comprehension.
And there are "ethnic" Poles with those same features to this day. As I posted unless you can't see.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Nodnarb, Swenet, Beyoku, Ish Gebor = White Racists with multiple IDs
Be very careful folks!
Look at the remains of the ancient European above. Is he white? Why or why not?
@ Doug - You still dodged the question. The fact that you cannot answer the question shows how you racially use the term "Black". There is nothing wrong with this. I personally use the term "Black" racially as well as I exclude non African populations. The point of contention revolves around weaseling and blackmailing individuals that don't agree with YOUR usage and attempting to act as if there are not other traditional uses. Lastly assuming that racism is the underlying motive for one not accepting your usage. Its like not accepting that dark skin Dominicans see themselves as "Latino" and only see Haitians as "Black".
On to the remains. That individual being "Dark".........like the other remains are "Dark" in the GLOBAL context of the word. They were dark skinned like Africans. If its ONLY about color, then Ancient Europeans were "Black" as you would put it. Once you start including and excluding populations based on origin it is MORE than just skin color, its Racial ideas based on where humans originate.
Don't start that double talk. I never said skin color is race. Africans being black is not a statement of race. YOU believe that which is why YOU keep saying it.
You sound like a racist troll claiming that calling the AE black is racist. ...............I said the AE were black because they had black skin color............. So you are saying that this Polish skeleton from the bronze age was black then? Is that what you are saying?
But show me anywhere in any study where it says this Polish man was "dark" enough to be black....
I call bullshit. You cannot say a population is "Black" because they have "Black skin color" when their skin color is in fact BROWN. This is why I said you are using the term "Black" in a "racial" sense and not a literal skin color sense. I dont see a problem with this, like is said, I racially use the term that way. As to Ancient Europeans having skin color similar to Africans? You didnt know this? :
Repetition for emphasis : The individual had dark hair and the dark-skinned genes OF AN AFRICAN!
Now, If you want to use "Black" in a strict sense when ONLY looking at skin color then ancient Europeans "were black because they had black skin color." If instead you want to use it in more exclusive "Racial" terms you could exclude populations based on recent African origin like these Ancient Europeans. As I said before, its "MORE than just skin color, its Racial ideas based on where humans originate." If you are saying its ONLY about skin color you are being inconsistent by NOT saying ancient Europeans were Black (ala Marc, Clyde, Mike).
With that said, "Black" right now provides limited information in terms of biological and cultural affinity because it sheds little light when you are looking into the origin an migration of people like this:
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
Nodnarb, Swenet, Beyoku, Ish Gebor = White Racists with multiple IDs
Be very careful folks!
Look at the remains of the ancient European above. Is he white? Why or why not?
@ Doug - You still dodged the question. The fact that you cannot answer the question shows how you racially use the term "Black". There is nothing wrong with this. I personally use the term "Black" racially as well as I exclude non African populations. The point of contention revolves around weaseling and blackmailing individuals that don't agree with YOUR usage and attempting to act as if there are not other traditional uses. Lastly assuming that racism is the underlying motive for one not accepting your usage. Its like not accepting that dark skin Dominicans see themselves as "Latino" and only see Haitians as "Black".
On to the remains. That individual being "Dark".........like the other remains are "Dark" in the GLOBAL context of the word. They were dark skinned like Africans. If its ONLY about color, then Ancient Europeans were "Black" as you would put it. Once you start including and excluding populations based on origin it is MORE than just skin color, its Racial ideas based on where humans originate.
Don't start that double talk. I never said skin color is race. Africans being black is not a statement of race. YOU believe that which is why YOU keep saying it.
You sound like a racist troll claiming that calling the AE black is racist. ...............I said the AE were black because they had black skin color............. So you are saying that this Polish skeleton from the bronze age was black then? Is that what you are saying?
But show me anywhere in any study where it says this Polish man was "dark" enough to be black....
I call bullshit. You cannot say a population is "Black" because they have "Black skin color" when their skin color is in fact BROWN. This is why I said you are using the term "Black" in a "racial" sense and not a literal skin color sense. I dont see a problem with this, like is said, I racially use the term that way. As to Ancient Europeans having skin color similar to Africans? You didnt know this? :
Repetition for emphasis : The individual had dark hair and the dark-skinned genes OF AN AFRICAN!
Now, If you want to use "Black" in a strict sense when ONLY looking at skin color then ancient Europeans "were black because they had black skin color." If instead you want to use it in more exclusive "Racial" terms you could exclude populations based on recent African origin like these Ancient Europeans. As I said before, its "MORE than just skin color, its Racial ideas based on where humans originate." If you are saying its ONLY about skin color you are being inconsistent by NOT saying ancient Europeans were Black (ala Marc, Clyde, Mike).
With that said, "Black" right now provides limited information in terms of biological and cultural affinity because it sheds little light when you are looking into the origin an migration of people like this:
Dude stop trying to put words in my dam mouth. I didn't say skin color equals race. If you can't address what I said then don't reply to me. I said the word black in the dictionary applies to dark skin people from Africa and elsewhere. It doesn't say only 'certain shades of brown'. And the understanding is that most people know full well that black doesn't mean literally 'coal black' even though some people come close.
The word black for Africans has a long history and Americans call themselves black, but not as a racial term, but a skin color term. You are going way out on a limb to sit up here and argue with me about what skin color is and what words should be used when terms like black and white are used on a daily basis to refer to people with black skin and white skin all over the world. So again, like I said before, stop trying to pull this asinine mind game that somehow "I am making things up" when it comes to these words.
Point blank the AE along with most indigenous Africans were and are black and black is a reference to the shades of skin color found in Africa and elsewhere that is a result of tropical environmental adaptation. You know that is what I mean and to sit here and pretend that I mean something else is BULLSHIT. Stop making up arguments just to argue moron.
Bronze Age Europeans were not tropically adapted people and therefore, the idea that their skin color was anywhere close to being "black" as found in Africa is not very credible. But we aren't talking about Bronze Age Europeans and if any bronze age European or other European was dark as an African I would certainly say they were black. So again, stop trying to put words in my mouth. The point here is for YOU to prove that this polish skull had black skin. That's all.
But again, the point here since you are the one who harping on it, produce any evidence you think you have that this Polish skull has a skin color anywhere near to or similar to Ancient Egyptians or other "black" Africans and I don't mean generic "hunter gatherers". And understand if you are saying that these people had "SKIN COLOR LIKE THEIR AFRICAN ANCESTORS" then they would be black but I want evidence specifically for this polish skull not any other "generic" group of Europeans. Otherwise, you argument is irrelevant.
Otherwise stop going all over the place to avoid the dam point. When talking about people with dark skin in Africa and other tropical environments absolutely black is a valid term. Europe is not a tropical environment and therefore isn't expected to produce dark skin which is why the native population of Europe and North Asia have white skin.
Stop trying to make more of this than it really is. It has nothing to do with race. And the only "biological affinity" that is relevant is the biological process involving skin color mutation in relation to the environment. Skin color is a biological trait like any other trait and is not "race" which is the part you keep skipping over. Any biological characteristic could be used to define race but there are no human races so a biological characteristic is simply one of many traits found within the human species and skin color is one of them.
We know that all humans originated in Africa which means that at some point in time all humans were black African in appearance. The point is whether or not black is an accurate term to describe said populations in or outside Africa who maintain tropical adapted skin color.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Remember That The INDIANS Brothas, DO NOT PLAY..
The Ones Around Canada Know THEY BLACK
AND will often Times Get Angry when Some Indians(brainwashed) would say they Brown, And Would Try and Educate The Indian Brothas about what Color Indians Really Are..
It got to the Point that the Indian Brothas Would Get Very Critical of Certain Peoples Mentality.
REAL INDIANS DO NOT HAVE PATIENCE FOR EUROPEAN SCUM TRYING TO TELL THEM THAT THEY THIS OR THAT...
Self hate an issue inside India that even lots of Bollywood actors and actresses scum promote skin bleaching creams to the Indian People.
Real Indians don't have Patience's for stuff like that
Indians and Africans Originals
Remember that
One Love Crews, Black, White, Red, Yellow and Brown All Hebrews
Divison Does Not Work, Big confusing words do not Work...Stop Trying To Claim Peoples Skin color as Dark..
PEOPLES SKIN COLOR NOT DARK....
EVIL DEMONIC PERSONS HAVE DARK SKIN..JUST WATCH BOLLYWOOD COMMERCIALS THAT PROMOTE SKIN BLEACHING CREAMS
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
With regards to the Bronze Age specimen from Poland, one Polish commentator on the Dienekes post had this to say:
quote:Also I'm Polish and I read this source in original. Dark doesn't means black there. You have skin tone on reconstruction, is rather swarthy. Regretabbly I don't have cranofacial measurements, which will be very helpful. But nose looks rather narrow. There is no prognatism. This is denifinietly not negroid It could be some Berberoid (which is consider white by Polish typologist) element mixed with Cromagnoid. According to Polish sources the very slight Berber admixture was noted from Meghalitic times in Central European skeletal remains. And it is connected from migrants from Southern Europe.
So while the specimen might have been less pale in color than the average modern Polish, he's not really the best example of a "Black" European that would stump Doug. Obviously Doug is married to a word he must know would be confused for a racial group, but I would pick much earlier Europeans from the Upper Paleolithic (whom I presume could have been confused for modern South Asians superficially) for the argument's sake.
posted
What do you think someone that is POLISH is going to say about their ancestry having the ancestral state of Skin tone? The are going to attempt to discredit it.....and even then so long as its not "Negroid" it can be associated with Africans.....as long as its North Africans.
We now have Minoan DNA. When we see how they displayed themselves in their earliest artwork I think i know what I am looking at. Other than a few caveats, we are likely not looking at wholesale RECENT migrants from Africa.
Calling folks black is too simplistic and does not form a basis for biological affinity. There is countless phenotype variation within africa that has actually been LOST in the past 10's of thousands of years. These phenotypes if reconstructed may not fit within what we picture as MODERN African variability. They would be totally out of the MODERN spectrum of the stereotypical "Negroid" to "Elongated African" range.
Hofmeyr comes to mind. Dont look like modern Africans NOR modern Europeans. The skull "would not look like modern Africans or like modern Europeans, or like modern Khoisan people, but he is definitely a modern human being".
11 pages long and butthurt folks cannot understand that different folks in different places have different uses for a similar term.
quote: Chechens aren’t White. Well, nobody’s white, not white in the way a piece of paper is white. But Chechens aren’t White in the way that they would not check the box “white” on a census. If there were such a box.
Does Chechen skin tone overlap with Western Europeans - Damn straight.....see any parallels?
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
The skin color of that reconstruction is just an approximation. It's on the low end of skin pigmentation range that Europeans are typically willing to admit to when reconstructing their ancestors with dark skin pigmentation genes. I've never seen these forensic workers use medium or dark brown skin pigmentation, even though that would be just as consistent with the data as this ambiguous tannish skin color.
Depending on how many of his skin pigmentation genes were in the ancestral state, he could have been anywhere in the African American pigmentation range. If he has as many skin pigmentation genes in the ancestral state as Mesolithic Europeans, everything points to him being completely outside of the Polish and European skin pigmentation range.
Meaning? He could have been just as dark as Oprah or Indie Arie, which is much darker than this reconstruction, LL Cool J and some of the other pictures you posted.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: What do you think someone that is POLISH is going to say about their ancestry having the ancestral state of Skin tone? The are going to attempt to discredit it.....and even then so long as its not "Negroid" it can be associated with Africans.....as long as its North Africans.
We now have Minoan DNA. When we see how they displayed themselves in their earliest artwork I think i know what I am looking at. Other than a few caveats, we are likely not looking at wholesale RECENT migrants from Africa.
Calling folks black is too simplistic and does not form a basis for biological affinity. There is countless phenotype variation within africa that has actually been LOST in the past 10's of thousands of years. These phenotypes if reconstructed may not fit within what we picture as MODERN African variability. They would be totally out of the MODERN spectrum of the stereotypical "Negroid" to "Elongated African" range.
Hofmeyr comes to mind. Dont look like modern Africans NOR modern Europeans. The skull "would not look like modern Africans or like modern Europeans, or like modern Khoisan people, but he is definitely a modern human being".
11 pages long and butthurt folks cannot understand that different folks in different places have different uses for a similar term.
quote: Chechens aren’t White. Well, nobody’s white, not white in the way a piece of paper is white. But Chechens aren’t White in the way that they would not check the box “white” on a census. If there were such a box.
Does Chechen skin tone overlap with Western Europeans - Damn straight.....see any parallels?
Dude. What are you talking about Europeans for? Nobody is talking about Europeans being black except you. So what is your point of bringing it up? Since when did Europeans become the definition of black?
You are obviously confused if you think that this thread about what is and can be called black is focusing on Europe.
The point was according to you Europeans don't call themselves white because of skin color.
They do. You are wrong so please leave it at that and stop mixing apples and oranges. And yes those African immigrants to Europe thousands of years ago were black. But over time they lost their black skin and exactly when that happened is a good question. But this does not discredit black skin being called black skin. It only means you are mixing things up.
As for the Minoans, many of them also had direct ancestry from Africa and many of them are depicted as black. But most modern Europeans are not black? Why? Because Europe is a northern environment that is not going to support dark skin. That is a simple biological fact.
That Polish skull looks like modern polish people to me. So I don't see anything "special" about it.
But this is about calling black people black and certainly European people is not who we are talking about. European people are white.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: That Polish skull looks like modern polish people to me. So I don't see anything "special" about it.
He's just agreed with racists and racialists who say that this morphotype in Egypt and elsewhere in Africa is "Caucasian". SMH.
You're obviously in no position to be talking about any of this. You're way out of your league here, and it shows. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: With regards to the Bronze Age specimen from Poland, one Polish commentator on the Dienekes post had this to say:
quote:Also I'm Polish and I read this source in original. Dark doesn't means black there. You have skin tone on reconstruction, is rather swarthy. Regretabbly I don't have cranofacial measurements, which will be very helpful. But nose looks rather narrow. There is no prognatism. This is denifinietly not negroid It could be some Berberoid (which is consider white by Polish typologist) element mixed with Cromagnoid. According to Polish sources the very slight Berber admixture was noted from Meghalitic times in Central European skeletal remains. And it is connected from migrants from Southern Europe.
So while the specimen might have been less pale in color than the average modern Polish, he's not really the best example of a "Black" European that would stump Doug. Obviously Doug is married to a word he must know would be confused for a racial group, but I would pick much earlier Europeans from the Upper Paleolithic (whom I presume could have been confused for modern South Asians superficially) for the argument's sake.
The only one here promoting racialist claims is you. I never said Polish people had anything to do with definition of black.
But again it just shows how many folks look to Deinike's web blog for guidance on who is black.
Be that as it may, to sit here and try and claim I am racist for saying people in tropical environments with tropical adaptation can be called black is not racist. Just like saying hair can be black or brown or blonde isn't racist either.
Why don't you fools just give up?
Skin color does not equal race and colors have names. White and black are perfectly legitimate terms for describing skin color, brown and tan are actually valid as well but doesn't rule out black and white either. But no matter what "words" you use to describe color, that doesn't equate to race.
And at this point this thread has gone long past its useful value with all the nonsense being posted by folks who just don't want to accept that skin color is a fact of human biology and is not race. The terms "black African" and "White European" are perfectly legitimate words to describe the majority of Europeans and Africans and everybody knows it simply a reference to skin color except the so called 'objective scientists' on this thread who think it means race.... Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: That Polish skull looks like modern polish people to me. So I don't see anything "special" about it.
He's just agreed with racialists who say that this morphotype in Egypt and elsewhere in Africa is "Caucasian". SMH.
Really? Where did I say that?
Can you show me because I did not.
At this point you obviously know your argument was useless if that is all you can come up with to try and divert from the fact that the AE and other populations with similar skin colors were BLACK and that Europeans and other people with similar skin colors are WHITE.
Does that bother you?
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That skull looks consistent with modern day Maghrebis and dynastic Lower Egyptians, among other African groups. Stop making a fool out of yourself.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: That skull looks consistent with modern day Maghrebis and Lower Egyptians, among other African groups. Stop making a fool out of yourself.
And? Are those modern day Maghrebis and Lower Egyptians black?
And if they are or arent what does that have to do with the AE, the rest of Africa and other places outside of Africa where populations are black?
Obviously Polish people are not candidates for what AE people or most Africans look like.
If I want to know what a black African looks like, I know where to look and it is not Europe.
But this is what you get from people who think Deinikes and Samuel Morton are "objective" scholars.
Let me give you some help:
This is a black person in Egypt with white Europeans. See the difference? Need more help let me know. One of these folks is not like the other and I can point it out if you are confused.:
quote: US servicemen ride a camel in the Giza Plateau in Giza, Egypt. (Photo by Ivan Dmitri/Michael Ochs Archives/Getty Images) July 01, 1943
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: And? Are those modern day Maghrebis and Lower Egyptians black?
SMH. He just keeps digging himself in further.
If those skeletal remains look 'Polish' according to you, are racist and racialist scientists right when they call this morphotype 'Caucasian' when they see it in Ancient Egypt?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: That skull looks consistent with modern day Maghrebis and Lower Egyptians, among other African groups. Stop making a fool out of yourself.
And? Are those modern day Maghrebis and Lower Egyptians black?
And if they are or arent what does that have to do with the AE, the rest of Africa and other places outside of Africa where populations are black?
Obviously Polish people are not candidates for what AE people or most Africans look like.
If I want to know what a black African looks like, I know where to look and it is not Europe.
But this is what you get from people who think Deinikes and Samuel Morton are "objective" scholars.
Let me give you some help:
This is a black person in Egypt with white Europeans. See the difference? Need more help let me know. One of these folks is not like the other and I can point it out if you are confused.:
quote: US servicemen ride a camel in the Giza Plateau in Giza, Egypt. (Photo by Ivan Dmitri/Michael Ochs Archives/Getty Images) July 01, 1943
Obviously I know what I mean when I say black and you simply don't know Europe from Africa.
Ridiculous. He uses a picture where the shadows are so heavy all their faces look very dark
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: And? Are those modern day Maghrebis and Lower Egyptians black?
SMH. He just keeps digging himself in further.
If those skeletal remains look 'Polish' according to you, are racist and racialist scientists right when they call this morphotype 'Caucasian' when they see it in Ancient Egypt?
This is going way off topic. Not sure this has anything to do with the subject of this thread.
If you want to discuss the validity of the term caucasoid or the relationship of Polish bronze age skulls to Egyptian bronze age skulls then create a new thread.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would want to change the subject and get out of that quagmire too if I were you.
You kept going off about how it was necessarily racist for academics to refrain from calling the AE individuals in the OP 'black' in the western racial sense and now you're (indirectly) doing the same by relating this Bronze Age man to living Europeans. You did this not only in terms of cranio-facial shape, but also in terms of skin pigmentation (even though his genotype was suggestive of dark complexion):
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: So do you agree that the skull looks similar to modern Polish people and that the likelihood is high that the person when alive had a similar skin complexion?
The significance here is that many dynastic Egyptians of the Lower Egyptian type, living Maghrebi people and certain Bronze Age Europeans (see that Polish warrior) occupy the same general multivariate space that's intermediate between Northwest Europeans and many Sub-Saharan Africans.
You've just ethered your own positions and claims, whether you want to admit it or not.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants, although the prehistoric/modern ties are somewhat more apparent in southern Europe. --Brace et al 2005
Are you sure you're fit to have this discussion, Doug M? I don't think so. I think you're way out of your league, here.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants, although the prehistoric/modern ties are somewhat more apparent in southern Europe. --Brace et al 2005
I already posted about this before (here) . This dendogram was taken from the Brace 2005 study mentionned by Swenet above:
Fig. 1. Neighbor-joining dendrogram for a series of prehistoric and recent human populations (Craniofacial measures)
Ancient specimen are different in term of cranio-facial measurements than their modern successors. For example, England (aka modern England) and Neolithic England are not on the same branch. So ancient Specimen are different in term of cranio-facial measurements than their modern successors. While Naqada and Congo are still on the same branch (they share African cranio-facial similarities with Nubians too) the ancient specimen in Africa are also different than the modern specimen.
There's also quite a difference between modern specimen. For example, modern Greek people seem quite different in term of cranio-facial measurements than modern Italian or French specimen for example.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I would want to change the subject and get out of that quagmire too if I were you.
You kept going off about how it was necessarily racist for academics to refrain from calling the AE individuals in the OP 'black' in the western racial sense and now you're (indirectly) doing the same by relating this Bronze Age man to living Europeans. You did this not only in terms of cranio-facial shape, but also in terms of skin pigmentation (even though his genotype was suggestive of dark complexion):
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: So do you agree that the skull looks similar to modern Polish people and that the likelihood is high that the person when alive had a similar skin complexion?
The significance here is that many dynastic Egyptians of the Lower Egyptian type, living Maghrebi people and certain Bronze Age Europeans (see that Polish warrior) occupy the same general multivariate space that's intermediate between Northwest Europeans and many Sub-Saharan Africans.
You've just ethered your own positions and claims, whether you want to admit it or not.
Swenet, the point is you are claiming that the AE had the same skin complexion of bronze age Polish people, because they 'occupy the same general multivariate space' cranially. Here is the problem, skin color isn't skull shape. Skull shape doesn't prove skin color idiot! That study by Brace is an example of racial thinking because, according to the racists, skull shape determines race. And by extension, if two populations have similar skull shapes, then they have similar skin complexions.... RIGHT?
Wrong.
Skull shape does not prove skin color. Skin color proves skin color. And there is nothing about that Polish Skull that suggests his skin color was close to any Ancient Egyptian. And this is why I don't engage with that nonsense about avoiding the term black or white when it is appropriate. The AE were black Africans because of the biological factors specific to Egypt, the Nile Valley and Africa. Period. Those biological factors are not replicated in Poland or Europe. Any clown who would even suggest this isn't a scientist, but a retard. Nothing about the environment of Europe produces black skin. While the environment of the Nile Valley and Sahara certainly does.
Again, the only population that is relevant to Ancient Egypt is ancient Egypt. Not Poland. Not Germany. Not Ireland. Not England.
Nothing you have posted disproves that the AE had black skin. It only shows that your 'objective' scholarship is simply a fraud when it comes to skin color. You don't know the skin color of that Polish skull and that Polish skull is irrelevant when it comes to the skin color of AE and Africans in general. They are two totally separate populations.
This is the 4th time you have quoted a white racists and claimed that they were 'objectively' calling the AE black using "other terms". Brace was certainly not calling the AE black by 'some other terminology' when he linked them to European skulls. If anything he was claiming they were white. But you seem to want to pretend otherwise. According to him the Ancient Egyptians and North Africans were not close to other Africans (or as he says 'Sub Saharan Africans', the racist keyword for black), but according to Mr Swenet, we can infer from this that he means these folks had a skin complexion equivalent to what I call black. I would argue that this is bull sh*t.
quote: When the samples used in Fig. 1 are compared by the use of canonical variate plots as in Fig. 2, the separateness of the Niger-Congo speakers is again quite clear. Interestingly enough, however, the small Natufian sample falls between the Niger-Congo group and the other samples used. Fig. 2 shows the plot produced by the first two canonical variates, but the same thing happens when canonical variates 1 and 3 (not shown here) are used. This placement suggests that there may have been a Sub-Saharan African element in the make-up of the Natufians (the putative ancestors of the subsequent Neolithic), although in this particular test there is no such evident presence in the North African or Egyptian samples. As shown in Fig. 1, the Somalis and the Egyptian Bronze Age sample from Naqada may also have a hint of a Sub-Saharan African component. That was not borne out in the canonical variate plot (Fig. 2), and there was no evidence of such an involvement in the Algerian Neolithic (Gambetta) sample.
This chart doesn't say that the AE and Polish people were the SAME biologically. That is pure asinine nonsense.
This is what you get trying to read into things that are not said explicitly. Brace isn't talking about skin color in his study and really it does nothing to show one way or other what skin colors were present in the populations documented.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is what Doug keeps avoiding with his strawman attacks and misrepresentations of what I said. According to Doug, the same general morphometric pattern is 'black' in Egypt, but 'white' when found on the European continent.
"The skeletal remains of the Lower Egyptians in the OP belong to black people." --Doug M (paraphrased)
Several thread pages later, an individual who approximates the ancient Lower Egyptian modal phenotype is posted. At that moment we see that Doug agrees with the racist academics he was ranting against in this thread:
"So do you agree that the skull looks similar to modern Polish people [...]" --Doug M
But don't worry, Doug. Incompetent and/or Eurocentric forensic workers who reconstruct ancient Egyptian mummies agree with your fantasy that this morphometric pattern equates to 'white European'. So you're not entirely alone in your fantasy:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: This is what Doug keeps avoiding with his strawman attacks and misrepresentations of what I said. According to Doug, the same general morphometric pattern is 'black' in Egypt, but 'white' when found on the European continent.
This trolling is becoming absurd. But OK. So are you seriously claiming that white people are not indigenous to Europe and the majority skin color in Europe and that black people are not the majority population in Africa and the majority skin color there as well?
Come on man. You are losing your mind, because the morphological patterns of Egypt are not the same as Europe. Ancient Egyptians are not Europeans. And that is why you have been arguing for 11 dam pages about the word black. This has nothing to do with words but your attempt to sneak Europeans into Egypt claiming that you are 'objective'. Ancient Egyptians were not Europeans! And therefore they could not be the same and the skin color of the AE was not the same as the skin color of Europeans. And if they were the 'same color' then either both populations were black or both populations were white. And I say neither, because the populations were not the same skin color.
As I said before this thread is not about whether the AE were close to Europeans in any metric analysis. The topic of the thread is whether "black" is an accurate description of Africans and others with tropically adapted skin in Africa and elsewhere.
quote: "The skeletal remains of the Lower Egyptians in the OP belong to black people." --Doug M (paraphrased)
I can speak for myself. It is simple. The AE were primarily black Africans. Period along with the majority of Africans. You are trolling.
quote: Several thread pages later, an individual who approximates the ancient Lower Egyptian modal phenotype is posted. At that moment we see that Doug agrees with the racist academics he was ranting against in this thread:
"So do you agree that the skull looks similar to modern Polish people [...]" --Doug M
You are right. Polish skulls have nothing to do with Egypt. Apparently that is a problem with you and your 'objective' knowledge of geography being severely impaired, not to mention your lack of reading comprehension. Africans are black and Europeans are not. There. Hopefully you will understand that this time. And none of the nonsense you posted says otherwise.
quote: But don't worry, Doug. Incompetent and/or Eurocentric forensic workers who reconstruct ancient Egyptian mummies agree with your fantasy that this morphometric pattern equates to 'white European'. So you're not entirely alone in your fantasy:
Sure. You have gone 11 pages arguing with me about what the word black means and the only thing you got now is whether ancient Polish skulls are the key to what black is in Africa.....
Sure dude.
So now we know why you don't want to call the AE black. Because your 'objective' white scientists say they were white, like that mummy reconstruction.
Finally we get to the truth.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You are losing your mind, because the morphological patterns of Egypt are not the same as Europe. Ancient Egyptians are not Europeans.
No one said anything about "the same as Europeans".
Higher percentages of misclassification rates of Lower Egyptian crania into prehistoric European samples (and vice versa) prove my point, re: a shared general morphometric pattern that resembles living Berber and Arabic speaking Maghrebis. What evidence can you bring to the table to say otherwise? Nothing. I know you have nothing, because I know what the relevant papers generally have to say about this.
You messed up labeling this shared pattern 'European'. You messed up even worse labeling it 'Polish'. To talk about Polish people (who are Slavs) in Bronze Age Europe is just as preposterous as talking about Bantu speakers in South Africa 10.000 years ago.
posted
Doug calls the Bronze Age warrior "European-looking" and "white", but when the same general pattern is found in dynastic Egypt it's somehow "completely different"?
Perfect example of Doug's flip flops and racial politics.
quote:You are losing your mind, because the morphological patterns of Egypt are not the same as Europe. Ancient Egyptians are not Europeans.
No one said anything about "the same as Europeans".
Higher percentages of misclassification rates of Lower Egyptian crania into prehistoric European samples (and vice versa) prove my point, re: a shared general morphometric pattern that resembles living Berber and Arabic speaking Maghrebis. What evidence can you bring to the table to say otherwise? Nothing. I know you have nothing, because I know what the relevant papers generally have to say about this.
You messed up labeling this shared pattern 'European'. You messed up even worse labeling it 'Polish'. To talk about Polish people (who are Slavs) in Bronze Age Europe is just as preposterous as talking about Bantu speakers in South Africa 10.000 years ago.
Just give it up, Doug.
Swenet, you keep bringing up European skulls as being relevant to the AE being black. Then you accuse me of flip flopping. Seriously? You are losing your mind. European skulls are not the same as AE skulls.
You are the one saying this not me.
They are not the same so what European skulls looked like skin color wise is irrelevant to AE and Africa.
You are the only one introducing European skulls into a discussion about tropical populations in Africa and elsewhere. Europeans are not tropical populations....
And like I said before, if you want to discuss European skulls being similar to Skulls from North Africa and Egypt please open a new thread. This thread isn't about that. AE skulls are not the same as European skulls and therefore irrelevant when it comes to the skin color of AE people.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Doug: European skulls are not the same as AE skulls.
Stop lying, I never said "same as Europeans". I said dynastic Lower Egyptians often occupy the same general morphospace as the prehistoric Europeans I was referring to. I also said that living Europeans were typically more distant from both. And I've proven exactly that.
I was very clear on who I was referring to in this observation. But somewhere in the demented mush you call your brains this message gets reduced to "Swenet said ancient Egyptians are the same as Europeans".
Other than lying about my positions and ranting like a confused chicken without a head, which of your claims have you proven with scientific sources throughout these 11 pages? All you've done is offer opinionated rants and your trademark strawman attacks.
^'Eurneo' (neolithic Europeans) and 'Egypt' (late dynastic Lower Egypt) occupy the same general position. This is the same general position that that Bronze Age warrior would fall into. Doug keeps ranting on and on about the racists he claims to be against, but then parrots their Eurocentric claim that this morphospace is necessarily 'European', 'white' and 'Polish'.
My advice to you Doug: get a new hobby. After at least 11 years in this community (you registered in 2005) you clearly don't have the slightest clue and you're floundering left and right..
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Interesting that blog commentators of European descent on Eurocentric sites are capable of making a distinction between the narrow western criteria for 'whiteness' vs being factually and demonstrably biologically European:
quote:Originally posted by Krefter:
quote:Originally posted by bmdriver: Europeans are nothing but Indian migrants. Who have turned white over the past 3000years.
The term white is only relevant when it comes to culture in the modern world. Ancient DNA shows that Euro-genes are much older than light skin, and so there's no such thing as the white race. Euros are a composite of 3 very different people who lived in west and north Eurasia 10,000YBP>, as are middle easterns.
The objections of lay people and others not very familiar with this subject are understandable, but some ES 'vets' are resisting for 10 thread pages and on other threads because their whole agenda is to mix anthropology with racial politics. But it's not racial agenda when you do it, right? Only when Eurocentrics do it.
And how can you be a 'vet' on ES when you can't even grasp this basic concept, even though it has been explained again and again over 10 thread pages?
Krefter forgot about the 4th component, which is from Africa. They have major problems with this component.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Nodnarb, Swenet, Beyoku, Ish Gebor = White Racists with multiple IDs
Be very careful folks!
Do you even understand what I have posted? SMH
"According to the current data East Africa is home to nearly 2/3 of the world genetic diversity independent of sampling effect.The antiquity of the east African gene pool could be viewed not only from the perspective of the amount of genetic diversity endowed within it but also by signals of uni-modal distribution in their mitochondrial DNA (Hassan et al., unpublished) usually taken as an indication of populations that have passed through ‘‘recent’’ demographic expansion [33], although in this case, may in fact be considered a sign of extended shared history of in situ evolution where alleles are exchanged between neighboring demes [34]."
--Jibril Hirbo, Sara Tishkoff et al.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
"Blacks and whites don't realize that they're really pink and brown" --Message Ii (Survival) (Feat. Melle Mel)
Caucasus (n.) Look up Caucasus at Dictionary.com mountain range between Europe and the Middle East, from Latin Caucasus, from Greek kaukasis, said by Pliny ("Natural History," book six, chap. XVII) to be from a Scythian word similar to kroy-khasis, literally "(the mountain) ice-shining, white with snow." But possibly from a Pelasgian root *kau- meaning "mountain."
Caucasian (adj.) Look up Caucasian at Dictionary.com 1807, from Caucasus Mountains, between the Black and Caspian seas; applied to the "white" race 1795 (in German) by German anthropologist Johann Blumenbach, because its supposed ancestral homeland lay there; since abandoned as a historical/anthropological term. (See Aryan).
Caucasian (n.) Look up Caucasian at Dictionary.com "resident or native of the Caucasus," 1843; see Caucasus + -ian. Meaning "one of the 'white' race" is from 1958 (earlier Caucasoid, 1956).
c. 1600, as a term in classical history, from Latin Arianus, Ariana, from Greek Aria, Areia, names applied in classical times to the eastern part of ancient Persia and to its inhabitants. Ancient Persians used the name in reference to themselves (Old Persian ariya-), hence Iran. Ultimately from Sanskrit arya- "compatriot;" in later language "noble, of good family."
Also the name Sanskrit-speaking invaders of India gave themselves in the ancient texts, from which early 19c. European philologists (Friedrich Schlegel, 1819, who linked the word with German Ehre "honor") applied it to the ancient people we now call Indo-Europeans (suspecting that this is what they called themselves); this use is attested in English from 1851. The term fell into the hands of racists, and in German from 1845 it was specifically contrasted to Semitic (Lassen).
German philologist Max Müller (1823-1900) popularized the term in his writings on comparative linguistics, recommending it as the name (replacing Indo-European, Indo-Germanic, Caucasian, Japhetic) for the group of related, inflected languages connected with these peoples, mostly found in Europe but also including Sanskrit and Persian. Arian was used in this sense from 1839 (and is more philologically correct), but this spelling caused confusion with Arian, the term in ecclesiastical history.
Gradually replaced in comparative linguistics c. 1900 by Indo-European, except when used to distinguish Indo-European languages of India from non-Indo-European ones. Used in Nazi ideology to mean "member of a Caucasian Gentile race of Nordic type." As an ethnic designation, however, it is properly limited to Indo-Iranians (most justly to the latter) and has fallen from general academic use since the Nazi era.
Indo-European Look up Indo-European at Dictionary.com 1814, coined by English polymath Thomas Young (1773-1829) and first used in an article in the "Quarterly Review," from Indo- + European. "Common to India and Europe," specifically in reference to the group of related languages and to the race or races characterized by their use.
The alternative Indo-Germanic (1835) was coined in German in 1823 (indogermanisch), based on the two peoples then thought to be at the extremes of the geographic area covered by the languages, but this was before Celtic was realized also to be an Indo-European language. After this was proved, many German scholars switched to Indo-European as more accurate, but Indo-Germanic continued in use (popularized by the titles of major works) and the predominance of German scholarship in this field made it the popular term in England, too, through the 19c. See also Aryan. Indo-Aryan (1850) seems to have been used only of the Aryans of India. Indo-European also was used in reference to trade between Europe and India or European colonial enterprises in India (1813).
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants, although the prehistoric/modern ties are somewhat more apparent in southern Europe. --Brace et al 2005
I already posted about this before (here) . This dendogram was taken from the Brace 2005 study mentionned by Swenet above:
Fig. 1. Neighbor-joining dendrogram for a series of prehistoric and recent human populations (Craniofacial measures)
Ancient specimen are different in term of cranio-facial measurements than their modern successors. For example, England (aka modern England) and Neolithic England are not on the same branch. So ancient Specimen are different in term of cranio-facial measurements than their modern successors. While Naqada and Congo are still on the same branch (they share African cranio-facial similarities with Nubians too) the ancient specimen in Africa are also different than the modern specimen.
There's also quite a difference between modern specimen. For example, modern Greek people seem quite different in term of cranio-facial measurements than modern Italian or French specimen for example.
quote:BIOLOGICAL AFFINITIES
Data from cranial and dental non-metric traits from Sites 277 and 179 were used to assess biological differentiation between the A-Group and C-Group. Results indicate biological continuity, consistent with in situ evolution (although the problem of small samples requires that these results be accepted with caution). Although the diffusion of ideas of material culture into the area through military and trade contacts is likely, any archaeologically visible cultural differences are more consistent with local cultural evolution than with the importation of a new cultural system through the migration of a foreign population into the area.
quote:"Still, it appears that the process of state formation involved a large indigenous component. Outside influence and admixture with extraregional groups primarily occurred in Lower Egypt—perhaps during the later dynastic, but especially in Ptolmaic and Roman times (also Irish, 2006). No large-scale population replacement in the form of a foreign dynastic ‘race’ (Petrie, 1939) was indicated. Our results are generally consistent with those of Zakrzewski (2007). Using craniometric data in predynastic and early dynastic Egyptian samples, she also concluded that state formation was largely an indigenous process with some migration into the region evident. The sources of such migrants have not been identified; inclusion of additional regional and extraregional skeletal samples from various periods would be required for this purpose."
--Schillaci MA, Irish JD, Wood CC. 2009 Further analysis of the population history of ancient Egyptians.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Will this discussion ever come to an end? 'Indigenous Northeast Africans' is a perfect term because it's specific and could reasonably be argued is the term that should be used in academic papers.
It's when somebody asks a specialist whether or not the AE were 'black' that problems arise; some specialists will idiotically argue that the AE were just Egyptians and that modern Egyptians are reasonable representatives of the ancients.
I just don't think that it matters anymore if western academics use 'black' in relation to the AE, because they're simply NEVER going to accept its usage on the AE, so there's no point crying about their refusal.
We [Africans] can use 'black' on the AE and Europeans can use whatever terms tickle their fancy.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
The semicircular base on which the figure sits must have originally fit into a larger base that carried his name and titles, such as the base for the statue of Prince Setka, exhibited in room 22 of the Louvre. This base is missing, and the context of the discovery does not provide any additional information. According to the archeologist Auguste Mariette, who found the work, the statue of the scribe was apparently discovered in Saqqara on 19 November 1850, to the north of the Serapeum's line of sphinxes. But the precise location is not known; unfortunately, the documents concerning these excavations were published posthumously, the excavation journals had been lost, and the archives were scattered between France and Egypt. Furthermore, the site had been pillaged and ransacked, and no information concerning the figure's identity could be provided. Some historians have tried to link it to one of the owners of the statues discovered at the same time. The most convincing of these associates the scribe to Pehernefer. Certain stylistic criteria, such as the thin lips, which was unusual, the form of the torso, and the broad chest could support this theory. The statue of Pehernefer dates from the 4th Dynasty. This is an additional argument in favor of an earlier dating for this statue, which has sometimes been dated to the 6th Dynasty. Another argument supporting this date is that "writing" scribes were mostly created in the 4th and early 5th Dynasties; after this period, most scribes were portrayed in "reading" poses. A scribe at work The scribe is portrayed at work, which is unusual in Egyptian statuary. Although no king was ever portrayed in this pose, it seems that it was originally used for members of the royal family, such as the king's sons or grandsons, as was the case for the sons of Didufri (4th Dynasty), who were represented in this position.
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Will this discussion ever come to an end? 'Indigenous Northeast Africans' is a perfect term because it's specific and could reasonably be argued is the term that should be used in academic papers.
It's when somebody asks a specialist whether or not the AE were 'black' that problems arise; some specialists will idiotically argue that the AE were just Egyptians and that modern Egyptians are reasonable representatives of the ancients.
I just don't think that it matters anymore if western academics use 'black' in relation to the AE, because they're simply NEVER going to accept its usage on the AE, so there's no point crying about their refusal.
We [Africans] can use 'black' on the AE and Europeans can use whatever terms tickle their fancy.
There are some individuals who will argue that Northeast African came from "Eurasia", as there origin. Some will claim they "returned 40 Kya" and the everything beyond that is actually "Eurasian history in Africa". Yes, it is that terrible.
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
Does anybody know who this man is?
He is known as the unknown scribe. lol
There here is exciting:
Secrets of the Serapeum at Saqqara, Part 1
He soon came to what he described as a courtyard of the ruins of a small temple. There he found the famous statue of the seated scribe who is now in the Louvre ...
quote: Originally posted by Doug: European skulls are not the same as AE skulls.
Stop lying, I never said "same as Europeans". I said dynastic Lower Egyptians often occupy the same general morphospace as the prehistoric Europeans I was referring to. I also said that living Europeans were typically more distant from both. And I've proven exactly that.
I was very clear on who I was referring to in this observation. But somewhere in the demented mush you call your brains this message gets reduced to "Swenet said ancient Egyptians are the same as Europeans".
Other than lying about my positions and ranting like a confused chicken without a head, which of your claims have you proven with scientific sources throughout these 11 pages? All you've done is offer opinionated rants and your trademark strawman attacks.
^'Eurneo' (neolithic Europeans) and 'Egypt' (late dynastic Lower Egypt) occupy the same general position. This is the same general position that that Bronze Age warrior would fall into. Doug keeps ranting on and on about the racists he claims to be against, but then parrots their Eurocentric claim that this morphospace is necessarily 'European', 'white' and 'Polish'.
My advice to you Doug: get a new hobby. After at least 11 years in this community (you registered in 2005) you clearly don't have the slightest clue and you're floundering left and right..
Swenet, you persist trolling with bull sh*t. Since when are Europeans the basis of calling ANYBODY black? Who said that understanding the term "BLACK PEOPLE" is based on looking at the relationship of African people to Europe? The point is for folks that don't get it by now, is you are trying to include European cranial metrics into something that has nothing to do with Europe. "Black people" as description of populations with tropically adapted features do not come from Europe. No matter how many ways you try to say it or try to spin it, European populations are not black people. Simply put you are lying out the crack of your behind trying to claim that "mixed" Late Lower Egyptian skulls represent "black people". Coon didn't say it. Morton didn't say it. Dienikes didn't say it. I certainly didn't say it. And Brace didn't say it. So why do you keep bringing it up?
You lost this argument a long time ago.
BLACK means BLACK And European populations are not the basis of the definition for 'black' people. You simply are confused.
And certainly the AE were not mixed Lower Egyptians. AE people came from the Sahara and South inside Africa not Europe. Nice try but late period Lower Egyptians are not what I mean by the AE being "black".
The point again after all these pages is that we are talking about skin color and this whole fiasco of the "Polish warrior" shows how meaningless and ridiculous it is to talk about cranial metrics when the question is about skin color. "Black" is not a cranial metric. And neither is "white". You can associate the two in a general sense but really the only way to understand and determine skin color is by actually having skin or tissue to analyze. And that is my point. Avoiding the discussion of skin color does not change the issue of racism. Racism will be there regardless and skin color is as valid a form of biological study as any other aspect of biology. And certainly describing skin color as "black" or "white" is valid as well.
Some folks here think they can support the argument of the AE or other people being "black" historically by not saying so specifically as if that is an equivalent substitute in defeating racism in academics and science. I will say no that is nonsense. If you are "free" of racism in academics and science then you should be able to say what you mean without code words and innuendo. If I say a population is/was black, that is what I mean and I am only talking about skin color and nothing else. Skin color is skin color, just like hair color is hair color or eye color is eye color. Notice nobody tries to describe ancient populations hair color or eye color by cranial metrics. Why? Because you can't without tissue remains.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants, although the prehistoric/modern ties are somewhat more apparent in southern Europe. --Brace et al 2005
I already posted about this before (here) . This dendogram was taken from the Brace 2005 study mentionned by Swenet above:
Fig. 1. Neighbor-joining dendrogram for a series of prehistoric and recent human populations (Craniofacial measures)
Ancient specimen are different in term of cranio-facial measurements than their modern successors. For example, England (aka modern England) and Neolithic England are not on the same branch. So ancient Specimen are different in term of cranio-facial measurements than their modern successors. While Naqada and Congo are still on the same branch (they share African cranio-facial similarities with Nubians too) the ancient specimen in Africa are also different than the modern specimen.
There's also quite a difference between modern specimen. For example, modern Greek people seem quite different in term of cranio-facial measurements than modern Italian or French specimen for example.
quote:BIOLOGICAL AFFINITIES
Data from cranial and dental non-metric traits from Sites 277 and 179 were used to assess biological differentiation between the A-Group and C-Group. Results indicate biological continuity, consistent with in situ evolution (although the problem of small samples requires that these results be accepted with caution). Although the diffusion of ideas of material culture into the area through military and trade contacts is likely, any archaeologically visible cultural differences are more consistent with local cultural evolution than with the importation of a new cultural system through the migration of a foreign population into the area.
These cranial studies aren't talking about skin color and make no mention of them and therefore are irrelevant to the discussion. And I already showed you earlier where brace stated point blank these "Lower Egyptian" cranial metrics were not close to "sub saharans" which is a code word for "black". So for anyone to suggest that this means the "AUTHOR" of the study, namely Brace, is implying or stating that these people were black is ridiculous. Nice try but that wont work. In fact most would use that data to suggest the opposite.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Simply put you are lying out the crack of your behind trying to claim that "mixed" Late Lower Egyptian skulls represent "black people".
SMH. Doug just keeps digging himself in further with everything he says. The above is proof that his use of black has sneaky hidden criteria that have nothing to do with skin color.
He keeps flip flopping between accusing me of trying to deduce skin color from skeletal remains and then doing it himself. How does Doug know what skin color these Lower Egyptians had? Of course, he doesn't know. But that doesn't stop him from doing what he repeatedly accused me of.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: And certainly the AE were not mixed Lower Egyptians.
No one said that the AE were mixed lower Egyptians. But thanks for revealing that you're a floundering clown, because that is exactly where all Egyptians of the lower Egyptian type generally cluster. It has nothing to do with late period Egyptians. This pattern was already found in some of the skeletal remains of the 1st dynasty Abydos tombs.
You've just gone on record blundering again. You've just implied that Egyptians of the lower Egyptian type are all "mixed" and "don't represent black people".
Are you sure Stormfront isn't a better site for you to post on? First you called Neolithic and Bronze Age Europeans "white". Now you're calling Lower Egyptians of the Lower Egyptian type "not black". SMH.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants, although the prehistoric/modern ties are somewhat more apparent in southern Europe. --Brace et al 2005
I already posted about this before (here) . This dendogram was taken from the Brace 2005 study mentionned by Swenet above:
Fig. 1. Neighbor-joining dendrogram for a series of prehistoric and recent human populations (Craniofacial measures)
Ancient specimen are different in term of cranio-facial measurements than their modern successors. For example, England (aka modern England) and Neolithic England are not on the same branch. So ancient Specimen are different in term of cranio-facial measurements than their modern successors. While Naqada and Congo are still on the same branch (they share African cranio-facial similarities with Nubians too) the ancient specimen in Africa are also different than the modern specimen.
There's also quite a difference between modern specimen. For example, modern Greek people seem quite different in term of cranio-facial measurements than modern Italian or French specimen for example.
quote:BIOLOGICAL AFFINITIES
Data from cranial and dental non-metric traits from Sites 277 and 179 were used to assess biological differentiation between the A-Group and C-Group. Results indicate biological continuity, consistent with in situ evolution (although the problem of small samples requires that these results be accepted with caution). Although the diffusion of ideas of material culture into the area through military and trade contacts is likely, any archaeologically visible cultural differences are more consistent with local cultural evolution than with the importation of a new cultural system through the migration of a foreign population into the area.
These cranial studies aren't talking about skin color and make no mention of them and therefore are irrelevant to the discussion. And I already showed you earlier where brace stated point blank these "Lower Egyptian" cranial metrics were not close to "sub saharans" which is a code word for "black". So for anyone to suggest that this means the "AUTHOR" of the study, namely Brace, is implying or stating that these people were black is ridiculous. Nice try but that wont work. In fact most would use that data to suggest the opposite.
Which is exactly the reasons why posted what I did. Metrically they are indigenous African in situ: "more consistent with local cultural evolution".
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ why do quote everything all over again all the time? Does that big block of text have to be in the thread 3 times just so you can make a two sentence comment?
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug. If these brown skinned Native Americans are 'black', why do Egyptians of the lower Egyptian type and the Bronze Age warrior with dark skin pigmentation genes fall outside of it?
quote: Originally posted by Doug M: As populations inhabiting tropical and subtropical environments black people can and have been found all over the globe.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: ^ why do quote everything all over again all the time? Does that big block of text have to be in the thread 3 times just so you can make a two sentence comment?
1) because I want to.
2) because I responded from a mobile device.
3) because I wish you a happy new Grergorian new year.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Simply put you are lying out the crack of your behind trying to claim that "mixed" Late Lower Egyptian skulls represent "black people".
SMH. Doug just keeps digging himself in further with everything he says. The above is proof that his use of black has sneaky hidden criteria that have nothing to do with skin color.
He keeps flip flopping between accusing me of trying to deduce skin color from skeletal remains and then doing it himself. How does Doug know what skin color these Lower Egyptians had? Of course, he doesn't know. But that doesn't stop him from doing what he repeatedly accused me of.
Floundering clown.
I didn't say anything about these late period Egyptian remains YOU did.
Typical troll tactics. You introduced something that nobody else mentioned and now you claim I was the one who said it.
No man. You are a troll and simply moving from one thing to the next and not addressing the issue.
Here is what YOU said.
I never said Europeans were the basis of what I mean by black. You said that idiot.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: That was just the beginning of the problems of the 'black' crowd. What do you do when people akin to the ancestors of pale northwestern Europe had dark skin somewhere within the range of African Americans during most of their stay in Europe? What implications does that have for the premise that "white" and "black" are fundamentally opposite and the idea that 'black' neatly excludes European ancestry/people?
quote:[T]he new data confirm that about 8500 years ago, early hunter-gatherers in Spain, Luxembourg, and Hungary also had darker skin: They lacked versions of two genes—SLC24A5 and SLC45A2—that lead to depigmentation and, therefore, pale skin in Europeans today.
See? You make no sense. Now you are trying to claim that when I say "black" we must include Europeans, because thousands of years ago yes ALL humans were black. So does that make the use of the word black invalid? Of course not. THe point is that 5,000 years ago, most Europeans were not black. You are the only one saying this and you are silly.
First you started talking about this bronze age Polish skull and when that didn't work, you went to "Neolithic" European skulls and then when that didn't work you went on to Late Period "Lower" Egypt and now you are going back to the ancestors of modern Europeans. Like I said before, Europe is not an environment that produces white skin. Africa is. Your own arguments show this. However, rather than understanding the biological basis for skin color you have totally jumped the shark in trying to equate skin color in Europe with skin color in Africa. Obviously you are blind, deaf and dumb if you think Europeans have the same skin color as Africans..... not to mention whether white is a valid term for European skin color versus black for African skin color. You are simply mixing apples and oranges and going all over the board trying to make excuses instead of addressing the point.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: If I say a population is/was black, that is what I mean and I am only talking about skin color and nothing else. BLACK means BLACK
Then be clear, say a population is "black skinned"
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
"Black people" as description of populations with tropically adapted features do not come from Europe.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Doug. If these brown skinned Native Americans are 'black', why do Egyptians of the lower Egyptian type and the Bronze Age warrior with dark skin pigmentation genes fall outside of it?
quote: Originally posted by Doug M: As populations inhabiting tropical and subtropical environments black people can and have been found all over the globe.
Stop peddling your laughably transparent racial politics. Stop your silly strawman attacks. And stop commenting on topics you don't know anything about.
First this thread is not about Lower Egyptian skulls being the same as Polish skulls.
This thread is not about skull shapes and sizes. It is about skin color. If you want to make a thread about cranial shapes in Bronze age Europe and what it means about the outward skin color of Lower Egyptians then fine, make a new thread. This topic is not about either topic. The thread is about skin color only and the viability of the word black to describe skin color in tropical environments like Africa.
Stop trolling.
Again address the point which is skin color not skull shape.
The point is you are engaging in classical 'racial' politics not me by making assumptions about skull shape and skin color. That is the hallmark of scientific racism. I am talking about actual skin color and not making assumptions of skull shape at all.
This thread is not about skull shape!
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: This thread is not about skull shape!
The dynastic Egyptians of the lower Egyptian type and their metric relationships were first commented on in the OP of this thread:
quote: Observations cited in the OP of this thread: A subset of dynastic Egyptian samples squeezed in between Abyssinians and Cretans, Etruscans and Sardinians and showing considerable ties with the biblical inhabitants of the Judaean city of Lachish. No competent western, middle eastern or oriental academic who has seriously looked into this is going to use the term "black" (in a racial sense) when applied to dynastic Egyptians (although they might do it in a pigmentation sense, by saying they would have been dark brown). And in the occasion they do use 'black' in a racial sense (usually when they speak in an informal context), they're likely to say that they think that the ancient Egyptians were half black/half non-black based on their position in cranio-facial analysis.
You're confused. You don't get to dictate what is and isn't on topic.
Take your medicine, then come back and respond to my points without resorting to strawman attacks and your unintelligible jibberish.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
to the Indian People.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
After at least 11 years in this community (you registered in 2005) you clearly don't have the slightest clue and you're floundering left and right..
Printer-friendly view of this topic