posted
Egypt (or a significant portion of it) isn't in a high-UV radiation zone (see the map in Jablonki & Chaplin, 2000 - "The evolution of human skin coloration") therefore (like the northern Maghreb) light[er] skin pigmentation was selected there. This is a problem for Afrocentrists who want all autochthonous African populations to be "black" (i.e. dark brown skinned) to fit their politics. But what if there were native non-blacks of northernmost Africa? This was actually hypothesized by Carleton Coon.
I predict with ancient DNA in the next few years that ancient Egyptians will be proven to carry 2 or 3 of the 5 derived light skin alleles (rs1426654, rs16891982, rs1042602, rs642742, rs2424984, are there even more?) to explain their pigmentation as roughly intermediate between Europeans and Sub-Saharan Africans.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: I predict with ancient DNA in the next few years that ancient Egyptians will be proven to carry 2 or 3 of the 5 derived light skin alleles (rs1426654, rs16891982, rs1042602, rs642742, rs2424984, are there even more?) to explain their pigmentation as roughly intermediate between Europeans and Sub-Saharan Africans.
^Just because of their Geographic distribution? This is some amazing science. I wonder if you're aware of how many pigment related polymorphisms SSA's carry... I'm expecting a thorough explanation of how that works under IBD.
...matterfact, I'm not. But at least you're brave enough to actually make a prediction.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
"All populations in the tropics have dark brown skin and are 'black'."
Ok so for a recap.
Sahelians, not black:
Southern Chadians, not black:
South Africans, not black(non-Khoisan or Afrikaaner):
Many African Americans, not black:
Got it.
Playing by Cass' rules though, why stop here? There are numerous Africans even darker than dark brown and in that same tropical apartheid zone, being near pitch black.
I mean if we're going to be objective to the absolute letter and only count the absolute darkest pigmentation possible as black then why not just count the subset of Africans at the extreme end of dark pigment???
We already have precedent for this from Ptolemy's Geographia
Per Martin Bernal's Black Athena
"The people inhabiting the regions around Meroë, on the other hand, were deeply black in color and were pure Ethiopians (Ptolemy Geography 1.9).
Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^Those are Canaanites, not Egyptians. Which brings us back to how shaky skin pigmentation can be when used carelessly.
.
Those are two Lower Nubians wearing the 'Ta Seti leather briefs" and a Levantine in a linen loincloth.
Forget the book title. Those guys lived long after the pyramid age. Quite a few publications label the scene after the mythological Exodus' brick layers.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
Correction of my earlier post. The Canaanites are only the ones with the white diaper-like loincloths and yellowish underpaint.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Note the two Egyptians in kilts and holding rods. In a high quality repro the 'Syrians' are lighter than the Nubians who in turn are lighter than the Egyptians.
quote:I mean if we're going to be objective to the absolute letter and only count the absolute darkest pigmentation possible as black then why not just count the subset of Africans at the extreme end of dark pigment???
Because doing that has very little to no utility. Looking at the Luscan scale, the extreme end would be # 35-36, which is almost a true black.
No anthropologist would make a division/classification of using only 2 tile numbers (e.g. # 35-36) on the Luscan Scale. At the opposite extreme of foolishness: Afrocentrists want to label "black" as broad as possible (as many as 20 tile numbers # 16-36) so they can pool together the diverse variation of skin colours observed in African populations to match their pan-African politics.
What I've clung to is the textbook anthropology divisions such as Coon who defines # 29-36 as black (or what he calls the "chocolate brown class" which is the darkest), these provide most useful since they are neither too broad, nor narrow. Unlike the Afroloons here, I'm not following some sort of "pan" political ideology. So for example when it comes to Europe, I don't classify Northern European pigmentation with Southern European pigmentation.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: Egypt (or a significant portion of it) isn't in a high-UV radiation zone (see the map in Jablonki & Chaplin, 2000 - "The evolution of human skin coloration") therefore (like the northern Maghreb) light[er] skin pigmentation was selected there. This is a problem for Afrocentrists who want all autochthonous African populations to be "black" (i.e. dark brown skinned) to fit their politics. But what if there were native non-blacks of northernmost Africa? This was actually hypothesized by Carleton Coon.
I predict with ancient DNA in the next few years that ancient Egyptians will be proven to carry 2 or 3 of the 5 derived light skin alleles (rs1426654, rs16891982, rs1042602, rs642742, rs2424984, are there even more?) to explain their pigmentation as roughly intermediate between Europeans and Sub-Saharan Africans.
I said shut the **** up with that carton coon nazi ****! It is not accepted!
The harder you try, the more irrelevant it becomes.
I am going to ask you again, how come these depiction are all over Egypt?
How is this possible?
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
The point being that *your* preferred selection is just as arbitrary as only picking tiles #35-36. Your use of black doesn't become perfect just because you're using it. You and every one like you face the exact same problems and challenges with using it as any "black" person or afrocentrist(two terms which you continually need to be reminded are not synonyms)
And which is it? Is it tiles, or location? Or both? As just off the tiles there are numerous populations in Sub-Saharan Africa that are lighter than #29 and populations in North Africa that fall within 29-36 including numerous *modern* Upper Egyptians.
Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:I mean if we're going to be objective to the absolute letter and only count the absolute darkest pigmentation possible as black then why not just count the subset of Africans at the extreme end of dark pigment???
Because doing that has very little to no utility. Looking at the Luscan scale, the extreme end would be # 35-36, which is almost a true black.
No anthropologist would make a division/classification of using only 2 tile numbers (e.g. # 35-36) on the Luscan Scale. At the opposite extreme of foolishness: Afrocentrists want to label "black" as broad as possible (as many as 20 tile numbers # 16-36) so they can pool together the diverse variation of skin colours observed in African populations to match their pan-African politics.
What I've clung to is the textbook anthropology divisions such as Coon who defines # 29-36 as black (or what he calls the "chocolate brown class" which is the darkest), these provide most useful since they are neither too broad, nor narrow. Unlike the Afroloons here, I'm not following some sort of "pan" political ideology. So for example when it comes to Europe, I don't classify Northern European pigmentation with Southern European pigmentation.
Eugenist Coon doesn't mean ****, completely irrelevant and meaningless to us.
Dumb piece of ****, why are these depictions of dark complexion?
How is this possible when it completely contradicts your stupid latitude capricorn theory?
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I mean you nazi types absolutely crack me up. you play stunts like posting altered artifacts like this to *prove* the strict distinction between Egyptians and Nubians
Which people too stupid as to actually do some follow up take as the real thing,
*adding that both the Egyptians and Kushites in this relief have the exact same dark brown paint that falls well within your preferred range for "black" people(or the "chocolate brown class" as you so eloquently quoted)*
And accuse everyone ELSE of shenanigans. The nerve!
Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
Crony & crackpot pan-Africanist associate of Carlos Coke, Tristan Samuels is accusing Krause over these ancient DNA Egyptian results of racism and "using 19th century anthropological concepts that were used to deny the fact that Ancient Egyptians were African people."
No doubt behind the scenes, Coke is doing the same.
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: LOL LOL LOL LOL.
Crony & crackpot pa-Africanist associate of Carlos Coke, Tristan Samuels is accusing Krause of racism and "using 19th century anthropological concepts that were used to deny the fact that Ancient Egyptians were African people."
No doubt behind the scenes, Coke is doing the same.
LOL LOL LOL Eurocentric nutjob bob-head, still can't answer the question like a man, so he runs like a little child. Trying to derail the topic will get you nowhere.
You are so stupid you will accuse him of using 19th century theories, yet you'll quote a loon like Coon. Hilarious.
Anyway, how come crony & crackpot euro bob-head? lol
Nothing wrong with "Ancient Egyptians were African people".
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: I mean you nazi types absolutely crack me up. you play stunts like posting altered artifacts like this to *prove* the strict distinction between Egyptians and Nubians
Which people too stupid as to actually do some follow up take as the real thing,
*adding that both the Egyptians and Kushites in this relief have the exact same dark brown paint that falls well within your preferred range for "black" people(or the "chocolate brown class" as you so eloquently quoted)*
And accuse everyone ELSE of shenanigans. The nerve!
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
That chart is fake. Numbers 4 5 & 6 give it away.
Not only that, von Luschan designed his glass tiles for eyeball examination against protected skin like the inside upper arm.
.
quote:Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:I mean if we're going to be objective to the absolute letter and only count the absolute darkest pigmentation possible as black then why not just count the subset of Africans at the extreme end of dark pigment???
Because doing that has very little to no utility. Looking at the Luscan scale, the extreme end would be # 35-36, which is almost a true black.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've already addressed your points. I said there are lighter and darker ancient Egyptians to the average I posted. I'm not though interested in atypical examples of lighter/darker skinned Egyptians because they aren't common. I don't do picture spams. For each chocolate brown Egyptian you can find, I can find a very light brown example. So what's the point?
Katep and Hetepheres- Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: I've already addressed your points. I said there are lighter and darker ancient Egyptians to the average I posted. I'm not though interested in atypical examples of lighter/darker skinned Egyptians because they aren't common. I don't do picture spams. For each chocolate brown Egyptian you can find, I can find a very light brown example. So what's the point?
Katep and Hetepheres-
So what's the point?
1) Have you ever seen ancient Egyptian art IN Egypt?
2) I am going to ask you again, how come these show dark skin? You keep derailing the answer, so I will repeat it for you.
So what's the point? It is you who claimed they didn't have and could not have dark skin, so I ask you how is it possible that 90% of the depictions all over Egypt looks like these?
Ancient Egyptian tomb of temple guard Amenhotep discovered in Luxor
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: [QB] That chart is fake. Numbers 4 5 & 6 give it away.
Not only that, von Luschan designed his glass tiles for eyeball examination against protected skin like the inside upper arm.
It makes no difference unless someone is tanned.
And the 4, 5, 6 anomaly was always there apparently-
"Nos. 4, 5, and 6, interrupting the pinkish to brunette white sequence. The scale does not match all skin colors very closely, primarily because lozenges are glossy." - Coon, 1965
Coon (Ibid.) also provides some useful data on reflectance spectroscopy: "Bushmen skin reflects 43% of light, as compared to 24% in the case of Yoruba Negroes in Nigeria, and 64% in the case of Europeans."
I predict this same range for ancient Egyptians since they're at the same latitude. Europeans are 60-70.
So are Afrocentrists proposing 'black' should cover from 20 to 60% reflectance? That leaves non-black to only 60 to 70%. Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
The 4 5 6 anomaly proves your chart is an inaccurate manipulation designed for Euro self interest. My chart, bricks, and tiles present the anomaly that yours covers up.
I am not here to go back and forth with you. You have been corrected.
The chart you posted is a fake.
For anybody interested here are some of the glass tiles to go along with my bricks and my 'paper' repros
Authenticity assured!
Of course everybody's free to Google von Luschan or skin spectrometry to see for
themselves. The lazy ones won't do it and that's what a certain set of posters rely on. It helps them get over.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ancient Egypt was 1 to 36 with albinos and 23 to 36 without. Modern Egypt is like 1 to 26 with and without. Invasion skin lightening creamed.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: I've already addressed your points. I said there are lighter and darker ancient Egyptians to the average I posted. I'm not though interested in atypical examples of lighter/darker skinned Egyptians because they aren't common. I don't do picture spams. For each chocolate brown Egyptian you can find, I can find a very light brown example. So what's the point?
Katep and Hetepheres-
If an average was truly what you were going for then something like this would've been a much more honest course.
This approximates the vast majority of tomb art and handmade figurines compared to much darker representations like Amenhotep III's figurine or much lighter representations like that shot of the Egyptian soccer team you seriously tried to pass off as the average.
Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is what we mean by "Business as usual". They just released mtdna and autosomal data on over 90 mummies and somehow ES members are posting the same thing they have been posting for the last 10 years.....and dumbing everything down to to skin color.
Welp.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
And yet no one but the so called afrocentrists are taking Cass to account for his constantly shifting use of the word black and skin color goalpost moving??? You can't have it both ways, either black is problematic all around or its only problematic when certain people use it.
--------------------
Meet on the Level, act upon the Plumb, part on the Square. Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: This is what we mean by "Business as usual". They just released mtdna and autosomal data on over 90 mummies and somehow ES members are posting the same thing they have been posting for the last 10 years.....and dumbing everything down to to skin color.
Welp.
What do you think about EEF being almost fixed for the derived solute carrier gene responsible for the greatest amount of difference in skin color between non-EastAsian populations, and what does that suggest about the Abusir Mummies... Or even basal Eurasian for that matter.
Its getting cold in my snowy corner, help a brother out.
But isn't that deflecting? Which positions are in urgent need of revisiting given these aDNA results? Not the Euronuts' positions. All testable claims get their turn in science. The Euronuts were on the other side of the hammer for all these years. Why repeatedly point to Eurnots when its other folks' turn?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Not deflecting, I already stated my position regarding these results. I'm waiting for Predynastic/Old Kingdom dna, which if they are similar to these I'll eat my hat.
Edit: Yet somehow that was construed as a "business as usual post.
I don't know why you edited your post, but again,not deflecting. If he's going to harp on about black as a criterion then he better be ready to deal with the same exact problems as he accuses black posters of.
Anyways back to this I've mulled over the abstract and have my own viewpoints as to explain the latter increase in SSA ancestry among Egyptians (things like the Saharan Slave Trade are what I'm thinking of for instance)
Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
What edits? I generally edit my posts. So what? Are you suggesting there was a nefarious edit?
Another edit:
And I wasn't talking about your response to the aDNA results. When I said deflecting I was talking about your repeated calls to address Cass every time someone is criticized.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not a nefarious one just seemed you went from saying "but aren't you deflecting" to "but isn't that deflecting"? I didn't see anything wrong with your original wording is what I meant *shrugs*
But to address your statement no I still am not deflecting. Other posters usages of the word black and its shortcomings have been criticized by members in this thread yet not his? Thats what I'm addressing. I see nothing in this latest paper that gives his definition of black any more weight over others and his is still just as arbitrary.
Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:I mean if we're going to be objective to the absolute letter and only count the absolute darkest pigmentation possible as black then why not just count the subset of Africans at the extreme end of dark pigment???
Because doing that has very little to no utility. Looking at the Luscan scale, the extreme end would be # 35-36, which is almost a true black.
No anthropologist would make a division/classification of using only 2 tile numbers (e.g. # 35-36) on the Luscan Scale. At the opposite extreme of foolishness: Afrocentrists want to label "black" as broad as possible (as many as 20 tile numbers # 16-36) so they can pool together the diverse variation of skin colours observed in African populations to match their pan-African politics.
What I've clung to is the textbook anthropology divisions such as Coon who defines # 29-36 as black (or what he calls the "chocolate brown class" which is the darkest), these provide most useful since they are neither too broad, nor narrow. Unlike the Afroloons here, I'm not following some sort of "pan" political ideology. So for example when it comes to Europe, I don't classify Northern European pigmentation with Southern European pigmentation.
^^^ Looking at the nuances here, 2 is darker than 3 4,5 and 6 are virtually the same, 17 is darker than 18
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: The 4 5 6 anomaly proves your chart is an inaccurate manipulation designed for Euro self interest. My chart, bricks, and tiles present the anomaly that yours covers up.
I am not here to go back and forth with you. You have been corrected.
The chart you posted is a fake.
For anybody interested here are some of the glass tiles to go along with my bricks and my 'paper' repros
Authenticity assured!
Of course everybody's free to Google von Luschan or skin spectrometry to see for
themselves. The lazy ones won't do it and that's what a certain set of posters rely on. It helps them get over.
^^^ Looking at the nuances here, 6 is a lot darker than 7, 8 and 9 and continues to be darker than anything until 15 which is similar.
Then we go to 16 and 16 is lighter than 15
24 is darker than 25
33 is darker than 34
_________________________________________________
Why aren't any of these charts, the one Cass posted or the ones you posted a consistent sequence from dark to light? Why are some bricks darker than bricks that come after them?
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
I was simply trying to take the sting out of my post by making it less about YOU and more about what I thought you DID. But I'm done talking about this. I don't take kindly to random insinuations that I'm doing sneaky edits. People reading the conversation later have no idea how trivial the edit was and so it makes it look like more than what it was. You should take Beyoku's point up with him. I never said your posts were business as usual. I was simply making an observation.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Ttbomk von Luschan never intended strict gradation. Others, wanted to see a Euro gradient revealed in the lower numbers.
Please Google von Luschan's chart. You'll find what's noticed about the anomaly, no. 6 in particular.
I figured thats what you were trying to do I thought your question was fair enough as it was but I'll drop it and wait for Beyoku to respond.
Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Ttbomk von Luschan never intended strict gradation. Others, wanted to see a Euro gradient revealed in the lower numbers.
Please Google von Luschan's chart. You'll find what's noticed about the anomaly, no. 6 in particular.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Ttbomk von Luschan never intended strict gradation. Others, wanted to see a Euro gradient revealed in the lower numbers.
Please Google von Luschan's chart. You'll find what's noticed about the anomaly, no. 6 in particular.
If you look at any two squares next to each other in just 6 parts you can just barely notice the difference. Which is the Black range?
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:I mean if we're going to be objective to the absolute letter and only count the absolute darkest pigmentation possible as black then why not just count the subset of Africans at the extreme end of dark pigment???
Because doing that has very little to no utility. Looking at the Luscan scale, the extreme end would be # 35-36, which is almost a true black.
No anthropologist would make a division/classification of using only 2 tile numbers (e.g. # 35-36) on the Luscan Scale. At the opposite extreme of foolishness: Afrocentrists want to label "black" as broad as possible (as many as 20 tile numbers # 16-36) so they can pool together the diverse variation of skin colours observed in African populations to match their pan-African politics.
What I've clung to is the textbook anthropology divisions such as Coon who defines # 29-36 as black (or what he calls the "chocolate brown class" which is the darkest), these provide most useful since they are neither too broad, nor narrow. Unlike the Afroloons here, I'm not following some sort of "pan" political ideology. So for example when it comes to Europe, I don't classify Northern European pigmentation with Southern European pigmentation.
It's obvious you are too dumb to see how you are contradicting yourself continuously.
The brown paper bag is where this one drop rule ends. Not my words. Don't get it twisted.
The Brown Paper Bag Test was the primer at Carlton Coon his time. He was obviously a very confused man. No wonder he was a eugenicist.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: [QB] That chart is fake. Numbers 4 5 & 6 give it away.
Not only that, von Luschan designed his glass tiles for eyeball examination against protected skin like the inside upper arm.
It makes no difference unless someone is tanned.
And the 4, 5, 6 anomaly was always there apparently-
"Nos. 4, 5, and 6, interrupting the pinkish to brunette white sequence. The scale does not match all skin colors very closely, primarily because lozenges are glossy." - Coon, 1965
Coon (Ibid.) also provides some useful data on reflectance spectroscopy: "Bushmen skin reflects 43% of light, as compared to 24% in the case of Yoruba Negroes in Nigeria, and 64% in the case of Europeans."
I predict this same range for ancient Egyptians since they're at the same latitude. Europeans are 60-70.
So are Afrocentrists proposing 'black' should cover from 20 to 60% reflectance? That leaves non-black to only 60 to 70%.
It's funny how you keep posting a white supremacist, eugenicist like Carleton Coon, yet accuse people of being Afrocentric (Africa-Centered) as if that is a bad thing.
It is obvious you live in a world of grandeur delusions.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: This is what we mean by "Business as usual". They just released mtdna and autosomal data on over 90 mummies and somehow ES members are posting the same thing they have been posting for the last 10 years.....and dumbing everything down to to skin color.
Welp.
Actually it is a Cas his obsession. He ignores the fact that ancient Egyptian had or could have had dark skin tones because of his latitude Capricorn theory. So he has to be confronted. And I'm not sure if lioness comes first or second.
None in reality thinks like this, it's only obsessive euroloons. Lighter and darker contrast has been their obsession for a long time.
Btw, we now know that the upcoming paper is based on snippets from a Greek-Roman settlement.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Ttbomk von Luschan never intended strict gradation. Others, wanted to see a Euro gradient revealed in the lower numbers.
Please Google von Luschan's chart. You'll find what's noticed about the anomaly, no. 6 in particular.
I read that Carleton Coon wanted No. 6 eliminated
On that note:
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: The 4 5 6 anomaly proves your chart is an inaccurate manipulation designed for Euro self interest. My chart, bricks, and tiles present the anomaly that yours covers up.
I am not here to go back and forth with you. You have been corrected.
The chart you posted is a fake.
For anybody interested here are some of the glass tiles to go along with my bricks and my 'paper' repros
Authenticity assured!
Of course everybody's free to Google von Luschan or skin spectrometry to see for
themselves. The lazy ones won't do it and that's what a certain set of posters rely on. It helps them get over.
Interesting post Tukuler. This scale methodology has an interesting history.
quote: Although I have done similar genetic research-based projects, I have not previously taken on such racially controversial material. is project exposes the genetic dis- crimination at play in the United States beginning in 1900 and links it to the practice of eugenics aimed at achieving racial hygiene in Nazi Germany. As Stern points out in Eugenic Nation, the top eugenicists in the U. S. collaborated with and followed the same practices as their Nazi counterparts in 1930s Germany. In fact the “Gates Skin Color Chart” is based on a similar chart dating to 1905 created by Felix von Luschan, which the German Society for Racial Hygiene utilized in selecting the victims of the forced sterilizations performed in that country.
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: Egypt (or a significant portion of it) isn't in a high-UV radiation zone (see the map in Jablonki & Chaplin, 2000 - "The evolution of human skin coloration") therefore (like the northern Maghreb) light[er] skin pigmentation was selected there. This is a problem for Afrocentrists who want all autochthonous African populations to be "black" (i.e. dark brown skinned) to fit their politics. But what if there were native non-blacks of northernmost Africa? This was actually hypothesized by Carleton Coon.
I predict with ancient DNA in the next few years that ancient Egyptians will be proven to carry 2 or 3 of the 5 derived light skin alleles (rs1426654, rs16891982, rs1042602, rs642742, rs2424984, are there even more?) to explain their pigmentation as roughly intermediate between Europeans and Sub-Saharan Africans.
You don't get it, do you? "Blacks" carry the dominant and recessive.
quote: This suggests a remarkable genetic uniformity and little phylogeographic structure over a large geographic area of the pre-Neolithic populations. Using Approximate Bayesian Computation, a model of genetic continuity from Mesolithic to Neolithic populations is poorly supported. Furthermore, analyses of 1.34% and 0.53% of their nuclear genomes, containing about 50,000 and 20,000 ancestry informative SNPs, respectively, show that these two Mesolithic individuals are not related to current populations from either the Iberian Peninsula or Southern Europe.
[...]
Indicate that La Bran ̃ a specimens (Figure 1) belong to the U5b haplotype (16192T-16270T).
Figure 2 | Ancestral variants around the SLC45A2 (rs16891982, above) and SLC24A5 (rs1426654, below) pigmentation genes in the Mesolithic genome.
The SNPs around the two diagnostic variants (red arrows) in these two genes were analysed. The resulting haplotype comprises neighbouring SNPs that are also absent in modern Europeans (CEU) (n = 112) but present in Yorubans (YRI) (n = 113). This pattern confirms that the La Braña 1 sample is older than the positive-selection event in these regions. Blue, ancestral; red, derived.
--Carles Lalueza-Fox
Nature 507, 225–228 (13 March 2014) doi:10.1038/nature12960
Genomic Affinities of Two 7,000-Year-Old Iberian Hunter-Gatherers
quote:Lalueza-Fox states: "However, the biggest surprise was to discover that this individual possessed African versions in the genes that determine the light pigmentation of the current Europeans, which indicates that he had dark skin, although we can not know the exact shade."
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Ttbomk von Luschan never intended strict gradation. Others, wanted to see a Euro gradient revealed in the lower numbers.
Please Google von Luschan's chart. You'll find what's noticed about the anomaly, no. 6 in particular.
If you look at any two squares next to each other in just 6 parts you can just barely notice the difference. Which is the Black range?
Funny how you left out box 7. Funny you now alter the color boxes into black-white? How is that going to change the narrative, negresse?
Stop it with the "alternative facts", and let's stick to (real) actual facts.
In the meanwhile you can make a skin color scale predictors for these sub Saharan African women. Be creative negresse.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Well, you know how ES threads go. 5% following the OP or staying directly on target, 15% going tangential but related to topic, 80% nothing remotely near topic (but sometimes very good if unexpected material).
Until the online preprint with its materials, methods, and data, what can we do except speculate over blurry mtDNA bars, fuzzy captionless PCA, an illegible f stats with maps?
That, and an abstract about foreign immigrants, post-New Kingdom ancDNA, and a site between Fayum and the Nile.
I only know about the 5 leaks posted by a conference attendee, himself a presenter. I don't have any data release from Krause or Schuenemann. Aren't they saving all that until after this week's conference?
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: This is what we mean by "Business as usual". They just released mtdna and autosomal data on over 90 mummies and somehow ES members are posting the same thing they have been posting for the last 10 years.....and dumbing everything down to to skin color.
Welp.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
So the Canaan was a colony in Egypt from predynastic times and absorbed much of the culture of Egypt by the predynastic era? So then... by the time Canan establishes it's independence and is based in Faiyum, how distinguishable would they have even been culturally?
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: "All populations in the tropics have dark brown skin and are 'black'."
Ok so for a recap.
Sahelians, not black:
Southern Chadians, not black:
South Africans, not black(non-Khoisan or Afrikaaner):
Many African Americans, not black:
Got it.
Playing by Cass' rules though, why stop here? There are numerous Africans even darker than dark brown and in that same tropical apartheid zone, being near pitch black.
I mean if we're going to be objective to the absolute letter and only count the absolute darkest pigmentation possible as black then why not just count the subset of Africans at the extreme end of dark pigment???
We already have precedent for this from Ptolemy's Geographia
Per Martin Bernal's Black Athena
"The people inhabiting the regions around Meroë, on the other hand, were deeply black in color and were pure Ethiopians (Ptolemy Geography 1.9).
Most people in Africa do not have the complexion of these South Sudanese. These South Sudanese make up only about 11,3 million (and these are different ethnic groups combined). Africa has a pop about 1 billion +.
This just tells that Cas is not right in the head and lived in a world of alternative facts.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
So the Canaan was a colony in Egypt from predynastic times and absorbed much of the culture of Egypt by the predynastic era? So then... by the time Canan establishes it's independence and is based in Faiyum, how distinguishable would they have even been culturally?
Colony in Egypt and based in Faiyum? Isn't Canaan in the Levant?
On another note just some more thoughts I've been having about the abstract. I believe a poster mentioned one of the beliefs here that the AE being seen as an increasingly less SSA population over time being challenged by this data. Well thinking about it why not opt for more of a flux in SSA ancestry over time and by location. Abusir is basically right at the neck of the Delta, which is also the immediate point of contact between Egypt, the Levant, and the Mediterranean. So I see no reason why one wouldn't expect less SSA ancestry at this location especially considering the admixture we know happened. As to why there was a post-Roman increase in SSA ancestry, thats could be explained by the Saharan Slave Trade where large numbers of SSA slaves were sold into slavery in Northern Africa including Egypt and resulting in an increase.(compared to much smaller movements prevjously and no different from the Barbary Slave Trade where Europeans were sold into slavery into North Africa)
Maybe this has been brought up already and I'm just rambling. Just a thought.
Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: This is what we mean by "Business as usual". They just released mtdna and autosomal data on over 90 mummies and somehow ES members are posting the same thing they have been posting for the last 10 years.....and dumbing everything down to to skin color.
Welp.
What do you think about EEF being almost fixed for the derived solute carrier gene responsible for the greatest amount of difference in skin color between non-EastAsian populations, and what does that suggest about the Abusir Mummies... Or even basal Eurasian for that matter.
Its getting cold in my snowy corner, help a brother out.
The thing is........I dont care about skin color. I put its importance in the same league as genetic variants for Hair curl.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
So the Canaan was a colony in Egypt from predynastic times and absorbed much of the culture of Egypt by the predynastic era? So then... by the time Canan establishes it's independence and is based in Faiyum, how distinguishable would they have even been culturally?
Colony in Egypt and based in Faiyum? Isn't Canaan in the Levant?
On another note just some more thoughts I've been having about the abstract. I believe a poster mentioned one of the beliefs here that the AE being seen as an increasingly less SSA population over time being challenged by this data. Well thinking about it why not opt for more of a flux in SSA ancestry over time and by location. Abusir is basically right at the neck of the Delta, which is also the immediate point of contact between Egypt, the Levant, and the Mediterranean. So I see no reason why one wouldn't expect less SSA ancestry at this location especially considering the admixture we know happened. As to why there was a post-Roman increase in SSA ancestry, thats could be explained by the Saharan Slave Trade where large numbers of SSA slaves were sold into slavery in Northern Africa including Egypt and resulting in an increase.(compared to much smaller movements prevjously and no different from the Barbary Slave Trade where Europeans were sold into slavery into North Africa)
Maybe this has been brought up already and I'm just rambling. Just a thought.
Here are a few issue with that. 1 - We would at least expct to see a small snapshot of native North East African diversity in the background. Think if we got Ethiopian Ancient mtDNA from 3000 years ago and there was a full absence of L3x, L5, L4, M1, L3i, L3f, L0a and many other maternal lineages though to have an ORIGIN in the area and are found there today.
2 - Some of the ancestry found in Egypt today, particularly among groups not thought to have participated in the Slave trade (Copts) is From East and Horn Africa. There really is no record of any high amount of enslaved humans coming from East Africa into Egypt to be responsible for the distribution maps of those above lineages. Furthermore mtdna studies to show these lineages to be recent in Egypt.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's no concrete evidence for an Egyptian colony in south Levant. Even the article these Afroloons are posting notes the hypothetical colony is denied by a competing commerce/trade model. Anyway, the hypothetical colony only lasted a century-
"[T]he establishment of an Egyptian colony that had functioned for approximately a century [c. 3150 - 3050 BCE]." ( Yekutieli, 2004)
The colony is denied by some archaeologists because it lasted for only around 100 years. So it seems more likely this was just a trading post. Even if this brief colony did exist, it wouldn't have had a big genetic/cultural impact in the south Levant. Those archaeologists arguing for the colony estimate the colony was no greater than 40 km.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic