quote:Originally posted by HabariTess: You dont see the difference in color between the wood and the coating over it in the before pic?
can't an old piece of wood have become dirty from dust in the air?
- also please delete the quote part above with text and pictures already posted , thanks
Let imagine that the figure was dirty when it was discovered. The excess dirt would have been removed from the get go. The fact that she was displayed with a dark brown coating first before being "restored" should have clued you in. The color looks too adhered to the surface to be dirt. Dirt would have compiled in certain areas like creases and there should be more inconsistencies. It wouldnt look uniform, but chunky in certain areas, not lay flat like you see here. Also, with how items are preserved its highly unlikely that these items would have been in an area where dirt would have accumulated to such an extent.
Notice in the sitting scribe that the brown areas follow the structure of the statue, rather than lay on top of it like excess dirt.
ETA Also notice how the paint mask the texture of the figure. Dirt would have simply made it look like dirty wood.
Posts: 116 | From: Birmingham, AL | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many assumptions. You don't know anything about the materials, composition of paints, woods, restoration procedures, the histories of these pieces, nor have you seen them in person.
Posts: 42922 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Yeah Back in the day of incorrect Nubian ID I used to use that statue to illustrate a point about one Levantine ethnic group's complexion 1900 years ago. R. Ishmael, who says: “The sons of Israel are like boxwood, neither black nor white but between the two”
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Many assumptions. You don't know anything about the materials, composition of paints, woods, restoration procedures, the histories of these pieces, nor have you seen them in person.
Do you not see how the statue went from Nubian servant girl to just servant girl? Why would they even classify her as Nubian if they did not believe that her dark paint job was correct?
Posts: 116 | From: Birmingham, AL | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
The Root used a blue filter on the photograph from the original 1976 Image of the Black in Western Art p.78 fig 47 seen below.
I can't tell if she's Nubian.
She wears the Egyptian sidelock of youth. But that's no proof she wasn't born Nubian.
The whites who acquired the piece, as the whole of mainstream (i.e., the white caucasian Western worldview) Egyptology and academia in general, supposed a servant with over moderate lip thickness and nose breadth cannot be a native born and bred Egyptian.
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: The Root is the same white own black faced shit-site that cited Not out of Africa like it was a solid source.
I really dislike The Root. This nonsense about a 'Nubian' servant is so them.
The Root has a series on the great 1976 multi volume book
The Image of the Black in Western Art: by David Bindman (Editor), Henry Louis Gates Jr. (Editor), Karen C. C. Dalton (Editor), Jeremy Tanner (Contributor), Jean Vercoutter (Contributor), Jean Leclant (Contributor), Frank M. Snowden Jr. (Contributor), Jehan Desanges (Contributor), Dominique de Menil (Contributor), Ladislas Bugner (Contributor)
That 1976 book has it titled as
"Statuette of a young Nubian girl carrying an ointment jar. Late Dynasty XVIII, about 1350 B.C. Boxwood. H: 13 cm. Durham, University, Gulbenkian Museum of Oriental Art and Archaeology, North. "
That title probably came from Durham University and they probably referred to other books but they have since changed it to "statuette of servant girl with cosmetic jar"
quote: The Root:
Most scholars characterize her as Nubian — that is, a native of a land extending from southern Egypt far into the African interior. The minimal dress of the serving girl may seem surprising to the modern observer but was quite in keeping with female attendant figures of the time, especially adolescent girls. Her shaved head and plaited side lock are also typically Egyptian, while the amulet of the popular god Bes worn around her neck indicates a more distant provenance.
There was also another servant statuette that was found that is supposed to be an Asiatic
Posts: 42922 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
case closed, the Root altered the original photo to be darker
I've seen the darker photo posted on several websites. It possible that it wasn't the Root, and they simply posted it. Whoever did it did a good job since it is hard to tell any alterations made. I'll take my L on this one.
Posts: 116 | From: Birmingham, AL | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Altering the color of a photo is very easy you put it into photoshop and adjust color controls three is no brushing or anything like that, just move some slider controls The Root darkened the photo. Ask yourself why. It is the same photo, same angle and it's in the same book they reference. You can still form a conspiracy theory with that only it's going to have to be form a different perspective. Go ahead and make one up. Make one up as an exercise
Possibly it's a different edition that was printed with different color controls for the whole book. But look at your assumptions, including you kept saying it was painted but it is not except for the details. These same issues will come up in other photos of other artifacts
Every situation is different, consider the original source of a given photo not the fact it's on many webistes
Look at this:
Nefertiti, standing figure, limestone
Why the two different colors? It is probably just the color settings on the camera. One photographer prefers the photos to have more warm colors, reds and yellows a little enhanced another prefers cooler colors blues and greens to be more enhanced You can buy light bulbs now here you can make the same choice. The two photos are legitimate, not some attempt at a scam
They are both legitimate photos but you need further information to know exactly what the precise real life color is.
Another thing is lighting. A photo of an object could be made in a museum gallery where for dramatic effect they have the room very dim but there's a spotlight on the object. A photo in that condition will look different from the same object in a well lit room or again outdoors
And as I said before there is also the quality of a photo in a book. A lower quality book can have a lot of nice photos of art in it but the color might not be accurate to the real object.
^^ This for instance, the face is not a copy It's entirely fake. Yet it's on many websites presented as real
Posts: 42922 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know about the difference in lighting and color, thanks. I also know the above is a fake.
That image being altered is very surprising, and the fact I saw it years ago is what made it seem more authentic. I was going to message the owners of this statue for more information since I was going to do a redraw of the darker skinned figure and recently found the lighter one. I should not have mention this in this discussion until I had talked with the museum first.
Like I said, I'm taking my L on this one.
Posts: 116 | From: Birmingham, AL | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
So who really thinks that there is a 'lack of DNA' or some other technical reason why the AE could not be primarily classified as black during the Dynastic?
In other words who believes there are "missing facts" that we need to figure this out?
Sure I get that DNA and other things help us flesh out our knowledge of the people, the culture and relations with other groups. It also helps us understand immigration and population movements. But seriously? Is anybody under the illusion there isn't enough data ALREADY to support this?
Obviously this isn't about the word black as the National Geographic folks and other folks in the "scientific community" have no problem using it to refer to Africans in Sudan..... And there is nobody who is rushing to get DNA from Sudan to prove how they were "black". So what data is missing OTHER than DNA as to not make this determination possible? And we certainly don't have a lot of DNA from Rome or China but that doesn't stop them from calling them white Europeans and Chinese. Oh but in Africa.....
Or is there nothing missing they just don't WANT to call them that no matter what?
Because at the end of the day it is hard to believe that there is so much complexity that requires this to drag on and on and on and on as if something "extra" is required.
Obviously DNA isn't required to prove skin color. And certainly that is what we are talking about when we say "Black Pharaohs" because last I checked nobody waited for some aDNA from ancient Nubia to make that declaration.
Posts: 8891 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
I am not sure why it is altered. It could have been done intentionally to change the skin color to fit their impression of a Nubian story theme - or they might have used a different edition of the book that had a different printing quality. That would have to be further investigated
However if was done intentionally then it would have been more consistent to darken the skin color on the picture without the side lock which suggest (but doesn't prove) it's not a Nubian.
So if you want to go with a conspiracy (which does happen sometimes) then the changes have to work together to fit the plan, yet here they go in opposite directions
Posts: 42922 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: So who really thinks that there is a 'lack of DNA' or some other technical reason why the AE could not be primarily classified as black during the Dynastic?
In other words who believes there are "missing facts" that we need to figure this out?
Sure I get that DNA and other things help us flesh out our knowledge of the people, the culture and relations with other groups. It also helps us understand immigration and population movements. But seriously? Is anybody under the illusion there isn't enough data ALREADY to support this?
Swenet and Oshun I told you this. From Doug's perspective DNA doesn't matter, skin color matters. (Diop also) dark skin = black - no other traits or DNA necessary Liberation of black people and black history > his "science" and Egyptology Therefore you look at the art and determine if the person was depicted as black (aka dark skinned) and if you insist on genetics haplogroups aren't skin color, disregard that (R1b for instance doesn't conform) if you insist on genetics at least just deal with genes specific to skin color, rather than haplogroups, "clines" or Admixture K analysis (aka tricky "scientific" methods to deny blackness).
Posts: 42922 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: So who really thinks that there is a 'lack of DNA' or some other technical reason why the AE could not be primarily classified as black during the Dynastic?
In other words who believes there are "missing facts" that we need to figure this out?
Sure I get that DNA and other things help us flesh out our knowledge of the people, the culture and relations with other groups. It also helps us understand immigration and population movements. But seriously? Is anybody under the illusion there isn't enough data ALREADY to support this?
This really sums up how Doug thinks. It's completely backwards. In Doug's mind, his beliefs are proof, and DNA evidence only distracts from his inner proof.
"I already know I'm right, and my inner rightness trumps DNA. Even if DNA comes out contradicting what I said, that is just evidence that there is something wrong with the DNA." --Doug M
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: So who really thinks that there is a 'lack of DNA' or some other technical reason why the AE could not be primarily classified as black during the Dynastic?
In other words who believes there are "missing facts" that we need to figure this out?
Sure I get that DNA and other things help us flesh out our knowledge of the people, the culture and relations with other groups. It also helps us understand immigration and population movements. But seriously? Is anybody under the illusion there isn't enough data ALREADY to support this?
This really sums up how Doug thinks. It's completely backwards. In Doug's mind, his beliefs are proof, and DNA evidence only distracts from his inner proof.
"I already know I'm right, and my inner rightness trumps DNA. Even if DNA comes out contradicting what I said, that is just evidence that there is something wrong with the DNA." --Doug M
Really? So why is it OK to call Ancient Nubians black then? Where is the DNA data? Where is the craniofacial data? I don't hear 'technicalities' being used to justify it with ancient Nubia. That is correct that IS how I think. What FACTS make the Nubians black but the AE not black. Simple question. I mean we are talking about the same meaning of black aren't we or is this supposedly only I think about?
Again. I am asking the question what "technicality" is stopping it from being used in Egypt?
Or to put it a different way what piece of DNA or other evidence is MISSING from AE to make that statement?
I am asking a serious question and not talking about rhetoric. Is this about DNA is it about melanin dosage tests. WHAT criteria is required to say that AE was black or NOT black?
For example what EXTRA data is missing that is necessary to state this is a mummy of a black person:
posted
Another post that makes no sense. Why would I have to answer for someone else use of 'black' in regards to anyone? And what is the scientific value in "why is it okay when they do it"? Take your politics elsewhere Doug. Has nothing to do with the bioanthropological issues at hand.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Skippy was on the staff of the revised 2010 edition of Image 1976. Afaik the Root belongs to Skippy.
The Root didn't invent the Nubian ID. But knowing Skippy he'd want to darken to support Eurocentric conclusions on light Egyptians and Nubians as jet. I mean for those Eurocentrics who don't swallow Reisners Nubians as caucasian.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Another post that makes no sense. Why would I have to answer for someone else use of 'black' in regards to anyone? And what is the scientific value in "why is it okay when they do it"? Take your politics elsewhere Doug. Has nothing to do with the bioanthropological issues at hand.
OK. So for you the issue is political. That is the technicality.
And no I was not saying you had to answer for National Geographic because they are going to say what they want to say regardless and so are most people.
I am only talking about the "attitudes" of some folks on this forum.
Basically calling the AE black or not black or something else is a "political" assessment not based on science or biology. So we can't use those words in order to avoid "political" sensibilities.....
Right.
So I think there should be a new rule on this forum that NO DISCUSSION AT ALL of skin color should ever come up in any context because it is political..... Somebody might be offended.
Just stick to anything else but skin color. We don't want to hurt anybodies feelings about being left out of something black, white or other.
Posts: 8891 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
@ Habari Tess
If we're here to share and learn authenticatable Africana than the only L you took is an L for learning.
We all get precisioned because we all don't know it all (even if the board's patronizers are too puffed up to admit it).
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: OK. So for you the issue is political. That is the technicality.
No. The politics part has nothing to do with me. It has to do with you. If I'm interested in bioanthropology and DNA, what makes you think pointing to other people's social constructs to validate your own, is going to mean something to me? That is what you just did--you tried to validate your own social construct by mentioning the social construct of an Eurocentric. But why should I have to answer for that. Those weren't my words, so take it up with the person who said that.
Your rethoric and your repeated efforts to downplay aDNA tells me that you operate in politics, not in bioanthropology. Don't try to flip the script on me and say that the issue is political for me.
If you say that AE were 'black' then you should have no problem staying away from the politics and proving it using aDNA.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: No. The politics part has nothing to do with me. It has to do with you. If I'm interested in bioanthropology and DNA, what makes you think pointing to other people's social constructs to validate your own, is going to mean something to me? That is what you just did--you tried to validate your own social construct by mentioning the social construct of an Eurocentric. But why should I have to answer for that. Those weren't my words, so take it up with the person who said that.
Your rethoric and your repeated efforts to downplay aDNA tells me that you operate in politics, not in bioanthropology. Don't try to flip the script on me and say that the issue is political for me.
You just said it is politics. You keep saying it.
Therefore for you it is a political issue.
You just said so yourself.
That is the bottom line. You feel that ANYBODY who uses the term black for people in Africa have a political agenda.
That is what you just said.
And if that is not the case then again I ask the question, when it is NOT political to call the AE black or white or whatever? What do you feel is required to make that discussion NOT political?
(And of course I am going to ignore the insult you just threw at me as if I am trying to distort, twist or mischracterize something about African history with some sort of agenda of racial superiority.... but I digress).
Posts: 8891 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you say that AE were 'black' then you should have no problem staying away from the politics and proving it using bioanthroplogy.
I know you want to say it's a political issue for me, so you can absolve yourself from proving it.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
So what proof is required that isn't already there? I already asked the question.
And if you don't want to answer it then fine.
Lets not make this more complex than needed.
The point is you keep making it seem as there is some "Standard" that needs to be met before the term gets used but you don't want to say what that standard is and why it hasn't ALREADY been met.
Because honesty I do agree that it is political and it has been political for the last 300 years and has nothing to do with me.
And this more than anything else is the TRUE reason for not using the term not any sort of LACK of evidence or scientific facts.
Posts: 8891 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: OK. So for you the issue is political. That is the technicality.
And no I was not saying you had to answer for National Geographic because they are going to say what they want to say regardless and so are most people.
I am only talking about the "attitudes" of some folks on this forum.
Basically calling the AE black or not black or something else is a "political" assessment not based on science or biology. So we can't use those words in order to avoid "political" sensibilities.....
Right.
So I think there should be a new rule on this forum that NO DISCUSSION AT ALL of skin color should ever come up in any context because it is political..... Somebody might be offended.
Just stick to anything else but skin color. We don't want to hurt anybodies feelings about being left out of something black, white or other.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
For example what EXTRA data is missing that is necessary to state this is a mummy of a black person:
^^ this is peculiar, Doug was just talking about skin color, and there is was a long multi page thread on the topic of when it is appropriate to apply the term "black" and there he said multiple times "black" means skin color alone. Now he has this colorless "b & W" photo up and he is asking '" what EXTRA data is missing that is necessary to state this is a mummy of a black person"
No that doesn't add up
Posts: 42922 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Now he has this colorless "b & W" photo up and he is asking '" what EXTRA data is missing that is necessary to state this is a mummy of a black person"
Welcome to the strange world of Doug M.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: So what proof is required that isn't already there? I already asked the question.
What proof is already there? Dark skin on the murals? You denounced some forms of dark skin as being non-black. So you basically made the murals unreliable evidence. You say blackness has nothing to do with facial features, so you basically made the skeletal evidence inadmissible. You shot yourself in the foot by denouncing Basal Eurasian and EEF as non-black, so you definitely can't refer to Basal Eurasian-type ancestry. Besides, you already said that blackness has nothing to do with DNA.
So, what proof, exactly, are you talking about when you say there is an abundance of proof that AE were black? By making all these self-defeating claims you have already admitted that you can't prove the AE were black in your use of the term.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see Doug's point. White supremacist created the black race and appropriated/created Nubians. They generally consider Nubians to be black only wavering when the connection to Egyptians are too strong. Based on much of their same criteria Egyptians would be black too. Sometimes its exact the same criteria because its based on the same art.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: There was also another servant statuette that was found that is supposed to be an Asiatic
Now that I'm curious about.
I've heard Lady Kemsit called a Nubian and these hairstylist her Asiatic servants. I regard the term Nubian as either being a Kushite or nonsense. Unless Mentuhotep II imported wives from Kush and Asia they are Egyptians. I do wonder about the origin and authenticity of this picture.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Now he has this colorless "b & W" photo up and he is asking '" what EXTRA data is missing that is necessary to state this is a mummy of a black person"
Welcome to the strange world of Doug M.
Stop being political Swenet.
I thought you only cared about science.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: So what proof is required that isn't already there? I already asked the question.
What proof is already there? Dark skin on the murals? You denounced some forms of dark skin as being non-black. So you basically made the murals unreliable evidence. You say blackness has nothing to do with facial features, so you basically made the skeletal evidence inadmissible. You shot yourself in the foot by denouncing Basal Eurasian and EEF as non-black, so you definitely can't refer to Basal Eurasian-type ancestry. Besides, you already said that blackness has nothing to do with DNA.
So, what proof, exactly, are you talking about when you say there is an abundance of proof that AE were black? By making all these self-defeating claims you have already admitted that you can't prove the AE were black in your use of the term.
What proof do you feel is required?
I already asked the question and you still have not answered it.
What defines "black" in your opinion in genetics, biology or anthropology? Since you object to it so dam much.
And the reason why I ask (and why you wont answer) is because even if that "standard" was met, European institutions, organizations and public media STILL would not portray the AE as black. So rather than accept that as the political reality of white European racism, you pretend that there is some "objective reason" why they don't and won't accept these facts.
Posts: 8891 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: I see Doug's point. White supremacist created the black race and appropriated/created Nubians. They generally consider Nubians to be black only wavering when the connection to Egyptians are too strong. Based on much of their same criteria Egyptians would be black too. Sometimes its exact the same criteria because its based on the same art.
No you don't see my point.
There is abundant evidence in all areas from AE as to what they were in terms of general phenotype. Art is only part of it. There is the mummies, there is the archaeology and the general historic record. All of this shows that the AE were en extension of the Nile Valley and Sahara. Neither the Nile Valley or Sahara are in Europe or Asia. The only way for these people to have been unlike most Africans on the Nile Valley or Sahara would be through population replacement.
Hence, most folks claiming Egypt as "white" or "light skin" are basically saying that at some time in the distant past Eurasians came in and basically mixed with and replaced the indigenous population to the point where their phenotype would not match that of other "indigenous" African groups.
OBVIOUSLY that did not happen. But right now folks are trying to pretend that DNA proves that this happened and that therefore all the other evidence doesn't count. Or some others would like to pretend that the presence of "Eurasian" DNA makes the discussion moot (as if phenotype magically stopped existing) and want to pretend that any discussion of phenotype is invalid. Phenotype is part of biology and is no less valid in AE than anywhere else.
Ultimately if the facts support the idea of a particular phenotype being common then fine. But what some folks are doing is trying to avoid the issue of phenotype all together, trying to make it seem that phenotype is 'irrelevant' and that we should just look at DNA and chromosomes and leave phenotype out of it.
Why?
And why doesn't that apply to the rest of Africa?
It is just a cowardly way of saying they don't REALLY want to challenge white racists on their BS. They know they can't stop the institutions and organizations run by Europeans from promoting Egypt as white, so rather than challenge that, they sit up here and pretend to be "objective" and "obvlivious" to the reality or racial politics STARTING in these same European institutions and act like they only care about science for science's sake. Contradicting the point that this same science has been historically and currently to promote a political racial agenda. And top of that not only do they not challenge white institutions they make a big show out of attacking African scholarship as if it is "as bad" or "worse" then Europeans...... Basically trying to insult Africans for telling their own history.
This isn't about facts. It is basically about folks fronting and pretending to be something they are not.
If "Nubians" can be black and have "Eurasian" mixture today then why couldnt the AE who were the closest populations to them physically and culturally also not also have beeb black with so-called "Eurasian" DNA? Not to mention what if that DNA isn't really "Eurasian" to begin with.
These are the points at hand. Some folks just want to pretend that DNA trumps everything else and it doesn't. "Eurasian" DNA doesn't trump black skin anywhere else in Africa, yet in AE somehow it magically changes blacks to whites.
You even have scholars claiming that Eurasians introduced L3 into Africa 70k years ago. Obviously none of this has anything to do with skin color.
People know this but they still persist in this nonsense that DNA lineage = skin color when it doesn't.
If that was the case most blacks in America aren't blacks.
At the end of the day folks like Keita who can be as "non racial" and "non political" all they want. It won't change what European controlled institutions publish or produce about history in the Nile Valley one bit.
And that is the point of the thread while other folks want to pretend it isn't.
Posts: 8891 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
^^ This for instance, the face is not a copy It's entirely fake. Yet it's on many websites presented as real
How can it "real", being in the state it's in? Not a scratch? It kind of reminds me of the hundreds if not thousands of supposed classic Greek and Roman statues and busts, with not a scratch on them.
quote: Thutmose III Bust sculpture
Item No. 301 Weight: 23 lbs (10.4 kg). Dimensions: W: 9"" H: 12.5"" D: 7.5"" (23cm x 32cm x 19cm). Egyptian Museum, Cairo. Made of cast stone and hand-finished in antique finish. Egyptian pharaoh of the 18th dynasty (reigned ca. 1504 - 1450 BC) often regarded as the greatest of the rulers of ancient Egypt. Thutmose III emerged as the sole ruler of Egypt and as a great conqueror after the death of Hatshesput. He consolidated all of Syria except Phoenicia into his empire and enriched Egypt with wealth and power. According to the stele of Thutmose III, over 350 cities fell to the Egyptians under his rule. There is little doubt that his numerous campaigns were extremely successful. He has in fact been referred to as the ""Napoleon of ancient Egypt"" because of his military expansion.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: If you say that AE were 'black' then you should have no problem staying away from the politics and proving it using bioanthroplogy.
I know you want to say it's a political issue for me, so you can absolve yourself from proving it.
what is bioanthroplogically "black" ? what defines that? what are the parameters?
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: If you say that AE were 'black' then you should have no problem staying away from the politics and proving it using bioanthroplogy.
I know you want to say it's a political issue for me, so you can absolve yourself from proving it.
what is bioanthroplogically "black" ? what defines that? what are the parameters?
There is no standard, no parameters. It's a social context term which sometimes shows up in scientific articles but increasing less and not often in a way where there is a measured focus on the term itself. For instance you might see it in a medical journal article talking about a particular disease prevalence difference between blacks an whites
However if you want to read a 40 page thread on it click on the "When to use black" topic which just got bumped to the main page again
Posts: 42922 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: No you don't see my point.
That is exactly how this
quote: Really? So why is it OK to call Ancient Nubians black then? Where is the DNA data? Where is the craniofacial data? I don't hear 'technicalities' being used to justify it with ancient Nubia. That is correct that IS how I think. What FACTS make the Nubians black but the AE not black.
comes off
quote: There is abundant evidence in all areas from AE as to what they were in terms of general phenotype. Art is only part of it. There is the mummies, there is the archaeology and the general historic record. All of this shows that the AE were en extension of the Nile Valley and Sahara. Neither the Nile Valley or Sahara are in Europe or Asia. The only way for these people to have been unlike most Africans on the Nile Valley or Sahara would be through population replacement.
Hence, most folks claiming Egypt as "white" or "light skin" are basically saying that at some time in the distant past Eurasians came in and basically mixed with and replaced the indigenous population to the point where their phenotype would not match that of other "indigenous" African groups.
OBVIOUSLY that did not happen. But right now folks are trying to pretend that DNA proves that this happened and that therefore all the other evidence doesn't count. Or some others would like to pretend that the presence of "Eurasian" DNA makes the discussion moot (as if phenotype magically stopped existing) and want to pretend that any discussion of phenotype is invalid. Phenotype is part of biology and is no less valid in AE than anywhere else.
Ultimately if the facts support the idea of a particular phenotype being common then fine. But what some folks are doing is trying to avoid the issue of phenotype all together, trying to make it seem that phenotype is 'irrelevant' and that we should just look at DNA and chromosomes and leave phenotype out of it.
Why?
And why doesn't that apply to the rest of Africa?
It is just a cowardly way of saying they don't REALLY want to challenge white racists on their BS. They know they can't stop the institutions and organizations run by Europeans from promoting Egypt as white, so rather than challenge that, they sit up here and pretend to be "objective" and "obvlivious" to the reality or racial politics STARTING in these same European institutions and act like they only care about science for science's sake. Contradicting the point that this same science has been historically and currently to promote a political racial agenda. And top of that not only do they not challenge white institutions they make a big show out of attacking African scholarship as if it is "as bad" or "worse" then Europeans...... Basically trying to insult Africans for telling their own history.
This isn't about facts. It is basically about folks fronting and pretending to be something they are not.
If "Nubians" can be black and have "Eurasian" mixture today then why couldnt the AE who were the closest populations to them physically and culturally also not also have beeb black with so-called "Eurasian" DNA? Not to mention what if that DNA isn't really "Eurasian" to begin with.
These are the points at hand. Some folks just want to pretend that DNA trumps everything else and it doesn't. "Eurasian" DNA doesn't trump black skin anywhere else in Africa, yet in AE somehow it magically changes blacks to whites.
You even have scholars claiming that Eurasians introduced L3 into Africa 70k years ago. Obviously none of this has anything to do with skin color.
People know this but they still persist in this nonsense that DNA lineage = skin color when it doesn't.
If that was the case most blacks in America aren't blacks.
At the end of the day folks like Keita who can be as "non racial" and "non political" all they want. It won't change what European controlled institutions publish or produce about history in the Nile Valley one bit.
And that is the point of the thread while other folks want to pretend it isn't.
True. Based on that criteria I would not be black and like I said all but one Egyptian royals tested were forensically more SSA than I. I'm not passing btw. I just dloaded a police report where the police assumed I was black based on appearance.
We need to remind people that Ancient Egyptian DNA was tested back in 85, then again in 92/93, then again in 2008,10,11,12,13. We had some published data etc you probably know the history. In 17 we get one locale in a reported 'Semitic' burial after Egypt was invaded and its borders pushed below said region. The media heavily reported it as the first and the de facto.
You see what I mean? The laymen are ahead of egyptsearch. The laymen would pose that if you really wan't to know Egyptians genetically you test many regions, you would start with the oldest, the cultural hubs and focus on named individuals/royalty. The laymen would pose that if you test a region you release the results, not one haplogroup and statements about modern Egyptians being the same or derived from SSA lineages and other.
This new dynastic race theory doesn't have the genetic evidence to support it. The old theory was that ancient Egyptians left Africa did an offbeat Caucasian dance and came back from the south working their way up while mixing with the locales. The new theory is that they share lineages with out of Africa groups so even if they never left Africa in bulk they are more distant from Angolans than say Greeks. You can't make that case when genetic testing is so janky and even if you did you would still be talking about a race of Africans who were culturally more Wakandan than modern Angolans yet then again so were ancient Greeks .
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: top being political Swenet.
I thought you only cared about science.
I do. And science tells me there is nothing uniquely African-looking about that mummy. She looks racially ambiguous. But that is besides the point. You said black is skin pigmentation, and then you posted a mummy with no skin pigmentation preserved and call it black. This is why it's impossible to discuss something with you sometimes, because you're all over the place.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: What proof do you feel is required?
I already asked the question and you still have not answered it.
What defines "black" in your opinion in genetics, biology or anthropology? Since you object to it so dam much.
I'm not going to fall for your attempts to put the burden on me. Either you can provide bioanthro data showing AE are black, or you can't. And if you come back with another diversion talking about "but what evidence are you looking for" I will simply assume that can't prove they were what you think they were.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: And the reason why I ask (and why you wont answer) is because even if that "standard" was met, European institutions, organizations and public media STILL would not portray the AE as black. So rather than accept that as the political reality of white European racism, you pretend that there is some "objective reason" why they don't and won't accept these facts.
Irrelevant non-science. Make a thread about Europeans if you want to vent about them. Either you can prove AE were black in your use of the term, using bioanthro data, or you can't. Very simple.
Also, I told you before, I don't have to answer for Europeans and their institutions. I'm also not interested or invested in their approval, but you obviously are. This is why you think you're dropping a bombshell when you say that Europeans don't care when you use proper scientific terminology. You're not dropping a bombshell. You're simply being Capt'n Obvious and drifting off into your usual politics and monologues about Europeans.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: If you say that AE were 'black' then you should have no problem staying away from the politics and proving it using bioanthroplogy.
I know you want to say it's a political issue for me, so you can absolve yourself from proving it.
what is bioanthroplogically "black" ? what defines that? what are the parameters?
I have never given an indication that I use the term, and, unlike Doug, I never put my use of the term up for discussion. So the burden is not on me to explain the term, to explain National Geographic's use of the term, or anyone else's use of the term.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: top being political Swenet.
I thought you only cared about science.
I do. And science tells me there is nothing uniquely African-looking about that mummy. She looks racially ambiguous. But that is besides the point. You said black is skin pigmentation, and then you posted a mummy with no skin pigmentation preserved and call it black. This is why it's impossible to discuss something with you sometimes, because you're all over the place.
And I understand that is your perspective. But that is not EVERYBODYS perspective.... You nor I decide what gets called black and what does not get called black when it comes to African bioanthropology. Which is why I wonder why you continually push your point of view as more relevant than what the media, popular science and other forms of communication say? I am not here to really debate you on the meaning of the word black when it can be used and when it cant. This is why I don't understand your position in the sense of critizing people who have a VALID concern about the portrayal of AE people by media and science. This is a VERY OLD issue and yet you present your views as some "alternative". Alternative to what? We don't control media and institutions of science so what "alternative" are you talking about?
This is why I dislike your so-called "highminded" position, because ultimately it means nothing especially for those who dislike the misrepresentations and distortions of folks like National Geographic. While that may not be YOUR concern that is still a VALID concern and other folks have the right to address it is my point.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: What proof do you feel is required?
I already asked the question and you still have not answered it.
What defines "black" in your opinion in genetics, biology or anthropology? Since you object to it so dam much.
I'm not going to fall for your attempts to put the burden on me. Either you can provide bioanthro data showing AE are black, or you can't. And if you come back with another diversion talking about "but what evidence are you looking for" I will simply assume that can't prove they were what you think they were.
If you are going to continually inject yourself into a criticism and objection to portrayals of AE as white by media and institutions you don't control you are setting yourself up as a separate "standard" as to how people should speak relative to the issue. It is fine to have your own purpose and reasons for doing what you do. But you are no "standard" on how people should think, discuss or address concerns about representations of African history. That is my point. Nobody in media, science or academia is going by "Swenets rules of discourse on skin color". National Geographic isn't. The History Channel isnt and neither am I. But you set yourself up as a "middle man" when the issue really has nothing to do with you.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: And the reason why I ask (and why you wont answer) is because even if that "standard" was met, European institutions, organizations and public media STILL would not portray the AE as black. So rather than accept that as the political reality of white European racism, you pretend that there is some "objective reason" why they don't and won't accept these facts.
Irrelevant non-science. Make a thread about Europeans if you want to vent about them. Either you can prove AE were black in your use of the term, using bioanthro data, or you can't. Very simple.
This is a thread about European insitutions. See how you conveniently put yourself in between the institutions and media you DONT control and other folks who have problems with said media representations of AE? You aren't the "standard" on who gets to say what on the issue, yet you keep pretending to be so.
And the reason why I mentioned the whatever "standard" you feel is required is to point out that NOBODY in media or institutions is going to change their presentations of the AE. No matter how you pretend that you UNDERSTAND science, you don't CONTROL science and institutions of media and academia. They can say and do what they want and yes some people have a VALID reason not to agree with them and their representations of African history. Yet you like to put yourself into something that has nothing to do with you personally.
That is the part you just like to ignore.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Also, I told you before, I don't have to answer for Europeans and their institutions. I'm also not interested or invested in their approval, but you obviously are. This is why you think you're dropping a bombshell when you say that Europeans don't care when you use proper scientific terminology. You're not dropping a bombshell. You're simply being Capt'n Obvious and drifting off into your usual politics and monologues about Europeans.
So again you just jump up and put YOURSELF between people who have VALID concerns with these institutions as the topic of the thread says and pretend this has something to do with you. National Geographic and their use of the term black is not controlled by YOU. WHY they use it and WHEN they use it is not up to YOU to decide. Therefore anyone addressing that is not addressing YOU they are addressing those facts. YOU shoulnd't be trying to tell people how to address something YOU don't control and can't change.
And this is what Keita was ultimately addressing which absolutely has to do with the word black. Which means even Keita knows that there is more than enough evidence for the AE to also be labeled as black. Otherwise why do you think he responded this way to National Geographic. And if objecting to National Geographic is political and the use of the term black is political then by definition Keita is being political and Afrocentric.
Sometimes you have to address lies and depicting AE as white Eurasians in the dynastic era is simply a lie. Depicting Tut as a white child is a lie. Don't give me that nonsense there is no evidence otherwise. This issue has been political since before anybody on this forum was born. And to pretend that somehow it STOPPED being political or that these institutions of science or academia are really "objective" and concerned about facts is just a straight out lie.
Posts: 8891 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aint nobody got time to read all that. Just more obfuscation of the central issue.
You've shown that you can't prove that AE were black in your use of the term. To hide that fact, you keep introducing new topics that have nothing to do with moving the conversation forward. Typical Doug tapdancing to hold the conversation hostage for 5000 thread pages.
I'm not going to let you troll the sh!t out of substantiating your original claim. Either you have the evidence, or you don't. It's as simple as that. And you obviously don't have the evidence. It's as clear as day.
Just admit that you operate solely in politics and don't know your way around bioanthropology.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Aint nobody got time to read all that. Just more obfuscation of the central issue.
You've shown that you can't prove that AE were black in your use of the term. To hide that fact, you keep introducing new topics that have nothing to do with moving the conversation forward. Typical Doug tapdancing to hold the conversation hostage for 5000 thread pages.
I'm not going to let you troll the sh!t out of substantiating your original claim. Either you have the evidence, or you don't. It's as simple as that. And you obviously don't have the evidence. It's as clear as day.
Just admit that you operate solely in politics and don't know your way around bioanthropology.
Dude. You have been on this forum how long? My post history is there going back over 10 years. I am not going to sit here and rehash what has been said before.
Bottom line you don't believe that the AE were black. That's all. Politics have nothing to do with it. You don't "win" your argument by claiming politics. That is just you spinning again. And don't give me that garbage argument you don't use the word black because DNA is better. Cheddar man just contradicted you. Science isn't politics.
In fact Keita just contradicted you idiot. I don't know how it is you keep AVOIDING the point of the dam thread. Keita and his disagreement over National Geographic and their representation of ancient Egyptians. Nobody was asking for your opinions on the word black.
I dind't say this, Keita did:
quote: The title from the outset is problematic. It “racializes” the identity of some ancient peoples in line with some older scholastic thinking which itself was the product of a colonialist and blatantly racist era. One famous Egyptologist spoke of the “Nigger Kings” in reference to the 25th Dynasty. The title of the program implies an absolute dichotomy between Egyptians and Nubians that even certain biased Egyptologists from the past would have questioned. Note that even Petrie, father of the Dynastic Race construct, spoke of various Egyptian dynasties other than the 25th as having Sudanese or Nubian ancestry.
So obviously you want proof there it is.
It proves this issue has always been political based on racism.
It proves you can't avoid racism in science.
It proves this issue has nothing to do with facts or evidence.
It proves that Swenets position is BS.
Posts: 8891 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lol! Funny dude. Yeah. Black is NOT synonymous with African. There are geographic Africans and there are geographic Europeans. There are “balcks” that are not Africans. There are “whites’ who are Africans…like Tunisians. Always had since the late Neolithic. AEians had absolute NO relation to modern Europeans as far as decent. Yes, they are related just like all humans are related. That is why Malawi_Hora 8100 is classified as Caucasian in some Anthropological cycles. But AEians were are indigenous Civilization spawned on the continent of Africa by the black people who lived there. The AEians were part of a Greater Sahara pool. That dissipated from the green Sahara. Yes, modern Europeans are part of the Neolithic package that came from the Green Sahara but they had left the African continent 6000years prior. That is why the STR will show that AEians are SSA while modern Europeans will differ. That is why AEians will and have aligned will Geographic Africans because they are Africans related to SSA along the Great Lakes….and some Horners(wink @ Swenet).
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
^^^ I found this picture of an Egyptian man. His hair is black but his skin appears to be brown. What's up with that?
These Asian guys from an Island off of Papua New Guinea they appear more black than brown
What the hell is going on here?
Who came uo with this whole thing calling people "white" or "black" Who started that?
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Aint nobody got time to read all that. Just more obfuscation of the central issue.
You've shown that you can't prove that AE were black in your use of the term. To hide that fact, you keep introducing new topics that have nothing to do with moving the conversation forward. Typical Doug tapdancing to hold the conversation hostage for 5000 thread pages.
I'm not going to let you troll the sh!t out of substantiating your original claim. Either you have the evidence, or you don't. It's as simple as that. And you obviously don't have the evidence. It's as clear as day.
Just admit that you operate solely in politics and don't know your way around bioanthropology.
Dude. You have been on this forum how long? My post history is there going back over 10 years. I am not going to sit here and rehash what has been said before.
Bottom line you don't believe that the AE were black. That's all. Politics have nothing to do with it. You don't "win" your argument by claiming politics. That is just you spinning again. And don't give me that garbage argument you don't use the word black because DNA is better. Cheddar man just contradicted you. Science isn't politics.
In fact Keita just contradicted you idiot. I don't know how it is you keep AVOIDING the point of the dam thread. Keita and his disagreement over National Geographic and their representation of ancient Egyptians. Nobody was asking for your opinions on the word black.
I dind't say this, Keita did:
quote: The title from the outset is problematic. It “racializes” the identity of some ancient peoples in line with some older scholastic thinking which itself was the product of a colonialist and blatantly racist era. One famous Egyptologist spoke of the “Nigger Kings” in reference to the 25th Dynasty. The title of the program implies an absolute dichotomy between Egyptians and Nubians that even certain biased Egyptologists from the past would have questioned. Note that even Petrie, father of the Dynastic Race construct, spoke of various Egyptian dynasties other than the 25th as having Sudanese or Nubian ancestry.
So obviously you want proof there it is.
It proves this issue has always been political based on racism.
It proves you can't avoid racism in science.
It proves this issue has nothing to do with facts or evidence.
It proves that Swenets position is BS.
Like I said, aint nobody got time to read all that. Come back when you have evidence that AE skin was 'black' in a way that excludes Cheddar Man and only includes Africans.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
^^^ I found this picture of an Egyptian man. His hair is black but his skin appears to be brown. What's up with that?
These Asian guys from an Island off of Papua New Guinea they appear more black than brown
What the hell is going on here?
Who came uo with this whole thing calling people "white" or "black" Who started that?
Kunwariya Bai, 40, pictured with her grandson, lives in Tantar village in Baiga Chak
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
^I should probably do the same thing and let it go. aDNA is going to take care of ideologues sooner or later anyway. It already is. And that was foreseeable before any Natufian or Egyptian genomes were published:
quote:Originally Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on 26 May, 2016 10:24:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: That is bizarre because this very chart is often used by Amun Ra and other ES members that West Africans (and SAs and Central Africans) have the closest similarities to the AEs.
Ancient Egyptian aDNA, especially the indigenous ancestry in their genomes that was there in the Upper Palaeolithic, is going to hurt a lot of folks' feelings.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Aint nobody got time to read all that. Just more obfuscation of the central issue.
You've shown that you can't prove that AE were black in your use of the term. To hide that fact, you keep introducing new topics that have nothing to do with moving the conversation forward. Typical Doug tapdancing to hold the conversation hostage for 5000 thread pages.
I'm not going to let you troll the sh!t out of substantiating your original claim. Either you have the evidence, or you don't. It's as simple as that. And you obviously don't have the evidence. It's as clear as day.
Just admit that you operate solely in politics and don't know your way around bioanthropology.
Dude. You have been on this forum how long? My post history is there going back over 10 years. I am not going to sit here and rehash what has been said before.
Bottom line you don't believe that the AE were black. That's all. Politics have nothing to do with it. You don't "win" your argument by claiming politics. That is just you spinning again. And don't give me that garbage argument you don't use the word black because DNA is better. Cheddar man just contradicted you. Science isn't politics.
In fact Keita just contradicted you idiot. I don't know how it is you keep AVOIDING the point of the dam thread. Keita and his disagreement over National Geographic and their representation of ancient Egyptians. Nobody was asking for your opinions on the word black.
I dind't say this, Keita did:
quote: The title from the outset is problematic. It “racializes” the identity of some ancient peoples in line with some older scholastic thinking which itself was the product of a colonialist and blatantly racist era. One famous Egyptologist spoke of the “Nigger Kings” in reference to the 25th Dynasty. The title of the program implies an absolute dichotomy between Egyptians and Nubians that even certain biased Egyptologists from the past would have questioned. Note that even Petrie, father of the Dynastic Race construct, spoke of various Egyptian dynasties other than the 25th as having Sudanese or Nubian ancestry.
So obviously you want proof there it is.
It proves this issue has always been political based on racism.
It proves you can't avoid racism in science.
It proves this issue has nothing to do with facts or evidence.
It proves that Swenets position is BS.
Like I said, aint nobody got time to read all that. Come back when you have evidence that AE skin was 'black' in a way that excludes Cheddar Man and only includes Africans.
I get it Swenet. You believe AE were basically heavily mixed populations of Eurasian migrants. We will see. Somehow I doubt that the Upper Egyptians/Lower Sudanese who established AE and dominated it were of that kind of mixture. But we will see.
And if you read the Cheddar Man paper it says that his dark skin came from the "Middle East" and ultimately Africa. Not sure how anyone would twist that into Africans got their dark skin from Eurasia. Sounds backwards. And if the AE are remants of an "aboriginal" type base population that gave rise to OOA why would the be "Eurasian".
My personal view is that there should be a segment of AE that maintains some remnant of the old pre OOA lineages (with mutations) plus possibly some mixture with "back migrants" from the Levant and Arabia but nothing to the degree of replacing the original African component. But that depends on the models used to date and model the "back migrations" associated with the inevitable assignment of "Eurasian" lineages to some of these folks.
And even if some upcoming scholarship shows the AE to primarily of black skin whether from "Eursian" migrants or indigenous populations it won't change how National Geographic or other media and institutions of science depict dynastic AE people......
Posts: 8891 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
.
Printer-friendly view of this topic