Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Yeah, lioness will do anything to distract, digress, disrupt, destroy a thread and d its subjects especially reposting **** gone through the ringer zillions of times already keeping us mired down to protect the innocent newbies and new lurkers.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Yes, the Land of the Blacks translation is faulty but what's your evidence the Palermo Stone Royal Annals isn't an authentic relic?
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
I found a pathetic forgery on Wikipedia. It's been ascribed to Sneferu.
"[Reign of] Sneferu. Year. The building of Tuataua ships of mer wood of a hundred capacity, and 60 royal boats of sixteen capacity. Raid in the Land of the Blacks, and the bringing in of seven thousand prisoners, men and women, and twenty thousand cattle, sheep, and goats... The bringing of forty ships of cedar wood (or perhaps "laden with cedar wood")..."
I assume all fragments of the Royal Annals are authentic primary document artifacts but what makes you say this Seneferu record held in Palermo isn't real?
Ta Nahhas outlined in red at bottom. Words for captive, female, and how many of them outlined in red at top.
And this is not offered in challenge as Lioness will poison it but in spirit of discussion to increase knowledge as I want to learn anything about a Palermo Stone validity controversy that I did not know before.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Yeah, lioness will do anything to distract, digress, disrupt, destroy a thread and d its subjects especially reposting **** gone through the ringer zillions of times already keeping us mired down to protect the innocent newbies and new lurkers.
^ Ignore Tukuler, he is in one of his paranoid angry moods.
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Yeah, lioness will do anything to distract, digress, disrupt, destroy a thread and d its subjects especially reposting **** gone through the ringer zillions of times already keeping us mired down to protect the innocent newbies and new lurkers.
Well said.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Yeah, lioness will do anything to distract, digress, disrupt, destroy a thread and d its subjects especially reposting **** gone through the ringer zillions of times already keeping us mired down to protect the innocent newbies and new lurkers.
Well said.
quiet, I said no cheerleading, we need useful content. Tukuler's just mad he's not the only one posting sources and also I called him out on his membership theory
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Reposted to deflect distraction:
Yes, the Land of the Blacks translation is faulty but what's your evidence the Palermo Stone Royal Annals isn't an authentic relic?
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
I found a pathetic forgery on Wikipedia. It's been ascribed to Sneferu.
"[Reign of] Sneferu. Year. The building of Tuataua ships of mer wood of a hundred capacity, and 60 royal boats of sixteen capacity. Raid in the Land of the Blacks, and the bringing in of seven thousand prisoners, men and women, and twenty thousand cattle, sheep, and goats... The bringing of forty ships of cedar wood (or perhaps "laden with cedar wood")..."
I assume all fragments of the Royal Annals are authentic primary document artifacts but what makes you say this Seneferu record held in Palermo isn't real?
Ta Nahhas outlined in red at bottom. Words for captive, female, and how many of them outlined in red at top.
And this is not offered in challenge as Lioness will poison it but in spirit of discussion to increase knowledge as I want to learn anything about a Palermo Stone validity controversy that I did not know before.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Yes, the Land of the Blacks translation is faulty but what's your evidence the Palermo Stone Royal Annals isn't an authentic relic?
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
I found a pathetic forgery on Wikipedia. It's been ascribed to Sneferu.
"[Reign of] Sneferu. Year. The building of Tuataua ships of mer wood of a hundred capacity, and 60 royal boats of sixteen capacity. Raid in the Land of the Blacks, and the bringing in of seven thousand prisoners, men and women, and twenty thousand cattle, sheep, and goats... The bringing of forty ships of cedar wood (or perhaps "laden with cedar wood")..."
I assume all fragments of the Royal Annals are authentic primary document artifacts but what makes you say this Seneferu record held in Palermo isn't real?
Ta Nahhas outlined in red at bottom. Words for captive, female, and how many of them outlined in red at top.
And this is not offered in challenge as Lioness will poison it but in spirit of discussion to increase knowledge as I want to learn anything about a Palermo Stone validity controversy that I did not know before.
This is typical Tukuler. Hr always try to highbrow and use the most obscure spellings so people don't know what he's talking about. Example , spelling " Nahhas" with two h's
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Reposted to deflect distraction:
Yes, the Land of the Blacks translation is faulty but what's your evidence the Palermo Stone Royal Annals isn't an authentic relic?
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
I found a pathetic forgery on Wikipedia. It's been ascribed to Sneferu.
"[Reign of] Sneferu. Year. The building of Tuataua ships of mer wood of a hundred capacity, and 60 royal boats of sixteen capacity. Raid in the Land of the Blacks, and the bringing in of seven thousand prisoners, men and women, and twenty thousand cattle, sheep, and goats... The bringing of forty ships of cedar wood (or perhaps "laden with cedar wood")..."
I assume all fragments of the Royal Annals are authentic primary document artifacts but what makes you say this Seneferu record held in Palermo isn't real?
Ta Nahhas outlined in red at bottom. Words for captive, female, and how many of them outlined in red at top.
NOTE hh is used to transliterate h with the diacritic dot under it.
And this is not offered in challenge as Lioness will poison it but in spirit of discussion to increase knowledge as I want to learn anything about a Palermo Stone validity controversy that I did not know before.
Please, if anybody's got a photo of the bottom register of the Palermo Stone Royal Annal please post it to replace the drawing I used. Thanks.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: I still don't believe that any truly reasonable grounds have been provided for precluding the use of black on the ancient Egyptians. What could possibly justify avoiding this word for the ancient Egyptians? Their hair? Their nose and lips? Their varying shades of brown skin? These are all features that the ancient Egyptians share with Sudanese, Somalis and other Africans in Northeast Africa and the Sahel... features that are indigenous to Africa.
People argue and insist that nobody is literally black, but nobody is also literally white, so why is why is "white" appropriate for all Europeans whereas "black" must be limited to a certain group of Africans per the insistence of Europeans!?
Black is a legitimate word and cannot be held hostage to the wholly self-serving and limited use of black that Northwest Europeans would like us to use.
Europeans are going to lose their significance in the coming decades so we should just completely disregard everything they have to say about anything.
I don't think that modern European academics would ever hesitate to call the ancient Greeks and Romans "white".
It all goes back to what I said in the OP. The post quoted by BBH there sums up what I've been saying in this thread. See that post... what you say here does not address it.
I'm still waiting on someone to address that post and justify some of the uses of 'black' I've seen people use in this thread. Especially when I caught them flip flopping to a racial use of the term. I'm still waiting on someone to prove that the academic rope tugging over the origins of ancient Egypt was somehow purely a matter of denial. So where are all these arguments? I see a bunch of "vets" thumping their chests and making a lot of noise over 25 thread pages, but I'm not seeing anything of substance. Whoever wants to take the challenge of addressing my arguments, I'm here.
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: These people don't look ambiguous to me. They look like us. People look like this in North Sudan and Somalia. They would only be "ambiguous" if people were evoking Bantus.
Sure, there is a degree of overlap with northern Sudanese. But that doesn't nullify what I said. They're still racially ambiguous. 'Ambiguous' doesn't rule out that you'll find places in Africa where those looks occur. It means that there is a gray area where such faces could occur in a number of places. An objective and well-traveled observer wouldn't necessarily point to northern Sudan if you showed them that image. That's what I mean when I say ambiguous.
And remember that I said that in response to Doug's claim that this debate is only about skin color. Let's not lose sight of why I brought up those Giza heads.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Yeah, lioness will do anything to distract, digress, disrupt, destroy a thread and d its subjects especially reposting **** gone through the ringer zillions of times already keeping us mired down to protect the innocent newbies and new lurkers.
Well said.
quiet, I said no cheerleading, we need useful content. Tukuler's just mad he's not the only one posting sources and also I called him out on his membership theory
Did I call for sh.t to talk? Nope, I did not. Then why respond? We need useful content indeed, no fake African American black woman, who is posting repetively stuff. Yet you have the nerve to call for quietness? Smh at his imposter. How dumb are you really? smh
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Reposted to deflect distraction:
Yes, the Land of the Blacks translation is faulty but what's your evidence the Palermo Stone Royal Annals isn't an authentic relic?
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
I found a pathetic forgery on Wikipedia. It's been ascribed to Sneferu.
"[Reign of] Sneferu. Year. The building of Tuataua ships of mer wood of a hundred capacity, and 60 royal boats of sixteen capacity. Raid in the Land of the Blacks, and the bringing in of seven thousand prisoners, men and women, and twenty thousand cattle, sheep, and goats... The bringing of forty ships of cedar wood (or perhaps "laden with cedar wood")..."
I assume all fragments of the Royal Annals are authentic primary document artifacts but what makes you say this Seneferu record held in Palermo isn't real?
Ta Nahhas outlined in red at bottom. Words for captive, female, and how many of them outlined in red at top.
NOTE hh is used to transliterate h with the diacritic dot under it.
And this is not offered in challenge as Lioness will poison it but in spirit of discussion to increase knowledge as I want to learn anything about a Palermo Stone validity controversy that I did not know before.
Please, if anybody's got a photo of the bottom register of the Palermo Stone Royal Annal please post it to replace the drawing I used. Thanks.
posted
Who looks like the ancient Egyptians in terms of craniofacial structure?
Is it: group a (tropically adapted people in the skin pigmentation range of African Americans), group b (coastal North Africans), group c (coastal North Africans and West Eurasians with varying degrees of resemblance to OOA Africans and post-OOA North African ancestry) group d (speakers of Afro-Asiatic languages and nearby groups)
No matter how you try to slice it (a, b, c or d), you're not going to get a neat Africa/Eurasia binary distinction. Therefore, any use of 'black' that pretends that such a binary distinction is real is misleading at best or deliberately deceptive in the case of some trolls who are deliberately lying. (The same goes for people who say group c is a 'Caucasoid' cluster). People who use 'black' to refer to skin pigmentation are off the hook as far as that problem is concerned, but as I've pointed out many times, when you look at how these people use 'black' they flip flop all the time depending on convenience. They have some explaining to do as well. I'm definitely not buying that they're using it solely to refer to skin pigmentation.
But I'm getting tired of repeating myself at this point. You either have done your homework on this anthro-stuff or you haven't. No in betweens. And the "vets" who made all this noise in this thread are clearly not in a position to be teaching anyone anything on this subject. They don't get to pontificate about what was racism or deliberate denial in anthro texts as far as the modern human taxons that were devised.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Who looks like the ancient Egyptians in terms of craniofacial structure?
Is it: group a (tropically adapted people in the skin pigmentation range of African Americans), group b (coastal North Africans), group c (coastal North Africans and West Eurasians with varying degrees of resemblance to OOA Africans and post-OOA North African ancestry) group d (speakers of Afro-Asiatic languages and nearby groups)
No matter how you try to slice it (a, b, c or d), you're not going to get a neat Africa/Eurasia binary distinction. Therefore, any use of 'black' that pretends that such a binary distinction is real is misleading at best or deliberately deceptive in the case of some trolls who are deliberately lying. (The same goes for people who say group c is a 'Caucasoid' cluster). People who use 'black' to refer to skin pigmentation are off the hook as far as that problem is concerned, but as I've pointed out many times, when you look at how these people use 'black' they flip flop all the time depending on convenience. They have some explaining to do as well. I'm definitely not buying that they're using it solely to refer to skin pigmentation.
But I'm getting tired of repeating myself at this point. You either have done your homework on this anthro-stuff or you haven't. No in betweens. And the "vets" who made all this noise in this thread are clearly not in a position to be teaching anyone anything on this subject. They don't get to pontificate about what was racism or deliberate denial in anthro texts as far as the modern human taxons that were devised.
Swenet, why they used European populations in the plot, and excluded Sahara-Sahel populations?
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Swenet, why they used European populations in the plot, and excluded Sahara-Sahel populations?
Certain quarters claimed and still claim that 'black' in the racial sense covers ancient Egyptian variation. Brace et al set out to test that claim and that is the result. No need to be salty with Brace et al. People need to show some responsibility for their actions. They make themselves easy targets for refutation by insisting on racial language. They make their beds but don't want to lay in it. Of course, when their racial terminology backfires people get angry with Brace and flip flop to the 'safe' position that 'black' only refers to skin pigmentation. When they think it's safe to revert back to their racial use of the term, you can see them talk about someone being "genetically black" or having "black features".
But pray tell. What would be the added benefit of including more Sahelian populations in Brace et al's analysis? And which Sahelian populations specifically would have to be included to produce more 'satisfying' results?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
And this is why I say YET AGAIN lets just keep racial terms out of bio-anthropology to be safe...
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Swenet, why they used European populations in the plot, and excluded Sahara-Sahel populations?
Certain quarters claimed and still claim that 'black' in the racial sense covers ancient Egyptian variation. Brace et al set out to test that claim and that is the result. No need to be salty with Brace et al. People need to show some responsibility for their actions. They make themselves easy targets for refutation by insisting on racial language. They make their beds but don't want to lay in it. Of course, when their racial terminology backfires people get angry with Brace and flip flop to the 'safe' position that 'black' only refers to skin pigmentation. When they think it's safe to revert back to their racial use of the term, you can see them talk about someone being "genetically black" or having "black features".
But pray tell. What would be the added benefit of including more Sahelian populations in Brace et al's analysis? And which Sahelian populations specifically would have to be included to produce more 'satisfying' results?
So Upper Egyptians, Southern Egypt's Nubians, North Sudanese, Egypt's Eastern desert Beja and Somalis were used by Brace?
I can't imagine that any "Eurasian" population would be craniofacially closer to the ancient Egyptians than any of these Northeast Africans.
Forgive my for my ignorance on the matter, but didn't Northeast Africans leave Africa to colonise the world? Isn't this the reason that Eurasians would plot somewhat closely with us?
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Swenet, why they used European populations in the plot, and excluded Sahara-Sahel populations?
Certain quarters claimed and still claim that 'black' in the racial sense covers ancient Egyptian variation. Brace et al set out to test that claim and that is the result. No need to be salty with Brace et al. People need to show some responsibility for their actions. They make themselves easy targets for refutation by insisting on racial language. They make their beds but don't want to lay in it. Of course, when their racial terminology backfires people get angry with Brace and flip flop to the 'safe' position that 'black' only refers to skin pigmentation. When they think it's safe to revert back to their racial use of the term, you can see them talk about someone being "genetically black" or having "black features".
But pray tell. What would be the added benefit of including more Sahelian populations in Brace et al's analysis? And which Sahelian populations specifically would have to be included to produce more 'satisfying' results?
Were Upper Egyptians, Southern Egypt's Nubians, North Sudanese, Egypt's Eastern desert Beja and Somalis used by Brace?
I can't imagine that any "Eurasian" population would be craniofacially closer to the ancient Egyptians than any of these Northeast Africans.
Forgive my for my ignorance on the matter, but didn't Northeast Africans leave Africa to colonise the world? Isn't this the reason that Eurasians would plot somewhat closely with us?
If you look at the Brace plot, you will see that Nubians and Somalis do plot relatively close to predynastic Upper Egyptians. But then, you will also notice that Australo-Melanesians plot close to the pooled sub-Saharans despite being even more genetically divergent from them than Saharans ever were, so the graph isn't a perfect reflection of genetic relationships among these populations. But it does suffice to show ancient Egypto-Nubians had a different craniofacial morphology on average from the sub-Saharan norm.
I would say what it boils down to is whether Northeast Africans indigenous to the Sahara would count as "Black" in traditional Western understandings the way sub-Saharans typically are. Clearly you, as a Northeast African from Sudan, identify as Black, and I presume you accepted that identity from some influence out there. But the very fact that the "true Negro" archetype has been a recurring theme in debates here on ES shows that there's also a tendency to delimit "Black" identity to sub-Saharans with broad facial features. What Swenet seems to be saying is that by chucking out color labels, you can skirt that "True Negro" issue entirely.
What special use do you see in the word "Black" that "African" couldn't cover just as well?
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: I can't imagine that any "Eurasian" population would be craniofacially closer to the ancient Egyptians than any of these Northeast Africans.
That various samples in Eurasia are closer to the predynastic sample than some of the northeast African samples in that graphic is not what I intended to draw attention to. They're just two (Upper[?]) Nubian samples out of many. What I meant to say is that people can try to slice that map up in a way that is consistent with a racial use of 'black' (i.e. by arbitrarily making predynastic Egypt the periphery of the 'black' phenotype) but that's subjective and not at all what that graph says. That's my point. Who is to say what that grey colored area occupied by Lower Egypt represents? The cranio-facial phenotypes there are not consistent with a racial use of 'black', that's for sure. The grey colored area is literally a GREY AREA. And the cranio-facial phenotypes there are ambiguous in the sense that they could occur in a number of populations. Doug just said that grey area is "white" when he called that Bronze Age European warrior "white". With that move he disowned ancient Nile Valley phenotypes and he doesn't have the foggiest clue. SMH.
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Forgive my for my ignorance on the matter, but didn't Northeast Africans leave Africa to colonise the world? Isn't this the reason that Eurasians would plot somewhat closely with us?
The early Upper Palaeolithic Eurasians who belong to the M and N lineages look like Predynastic Nile Valley populations in a lot of ways. They just more robust, larger and generalized. Even in their bodyplan they resemble ancient Nubians and Egyptians according to Holliday. If a representative sample of Upper Palaeolithic M and N people were projected on that Brace graph, their centroid would plot exactly there, in that grey area I just talked about.
quote:originally posted by Swenet:
^'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'.
posted
Could someone explain to me what exactly is the "sub-saharan norm" as far as phenotypic expression? Considering the sheer diversity even within "Sub-Saharan Africa" what is the metric for that statement that bifurcates them from Northeast Africans?
Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Swenet, why they used European populations in the plot, and excluded Sahara-Sahel populations?
Certain quarters claimed and still claim that 'black' in the racial sense covers ancient Egyptian variation. Brace et al set out to test that claim and that is the result. No need to be salty with Brace et al. People need to show some responsibility for their actions. They make themselves easy targets for refutation by insisting on racial language. They make their beds but don't want to lay in it. Of course, when their racial terminology backfires people get angry with Brace and flip flop to the 'safe' position that 'black' only refers to skin pigmentation. When they think it's safe to revert back to their racial use of the term, you can see them talk about someone being "genetically black" or having "black features".
But pray tell. What would be the added benefit of including more Sahelian populations in Brace et al's analysis? And which Sahelian populations specifically would have to be included to produce more 'satisfying' results?
I am not arguing about the word black here. I have been to Egypt (several places). And I know they identify with being black. This doesn't mean, they identified with being west African. The west created this Bantu-concept of "black features" at a time when only they had access to "science" and publishings. But it's obviously imploding now.
I noticed that in the plot, surrounding people populations have been excluded, which I think is weird. Why would one do so? And yes, I do think it would have produced more 'satisfying' results. Instead of trying to plot European populations. It's like showing a Celtic settlement, yet plotting Amerindians to see which fits best, and leaving out surrounding populations.
But I do think the outcome of the plot would have been/ looked different.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Swenet, why they used European populations in the plot, and excluded Sahara-Sahel populations?
Certain quarters claimed and still claim that 'black' in the racial sense covers ancient Egyptian variation. Brace et al set out to test that claim and that is the result. No need to be salty with Brace et al. People need to show some responsibility for their actions. They make themselves easy targets for refutation by insisting on racial language. They make their beds but don't want to lay in it. Of course, when their racial terminology backfires people get angry with Brace and flip flop to the 'safe' position that 'black' only refers to skin pigmentation. When they think it's safe to revert back to their racial use of the term, you can see them talk about someone being "genetically black" or having "black features".
But pray tell. What would be the added benefit of including more Sahelian populations in Brace et al's analysis? And which Sahelian populations specifically would have to be included to produce more 'satisfying' results?
So Upper Egyptians, Southern Egypt's Nubians, North Sudanese, Egypt's Eastern desert Beja and Somalis were used by Brace?
I can't imagine that any "Eurasian" population would be craniofacially closer to the ancient Egyptians than any of these Northeast Africans.
Forgive my for my ignorance on the matter, but didn't Northeast Africans leave Africa to colonise the world? Isn't this the reason that Eurasians would plot somewhat closely with us?
These are only a few you mentioned, which I am refer at. There are more ethic groups. "Less popular", for most people. None of them had been plotted, or even considered. SMH
And I am almost certain that C. Brace can't mention 10 local ethnic groups, who have settled the region for the last thousands of years. Except for the most "known" ethnic groups.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/prec/www/course/egypt/274RH/Pictures/Predynastic%20Period/PredynCombs.jpgI have already schooled your ass on this so you can stop "loling" like a schoolgirl
You have schooled no one, in fact it was the opposite.
LOL at the "Victorian comb". What the **** are trying to prove?
Relevant sources stated Afro-comb, people who have resided in the region use it as what? An Afro-comb. They sport what hair do? AFRO!
Ironically these ethnic groups from the region, still have similar combs, and hair textures.
The settlements where these combs were found, show the first mummies to have curlied hair.
Yet, here you are with some white victiorian female, with bone straight hair?
In case you don't know, the victiorian period dates from 1837 to 1901. A time where whites were slaying niggers. Or are you now going to claim whites where actually the niggers?
And that Ashanti-combs, were actually combs used by (white) euro-Victorians.
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: Maiherpri's "hair" is a wig tightly glued to his scalp so using him in a hair compare contest is comical.
That person has been using this argument for over 5 crazy years. But you have to understand that that person knows very little about local ethnic groups, from the Sahara-Sahel region.
Now the claim is some Victorian comb, and white Victorian woman? And completely scrubbing off the local populations who have settled in these regions for thousands of years. And this is considered completely normal for this person. Yet, see what happens when Mike or Iron Lion take about Europe.lol
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Swenet, why they used European populations in the plot, and excluded Sahara-Sahel populations?
Certain quarters claimed and still claim that 'black' in the racial sense covers ancient Egyptian variation. Brace et al set out to test that claim and that is the result. No need to be salty with Brace et al. People need to show some responsibility for their actions. They make themselves easy targets for refutation by insisting on racial language. They make their beds but don't want to lay in it. Of course, when their racial terminology backfires people get angry with Brace and flip flop to the 'safe' position that 'black' only refers to skin pigmentation. When they think it's safe to revert back to their racial use of the term, you can see them talk about someone being "genetically black" or having "black features".
But pray tell. What would be the added benefit of including more Sahelian populations in Brace et al's analysis? And which Sahelian populations specifically would have to be included to produce more 'satisfying' results?
Were Upper Egyptians, Southern Egypt's Nubians, North Sudanese, Egypt's Eastern desert Beja and Somalis used by Brace?
I can't imagine that any "Eurasian" population would be craniofacially closer to the ancient Egyptians than any of these Northeast Africans.
Forgive my for my ignorance on the matter, but didn't Northeast Africans leave Africa to colonise the world? Isn't this the reason that Eurasians would plot somewhat closely with us?
If you look at the Brace plot, you will see that Nubians and Somalis do plot relatively close to predynastic Upper Egyptians. But then, you will also notice that Australo-Melanesians plot close to the pooled sub-Saharans despite being even more genetically divergent from them than Saharans ever were, so the graph isn't a perfect reflection of genetic relationships among these populations. But it does suffice to show ancient Egypto-Nubians had a different craniofacial morphology on average from the sub-Saharan norm.
I would say what it boils down to is whether Northeast Africans indigenous to the Sahara would count as "Black" in traditional Western understandings the way sub-Saharans typically are. Clearly you, as a Northeast African from Sudan, identify as Black, and I presume you accepted that identity from some influence out there. But the very fact that the "true Negro" archetype has been a recurring theme in debates here on ES shows that there's also a tendency to delimit "Black" identity to sub-Saharans with broad facial features. What Swenet seems to be saying is that by chucking out color labels, you can skirt that "True Negro" issue entirely.
What special use do you see in the word "Black" that "African" couldn't cover just as well?
Yes, I did notic that, and that is not my argument. But Nubians are a cluster of several ethnic groups. Just like Somalis are. What I am arguing is, why aren't other local and neighbouring populations in the plot, who reside at the Sahara-Sahel. And what is meant by sub-Saharans?
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:The cemetery called HK43, belonging to the non-elite (or workers) segment of the predynastic population, is located on the southern side of the site beside the Wadi Khamsini. Work here in 1996 when a land reclamation scheme threatened its preservation and excavations continued until 2004, resulting in the discovery of a minimum of 452 graves holding over 500 individuals of Naqada IIB-IIC date (roughly 3650-3500BC).
Careful removal of the upper layer of matting and linen pads around the head resulted in the preservation of her entire head of hair, revealing a shoulder-length style of natural waves extending c.22cm from the crown of the head with a left side parting and asymmetrical fringe made up of S-shaped curls bordering the forehead. In addition to the excellent preservation of the cranial hair, the right eyebrow also survived.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Or are you now going to claim whites where actually the niggers?
The term is wig-er
Nope the term wigger is not what I meant, I meant nigger. Replacing the actual population is what I am talking about, not imposing as a black person as you have done for over 5 years.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: mummy sporting "S" shaped curl
What is that supposed to prove? That local from the region people did not and don't have this type of curls? Are you truly that arrogant and ignorant.
quote:"As a result of their facial prognathism, the Badarian sample has been described as forming a morphological cluster with Nubian, Tigrean, and other southern (or "Negroid") groups (Morant, 1935, 1937; Mukherjee et al., 1955; Nutter, 1958, Strouhal, 1971; Angel, 1972; Keita, 1990). Cranial nonmetric trait studies have found this group to be similar to other Egyptians, including much later material (Berry and Berry, 1967, 1972), but also to be significantly different from LPD material (Berry et al., 1967). Similarly, the study of dental nonmetric traits has suggested that the Badarian population is at the centroid of Egyptian dental samples (Irish, 2006), thereby suggesting similarity and hence continuity across Egyptian time periods. From the central location of the Badarian samples in Figure 2, the current study finds the Badarian to be relatively morphologically close to the centroid of all the Egyptian samples. The Badarian have been shown to exhibit greatest morphological similarity with the temporally successive EPD (Table 5). Finally, the biological distinctiveness of the Badarian from other Egyptian samples has also been demonstrated (Tables 6 and 7).
These results suggest that the EDyn do form a distinct morphological pattern. Their overlap with other Egyptian samples (in PC space, Fig. 2) suggests that although their morphology is distinctive, the pattern does overlap with the other time periods. These results therefore do not support the Petrie concept of a \Dynastic race" (Petrie, 1939; Derry, 1956). Instead, the results suggest that the Egyptian state was not the product of mass movement of populations into the Egyptian Nile region, but rather that it was the result of primarily indigenous development combined with prolonged small-scale migration, potentially from trade, military, or other contacts.
This evidence suggests that the process of state formation itself may have been mainly an indigenous process, but that it may have occurred in association with in-migration to the Abydos region of the Nile Valley. This potential in-migration may have occurred particularly during the EDyn and OK. A possible explanation is that the Egyptian state formed through increasing control of trade and raw materials, or due to military actions, potentially associated with the use of the Nile Valley as a corridor for prolonged small scale movements through the desert environment."
--Sonia R. Zakrzewski. (2007). Population Continuity or Population Change: Formation of the Ancient Egyptian State. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 132:501-509)
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: I am not arguing about the word black here. I have been to Egypt (several places). And I know they identify with being black.
BTW, in general I think it's a bad idea to go down that road of self-identifications. I shouldn't even be posting that article. But I'm doing it this time because for some reason people just like to lie about the meaning of 'black' in every day use. Not saying that you're making that argument, but no one in the article is subscribing to Doug's claim that people understand 'black' to mean skin pigmentation in every day use.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: I noticed that in the plot, surrounding people populations have been excluded, which I think is weird. Why would one do so? And yes, I do think it would have produced more 'satisfying' results. Instead of trying to plot European populations.
Plenty of Sahelian samples in the paper below. Makes no difference whatsoever as far as the 'racially awkward' relationships of the northern Sudanese and Kharga oasis samples. There is still no binary distinction with Africans on the one hand and non Africans neatly on the other hand.
But I get it. We just have to look harder, right? Just like the Euronuts who are trying to find the 'white hope' sample with no African ancestry that will magically cluster with predynastic Egyptians to the exclusion of regional samples.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: It's like showing a Celtic settlement, yet plotting Amerindians to see which fits best, and leaving out surrounding populations.
Other than the various Sub-Saharan samples, Brace et al used one lower Nubian sample, two (Upper[?]) Nubian samples, one neolithic Algerian sample, a single X group Nubian individual and a Somali sample. The latter four didn't fail to show strong relationships with the predynastic Egyptian sample. I think that's a clue in and of itself.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Swenet, ^ "they", are the many people I encountered at many places. This doesn't mean, they associate black with being "Bantu" or any stereotype African.
How does Abdel-latif aboul-ela speak for lay people? And what does he mean by Deep South? Ramses II remains were found in the Deep South, near what is now considered Sudan, Luxor, at the Valley of The Kings tomb KV7.
People there (the region) on average look similar to this man.
I see Abdel-latif aboul-ela is cited often, also by Mary Lefkowitz. But can't find any image of him. If I see his appearance perhaps I can understand his position better.
posted
Lol. Are you saying that modern Egyptians at the latitude of Luxor and lower generally look like that man next to Ramses?
This is just like when you said that most Moroccans consider themselves 'black' in the Netherlands. I know the Netherlands on my pinky and I don't share that experience at all. But let's just leave it at that. Agree to disagree.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Lol. Are you saying that modern Egyptians at the latitude of Luxor and lower generally look like that man next to Ramses?
This is just like when you said that most Moroccans consider themselves 'black' in the Netherlands. I know the Netherlands on my pinky and I don't share that experience at all. But let's just leave it at that. Agree to disagree.
What I say is that on average people at Luxor look like that man. Next to Ramses II, yes. This goes as far as Northern Sudan. I also posted videos by common tourists, at Luxor. At Cairo or Sharm-el-Sheikh etc. you will find the diversity we see on TV and other media-outlets. But rural places mostly show different.
Then we both know the Netherlands on our pinky. Often Dutch white people mistake "biracial people" for Moroccans. Another issue is, the "stereotype" Morrocan, as is known in Holland derives from Rif ethic groups. While other (Moroccans) go unidentified. Sometimes even by these Rif Moroccans.
But as you said, let's leave it at that.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
African is not a substitute for black.
An imaginary meaning for black not found in the dictionary nor explicitly defined by OP is used under a 'you know what I mean' presumption.
From the earliest written records to current university produced dictionaries black as applied to a human being denotes Asian and African populations.
The difference is at some point in time every African people is called black but Asia always through history has had non blacks.
Black Americans are hardly the population to paint as the poster of B L A C K to deny AE the same identity. Black American variety is vast even including physical types found anywhere around the Mediterranean. BA are hardly your imaginary forest negro.
Not only that but nowhere in Inner Africa is there any exclusive forest negro preserve. That's a minority phenotype.
We need to leave post Napoleonic Expedition anthropology to its Eurocentric design and decolonize the mind from fear of blackness in all its Africa to Pacific Island expanse.
The various African exodes that populated Eurasia originated almost entirely from NE Africans so its small wonder those Eurasian close to Africa share in or approximate some African features. Regular commerce, slavery, and conquest are at the root of physical features now found in northern africans unrelated to original NE African features.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: African is not a substitute for black.
From the earliest written records to current university produced dictionaries black as applied to a human being denotes Asian and African populations.
The difference is at some point in time every African people is called black but Asia always through history has had non blacks.
Black Americans are hardly the population to paint as the poster of B L A C K to deny AE the same identity. Black American variety is vast even including physical types found anywhere around the Mediterranean. BA are hardly your imaginary forest negro.
Not only that but nowhere in Inner Africa is there any exclusive forest negro preserve. That's a minority phenotype.
We need to leave post Napoleonic Expedition anthropology to its Eurocentric design and decolonize the mind from fear of blackness in all its Africa to Pacific Island expanse.
The various African exodes that populated Eurasia originated almost entirely from NE Africans so its small wonder those Eurasian close to Africa share in or approximate some African features. Regular commerce, slavery, and conquest are at the root of physical features now found in northern africans unrelated to original NE African features.
Repost:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: The Lacey Schwartz, interview at Hot97, 2014. Enjoy:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: African is not a substitute for black.
An imaginary meaning for black not found in the dictionary nor explicitly defined by OP is used under a 'you know what I mean' presumption.
From the earliest written records to current university produced dictionaries black as applied to a human being denotes Asian and African populations.
The difference is at some point in time every African people is called black but Asia always through history has had non blacks.
Black Americans are hardly the population to paint as the poster of B L A C K to deny AE the same identity. Black American variety is vast even including physical types found anywhere around the Mediterranean. BA are hardly your imaginary forest negro.
Not only that but nowhere in Inner Africa is there any exclusive forest negro preserve. That's a minority phenotype.
We need to leave post Napoleonic Expedition anthropology to its Eurocentric design and decolonize the mind from fear of blackness in all its Africa to Pacific Island expanse.
The various African exodes that populated Eurasia originated almost entirely from NE Africans so its small wonder those Eurasian close to Africa share in or approximate some African features. Regular commerce, slavery, and conquest are at the root of physical features now found in northern africans unrelated to original NE African features.
But see, "Black" itself is a European construct imposed onto all those dark-skinned populations. It's not like these groups would have called themselves "Black" absent European colonial influence. So don't kid yourself into believing the appropriation of a European adjective is "decolonization" in the least.
That said, I must confess to having "sinned" by calling AE and related populations "Black" despite my earlier resolving not to. Partly it may be out of an earlier habit, and partly it may be because years of influence from ES are hard for me to shake off. But I've also found that "Black" is a convenient shorthand for indigenous Africans and their Diasporan offshoots. It's far from a perfect word and I wouldn't use it in the context of anthropological discourse. But it's a shortcut everyone recognizes even if there's disagreement on what precisely it means.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Nonsense.
As a veteran, here before I was, you know better.
Zanj delineated a range of B L A C K s spanning Africa and Indian Ocean shorelines and islands a thousand years before any such Euro construct.
How ethnocentrically arrogant to think the world waited for Europe for worldview.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Medieval Sourcebook: Al-Jâhiz: From The Essays, c. 860 CE
On the Zanj [ "Black Africans"]
Everybody agrees that there is no people on earth in whom generosity is as universally well developed as the Zanj. These people have a natural talent for dancing to the rhythm of the tambourine, without needing to learn it. There are no better singers anywhere in the world, no people more polished and eloquent, and no people less given to insulting language. No other nation can surpass them in bodily strength and physical toughness. One of them will lift huge blocks and carry heavy loads that would be beyond the strength of most Bedouins or members of other races. They are courageous, energetic, and generous, which are the virtues of nobility, and also good-tempered and with little propensity to evil. They are always cheerful, smiling, and devoid of malice, which is a sign of noble character.
The Zanj say to the Arabs: You are so ignorant that during the jahiliyya you regarded us as your equals when it came to marrying Arab women, but with the advent of the justice of Islam you decided this practice was bad. Yet the desert is full of Zanj married to Arab wives, and they have been princes and kings and have safeguarded your rights and sheltered you against your enemies.
The Zanj say that God did not make them black in order to disfigure them; rather it is their environment that made them so. The best evidence of this is that there are black tribes among the Arabs, such as the Banu Sulaim bin Mansur, and that all the peoples settled in the Harra, besides the Banu Sulaim are black. These tribes take slaves from among the Ashban to mind their flocks and for irrigation work, manual labor, and domestic service, and their wives from among the Byzantines; and yet it takes less than three generations for the Harra to give them all the complexion of the Banu Sulaim. This Harra is such that the gazelles, ostriches, insects, wolves, foxes, sheep, asses, horses and birds that live there are all black. White and black are the results of environment, the natural properties of water and soil, distance from the sun, and intensity of heat. There is no question of metamorphosis, or of punishment, disfigurement or favor meted out by Allah. Besides, the land of the Banu Sulaim has much in common with the land of the Turks, where the camels, beasts of burden, and everything belonging to these people is similar in appearance: everything of theirs has a Turkish look.
Source.
Scanned by: J. S. Arkenberg, Dept. of History, Cal. State Fullerton. Prof. Arkenberg has modernized the text.
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
BEWARE THE VENOM OF A LYIN'ASS SNAKE SEE HER TRY TO POISON MINDS THEN WHOOPS SHE DATA MINES AND SIDEWINDS OUT OF HER ORIGINAL ATTA CK SEEN BELOW
the lioness,
Member Member # 17353
Rate Member posted May 19, 2016 10:45 AM quote: Originally posted by Tukuler: [QB] Nonsense.
Zanj delineated a range of B L A C K s spanning Africa and Indian Ocean shorelines and islands a thousand years before any such Euro construct.
^don't accept this until he posts evidence of it
BEWARE NEWBIE AND INNOCENT LURKER/SURFER THE LYIN'ASS SNAKE DELIBERATELY OMITTED THE ZANJ LIST OF BLACKS POSTED ON ES TOO MANY TIMES TO RECOUNT.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
But see, "Black" itself is a European construct imposed onto all those dark-skinned populations. It's not like these groups would have called themselves "Black" absent European colonial influence. So don't kid yourself into believing the appropriation of a European adjective is "decolonization" in the least.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Nonsense.
As a veteran, here before I was, you know better.
Zanj delineated a range of B L A C K s spanning Africa and Indian Ocean shorelines and islands a thousand years before any such Euro construct.
How ethnocentrically arrogant to think the world waited for Europe for worldview.
Al-Jahiz wrote that he was a member of the Arabian tribe Banu Kinanah.
As for the Zanj, bantu people of the Swahili coast, don't accept Tukuler's statement unless he provides historical evidence originating in this region of the people calling themselves "black"
be afraid of the lioness be very afraidPosts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Zanj delineated a range of B L A C K s spanning Africa and Indian Ocean shorelines and islands a thousand years before any such Euro construct.
How ethnocentrically arrogant to think the world waited for Europe for worldview.
That's true, and somehow black came associated with the term Bantu.
quote:there are black tribes among the Arabs, such as the Banu Sulaim bin Mansur, and that all the peoples settled in the Harra, besides the Banu Sulaimare black.
--Al-Jahiz (776-869): Al-Fakhar al-Sudan min al-Abyadh (Superiority Of The Blacks To The Whites)
quote: And also: we inspire the most fear in the heart and catch most of the glances (of the onlookers), just as the carriers of black (Abbasid) inspire more fear and fill up more the heart than the carriers of white (Umayyad), in the same way the night inspires more fear than the day.
^^^ I'm not sure if this translation is correct. It's calling the Umayyad, the second caliphate who conquered spain white and the Abbasid, the third caliphate who overthrew the Umayyad black
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |