The insane Anglo must be stupid too if he doesn't realize that the very racial concept of "caucasian" is itself a Eurocentric concept and is the very crux of Eurocentric thought thus proving Eurocentrism itslef! LOL
Hey Ish, where is the man below from?
He reminds me of Thutmose IV
Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I'm not mistaken he's a sahrawi or another type in north Africa.minor but the head shape is not exact, the mummies forehead is sloping while the guys appears vertical.
Posts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: There is no getting around the fact that the Upper Egyptians stem from a common origin with 'Nubians'; created the ancient Egyptian civilization; and were the dominant majority in ancient Egypt, so your desperate references to Lower Egypt are ultimately self-defeating.
You can't even begin to challenge the facts of Upper Egypt's biological affinities and since they were the source of the civilization and the demographic majority... you lose.
Sudaniya, even Lower Egypt cannot help the insane Anglo.
Behold:
[of remains in the Fayum]The body was that of a 40 year old woman with a height of 1.6 meters, who was of a more modern racial type than the classic "Mechtoid" of the Fakhurian culture, being generally gracile, having large teeth and thick jaws bearing some resemblance to the modern "negroid' type. (Beatrix Midant-Reynes, The Prehistory of Egypt)
The prognathism observed in the skulls from Maadi south and Heliopolis may or may not indicate the infiltration of a negroid strain into the northern region. (William C. Hayes, Most Ancient Egypt)
The dead were buried in a cemetery outside the settlement, but very poorly furnished at Maadi. At Heliopolis, where the cemetery alone is so far known, the funerary gifts are slightly richer and the orientation more regular--head to the south facing east. The bodies were wrapped in skins or papyrus mats. Gazelles and dogs were also ceremonially buried in the cemetery. In both cases the skeletons belong to taller and stouter folk than the predynastic inhabitants of Upper Egypt. But the Heliopolis skulls display a distinct prognathism which is generally reckoned a negroid feature, while even those from Maadi are pentagonoid like other predynastic crania. Neither site, therefore, shows the Giza type that is prominent in Early Pharaonic and Old Kingdom Graves. (V. Gordon Childe, New Light on the Most Ancient East)
Moving to the opposite geographic extremity, the very small sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty(Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline of variation along the Nile Valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans. (Barry Kemp, Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation)
LOLPosts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
I don't believe Thutmose the 4th resembles that man in question above Djehuti. Mainly because of the prognathism, with thutIV being much more prognathic. Also where the columella meets the superior philtrum; the area where the skin lays over the nasal bridge is angled differently. I remember pointing this out in the past; when we assign an "Aquiline" phenotype of a mummy with deteriorated soft tissue, we overlook key differences between populations. Particularly when samples between populations share a high bridge. One of them is the apex of the nose, on Thutmose it is far higher than that of the man in question, exposing much more of his nostrils from and anterior or profiled veiw which is also partially due to the difference prognathism as well.
just my 2 cents.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: [qb] There is no getting around the fact that the Upper Egyptians stem from a common origin with 'Nubians'; created the ancient Egyptian civilization; and were the dominant majority in ancient Egypt, so your desperate references to Lower Egypt are ultimately self-defeating.
You can't even begin to challenge the facts of Upper Egypt's biological affinities and since they were the source of the civilization and the demographic majority... you lose.
Sudaniya, even Lower Egypt cannot help the insane Anglo.
Behold:
[of remains in the Fayum]The body was that of a 40 year old woman with a height of 1.6 meters, who was of a more modern racial type than the classic "Mechtoid" of the Fakhurian culture, being generally gracile, having large teeth and thick jaws bearing some resemblance to the modern "negroid' type. (Beatrix Midant-Reynes, The Prehistory of Egypt)
The prognathism observed in the skulls from Maadi south and Heliopolis may or may not indicate the infiltration of a negroid strain into the northern region. (William C. Hayes, Most Ancient Egypt)
The dead were buried in a cemetery outside the settlement, but very poorly furnished at Maadi. At Heliopolis, where the cemetery alone is so far known, the funerary gifts are slightly richer and the orientation more regular--head to the south facing east. The bodies were wrapped in skins or papyrus mats. Gazelles and dogs were also ceremonially buried in the cemetery. In both cases the skeletons belong to taller and stouter folk than the predynastic inhabitants of Upper Egypt. But the Heliopolis skulls display a distinct prognathism which is generally reckoned a negroid feature, while even those from Maadi are pentagonoid like other predynastic crania. Neither site, therefore, shows the Giza type that is prominent in Early Pharaonic and Old Kingdom Graves. (V. Gordon Childe, New Light on the Most Ancient East)
Those quotes are worthless because they're discussing so few traits/variables. None of those Lower Egyptian crania show strong craniometric ties to Sub-Saharan African populations in multivariate studies that take into account 57 measurements (the standard figure used by Howells and the FORDISC programme); another example is Natufian skulls that have "negroid" features if you focus on selective features of their crania, but when many measurements were taken by Howells (covering all landmarks of the skull), he found the closest Natufian match is with Zalavar (medieval Hungarians). Natufians aren't overall similar to Sub-Saharan Africans. And the Kemp thing I've covered many times already.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's funny how Atlantid keeps insisting that he believes AE were biologically indigenous Africans while simultaneously asserting they were tan-skinned like Arabs. He seems to have missed out on the recent findings that those North Africans who have lighter skin carry West Eurasian alleles for lighter skin that would have evolved little earlier than 20 kya, and didn't even become widespread outside of northern Europe until ~5 kya.
Unless there's a separate, indigenous North African allele for lighter skin out there that I'm not aware of, he'll have to explain why all the tan-skinned North Africans have so many of these West Eurasian alleles if he thinks they're biologically African to the same degree as he concedes the AEs were.
quote: The fact remains no one has ever argued (a) Early Dynastic Egyptian civilization was created by European migrants or (b) that ancient Egyptians were white skinned.
I see we're going in circles:
a.
quote:Eurocentrism does not require people to say the Egyptians had features most common to Northern Europeans. It simply means that a person is trying to describe the origins of AE in a way that involves Europeans or to support other racist political interests Eurocentrism supports such as Africa being incapable of independence.
b.
quote: No one HAS to argue the Egyptians were literally white skinned to argue they were white and connected to modern Europeans. Many white people are not literally white skinned. White people can for example have olive complexions.
(Indo)European ancestors were not uniformly within the European peninsula 3000 BC. Many lived near the middle east which is why it's so tempting for Eurocentrics to discuss a wandering group of "Eurasians" or "Asiatics" that would've made supposed back migrations the Africans would've relied upon for their civilization.
quote:I don't see "Eurocentrism". What you're talking about is Asiatic/Dynastic race theory, or Hamiticism. Both are dead in academia.
I agree that an indigenous African origin that was not "distinct" from the rest of Africa is becoming increasingly accepted. This does NOT mean however that "Caucasoid" "Eurasian" and other such fictional identities have completely left. http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009537;p=1
quote: Virtually no scholar today is arguing ancient Egyptian civilization was made by 'Caucasoids' from southwest Asia. Among layperson's there also has been a shift to abandon the antiquated Caucasoid/Hamitic theories, hence I have observed this on forums over the past 5 years.
Whatever dude. Still got people trying to push the idea AE and Europeans shared common ancestry. The media will push this type of misinformation often. but they seem less excited to cover data that places AE in Africa. While these theories are less popular, white supremacists will still cling to whatever they think will support their diffusion/new race theories to hold onto mental images of a dependent Africa and/or De Africanize KMT and it's achievements.
quote:Gliddon himself in the 19th century changed his views to argue ancient Egyptian civilization was an indigenous development. These Caucasoid/Hamitic theories were already losing proponents over a century ago.
You can keep saying he changed his views, but like I said changing a view is not the same as proving he never had it. You said Eurocentrism never existed remember?
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
The insane Anglo must be stupid too if he doesn't realize that the very racial concept of "caucasian" is itself a Eurocentric concept and is the very crux of Eurocentric thought thus proving Eurocentrism itslef! LOL
Hey Ish, where is the man below from?
He reminds me of Thutmose IV
Western Sahara, Sahrawi.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: [qb] There is no getting around the fact that the Upper Egyptians stem from a common origin with 'Nubians'; created the ancient Egyptian civilization; and were the dominant majority in ancient Egypt, so your desperate references to Lower Egypt are ultimately self-defeating.
You can't even begin to challenge the facts of Upper Egypt's biological affinities and since they were the source of the civilization and the demographic majority... you lose.
Sudaniya, even Lower Egypt cannot help the insane Anglo.
Behold:
[of remains in the Fayum]The body was that of a 40 year old woman with a height of 1.6 meters, who was of a more modern racial type than the classic "Mechtoid" of the Fakhurian culture, being generally gracile, having large teeth and thick jaws bearing some resemblance to the modern "negroid' type. (Beatrix Midant-Reynes, The Prehistory of Egypt)
The prognathism observed in the skulls from Maadi south and Heliopolis may or may not indicate the infiltration of a negroid strain into the northern region. (William C. Hayes, Most Ancient Egypt)
The dead were buried in a cemetery outside the settlement, but very poorly furnished at Maadi. At Heliopolis, where the cemetery alone is so far known, the funerary gifts are slightly richer and the orientation more regular--head to the south facing east. The bodies were wrapped in skins or papyrus mats. Gazelles and dogs were also ceremonially buried in the cemetery. In both cases the skeletons belong to taller and stouter folk than the predynastic inhabitants of Upper Egypt. But the Heliopolis skulls display a distinct prognathism which is generally reckoned a negroid feature, while even those from Maadi are pentagonoid like other predynastic crania. Neither site, therefore, shows the Giza type that is prominent in Early Pharaonic and Old Kingdom Graves. (V. Gordon Childe, New Light on the Most Ancient East)
Those quotes are worthless because they're discussing so few traits/variables. None of those Lower Egyptian crania show strong craniometric ties to Sub-Saharan African populations in multivariate studies that take into account 57 measurements (the standard figure used by Howells and the FORDISC programme); another example is Natufian skulls that have "negroid" features if you focus on selective features of their crania, but when many measurements were taken by Howells (covering all landmarks of the skull), he found the closest Natufian match is with Zalavar (medieval Hungarians). Natufians aren't overall similar to Sub-Saharan Africans. And the Kemp thing I've covered many times already.
Natufians related to people from Central Sudan and not all sub Saharan are the same stereotype.
Stop steering with your alternate facts.
quote:Ofer Bar-Yosef cites the microburin technique and “microlithic forms such as arched backed bladelets and La Mouillah points" as well as the parthenocarpic figs found in Natufian territory originated in the Sudan.
--Bar-Yosef O., Pleistocene connections between Africa and South West Asia: an archaeological perspective. The African Archaeological Review; Chapter 5, pg 29-38; Kislev ME, Hartmann A, Bar-Yosef O, Early domesticated fig in the Jordan Valley. Nature 312:1372–1374.
quote:Christopher Ehret noted that the intensive use of plants among the Natufians was first found in Africa, as a precursor to the development of farming in the Fertile Crescent.
--Ehret (2002) The Civilizations of Africa: A History to 1800. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia
quote:
In addition, the Neolithic revolution was assumed to arise in the late Pleistocene Natufians and subsequently spread into Anatolia and Europe (Bar-Yosef 2002), and the first Anatolian farmers, Neolithic to Bronze Age Mediterraneans and to some degree other Neolithic-Bronze Age Europeans, show morphological affinities with the Natufians (and indirectly with sub-Saharan populations; Angel 1972; Brace et al. 2005), in concordance with a process of demie diffusion accompanying the extension of the Neolithic revolution (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994)."
---Cranial Discrete Traits in a Byzantine Population and Eastern Mediterranean Population Movements F. X. Ricaut, M. Waelkens. Human Biology, Volume 80, Number 5, October 2008, pp. 535-564
"Zalavar (medieval Hungarians)," are you sure there were no Northern Sudanese Southern Egyptian African soldiers there? This was a bidirectional process:
Magyarab's in where in Southern Egypt as well as in Hungary. I have been there. And I have seen the kind of people that live there. This was before I knew this history.
quote: According to legend, Christian Hungarians who had only recently been brought under the control of the Ottoman Empire formed a part of the Ottoman army that was fighting in southern Egypt. Evidently, a portion or the entirety of the fighting unit remained there and intermarried with the local Nubian women.
According to local Magyarabs, their ancestor was Ibrahim el-Magyar, a general who came from Buda (present-day Budapest) in 1517, he married with a local Nubian woman, they had a son called Ali, Ali had five sons: Selabi, Mustafa, Djelaleddin, Musa and Iksa, Ali's five sons were the ancestor of all Magyarabs. Magyarabs are the members of the World Federation of Hungarians (Magyarok Világszövetsége) since 1992 and still consider themselves as Hungarians.
They were not discovered by Europeans until 1935, when László Almásy, himself a Magyar, and his co-worker, the German engineer and explorer Hansjoachim von der Esch, happened upon their tribe in the Nubian region.
Representatives of the tribes had attempted to make contact with Hungarian officials, but were unable to do so because of the outbreak of World War II.
quote: The fact remains no one has ever argued (a) Early Dynastic Egyptian civilization was created by European migrants or (b) that ancient Egyptians were white skinned.
I see we're going in circles:
a.
quote:Eurocentrism does not require people to say the Egyptians had features most common to Northern Europeans. It simply means that a person is trying to describe the origins of AE in a way that involves Europeans or to support other racist political interests Eurocentrism supports such as Africa being incapable of independence.
b.
quote: No one HAS to argue the Egyptians were literally white skinned to argue they were white and connected to modern Europeans. Many white people are not literally white skinned. White people can for example have olive complexions.
(Indo)European ancestors were not uniformly within the European peninsula 3000 BC. Many lived near the middle east which is why it's so tempting for Eurocentrics to discuss a wandering group of "Eurasians" or "Asiatics" that would've made supposed back migrations the Africans would've relied upon for their civilization.
quote:I don't see "Eurocentrism". What you're talking about is Asiatic/Dynastic race theory, or Hamiticism. Both are dead in academia.
I agree that an indigenous African origin that was not "distinct" from the rest of Africa is becoming increasingly accepted. This does NOT mean however that "Caucasoid" "Eurasian" and other such fictional identities have completely left. http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009537;p=1
quote: Virtually no scholar today is arguing ancient Egyptian civilization was made by 'Caucasoids' from southwest Asia. Among layperson's there also has been a shift to abandon the antiquated Caucasoid/Hamitic theories, hence I have observed this on forums over the past 5 years.
Whatever dude. Still got people trying to push the idea AE and Europeans shared common ancestry. The media will push this type of misinformation often. but they seem less excited to cover data that places AE in Africa. While these theories are less popular, white supremacists will still cling to whatever they think will support their diffusion/new race theories to hold onto mental images of a dependent Africa and/or De Africanize KMT and it's achievements.
quote:Gliddon himself in the 19th century changed his views to argue ancient Egyptian civilization was an indigenous development. These Caucasoid/Hamitic theories were already losing proponents over a century ago.
You can keep saying he changed his views, but like I said changing a view is not the same as proving he never had it. You said Eurocentrism never existed remember?
Perhaps he has difficulty with understanding the word "changing"?
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: [qb] There is no getting around the fact that the Upper Egyptians stem from a common origin with 'Nubians'; created the ancient Egyptian civilization; and were the dominant majority in ancient Egypt, so your desperate references to Lower Egypt are ultimately self-defeating.
You can't even begin to challenge the facts of Upper Egypt's biological affinities and since they were the source of the civilization and the demographic majority... you lose.
Sudaniya, even Lower Egypt cannot help the insane Anglo.
Behold:
[of remains in the Fayum]The body was that of a 40 year old woman with a height of 1.6 meters, who was of a more modern racial type than the classic "Mechtoid" of the Fakhurian culture, being generally gracile, having large teeth and thick jaws bearing some resemblance to the modern "negroid' type. (Beatrix Midant-Reynes, The Prehistory of Egypt)
The prognathism observed in the skulls from Maadi south and Heliopolis may or may not indicate the infiltration of a negroid strain into the northern region. (William C. Hayes, Most Ancient Egypt)
The dead were buried in a cemetery outside the settlement, but very poorly furnished at Maadi. At Heliopolis, where the cemetery alone is so far known, the funerary gifts are slightly richer and the orientation more regular--head to the south facing east. The bodies were wrapped in skins or papyrus mats. Gazelles and dogs were also ceremonially buried in the cemetery. In both cases the skeletons belong to taller and stouter folk than the predynastic inhabitants of Upper Egypt. But the Heliopolis skulls display a distinct prognathism which is generally reckoned a negroid feature, while even those from Maadi are pentagonoid like other predynastic crania. Neither site, therefore, shows the Giza type that is prominent in Early Pharaonic and Old Kingdom Graves. (V. Gordon Childe, New Light on the Most Ancient East)
Those quotes are worthless because they're discussing so few traits/variables. None of those Lower Egyptian crania show strong craniometric ties to Sub-Saharan African populations in multivariate studies that take into account 57 measurements (the standard figure used by Howells and the FORDISC programme); another example is Natufian skulls that have "negroid" features if you focus on selective features of their crania, but when many measurements were taken by Howells (covering all landmarks of the skull), he found the closest Natufian match is with Zalavar (medieval Hungarians). Natufians aren't overall similar to Sub-Saharan Africans. And the Kemp thing I've covered many times already.
Egyptsearch, Old School.
quote:Originally posted by Super car:
"We question the utility of ANY forensic application that attempts to constrain cranial variability into discrete biological 'races'" - R. Belcher1, F. Williams et. al.,
where were the other East Africans , i.e., the Cushitic and Nilotic groups represented in Howell's study?
Last, but not least...
From Howells' book, Who's Who is skulls:
p. 96
"The second kind of departure from DISPOP may be allied to the above but involves prehistoric specimens. As above, Fish Hoek, firmly Bushmen in other tests, is here, with no Bush in the reference framework, either European or Asian, not African. So the difficulty of placing the Elmenteita, Afalou, and Teviec specimens, seen earlier and repeated here, comes to the fore again: robusticity? or lack of kin among reference populations? I consider either to be plausible.
p.101
"Beyond actual recent peoples matters change somewhat. Relatively late prehistoric specimens confirm expectable affiliations in many cases; in others the assignment is unreasonable. Certain earlier cases, like Mladec 1, seem to fall into place among modern populations of an area. However, such specimens as Afalou 5, Teviec 11, Elmenteita A and B, and Upper Cave 101 all are generally recognized as modern anatomically but are here probabilistically well removed, while suggesting affiliations which are not credible.
posted
By poster Rasol (2004) Egyptsearch, Old School.
quote: The utility and efficacy of FORDISC has been criticized for providing 'incorrect' classifications, however these disputed results are often due to inappropriate reference samples
- Freid et al.
quote:Howells database: lacks the distinct morphology necessary for classifying unknown crania.
- . Leathers, J. Edwards, G.J. Armelagos. et. al
quote: "We question the utility of ANY forensic application that attempts to constrain cranial variability into discrete biological 'races'"
- R. Belcher1, F. Williams et. al.,
quote: Howells E series cannot be considered a typical Egyptian series
- Zakrezewski. et. al
quote: Howells’ data attribute the Nubian specimens to populations on several continents, whereas the Forensic Data Bank series provides no explainable pattern of population.
- R. Belcher, F. Williams et al.
quote:
Individual crania were classified according to the best fit with Howells database but the samples clearly were inadequate to elucidate the specific geographical origin of the Spanish population
- Douglas H. Ubelaker
quote: These results suggest that Fordisc 2.0 cannot accurately identify the biological affinity of ancient Nubians.
- R. Belcher1, F. Williams et. al.
quote: Because the populations used are defined not on the basis of biology but on the basis of the variation in skeletal series or on self assignment to folk cat-egories; our results suggest that the attempt to classify populations into races—as if all of these groupings were biologically equivalent, will continue to fail (Armelagos and VanGerven 200)
- Frank Williams, Armelagos, et al.
quote: suggesting affiliations which are not credible.
- WW Howells
quote: Nor does the picture get any clearer when we move on to the Cro-Magnons, the presumed ancestors of modern Europeans. Some were more like present-day Australians or Africans, judged by objective anatomical observations
- Stringer, McKie
quote: the attempt above, to construct regional or "racial" groups or units, like "Caucasoid" by pooling modern Europeans, have not been successful, being too rigid to encompass the much broader variation that we clearly observe."
- WW Howells
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote: Previous studies have compared biological relationships between Egyptians and other populations, mostly using the Howells global cranial data set. In the current study, by contrast, the biological relationships within a series of temporally-successive cranial samples are assessed.
The data consist of 55 cranio-facial variables from 418 adult Egyptian individuals, from six periods, ranging in date from c. 5000 to 1200 BC. These were compared with the 111 Late Period crania (c. 600-350 BC) from the Howells sample. Principal Component and Canonical Discriminant Function Analyses were undertaken, on both pooled and single sex samples.
The results suggest a level of local population continuity exists within the earlier Egyptian populations, but that this was in association with some change in population structure, reflecting small-scale immigration and admixture with new groups. Most dramatically, the results also indicate that the Egyptian series from Howells global data set are morphologically distinct from the Predynastic and Early Dynastic Nile Valley samples (especially in cranial vault shape and height), and thus show that this sample CANNOT BE CONSIDERED to be a typical Egyptian series.
—Dr. Sonia Zakrzewski. Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton, UK.
quote: Herodotus (c. 484 – 425/413 BCE) was a writer who invented the field of study known today as `history’.
quote:Outside influence and admixture with extra-regional groups primarily occurred in Lower Egypt perhaps during the later dynastic, but especially in Ptolmaic and Roman times (also Irish, 2006). No large-scale population replacement in the form of a foreign dynastic ‘race’ (Petrie, 1939) was indicated. Our results are generally consistent with those of Zakrzewski (2007).
—Irish JD et al. (2006, 2009) "Further analysis of the population history of ancient Egyptians". American Journal of Physical Anthropology
quote: “While commonly believed to represent Greek settlers in Egypt, the Faiyum portraits instead reflect the complex synthesis of the predominant Egyptian culture and that of the elite Greek minority in the city. According to Walker, the early Ptolemaic Greek colonists married local women and adopted Egyptian religious beliefs, and by Roman times, their descendants were viewed as Egyptians by the Roman rulers, despite their own self-perception of being Greek. The dental morphology of the Roman-period Faiyum mummies was also compared with that of earlier The dental morphology of the Roman-period Faiyum mummies was also compared with that of earlier Egyptian populations, and was found to be "much more closely akin" to that of ancient Egyptians than to Greeks or other European populations.“
—Irish JD et al. (2006). "Who were the ancient Egyptians? Dental affinities among Neolithic through postdynastic peoples". Am J Phys Anthropol 129
quote:The implications of these findings suggest that classifying populations, whether by geography or by "race", is not morphologically or biologically accurate because of the wide variation even in homogeneous populations. Howell’s samples lack the distinct morphology necessary to make Fordisc 2.0 a useful tool for classifying unknown crania.
Forensic Misclassification of Ancient Nubian Crania: Implications for Assumptions about Human Variation
posted
Williams et al only correctly classified 8/42 Nubian crania (20%) with the nearest geographical reference sample (Lower Egyptians, "E series") because they used 11 or 12 measurements.
"Several aspects of the study by Williams et al. (2005) warrant scrutiny. First, as pointed out by Hubbe and Neves (2007), Williams et al. employed only 11 of the theoretical maximum of 21 measurements that could have been used in their analysis. Had they incorporated more information into their analysis by using more measurements, in all likelihood a larger proportion of Nubian crania would have been correctly classified." (Bulbeck, 2011)
Although this study mentions a theoretical 21 maximum, Howells (1995) used 57 for FORDISC's predecessor DISPOP to get the most reliable results: "The measurements are 57 in number for all cases (though most are provided with a slightly larger number, not used in my reports)." https://web.utk.edu/~auerbach/Howells.pdfPosts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: Those quotes are worthless because they're discussing so few traits/variables...
So goes your typical excuse. Those authors I cited described the crania as "negroid" in appearance with the exception of Kemp who cited limb proportions which show a disconnect to the Levant and connection to sub-Saharans. Of course in your twisted mind the prognathism of the skulls is not a 'negroid' trait but a "capoid" trait like the mesolithic Nubians! LOL
quote:None of those Lower Egyptian crania show strong craniometric ties to Sub-Saharan African populations in multivariate studies that take into account 57 measurements (the standard figure used by Howells and the FORDISC programme);
I think you are referring to Howells' E series of Egyptian skulls which have been proven to be of non-Egyptian ancestry and of foreign extraction anyway. Also, how many times have I said metric affinities are not as good indicators of genetic relations as non-metric traits anyway.
quote: another example is Natufian skulls that have "negroid" features if you focus on selective features of their crania, but when many measurements were taken by Howells (covering all landmarks of the skull), he found the closest Natufian match is with Zalavar (medieval Hungarians). Natufians aren't overall similar to Sub-Saharan Africans. And the Kemp thing I've covered many times already.
Not according to canonical variates.
Natufians at least metrically group closer to West Africans than even to northeast Africans let alone "Hungarians". LOL
As for Kemp, what you've "covered" has no bearing on the fact that their skeletal structures align with Sub-Saharans than with Levantines much less Europeans. So your lies have no bearing.
Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: I think it's funny how Atlantid keeps insisting that he believes AE were biologically indigenous Africans while simultaneously asserting they were tan-skinned like Arabs. He seems to have missed out on the recent findings that those North Africans who have lighter skin carry West Eurasian alleles for lighter skin that would have evolved little earlier than 20 kya, and didn't even become widespread outside of northern Europe until ~5 kya.
Unless there's a separate, indigenous North African allele for lighter skin out there that I'm not aware of, he'll have to explain why all the tan-skinned North Africans have so many of these West Eurasian alleles if he thinks they're biologically African to the same degree as he concedes the AEs were.
Its covered in Brace's study, i.e. i'm arguing there was selection for the derived SLC24A5 allele in Egypt. So I don't have to explain its moderate-to-high frequency in northernmost North African populations by just admixture. A recent paper has shown there's evidence for selection of derived SLC24A5 allele in northern India. And northern India is the same latitude as Egypt.
"Both our sequence and genome-wide genotype data confirm that this gene has been a target for positive selection among Europeans. However, the latter also shows additional evidence of selection in populations of the Middle East, Central Asia, Pakistan and North India but not in South India." ( Mallick et al. 2013)
In India, the frequency of the derived SLC24A5 allele ranges from 3% to 100% in different ethnic groups and those with the lower frequencies tend to be from South India as expected for latitudinal/climatic selection model. However, the authors of the above paper warn that some "micro-migrations" have caused complexities, e.g. "Saurashtrians, who migrated from “Saurashtra” region of Gujarat to South India (Madurai) for work, have a relatively high rs1426654-A allele frequency of 0.70. It is believed that those Saurashtrians presently dwelling in Madurai were invited by Nayak kings for their expertise in silk-weaving."
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
Basically this guy is trying to claim that the indigenous traits of a population in the Nile Valley of Egypt could have adapted to look TOTALLY different than other Nile Valley Africans. Note, all Nile Valley Africans are black Africans and come in various shades of brown from the coal black Dinka and Nuer to the Ethiopians, to the Bedja and other folks. And somehow all their 'scientific facts' contradicts all the evidence otherwise. This is the racism we are talking about, where you make up things to justify claiming whatever you want to claim no matter if the actual hard evidence says otherwise.
Black Egyptians TODAY in Egypt and this is after thousands of years of foreign Non African influence. Note they look NOTHING like the foreign white Egyptologists and every bit like the ancient portraits.
And these black folks have been working for Europeans since they have been excavating in Egypt. But the Europeans continually LIE and pretend such black folks don't exist and therefore never existed in Egypt.
quote: The fact remains no one has ever argued (a) Early Dynastic Egyptian civilization was created by European migrants or (b) that ancient Egyptians were white skinned.
I see we're going in circles:
a.
quote:Eurocentrism does not require people to say the Egyptians had features most common to Northern Europeans. It simply means that a person is trying to describe the origins of AE in a way that involves Europeans or to support other racist political interests Eurocentrism supports such as Africa being incapable of independence.
b.
quote: No one HAS to argue the Egyptians were literally white skinned to argue they were white and connected to modern Europeans. Many white people are not literally white skinned. White people can for example have olive complexions.
(Indo)European ancestors were not uniformly within the European peninsula 3000 BC. Many lived near the middle east which is why it's so tempting for Eurocentrics to discuss a wandering group of "Eurasians" or "Asiatics" that would've made supposed back migrations the Africans would've relied upon for their civilization.
quote:I don't see "Eurocentrism". What you're talking about is Asiatic/Dynastic race theory, or Hamiticism. Both are dead in academia.
I agree that an indigenous African origin that was not "distinct" from the rest of Africa is becoming increasingly accepted. This does NOT mean however that "Caucasoid" "Eurasian" and other such fictional identities have completely left. http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009537;p=1
quote: Virtually no scholar today is arguing ancient Egyptian civilization was made by 'Caucasoids' from southwest Asia. Among layperson's there also has been a shift to abandon the antiquated Caucasoid/Hamitic theories, hence I have observed this on forums over the past 5 years.
Whatever dude. Still got people trying to push the idea AE and Europeans shared common ancestry. The media will push this type of misinformation often. but they seem less excited to cover data that places AE in Africa. While these theories are less popular, white supremacists will still cling to whatever they think will support their diffusion/new race theories to hold onto mental images of a dependent Africa and/or De Africanize KMT and it's achievements.
quote:Gliddon himself in the 19th century changed his views to argue ancient Egyptian civilization was an indigenous development. These Caucasoid/Hamitic theories were already losing proponents over a century ago.
You can keep saying he changed his views, but like I said changing a view is not the same as proving he never had it. You said Eurocentrism never existed remember?
"I agree that an indigenous African origin that was not "distinct" from the rest of Africa is becoming increasingly accepted."
No, no, no., absolutely not. This is why I avoid saying "indigenous African", but say "indigenous" (to Egypt) or "indigenous (east) Saharan".
Ancient Egyptians so not have close biological ties to Sub-Saharan Africans, but eastern Saharan Africans. The more intelligent Afrocentrists on this forum now know this and changed their views. The only thing I disagree with them on is skin pigmentation of ancient Egyptians, who I think were lighter brown skinned and not 'black'.
Even African American biologists agree with my position on this. A member of this forum emailed Joseph L. Graves expecting him to support the "black Egypt" theory and not my position, but Graves supports me and has said ancient Egyptians in his view were not black in pigmentation; he has been to Egypt and seen the north-south gradient/cline in skin pigmentation for himself. Someone has these email replies.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [QB] Basically this guy is trying to claim that the indigenous traits of a population in the Nile Valley of Egypt could have adapted to look TOTALLY different than other Nile Valley Africans. Note, all Nile Valley Africans are black Africans and come in various shades of brown from the coal black Dinka and Nuer to the Ethiopians, to the Bedja and other folks. And somehow all their 'scientific facts' contradicts all the evidence otherwise. This is the racism we are talking about, where you make up things to justify claiming whatever you want to claim no matter if the actual hard evidence says otherwise.
Black Egyptians TODAY in Egypt and this is after thousands of years of foreign Non African influence. Note they look NOTHING like the foreign white Egyptologists and every bit like the ancient portraits.
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: Those quotes are worthless because they're discussing so few traits/variables...
So goes your typical excuse. Those authors I cited described the crania as "negroid" in appearance with the exception of Kemp who cited limb proportions which show a disconnect to the Levant and connection to sub-Saharans. Of course in your twisted mind the prognathism of the skulls is not a 'negroid' trait but a "capoid" trait like the mesolithic Nubians! LOL
quote:None of those Lower Egyptian crania show strong craniometric ties to Sub-Saharan African populations in multivariate studies that take into account 57 measurements (the standard figure used by Howells and the FORDISC programme);
I think you are referring to Howells' E series of Egyptian skulls which have been proven to be of non-Egyptian ancestry and of foreign extraction anyway. Also, how many times have I said metric affinities are not as good indicators of genetic relations as non-metric traits anyway.
quote: another example is Natufian skulls that have "negroid" features if you focus on selective features of their crania, but when many measurements were taken by Howells (covering all landmarks of the skull), he found the closest Natufian match is with Zalavar (medieval Hungarians). Natufians aren't overall similar to Sub-Saharan Africans. And the Kemp thing I've covered many times already.
Not according to canonical variates.
Natufians at least metrically group closer to West Africans than even to northeast Africans let alone "Hungarians". LOL
As for Kemp, what you've "covered" has no bearing on the fact that their skeletal structures align with Sub-Saharans than with Levantines much less Europeans. So your lies have no bearing.
Brace used 24 measurements, Howells used 57. See my other replies. One of the reasons CRANID was invented is so there is a moderate amount of measurements (29) as a minimum - to avoid the problems with FORDISC which some anthropologists have used with too few measurements [although Howells used 57 for FORDISC's predecessor DISPOP or POPKIN and this is the standard number used in FORDISC publications, including the 3.0 manual].
Note that Brace uses less measurements (24) than CRANID's absolute minimum (29). Howell's 57 measurements reliably cover the whole crania; the problem with using fewer measurements is they don't cover the complete surface-area of the skull, or not accurately, and so won't capture overall craniometric similarity. There is clear discrepancy between Howells and Brace's data based on this fact. Howell's has Natufians closest to a European population sample (Zalavar).
Natufians don't show Sub-Saharan African craniometric ties - if the data is read correctly and importance of number of measurements is understood. Anyway, if you respond this is "Eurocentrism" remember that Howells used a lot more measurements on the Gamble's Cave/Elmenteita skulls to falsify earlier anthropologists like Coon that these crania are Caucasoid. Coon (1939) thought prehistoric East Africans were Caucasoid/'White' skeletally because he used less than 10 measurements.
"Both of the Gamble’s Cave skulls seem to be fully or nearly “white” in the skeletal sense." - Coon, 1939
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
LOL. This is exactly my point. 99.9% of people don't consider that guy black (he's too light brown skinned), nor would this guy identify as black himself. If Doug thinks this guy is black, then most Southern Europeans and Middle Eastern populations must be black too. Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
No, no, no., absolutely not. This is why I avoid saying "indigenous African", but say "indigenous" (to Egypt) or "indigenous (east) Saharan".
Ancient Egyptians so not have close biological ties to Sub-Saharan Africans, but eastern Saharan Africans.
Why the false dichotomy? Having a close relationship to some modern East Saharan African populations, doesn't mean AE had no close biological connection to SSA. This should be a nobrainer if you know the climate history of Africa. The Naqada, Badarian, Tasian and Green Saharan cultures form the basis of Ancient Egyptian people and culture at their formative stage. Dynastic Egypt only began about a few centuries after the Green Sahara had turned into a desert. They survived by living along a RIVER that extended into SSA. They were not biologically isolated to create the distinctions from the rest of Africa racists crave so vehemently.
quote: Even African American biologists agree with my position on this. A member of this forum emailed Joseph L. Graves expecting him to support the "black Egypt" theory and not my position, but Graves supports me and has said ancient Egyptians in his view were not black in pigmentation; he has been to Egypt and seen the north-south gradient/cline in skin pigmentation for himself. Someone has these email replies.
Who cares if they weren't literally black in pigmentation? Many Africans inside the Sahara, Sahel or elsewhere do not have jet black skin. This is yet another strawman.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: They were not biologically isolated to create the distinctions from the rest of Africa racists crave so vehemently.
So by that mind-set, blonde haired Swedes can claim or try to attach themselves to ancient Greek civilization? African-Americans/west sub-Saharan Africans who latch onto Egypt self-hate their own history and heritage. And I will think you will find they're the real "racists".
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
wow, this is still going, I guess I was ahead of myself for think that Lioness completely decimated JCM two pages ago.
But see, I underestimated the agenda, moreso, the narrative of trying to dissociate AEgypt (in this case) from Afro-Americans as much as possible... I mean let's not kid ourselves, that is what's going on here implicitly. But at the end of the day, general consensus doesn't dissociate SSAn groups, like say the mbuti pygmies from the Ari for example. They're all clustered together in the mind of the general public. As a result, if a group like lets say the Aegyptians bear similarities an SSAfricans everything become enigmatic.
..I understand Joshua Moon, I do, but at the end of the day I have to call it like I see see it.
--Quote: Ancient Egyptians so not have close biological ties to Sub-Saharan Africans, but eastern Saharan Africans. The more intelligent Afrocentrists on this forum now know this and changed their views. The only thing I disagree with them on is skin pigmentation of ancient Egyptians, who I think were lighter brown skinned and not 'black'.--
First of all, what is an eastern Saharan African...? Nationally I can only think of two possible candidates, Sudanese & Egyptians. Culturally I can name a few sahelian groups but most if not all are spread across the sahel into west Africa as well. Other cultural groups are recent implants so be specific.... is it that you're implying that the Aegyptians were NorthAfrican like the amazigh? or nah?
Second of all, If you're going to ignore responses, don't bother to repeat the initial claim, it's baseless. You have to explain why AEgyptians would be what ever shade of skin you're talking about. At least two different people have explained to you why your arbitrary view of global pigmentation is both flawed and scientifically outdated... Nodnarb posted a huge schematic above with hopes of explaining this to you.
All I see from you are excuses in attempt to raise doubt in associating Aegypt with SSA... but you're getting handled, from every angle yet you cling to minute discrepancies within anthropology in hopes to make a general unsubstantiated claim. what you need to do is explain the prehistorical development of the Nile valley culture and explain why the pre-kemetan stock would not have been "black" in the first place. Until then I don't understand why anyone here would even bother arguing with you. You're blowing mostly hot Air.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: They were not biologically isolated to create the distinctions from the rest of Africa racists crave so vehemently.
So by that mind-set, blonde haired Swedes can claim or try to attach themselves to ancient Greek civilization? African-Americans/west sub-Saharan Africans who latch onto Egypt self-hate their own history and heritage. And I will think you will find they're the real "racists".
African-American interest in Egypt follows a larger pattern of pan African identity, not self hate. Whiteness as a concept is Pan European and Eurocentric, but when Africans assume a pan African identity, this is something that is criticized as self hate. We see Pan European thought through the social advantages awarded to people based on European heritage. We see it in European schools, the focus on Greek and Roman achievements (some "achievements" that would be more accurate to attribute to Egypt but don't suit a political Pan European interest). We see it with stuff like the EU. Even roleplaying and pop fiction bring together different cultural mythologies of Europe and frame them under one world. Europeans are no strangers to Pan European thought.
Pan Africanism responded to shifts in identity politics that aided in colonialism, slavery, imperialism and globalization. It stresses the agency of African people and the belief in a common destiny. If that bothers you, dismantle whiteness and other Pan Euro identity. Put a stop to globalization. Your issues are political and have nothing to do with science. West Africans had civilizations that predated Greece and Rome. They had Tichitt and the Mande civilizations that followed it (Ghana, Mali, etc). AE were connected to the rest of Africa.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:LOL. This is exactly my point. 99.9% of people don't consider that guy black (he's too light brown skinned), nor would this guy identify as black himself. If Doug thinks this guy is black, then most Southern Europeans and Middle Eastern populations must be black too.
Boy, you fucked up again.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: They were not biologically isolated to create the distinctions from the rest of Africa racists crave so vehemently.
So by that mind-set, blonde haired Swedes can claim or try to attach themselves to ancient Greek civilization? African-Americans/west sub-Saharan Africans who latch onto Egypt self-hate their own history and heritage. And I will think you will find they're the real "racists".
"blonde haired Swedes can claim or try to attach themselves to ancient Greek civilization?"
As if that and the remaining (westerners) doesn't happen. Give me a break. Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: So by that mind-set, blonde haired Swedes can claim or try to attach themselves to ancient Greek civilization? African-Americans/west sub-Saharan Africans who latch onto Egypt self-hate their own history and heritage. And I will think you will find they're the real "racists".
??? All of Europe and white America associate themselves with Ancient Greece and Rome...
The thing you fail to see is the cultural similarities. As opposed to the greeks who viewed the Egyptians as "Overly superstitious and spiritual." A "black" group can look at sh!t they did in Aegypt and say, "wow, other black people who may or may not be related to me did this too? they oiled their skin because the sun would make it too dry? they locked and braided their hair to avoid breakage? They sported Afros and wore wigs and weaves (from Sheep BTW), The performed circumcision in a similar fashion to how central Africans did? they used color symbolism in spiritual folklore? Oh snap, paranymonious symbolism is universally African? The female played such an important role in this society just like (insert 88% of SSA here), oh ****, this revered civilization was birthed by similar kin whether or not we're recently related!"
Dissociating Egypt from SSA is pointless, the only reason I see for perusing this is.... and I hate to say it.... Lingering concepts of White Supremacy.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: Williams et al only correctly classified 8/42 Nubian crania (20%) with the nearest geographical reference sample (Lower Egyptians, "E series") because they used 11 or 12 measurements.
"Several aspects of the study by Williams et al. (2005) warrant scrutiny. First, as pointed out by Hubbe and Neves (2007), Williams et al. employed only 11 of the theoretical maximum of 21 measurements that could have been used in their analysis. Had they incorporated more information into their analysis by using more measurements, in all likelihood a larger proportion of Nubian crania would have been correctly classified." (Bulbeck, 2011)
Although this study mentions a theoretical 21 maximum, Howells (1995) used 57 for FORDISC's predecessor DISPOP to get the most reliable results: "The measurements are 57 in number for all cases (though most are provided with a slightly larger number, not used in my reports)." https://web.utk.edu/~auerbach/Howells.pdf
How does it discredit anything posted already?
quote: "A mummy of an Egyptian priestess dating from the 22nd dynasty (c. 770 BC), completely enclosed in an anthropoid (human shaped) coffin, was scanned on a CT scanner. An accurate reconstruction of the cranium was generated from 115 × 2 mm CT images using AVS/Express on a SGI computer. Linear measurements were obtained from six orthogonal cranial views and used in a morphometric analysis software package (CRANID). The analyses carried out were both linear and nearest neighbour discriminant analysis. The results show that there is a 52.9% probability that the mummy is an Egyptian female, with a 24.5% probability that the mummy is an African female."
--Hughes, Wright, and Barry (2005)Virtual reconstruction and morphological analysis of the cranium of an ancient Egyptian mummy. Australas. Phys. Eng. Sci. Med. Vol. 28, No 2, 2005
quote:We conclude that if sex allocations are overlooked, CRANID can accurately assign 39% of specimens to geographically closest matching reference samples and 48% to major geographic regions. Better source population representation may improve goodness of fit, but known sex-differentiated samples are needed to further test the utility of CRANID.
[…]
Another similar program called FORDISC, developed by Richard Jantz and Stephen Ousley of the University of Tennessee (Jantz & Ousley, 1993), also uses discriminant analyses to classify skulls of unknown origin. Like CRANID, FORDISC uses Howells' dataset as a reference sample but with additional samples from the American Forensic Data Bank and the Terry and Hamann-Todd Collection. FORDISC is used widely internationally but it has particular relevance to the American context because the American Forensic Data Bank forms a large proportion of the reference materials (Ubelaker et al. 2002). CRANID has greater validity in Australia and Europe because of greater representation of indigenous Australian and European reference crania.
[…]
Discussion
Wright (2010) reports an LDA classification accuracy of 68.2% for the 74 sex-differentiated reference samples in CRANID. In contrast, the classification accuracy in our study is no more than 39% for local groups and no more than 48% for regional groups. Accuracy rates could have been even lower if sex attributions were taken into account because male and female group attributions were summed if needed to provide the 0.5 summed attribution probability.
Five crania showed lack of goodness of fit with the database. Several possibilities are cited in the manual to account for lack of fit and incorrect attribution: incorrect measurements, deformed or extreme cranium, poor representation of the source population in the database and mixed ancestry. It is worth considering each of these possibilities in turn. As outlined above, we used stringent inter-observer repeatability tests to ensure that measurements were taken accurately. We are confident that lack of goodness of fit was not due to errors in measuring. We also ensured that none of the crania in our study was intentionally or pathologically deformed.
Poor representation of source population is a likely reason for poor statistical fit and incorrect attribution. All test specimens fell within 2 standard deviations from the centroid for the database, but for the specimens with poor statistical fit, the distances from the nearest neighbour were within 2–3 three standard deviations from the mean for the database. They had high probabilities of attribution (between 0.5 and 0.9), although not to the geographically closest available reference samples. This suggests that the exact source populations were not represented in CRANID and the variability in the available samples did not accommodate that of the test specimen. Many of the geographically closest reference samples for the specimens in this study came from ancient populations, e.g. Iron Age Lachish, Neolithic Denmark, Medieval London, Roman Poundbury, 26–30th Dynasty Egypt and Latte Period Guam. Although in some cases CRANID still selected these as the geographically closest attributions, secular changes in the contemporary test specimens could have precluded them from being assigned to ancient populations (Jantz & Ousley, 2005).
—Lauren Kallenberger and Varsha Pilbrow
J Anat. 2012 Nov; 221(5): 459–464. Published online 2012 Aug 27. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7580.2012.01558.x PMCID: PMC3482354 Using CRANID to test the population affinity of known crania
quote: Previous studies have compared biological relationships between Egyptians and other populations, mostly using the Howells global cranial data set. In the current study, by contrast, the biological relationships within a series of temporally-successive cranial samples are assessed.
The data consist of 55 cranio-facial variables from 418 adult Egyptian individuals, from six periods, ranging in date from c. 5000 to 1200 BC. These were compared with the 111 Late Period crania (c. 600-350 BC) from the Howells sample. Principal Component and Canonical Discriminant Function Analyses were undertaken, on both pooled and single sex samples.
The results suggest a level of local population continuity exists within the earlier Egyptian populations, but that this was in association with some change in population structure, reflecting small-scale immigration and admixture with new groups. Most dramatically, the results also indicate that the Egyptian series from Howells global data set are morphologically distinct from the Predynastic and Early Dynastic Nile Valley samples (especially in cranial vault shape and height), and thus show that this sample CANNOT BE CONSIDERED to be a typical Egyptian series.
—Dr. Sonia Zakrzewski. Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton, UK.
quote:Outside influence and admixture with extra-regional groups primarily occurred in Lower Egypt perhaps during the later dynastic, but especially in Ptolmaic and Roman times (also Irish, 2006). No large-scale population replacement in the form of a foreign dynastic ‘race’ (Petrie, 1939) was indicated. Our results are generally consistent with those of Zakrzewski (2007).
—Irish JD et al. (2006, 2009) "Further analysis of the population history of ancient Egyptians". American Journal of Physical Anthropology
quote: “While commonly believed to represent Greek settlers in Egypt, the Faiyum portraits instead reflect the complex synthesis of the predominant Egyptian culture and that of the elite Greek minority in the city. According to Walker, the early Ptolemaic Greek colonists married local women and adopted Egyptian religious beliefs, and by Roman times, their descendants were viewed as Egyptians by the Roman rulers, despite their own self-perception of being Greek. The dental morphology of the Roman-period Faiyum mummies was also compared with that of earlier The dental morphology of the Roman-period Faiyum mummies was also compared with that of earlier Egyptian populations, and was found to be "much more closely akin" to that of ancient Egyptians than to Greeks or other European populations.“
—Irish JD et al. (2006). "Who were the ancient Egyptians? Dental affinities among Neolithic through postdynastic peoples". Am J Phys Anthropol 129
quote:LOL. This is exactly my point. 99.9% of people don't consider that guy black (he's too light brown skinned), nor would this guy identify as black himself. If Doug thinks this guy is black, then most Southern Europeans and Middle Eastern populations must be black too.
Boy, you fucked up again.
According to Doug and Djehuti LL Cool J is too light to be black, he has a mulatto complexion like Obama
^^ You have to be at least this dark to be black
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:LOL. This is exactly my point. 99.9% of people don't consider that guy black (he's too light brown skinned), nor would this guy identify as black himself. If Doug thinks this guy is black, then most Southern Europeans and Middle Eastern populations must be black too.
Boy, you fucked up again.
According to Doug and Djehuti LL Cool J is too light to be black, he has a mulatto complexion like Obama
^^ You have to be at least this dark to be black
I have no idea why you are posting that other dude? lol
What exactly are you trying to say? What has he to do with the subject? Neither do I see what other poster opinion has to do with this? Plus I have no time for your ongoing childish games.
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: I think it's funny how Atlantid keeps insisting that he believes AE were biologically indigenous Africans while simultaneously asserting they were tan-skinned like Arabs. He seems to have missed out on the recent findings that those North Africans who have lighter skin carry West Eurasian alleles for lighter skin that would have evolved little earlier than 20 kya, and didn't even become widespread outside of northern Europe until ~5 kya.
Unless there's a separate, indigenous North African allele for lighter skin out there that I'm not aware of, he'll have to explain why all the tan-skinned North Africans have so many of these West Eurasian alleles if he thinks they're biologically African to the same degree as he concedes the AEs were.
Its covered in Brace's study, i.e. i'm arguing there was selection for the derived SLC24A5 allele in Egypt. So I don't have to explain its moderate-to-high frequency in northernmost North African populations by just admixture. A recent paper has shown there's evidence for selection of derived SLC24A5 allele in northern India. And northern India is the same latitude as Egypt.
"Both our sequence and genome-wide genotype data confirm that this gene has been a target for positive selection among Europeans. However, the latter also shows additional evidence of selection in populations of the Middle East, Central Asia, Pakistan and North India but not in South India." ( Mallick et al. 2013)
In India, the frequency of the derived SLC24A5 allele ranges from 3% to 100% in different ethnic groups and those with the lower frequencies tend to be from South India as expected for latitudinal/climatic selection model. However, the authors of the above paper warn that some "micro-migrations" have caused complexities, e.g. "Saurashtrians, who migrated from “Saurashtra” region of Gujarat to South India (Madurai) for work, have a relatively high rs1426654-A allele frequency of 0.70. It is believed that those Saurashtrians presently dwelling in Madurai were invited by Nayak kings for their expertise in silk-weaving."
Of course certain Indians have derived light-skin alleles like those of Europeans. Unfortunately for you, it probably is due to recent admixture.
quote:In India, nearly all people today are admixed between two distinct genetic groups, one most closely related to present-day Europeans, Central Asians, and Near Easterners, and one most closely related to an isolated population living in the Andaman islands (Reich et al., 2009). Moorjani et al., 2013 showed that much of this admixture occurred within the last 4,000 years.
Incidentally, 4 kya coincides will the collapse of the indigenous Harappan civilization and the incoming of Indo-Europeans from Central Asia. So we even have a historical correlate for this admixture event.
Posts: 7080 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: I have no idea why you are posting that other dude? lol
What exactly are you trying to say? What has he to do with the subject? Neither do I see what other poster opinion has to do with this? Plus I have no time for your ongoing childish games.
Use your brian, Doug and Djehuti say "black" means strictly the darkness level of a person's skin nothing else
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: I have no idea why you are posting that other dude? lol
What exactly are you trying to say? What has he to do with the subject? Neither do I see what other poster opinion has to do with this? Plus I have no time for your ongoing childish games.
Use your brian, Doug and Djehuti say "black" means strictly the darkness level of a person's skin nothing else
I use my brain, you need to use your brain. I have no deal with what others have to say. I don't play your childish games. No sane person in America is going to claim that sh*t. LL is considered a black man, And it has been like that historically for tens of millions of blacks with lighter complexion. So don't bring that bullshit to me.
This complexion also can be found in West Africa, and no sane West Africa is going to make crazy distinctions.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: I have no idea why you are posting that other dude? lol
What exactly are you trying to say? What has he to do with the subject? Neither do I see what other poster opinion has to do with this? Plus I have no time for your ongoing childish games.
Use your brian, Doug and Djehuti say "black" means strictly the darkness level of a person's skin nothing else
I use my brain, you need to use your brain. I have no deal with what others have to say. I don't play your childish games. No sane person in America is going to claim that sh*t. LL is considered a black man, And it has been like that historically for tens of millions of blacks with lighter complexion. So don't bring that bullshit to me.
This complexion also can be found in West Africa, and no sane West Africa is going to make crazy distinctions.
According to Egyptsearch we are going by the old Greco Roman definition of black, caramels are not included
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: I have no idea why you are posting that other dude? lol
What exactly are you trying to say? What has he to do with the subject? Neither do I see what other poster opinion has to do with this? Plus I have no time for your ongoing childish games.
Use your brian, Doug and Djehuti say "black" means strictly the darkness level of a person's skin nothing else
I use my brain, you need to use your brain. I have no deal with what others have to say. I don't play your childish games. No sane person in America is going to claim that sh*t. LL is considered a black man, And it has been like that historically for tens of millions of blacks with lighter complexion. So don't bring that bullshit to me.
This complexion also can be found in West Africa, and no sane West Africa is going to make crazy distinctions.
According to Egyptsearch we are going by the old Greco Roman definition of black, caramels are not included
Deplorable child, I have no time for your games. Let it marinate!
Mosaic With Hunting Scenes
Roman (3rd century A.D.)
Mosaic, 270 x 370 cm.
Musée National du Bardo, Tunis.
quote:
"Our work developed from a program of research focused on an early Saharan civilization known as the Garamantes, located in southwestern Libya (Mattingly 2006, 2011). We have previously identified two Garamantian sites as having urban characteristics, Old Jarma and Qasṛ ash-Sharrāba, and have speculated on the existence of further Saharan towns (Mattingly and Sterry 2013). In the case of Jarma, we have presented a detailed urban biography of the site (Mattingly et al. 2013: 505–544). The specific aims of this paper are to provide a fuller evaluation of what is known historically about Zuwīla and to present in detail the available archaeological data and a more precise chronology for the site. In its final section we advance a plausible sequence of development of this important Saharan oasis centre based on all the currently available evidence. A gazetteer of archaeological monuments is provided as Appendix 1 and a summary of the material dating evidence as Appendix 2.
The early medieval period has generally been considered pivotal in the extension and intensification of trans-Saharan trade and this has also been linked with the spread of Islam from the Maghrib across the Sahara (Austen 2010: 19–22). On the southern fringes of the Sahara there is firm evidence of trans-Saharan contacts in the earlier first millennium AD at sites such as Kissi in Burkina Faso and Culabel and Siouré in Senegal (MacDonald 2011; Magnavita 2013).
[...]
The Roman sources refer to kings of the Garamantes and to their metropolis at Garama (Old Jarma in the Wādī al-Ajāl, 250 km to the west of Zuwīla), strongly suggesting that Garamantian power was exercised over an extensive area (Figure 2). We have argued that there was in this period a Garamantian state that controlled the various oasis zones of Fazzān (Mattingly 2003: 76–90, 346–351, 2013: 530–534). As we shall see, there is evidence to show that Zuwīla originated as an oasis settlement in this period (contra Lewicki 1988: 287 and Levtzion and Hopkins 2000: 460) and that it had arguably grown to be a centre of above average size by the Late Garamantian period."
--David J. Mattingly, Martin J. Sterry & David N. Edwards
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Arguing about skin complexion. And NO lioness, the Arab man you posted is NOT the same complexion as L.L. Cool Jay. Dishonest dunce.
Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Look lets not fall into a big derail of the point. Yes it's very possible someone with that complexion can be mixed. It's also true that the complexion is indigenous. When we consider that admixture can reach 80% in modern Egypt, the context that person is placed in with respect to Egypt's history can give us some idea of how mixture may be somewhat responsible for that guy's features. But simply eyeballing people without calling on data is not very scientific. We honestly don't need to do this type of thing. We can, but it's not all that necessary. We already have the studies that show Africans have the most skin diversity. The ball is in their court to show otherwise. But back to the point: AE were not biologically isolated from the rest of Africa. They were not disconnected from the rest of Africa.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^As if you are dealing with a child, or some senile elderly.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: So by that mind-set, blonde haired Swedes can claim or try to attach themselves to ancient Greek civilization? African-Americans/west sub-Saharan Africans who latch onto Egypt self-hate their own history and heritage. And I will think you will find they're the real "racists".
??? All of Europe and white America associate themselves with Ancient Greece and Rome...
The thing you fail to see is the cultural similarities. As opposed to the greeks who viewed the Egyptians as "Overly superstitious and spiritual." A "black" group can look at sh!t they did in Aegypt and say, "wow, other black people who may or may not be related to me did this too? they oiled their skin because the sun would make it too dry? they locked and braided their hair to avoid breakage? They sported Afros and wore wigs and weaves (from Sheep BTW), The performed circumcision in a similar fashion to how central Africans did? they used color symbolism in spiritual folklore? Oh snap, paranymonious symbolism is universally African? The female played such an important role in this society just like (insert 88% of SSA here), oh ****, this revered civilization was birthed by similar kin whether or not we're recently related!"
Dissociating Egypt from SSA is pointless, the only reason I see for perusing this is.... and I hate to say it.... Lingering concepts of White Supremacy.
Mummies Reveal Egyptians Styled Hair with 'Product'
Ancient Egyptians might have been just as vain as humans today. They seem to have styled their hair with fat-based products to enhance their appearance and accentuate their individuality, new research suggests.
"Personal appearance was important to the ancient Egyptians so much so that in cases where the hair was styled, the embalming process was adapted to preserve the hairstyle," the researchers, based at the University of Manchester in the United Kingdom, write Aug. 16 in the Journal of Archaeological Science. "This further ensured that the deceased's individuality was retained in death, as it had been in life, and emphasizes the importance of the hair in ancient Egyptian society."
The researchers studied hair from 18 mummies (15 mummified in a desert cemetery called the
and three from museum samples of unknown origin) who lived around 300 B.C. in ancient Egypt. By taking a close look at the hairs under a microscope, the researchers noticed that nine of these mummies had an unknown substance coating their hair. [Top 10 Weird Ways We Deal With the Dead]
Chemical analyses of the coating revealed it was made up of fatty acids from both plant and animal origins.
The researchers believe that this fat-based hair gel was used by the Egyptians to mold and hold the hair in position to enhance appearance, since some of the deceased that had been mummified naturally in the desert also had fats in their hair. When mummified using embalming chemicals, the undertakers seem to have taken special care to retain the deceased's hairdos, as they used different chemicals on different parts of the body.
"It is evident that different materials were used for different areas of the body," the researchers write. "The hair samples from the Dakhleh Oasis were not coated with resin/bitumen-based embalming materials, but were coated with a fat-based substance."
The mummies had all different kinds of hairstyles depending on age, sex and presumed social status. Researchers have previously discovered objects in Egyptian tombs that seem to be curing tongs, so they might have been used in conjunction with the hair product to curl the hair into place, the researchers speculate.
Mummy analysis finds that fat-based product held styles in place.
The ancient Egyptians styled their hair using a fat-based 'gel', an analysis of mummies has found. The researchers behind the study say that the Egyptians used the product to ensure that their style stayed in place in both life and death.
Natalie McCreesh, an archaeological scientist from the KNH Centre for Biomedical Egyptology at the University of Manchester, UK, and her colleagues studied hair samples taken from 18 mummies. The oldest is around 3,500 years old, but most were excavated from a cemetery in the Dakhleh Oasis in the Western Desert, and date from Greco-Roman times, around 2,300 years ago.
They include males and females ranging in age from 4 to 58 years old. Some were artificially mummified, whereas others were preserved naturally by the dry sand in which they were buried.
Microscopy using light and electrons revealed that nine of the mummies had hair coated in a mysterious fat-like substance. The researchers used gas chromatography–mass spectrometry to separate out the different molecules in the samples, and found that the coating contained biological long-chain fatty acids including palmitic acid and stearic acid. The results are published in the Journal of Archaeological Science1.
McCreesh thinks that the fatty coating is a styling product that was used to set hair in place. It was found on both natural and artificial mummies, so she believes that it was a beauty product during life as well as a key part of the mummification process.
The resins and embalming materials used to prepare the artificially mummified bodies were not found in the hair samples, suggesting that the hair was protected during embalming and then styled separately.
"Maybe they paid special attention to the hair because they realized that it didn't degrade as much as the rest of the body," says McCreesh. The product was found on both male and female mummies, showing that both sexes cared about their eternal hairdo.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic