posted
^ I think we are all aware of the de-Africanizing i.e. white-washing of African and extra-African (Levant & Arabian) populations. That was never the issue. The issue I think is whether such populations especially in the latter case are as closely related to modern Sub-Saharans as many think.
Swenet's website clearly shows that the Natufians were of African derivation both skeletally and genetically but that does not mean they were close siblings of say 'Great Lakes' Africans.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ I think we are all aware of the de-Africanizing i.e. white-washing of African and extra-African (Levant & Arabian) populations. That was never the issue. The issue I think is whether such populations especially in the latter case are as closely related to modern Sub-Saharans as many think.
Swenet's website clearly shows that the Natufians were of African derivation both skeletally and genetically but that does not mean they were close siblings of say 'Great Lakes' Africans.
Interesting you consider ancient Levantine populations "extra Africans" as I believe that too.
Anyways I agree with both you and Swenet. Rhe Natufians would have had indigenous African traits but they would cluster more with neighboring Lower Egyptians than Khoisans, Bantus, Nilotics, West Africans or even Somalis.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: Some archaeological material I read did say Lower Egypt was much less developed than Upper Egypt. I don't see anything "political bias" about what sudaniya said when some materials I read said the same thing. I'll try to find the one I'm looking for.
However I agree that Lower Egypt starting in the middle dynastic period was just as or more developed than Upper Egypt.
My argument really is against Sudaniya's label of Ta Mehu as a "backwater". Being less developed does not mean a total state of feckless primitivity is all I mean.
Sorry for the late reply. Anyways I don't think anyone is considering predynastic/early dynastic Lower Egypt "primitive" as they were a bronze age people who advanced waaaaay past hunter gatherers.
What some are just saying is that compared to Upper Egypt, Lower Egypt was less developed.
And like I said I read material that even states. I finally found the material I was talkinga bout while browsing another forum. It was Gledhill, et al.
Here are some key points it states about the early dynastic Lower Egypt:
quote: “the northern third of the Delta was reduced to a vast tract of swamp and lagoon."
It then goes on to state:
quote:"a considerable body of information can be marshaled to show that the Delta was underdeveloped"
And finally:
quote:Butzer suggests that even in Pharaonic times the Delta was under-populated when compared with Upper Egypt and that settlements were highly dispersed."
I'm just saying in general that it is not out of the norm when people say Lower Egypt was less developed than Upper Egypt. Of course they are not saying that Lower Egyptians were primitive. But basically Upper Egypt was like Union America while Lower Egypt was like Confederate America. Union America being more developed. But neither during their times were "primitive."
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
To the topic of the thread, my only issue is the idea that by using "scientific terms" you can somehow avoid the issue of skin color. Of course you can not, especially when those who have an agenda can just use other ways to reinforce the same pattern of indoctrination. Other labels, not related to skin color, can be used to support a similar purpose even if skin color is not purposely mentioned.....
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The image is from the paper that was referenced. AI=Arab-Indian and the map depicts the various types of sicklemia in Arabia.
I forgot to ask you Swenet, the map already has Arab-Indian so what is the point of having another?
There is 'AI?' (note the question mark) in addition to Arab-Indian on that map because they weren't sure at the time how sickle cell from Afghanistan and Iran relates to the other regional forms to the south, west and east, although they suspected it's primarily Arab-Indian.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: Some archaeological material I read did say Lower Egypt was much less developed than Upper Egypt. I don't see anything "political bias" about what sudaniya said when some materials I read said the same thing. I'll try to find the one I'm looking for.
However I agree that Lower Egypt starting in the middle dynastic period was just as or more developed than Upper Egypt.
My argument really is against Sudaniya's label of Ta Mehu as a "backwater". Being less developed does not mean a total state of feckless primitivity is all I mean.
I agree with Sudaniya somewhat. Compared to contemporary Upper Egypt, the Delta during the predynastic tended to be unoriginal and unimpressive materially with little grave goods, even though it was surrounded to the north and south by mention-worthy Chalcolithic cultures. According to John Darnell the quality of pottery in the region was lower (compared to Upper Egypt) and the results of copying Upper Egyptian pottery were not flattering (he said the attempts at copying were "pathetically unsuccessful"). They somehow failed to take advantage of their proximity to advanced cultures around them. Although there is a lot we don't know due to the fact that only certain things survive in the archaeological record.
Also (not specifically directed at anyone in particular), it should be remembered that Memphis and some other northern sites important during the early dynastic weren't thought of as Lower Egypt by ancient Egyptians. I don't think the area the AE thought of as Lower Egypt (i.e. the Delta) ever had important capitals.
quote:The Name we use today derives from the Pyramid of Pepy I at Saqqara, which is Mennufer (the good place), or Coptic Menfe. Memphis is the Greek translation. But the City was originally Ineb-Hedj, meaning "The White Wall". Some sources indicate that other versions of the name may have even translated to our modern name for the country, Egypt. During the Middle Kingdom, it was Ankh-Tawy, or "That Which Binds the Two Lands". In fact, its location lies approximately between Upper and Lower Egypt, and the importance of the area is demonstrated by its persistent tendency to be the Capital of Egypt, as Cairo just to the North is today.
^Although, obviously, I'm not going by this definition either. But it's important to keep in mind because, from my understanding, the placement of capitals in the north by Upper Egyptian rulers (e.g. Narmer) was ideologically and politically driven and IMO should not be seen as evidence that Lower Egypt was culturally important (although they might have been during the dynastic, I'm not sure).
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: There is 'AI?' (note the question mark) in addition to Arab-Indian on that map because they weren't sure at the time how sickle cell from Afghanistan and Iran relates to the other regional forms to the south, west and east, although they suspected it's primarily Arab-Indian.
Fair enough. I wonder exactly how HBS originated or developed in Eurasians and if such occurred either at OOA or after.
quote:I agree with Sudaniya somewhat. Compared to contemporary Upper Egypt, the Delta during the predynastic tended to be unoriginal and unimpressive materially with little grave goods, even though it was surrounded to the north and south by mention-worthy Chalcolithic cultures. According to John Darnell the quality of pottery in the region was lower (compared to Upper Egypt) and the results of copying Upper Egyptian pottery were not flattering (he said the attempts at copying were "pathetically unsuccessful"). They somehow failed to take advantage of their proximity to advanced cultures around them. Although there is a lot we don't know due to the fact that only certain things survive in the archaeological record.
The Delta area in general is not as widely excavated as Upper Egypt but another reason why there were little grave goods is because the predynastic northerners buried their dead in their living communities even in the homesteads of the living. The theory then is that the dead did not need as many grave goods because the living would tend to them in their daily lives. While the northerners did lag behind the southerners in durable goods like pottery there are traces of much richer but perishable goods which they apparently actively traded with peoples in the Levant. They also had the earliest known domestication of goats and sheep and had the most advanced donkey breeding systems which spear headed cargo transport and caravan trading. And although they lacked central authority, some of their centers like that of Iunu (Heliopolis) and Djedu (Busiris) became assimilated by the southerners and incoporated into the state cults.
quote:Also (not specifically directed at anyone in particular), it should be remembered that Memphis and some other northern sites important during the early dynastic weren't thought of as Lower Egypt by ancient Egyptians. I don't think the area the AE thought of as Lower Egypt (i.e. the Delta) ever had important capitals.
The Name we use today derives from the Pyramid of Pepy I at Saqqara, which is Mennufer (the good place), or Coptic Menfe. Memphis is the Greek translation. But the City was originally Ineb-Hedj, meaning "The White Wall". Some sources indicate that other versions of the name may have even translated to our modern name for the country, Egypt. During the Middle Kingdom, it was Ankh-Tawy, or "That Which Binds the Two Lands". In fact, its location lies approximately between Upper and Lower Egypt, and the importance of the area is demonstrated by its persistent tendency to be the Capital of Egypt, as Cairo just to the North is today. Source
^Although, obviously, I'm not going by this definition either. But it's important to keep in mind because, from my understanding, the placement of capitals in the north by Upper Egyptian rulers (e.g. Narmer) was ideologically and politically driven and IMO should not be seen as evidence that Lower Egypt was culturally important (although they might have been during the dynastic, I'm not sure).
No one is denying that early capitals like Mennefer were built by Upper Egyptians as a center to unite both regions, but obviously Ta Mehu wasn't some backwater if Ta-Shemau wanted to not only conquer but incorporate it into a new nation.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think houses and houses with burials were common in Egypt in the predynastic. How much do you think houses account for the generally poor grave sites compared to Upper Egypt?
The last time I read on the subject (which is admittedly years ago) the consensus was that Upper Egyptians imported domesticated caprines from the Levant before Lower Egyptians had these animals. If you have evidence that predynastic Lower Egyptians domesticated these animals on their own, or that Lower Egyptians had these animals before Upper Egypt and other places had them, please share. Those other things you mention, feel free to share articles for that as well if you have the data at hand.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
if people want, arbitrarily, to use skin color as a basis for race, then why can't hair type be used? And even though that would equally be valid as skin color Afrocentrists would be against it. Why? Because a majority of the world is straight haired, while kinky hair is the minority. And Afrocentrists can't have that as, quite frankly, their approach to science is from a sociological point of view; they want to appear outnumbering whites by claiming all brown skin people as black. Afrocentrists are no different than Eurocentrists, only not as clever with their game.
Posts: 507 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Real tawk: if people want, arbitrarily, to use skin color as a basis for race, then why can't hair type be used? And even though that would equally be valid as skin color Afrocentrists would be against it. Why? Because a majority of the world is straight haired, while kinky hair is the minority. And Afrocentrists can't have that as, quite frankly, their approach to science is from a sociological point of view; they want to appear outnumbering whites by claiming all brown skin people as black. Afrocentrists are no different than Eurocentrists, only not as clever with their game.
Damn, this is pretty bad. 1. Hair cannot be a better indication of race because of how diverse within populations hair type can be and also because it can change dynamically based on environment and time.
2. Majority of world? indians and chinese might shift the balance being as a lot of them have straight hair, however, they aren't in the same race nor due they share a race with straight haired whites.... and if you remove them all together, curly, hyper curly, woolly and kinky hair dominates.
3. The history of science have been approached through a faulty sociological lens, which is why sites like this exists... and there's still some corners that need sweeping.
________________________________
In which world would an ancient population absorbed by a later population be more related to a peripheral population they shared an ancestor with than the former population? - For example, Natufians occupied the Levant and were absorbed by the regions inhabitants. They'll acquire unique mutations, epigenetic traits etc. being away from their southern relatives or whatever and vice versa... It is only natural that they'll be more related to their successors, period.
This is why talking about population reliability seems very very very arbitrary to me on here, I don't understand why we use polymorphisms as it relates to contemporary populations to determine ancient relatedness, its madness.
Natufians will never be more genealogically related to contemporaneous South-Central Africans than North East Africans or Near Easterners. No matter how dramatically different they might look, act, or even speak today in relation.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're an idiot. Race is not scientifically valid. But if people want to play the race game, then hair type is equally as valid as skin color as an indicator of race. You're too short to discuss this with me.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:Originally posted by Real tawk: if people want, arbitrarily, to use skin color as a basis for race, then why can't hair type be used? And even though that would equally be valid as skin color Afrocentrists would be against it. Why? Because a majority of the world is straight haired, while kinky hair is the minority. And Afrocentrists can't have that as, quite frankly, their approach to science is from a sociological point of view; they want to appear outnumbering whites by claiming all brown skin people as black. Afrocentrists are no different than Eurocentrists, only not as clever with their game.
Damn, this is pretty bad. 1. Hair cannot be a better indication of race because of how diverse within populations hair type can be and also because it can change dynamically based on environment and time.
2. Majority of world? indians and chinese might shift the balance being as a lot of them have straight hair, however, they aren't in the same race nor due they share a race with straight haired whites.... and if you remove them all together, curly, hyper curly, woolly and kinky hair dominates.
3. The history of science have been approached through a faulty sociological lens, which is why sites like this exists... and there's still some corners that need sweeping.
________________________________
In which world would an ancient population absorbed by a later population be more related to a peripheral population they shared an ancestor with than the former population? - For example, Natufians occupied the Levant and were absorbed by the regions inhabitants. They'll acquire unique mutations, epigenetic traits etc. being away from their southern relatives or whatever and vice versa... It is only natural that they'll be more related to their successors, period.
This is why talking about population reliability seems very very very arbitrary to me on here, I don't understand why we use polymorphisms as it relates to contemporary populations to determine ancient relatedness, its madness.
Natufians will never be more genealogically related to contemporaneous South-Central Africans than North East Africans or Near Easterners. No matter how dramatically different they might look, act, or even speak today in relation.
quote:Originally posted by Real tawk: You're an idiot. Race is not scientifically valid. But if people want to play the race game, then hair type is equally as valid as skin color as an indicator of race. You're too short to discuss this with me.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:Originally posted by Real tawk: if people want, arbitrarily, to use skin color as a basis for race, then why can't hair type be used? And even though that would equally be valid as skin color Afrocentrists would be against it. Why? Because a majority of the world is straight haired, while kinky hair is the minority. And Afrocentrists can't have that as, quite frankly, their approach to science is from a sociological point of view; they want to appear outnumbering whites by claiming all brown skin people as black. Afrocentrists are no different than Eurocentrists, only not as clever with their game.
Damn, this is pretty bad. 1. Hair cannot be a better indication of race because of how diverse within populations hair type can be and also because it can change dynamically based on environment and time.
2. Majority of world? indians and chinese might shift the balance being as a lot of them have straight hair, however, they aren't in the same race nor due they share a race with straight haired whites.... and if you remove them all together, curly, hyper curly, woolly and kinky hair dominates.
3. The history of science have been approached through a faulty sociological lens, which is why sites like this exists... and there's still some corners that need sweeping.
________________________________
In which world would an ancient population absorbed by a later population be more related to a peripheral population they shared an ancestor with than the former population? - For example, Natufians occupied the Levant and were absorbed by the regions inhabitants. They'll acquire unique mutations, epigenetic traits etc. being away from their southern relatives or whatever and vice versa... It is only natural that they'll be more related to their successors, period.
This is why talking about population reliability seems very very very arbitrary to me on here, I don't understand why we use polymorphisms as it relates to contemporary populations to determine ancient relatedness, its madness.
Natufians will never be more genealogically related to contemporaneous South-Central Africans than North East Africans or Near Easterners. No matter how dramatically different they might look, act, or even speak today in relation.
OKAY i'll just take your word for it!!
Yes those interchangeable hydrogen bonds formed by disulfide bridges are the number one indicator of racial classification... as if simple water cannot manipulate the structural integrity of the loosely coiled Keratin molecule!!! And those straight haired Chinese men can attest to this... for they are indeed Caucasian.... or are Caucasians Asians...?? who knows but they both have straight hair so according to you they must me one in the same!!!
...see the thing is... I don't respect your opinion, and don't believe you can hold a feather too me with this scientific mumbo jumbo... Considering how Awwwweful your above statement was, but I'll give you the go ahead Victory, take it... I have faith that people who read on these boards are smart enough to see bullshit for what it is...
I'll see my way out.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Real tawk: if people want, arbitrarily, to use skin color as a basis for race, then why can't hair type be used? And even though that would equally be valid as skin color Afrocentrists would be against it. Why? Because a majority of the world is straight haired, while kinky hair is the minority. And Afrocentrists can't have that as, quite frankly, their approach to science is from a sociological point of view; they want to appear outnumbering whites by claiming all brown skin people as black. Afrocentrists are no different than Eurocentrists, only not as clever with their game.
quote:Physical variations in any given trait tend to occur gradually rather than abruptly over geographic areas. And because physical traits are inherited independently of one another, knowing the range of one trait does not predict the presence of others. For example, skin color varies largely from light in the temperate areas in the north to dark in the tropical areas in the south; its intensity is not related to nose shape or hair texture. Dark skin may be associated with frizzy or kinky hair or curly or wavy or straight hair, all of which are found among different indigenous peoples in tropical regions. These facts render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective.
quote: Unlike EDAR 1540C allele, no extended LD was observed from rs4752566-T allele of FGFR2 in CHB+JPT (Figures 1b and c), suggesting that the higher population frequency of rs4752566-T in CHB+JPT than YRI and CEU has not been attained by recent positive selection. As rs4752566-T is observed in YRI (Table 1), a mutation of rs4752566-T appears to predate the ‘out-of-Africa’ event of modern humans. Thus, high interpopulation differentiation of rs4752566 may have been caused by random genetic drift, although it is difficult to fully exclude the possibility of positive selection having acted in ancestors of East Asian origin because the extended LD, as a signature of positive selection, is difficult to be detected for a standing allele such as rs4752566-T.6
As EDAR 1540C allele is almost absent in African and European ancestors,7 the mutation is considered to have occurred in the ancestors of Asian after the split from the ancestors of European origin. Thus, the possibility of local adaptation or positive selection related to hair thickness in non-Asian populations could not be discussed in our previous study.2, 3 If thicker hair is always advantageous in humans, an allele associated with thicker hair is expected to be highly frequent in all the populations where it exists. The rs4752566-T allele, which was found to be associated with hair thickness has lower population frequency in YRI and CEU (Table 1), implying that thicker hair may have been less advantageous in the African and European than in East Asian populations or selection intensity may be different among populations.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: I'm not quite sure we can that those Abu Sir mummies were black in the multitude.
The Mathilda crowed would say that Herishef Hotep of Abu Sir is like 2300 BC. I dismissed this as them rolling back the Grecko-Roman dates and had no idea Abu Sir was Fayum. Remember Tut and Seti's mummies were also jet black.
From p27.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Don't know anything about the ownership, provenance, or authenticity of that mask in particular.
There are other pasty colored cartonnages. A striking one is female, the hair is massive.
To see a full range of these from brown to cream GOOGLE
cartonnage mummy mask
switch to image search.
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
Tukuler do you have any other information about the orovenance of this mask? I've seen Eurocentrists post it several times in favor of Nordic Egypt and would like to know just where it came from if possible
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: Most of the cartonnage mask are from the Greko-Roman period. Many are dated in the AD.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mummy mask of Gemniemhat; 11th dynasty ( 2125-1985 BCE)
Mummy mask of Herishef-Hotep, serving at the funeral temple of Pharaoh Niuserre, Abusir, today: Egyptian Museum of the University of Leipzig(1st Intermediate Period, 2216 – 2025 B. C., Source: Krauspe, R. (Hrsg.): Das Ägyptische Museum der Universität Leipzig, Mainz 1997, image 50)
Mummy mask, Egyptian Middle Kingdom, Dynasty 11 to early Dynasty 12 2140–1926 B.C.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lioness, if memory serves me quite a few of those I checked and they were lower Egyptian. Quite a few from Saqqara.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Mummy mask of Gemniemhat; 11th dynasty ( 2125-1985 BCE)
Mummy mask of Herishef-Hotep, serving at the funeral temple of Pharaoh Niuserre, Abusir, today: Egyptian Museum of the University of Leipzig(1st Intermediate Period, 2216 – 2025 B. C., Source: Krauspe, R. (Hrsg.): Das Ägyptische Museum der Universität Leipzig, Mainz 1997, image 50)
Mummy mask, Egyptian Middle Kingdom, Dynasty 11 to early Dynasty 12 2140–1926 B.C.
Knowing what I know today, considering these cartonnages' era and provenance, I'd risk declaring them accurate, within reason portraits of the politically dominant members of Herakleopolitan Egypt.
Unless it's ancient propaganda, one Herakleopolitan ruler, Merykara, is buried in Saqqara's royal cemetary.
The Teachings for King Merikare shows refined Egyptian 'Wisdom' in the North too.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Mummy mask of Gemniemhat; 11th dynasty ( 2125-1985 BCE)
Mummy mask of Herishef-Hotep, serving at the funeral temple of Pharaoh Niuserre, Abusir, today: Egyptian Museum of the University of Leipzig(1st Intermediate Period, 2216 – 2025 B. C., Source: Krauspe, R. (Hrsg.): Das Ägyptische Museum der Universität Leipzig, Mainz 1997, image 50)
Mummy mask, Egyptian Middle Kingdom, Dynasty 11 to early Dynasty 12 2140–1926 B.C.
These are funeral caskets, you have to interpret them as such.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Most of these are in the Ägyptisches Museum Leipzig Germany.
Many of the famous tomb models we know of in Egyptian art including the Nubian archers and Egyptian soldiers models and the images of weavers and other scenes come from the Middle Kingdom.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
It's like this DougM I'm not embarrassed by the word black. I'm not ashamed that I'm black. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9udq_pM-C08 Even though I'm a red tigger.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The thing that gets me is when folks pretend that we live in a "new era" of science where everything is fact based and objective.
Please.
Never said that. What I said is that no one's politics wins in science, regardless of who the politically-motivated people are who are professing to do science.
For instance, no one's politics wins with this:
You and other "tropically adapted"/skin colour Afrocentrics definitely lose, and Eurocentrics definitely lose.
I don't see how saying that politics have no place in science means that academics is clean now. It just means that no one's pre-conceived politics wins in science and that people like you are part of the problem and should be purged from science. You can do your political speeches in political forums and venues. That's what they're for. But you have nothing to do with science. You can pretend to be dumb in regards to this all you want and appeal to ridicule. Joke is on you.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The thing that gets me is when folks pretend that we live in a "new era" of science where everything is fact based and objective.
Please.
Never said that. What I said is that no one's politics wins in science, regardless of who the politically-motivated people are who are professing to do science.
For instance, no one's politics wins with this:
You and other "tropically adapted"/skin colour Afrocentrics definitely lose, and Eurocentrics definitely lose.
I don't see how saying that politics have no place in science means that academics is clean now. It just means that no one's pre-conceived politics wins in science and that people like you are part of the problem and should be purged from science. You can do your political speeches in political forums and venues. That's what they're for. But you have nothing to do with science. You can pretend to be dumb in regards to this all you want and appeal to ridicule. Joke is on you.
Come on Swenet. Nobody is consulting you on when t is "appropriate" to use the term black.
quote: The first modern Britons, who lived about 10,000 years ago, had “dark to black” skin, a groundbreaking DNA analysis of Britain’s oldest complete skeleton has revealed.
The fossil, known as Cheddar Man, was unearthed more than a century ago in Gough’s Cave in Somerset. Intense speculation has built up around Cheddar Man’s origins and appearance because he lived shortly after the first settlers crossed from continental Europe to Britain at the end of the last ice age. People of white British ancestry alive today are descendants of this population.
The people who created the skin color of Cheddar man weren't following your "rules of skin color discourse". They did it because they felt it was a valid term.
Yet even they addressed the POLITICS of skin color in their findings.....
quote: Tom Booth, an archaeologist at the Natural History Museum who worked on the project, said: “It really shows up that these imaginary racial categories that we have are really very modern constructions, or very recent constructions, that really are not applicable to the past at all.”
Yoan Diekmann, a computational biologist at University College London and another member of the project’s team, agreed, saying the connection often drawn between Britishness and whiteness was “not an immutable truth. It has always changed and will change”.
Yet even after all of that they STILL used the term black. So how bout that? So much for that "black is nonscientific" theory.
And if black is a valid term for "Eurasians" then how is it not valid for Africans in Africa?
Your oddball logic is ridiculous.
At the end of the day nobody is asking you for permission on when to be racist, when to be political or when to use the words they want to use.
And to be honest I thought Europeans saying their ancestors were black was a "win" for Afrocentrics.... but what do I know.
So much for blacks clustering together.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: And to be honest I thought Europeans saying their ancestors were black was a "win" for Afrocentrics.... but what do I know.
I've come to the conclusion that people like you are beyond saving.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: I haven't heard Doug say Cheddar Man was black, why is that?
Because Rev. Doug M. knows the implications, even if he plays stupid.
If the whole world was equally dark as dynastic Egyptians, then Afrocentism has nothing to establish commonality anymore based on skin pigmentation. This then puts the spotlight on aDNA as the main source of follow-up answers, since it allows us to test where dark skin is linked to African ancestry (and if so, to what degree) and where it isn't. And this complicates the narrative for Rev. Doug M., because now he can't point to an Egyptian mural and say they were his kind of 'black'. Dark skin on murals become inadmissible evidence, and lose appeal, if the whole world was 'black' up until the Neolithic.
But we gon' let Rev. Doug M. figure it out. He'll get the memo in 2050. He also still thinks OOA is Afrocentric. I bet he thinks that the recently sampled Taforalt being 36% SSA-like is a win for Afrocentrism, too.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: I haven't heard Doug say Cheddar Man was black, why is that?
Because Rev. Doug M. knows the implications, even if he plays stupid.
If the whole world was equally dark as dynastic Egyptians, then Afrocentism has nothing to establish commonality anymore based on skin pigmentation. This then puts the spotlight on aDNA as the main source of follow-up answers, since it allows us to test where dark skin is linked to African ancestry (and if so, to what degree) and where it isn't. And this complicates the narrative for Rev. Doug M., because now he can't point to an Egyptian mural and say they were his kind of 'black'. Dark skin on murals become inadmissible evidence, and lose appeal, if the whole world was 'black' up until the Neolithic.
But we gon' let Rev. Doug M. figure it out. He'll get the memo in 2050. He also still thinks OOA is Afrocentric. I bet he thinks that the recently sampled Taforalt being 36% SSA-like is a win for Afrocentrism, too.
What the hell? Do you know what Afrocentric even means? It means all humans came from Africa along with culture, civilization and everything else. How does OOA disprove that? And the African scholars who first made this claim long before science actually supported it with DNA said that this disproves the lies of European history. Why don't you stop pretending to know what you are talking about? The only thing you are proving is that you HATE African scholars but love European scholars no matter how much they have lied and continue to lie and have been racist and continue to be racist I don't see you spending anywhere near the amount of time critizing and calling out them on their falsifications but you spend a whole lot of time worried about what comes out the mouths of black folks.
Obviously if THEY THEMSELVES say that Cheddar man was black, what do I have to do with it? They prove MY point which is people in the scientific community ABSOLUTELY use the term black when they feel like it and not because they are worried about being political. It also shows you don't have to cluster with West Africans genetically to be called black as well.
So again, I don't see how you are spinning this as justification NOT to use black in Africa. I mean if ancient EURASIANS can have black skin and be called black then OBVIOUSLY so can ancient Africans. So called "Eurasian" DNA has nothing to do with it.
The only ACTUAL value of this reconstruction of Cheddar man is it shows the PROCESS by which they determine the skin color of ancient remains. They weren't just being 'artistic' when they came up with this skin color, unlike what was done in other cases, like Tutankhamun. And it also shows that determining skin color is part of bioanthropology. Everything else is just Swenet spinning trying to pretend "Swenets standards of everything related to what is and isnt black" are important but they don't apply and have no relevance. Now Swenet is just being dumb just to argue. Once this team used "SCIENCE" to determine the skin color of Cheddar man everything else Swenet has been saying went out the window. But he continues despite this. Dumb meaning that black skin he still contents that black skin in ancient Europe disproves black skin in Africa. You can't even be serious on this point. Or more specifically EEF related populations in Africa couldn't have black skin. Did you even read what they said about his skin color and where it came from?
quote: The results pointed to a Middle Eastern origin for Cheddar Man, suggesting that his ancestors would have left Africa, moved into the Middle East and later headed west into Europe, before eventually crossing the ancient land bridge called Doggerland which connected Britain to continental Europe. Today, about 10% of white British ancestry can be linked to this ancient population.
Not to mention:
quote: The team homed in on genes known to be linked to skin colour, hair colour and texture, and eye colour. For skin tone, there are a handful of genetic variants linked to reduced pigmentation, including some that are very widespread in European populations today. However, Cheddar Man had “ancestral” versions of all these genes, strongly suggesting he would have had “dark to black” skin tone, but combined with blue eyes.
This is unlike what they did for Tutankhamun and Nefertiti. The same process can and should be done for those reconstructions. The mummies are there and surely have the same DNA that can be used to do the skin color determination. My point is they DONT WANT to have an accurate determination of skin color because they want the AE to be white. But surely Swenet knows this but he rather focus on "Afrocentrics" because he cant ever bring himself to say that European science and its institutions have a "political agenda" which historically includes racism..... But you are going to say something about me and Egyptian art yet have nothing to say when modern reconstructions of AE are done and they use "artistic license" to depict them as white and you have absolutely no problem with that. How is one form of art better than the other? I take the ancient artists work as more credible than some artist 4000 years later.
I asked you before what "standard" defines black in your opinion and you had no answer. But science DOES have an answer you just don't want to admit that what you are talking about has nothing to do with science.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
You know the deal. Build a strawman, knock it down.
University degreed bona fide Afrocentrics don't do much history and no genetics at all. You'd think even an ambitious 'capo' would correct the white mainstream media's deliberate fucked up application of Afrocentric to mean anything other than what the PhD Afrocentrics define their discipline.
And so, along with the new poster who asked, I await detractors to name and quote these blamed Afrocentrics.
They just use Afrocentric as a boogie man to scare folks into agreement or else be made fun of. They don't know shit about Afrocentricity. They can't tell you one major premise and back it up with a citation from a BA MS or PhD holding Afrocentric.
Equating internet eccentrics and 'its all black' rooraggers to Afrocentrics is no different than taking the Pyramidiots for Egyptologists Arkeologists for Archaelogists Creationists for Cosmologist.
But threatening children with the spook in the closet, the ogre under the bed, or the toilet monster works and people are scared stupid of these big black bad (nameless) Afrocentrics.
posted
Doug what does the skin color of ancient EUROPEANS have anything to do with Africans or for that matter you? You do realize that these ancient Eurasians were distinct from Africans and became modern White Europeans?
How is that a win for Afrocentrism?? These people had nothing to with Africa same way an Australian Aboriginal has nothing to do with Africa...smh
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [QUOTE]
And to be honest I thought Europeans saying their ancestors were black was a "win" for Afrocentrics.... but what do I know.
So much for blacks clustering together.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
In line of the DNA from Abu Sier, and they date to the 11th Dynast?
Mummy mask of Gemniemhat; 11th dynasty ( 2125-1985 BCE)
Mummy mask of Herishef-Hotep, serving at the funeral temple of Pharaoh Niuserre, Abusir, today: Egyptian Museum of the University of Leipzig(1st Intermediate Period, 2216 – 2025 B. C., Source: Krauspe, R. (Hrsg.): Das Ägyptische Museum der Universität Leipzig, Mainz 1997, image 50)
Mummy mask, Egyptian Middle Kingdom, Dynasty 11 to early Dynasty 12 2140–1926 B.C.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Doug what does the skin color of ancient EUROPEANS have anything to do with Africans or for that matter you? You do realize that these ancient Eurasians were distinct from Africans and became modern White Europeans?
How is that a win for Afrocentrism?? These people had nothing to with Africa same way an Australian Aboriginal has nothing to do with Africa...smh
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [QUOTE]
And to be honest I thought Europeans saying their ancestors were black was a "win" for Afrocentrics.... but what do I know.
So much for blacks clustering together.
Jari, that wasn't the point. To be fair this is part of a long back and forth that Swenet and I have been having on the issue on the use of the term black as "valid" in bioanthropology.
The point of Cheddar Man being a "win" for Afrocentrism is obvious. It is another line of evidence that all humans originated from Africa and one primary sign of that was black skin. Don't pretend you don't understand this. The people who did the reconstruction say this themselves. Why don't you read the article?
No need to try and put words in my mouth. I know what I am speaking to and about.
The issue was whether the word "black" is valid in bioanthropology. Period. Obviously it is valid because the people who did the Cheddar Man reconstruction used it. Stop pretending that somehow scientists avoid the term because they feel it is political. No they don't.
Any other nonsensical associations with anonymous Afrocentrics and what they said has nothing to do with it.
As for the mummy masks, already addressed. Scroll up. Read the thread.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are these real???!! They had some suoer fine razors back then for that shave. These guys look so "modern". Nothing has changed to now. Someone needs to run done these statues. Verify they are real.I don't think they are.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Doug what do you make of these....
In line of the DNA from Abu Sier, and they date to the 11th Dynast?
Mummy mask of Gemniemhat; 11th dynasty ( 2125-1985 BCE)
Mummy mask of Herishef-Hotep, serving at the funeral temple of Pharaoh Niuserre, Abusir, today: Egyptian Museum of the University of Leipzig(1st Intermediate Period, 2216 – 2025 B. C., Source: Krauspe, R. (Hrsg.): Das Ägyptische Museum der Universität Leipzig, Mainz 1997, image 50)
Mummy mask, Egyptian Middle Kingdom, Dynasty 11 to early Dynasty 12 2140–1926 B.C.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Are these real???!! They had some suoer fine razors back then for that shave. These guys look so "modern". Nothing has changed to now. Someone needs to run done these statues. Verify they are real.I don't think they are.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Doug what do you make of these....
In line of the DNA from Abu Sier, and they date to the 11th Dynast?
Mummy mask of Gemniemhat; 11th dynasty ( 2125-1985 BCE)
Mummy mask of Herishef-Hotep, serving at the funeral temple of Pharaoh Niuserre, Abusir, today: Egyptian Museum of the University of Leipzig(1st Intermediate Period, 2216 – 2025 B. C., Source: Krauspe, R. (Hrsg.): Das Ägyptische Museum der Universität Leipzig, Mainz 1997, image 50)
Mummy mask, Egyptian Middle Kingdom, Dynasty 11 to early Dynasty 12 2140–1926 B.C.
Last I checked the same style of mummy cases were used in the tomb of the two brothers. A recent study described the biological affiliation of the two mummies. The mummy cases had nothing to do with how they looked. During the middle kingdom this "style" of mummy case was popular. During other periods other "styles" of cases were common.
Also, pointing out the obvious again since people keep skipping it. The significance of Cheddar man is they used actual DNA for skin color to make the reconstruction. This is totally the OPPOSITE of what they do with most reconstructions, especially in AE..
quote: Dr Campbell Price, Curator of Egypt and Sudan at Manchester Museum, said: 'The University of Manchester, and Manchester Museum in particular, has a long history of research on ancient Egyptian human remains.
'Our reconstructions will always be speculative to some extent but to be able to link these two men in this way is an exciting first.'
Now if European bioanthropologists can use DNA to determine skin color of European remains, then so too should they use it in AE. But for now mostly they use "speculation". Their words not mine.
As for this mess about "black power" politics leave me out of that nonsense. "Power" is a relative term and not "fixed" in time or space. Europeans didn't have "white power" 5,000 years ago. The concept didn't exist and neither did "black power". Those concepts have absolutely nothing to do with history and anthropology. Showing the blackness of the AE is not going to change the overall situation and position of black people in the world today. Anybody that believes that is stupid. This is no different than saying that learning the ancient history of Yorubas or Central Africa is going to suddenly change the situation of those areas today. It is an absurd point of view no matter who holds it. It is no better than believing Wakanda is going to save black folks from racism.
My study of History and anthropology is a hobby. I go where the facts lead me. This is not to score "political" points because science is not politics and I am no politician.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
The only ACTUAL value of this reconstruction of Cheddar man is it shows the PROCESS by which they determine the skin color of ancient remains. They weren't just being 'artistic' when they came up with this skin color, unlike what was done in other cases, like Tutankhamun.
The skin color of the Cheddar man reconstruction is brown.
Therefore if the scientists then use the term "black" or "white" in the article and then they lie and try to pretend actual objectively observed colors such as brown do not exist then they are then using an unscientific social constructed racial terms. These lies are very deeply ingrained in our society. Would a Japanese person who had skin color as light as the typical modern European ever be called white in an article? No because "black" like "white" is a stereotype racial color modern Europeans aren't literally white. So the fact that something is in a scientific article doesn't make it true. It is still a lie and in any other science article if they were talking about an object that was not a human being they would not call a brown object having the tone of the Cheddar man "black". The terms "black" and "white" are supported by the U.S. government in census reports and policy yet there is no way to measure if somebody fits into these categories and they go by how people self identify which is completely subjective.
As regards to the National geographic Tutankhamun reconstruction you say that the skin color was determined by the artists whim. That could be true. I'm not sure about it. But did they use DNA analysis to determine that his skin color or was none used ? I don't know
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Jari, that wasn't the point. To be fair this is part of a long back and forth that Swenet and I have been having on the issue on the use of the term black as "valid" in bioanthropology.
The point of Cheddar Man being a "win" for Afrocentrism is obvious. It is another line of evidence that all humans originated from Africa and one primary sign of that was black skin. Don't pretend you don't understand this. The people who did the reconstruction say this themselves. Why don't you read the article?
No need to try and put words in my mouth. I know what I am speaking to and about.
Any other nonsensical associations with anonymous Afrocentrics and what they said has nothing to do with it.
As for the mummy masks, already addressed. Scroll up. Read the thread.
Notice how Rev. Doug always fetishizes Europeans. When he vents about them he portrays them as omnipotent masterminds bending the course of history with everyone else just being passive figurants, and when he thinks two Europeans agree with him on the use of 'black', the words of whites are to be taken as gospel all of a sudden. Now they're beacons of truth on all things 'black' all of a sudden.
But I thought the unifying theme of Doug's sermons was to declare Europeans as conspiring to distort the 'real' meaning of 'black'. That is what Rev. Doug said throughout this thread. But now they're sources to be relied upon. As usual, Rev. Doug operates 100% in politics, and his sermons are complete with shameless flip flops. Can't even apply some consistency in whether or not to use European sources when it comes to 'black'.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The issue was whether the word "black" is valid in bioanthropology. Period. Obviously it is valid because the people who did the Cheddar Man reconstruction used it. Stop pretending that somehow scientists avoid the term because they feel it is political. No they don't.
The discussion wasn't about whether the word 'black' is valid in science. The issue was that the public widely uses 'black' in a racial sense, and that many Africans fall outside of the boat in this racial use of the term. Rev. Doug's response to this was politics as usual, in that he insisted, contrary to reality, that there was only a skin colour use of 'black', and that a racial use of 'black' doesn't exist.
Of course, I caught Rev. Doug red-handed contradicting himself on this issue. See how he contradicts himself here by admitting that there IS a racial use of the term 'black' that is divorced from skin colour:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: That is why the reconstruction has a strong "black African look" with a light skin tone.
So, let me get this right. You engaged in a 28 page discussion filled with rants, only to casually abandon everything you said you stood for? Remember what you said. You said that you acknowledge no definition of 'black' other than the one that describes a level of skin pigmentation. Someone has some 'splainin to do.
But to reiterate, at no point was it ever a point of contention whether or not 'black' is valid in bioanthropology. We never talked about that here, and if we did, I certainly never denied that a purely skin pigmentation use of the term 'black' could be scientific. But Rev. Doug is definitely not an example of using 'black' in a purely skin pigmentation way. See his cognitive dissonance-fueled tapdancing when it comes to admitting prehistoric Europeans were black in this sense. So no, Doug is definitely not using 'black' in a purely skin pigmentation-based manner. This is why his brain fries when you ask him if prehistoric Europeans were 'black'. It's also why I was able to catch him red-handed using 'black' racially.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Yeah, this thread is so getting locked. It has served its purpose since the first three pages. And ever since its been nothing but meaningless back and forth that has not gotten anywhere. As the original thread creator I am doing this since my original question has been answered.
41 pages is enough. There are much more interesting topics to be discussed on here currently.
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic