posted
I've already described type B Northwest African Mesolithic crania in another thread and upon further reading I found this:
The comparative table for Type B males [Table 15] shows that we are dealing with a variety that is remarkably close to the population of Lower Nubia in the late Predynastic and Early Dynastic periods( el Batrawi, '35), as it is to the much later but nearly identical population of Siwa Oasis in Ptolemaic times (Derry, '27)
Now we have just established that Type B Mesolithic Northwest African crania are identical to Lower Nubian crania, which makes them pretty much Negroid. To take this another step further, we even find a West African population in Gabon which is also similar to Type B:
In Table 16 we note the same parallels to ancient Lower Nubians that characterize Type B males, and the similarity to Derry's Siwa series is again strong, but we find also a strikingly close resemblance to a series of West African crania from Fernand Vaz in the Gaboon (Trevor, '49) This resemblance is in form rather than size, as the Gabunese series is made up of much smaller individuals, but it is still far closer than is the rather tenuous resemblance between the males of Type B and those of Fernand Vaz.
Unfortunately the racial and cultural origins and affinities of Trevor's Fernand Vaz series are shrouded in mystery, but two of the specimens are catalogued as Fang, and the rest can hardly have come from very far away. According to Seligman ('35, p. 182) the Fang are immigrants probably from somewhere a little west of the Congo-Nile watershed, and he is inclined to consider them as of partly Hamitic origin although now much modified by mixture following their arrival on the West African coast.......... The series described by Trevor was collected presumably between 30 and 50 years after the arrival of the Fang in the Gaboon, and so we may assume that it is a relatively unadulterated sample of the original immigrant type together with perhaps, a certain proportion of the type of the older and probably Bantu inhabitants of the region.
Now we know today that Seligman's Hamitic Hypothesis has been debunked and is no longer accepted, we have established that Type B males from Mesolithic Northwest Africa were without a doubt Negroid. Part two in the next post.
[This message has been edited by S.Mohammad (edited 20 December 2004).]
[This message has been edited by S.Mohammad (edited 20 December 2004).]
posted
Now moving on, we find populations outside of Africa with affinities to Type B Northwest African Mesolithic crania, which we have just established, was akin to Lower Nubians and a series of crania from gabon west Africa, which makes type b undoubtedly Negroid. We even find populations with affinites to Type B in Greece and among the Natufians, read:
We find that Type B is also remarkably close to Angel's ('44) Ancient Greek "Classic Mediterranean" Type B, which, in its turn, is even closer to Derry's Siwa series than are el Batrawi's A-Group Lower Nubians.
And also in the Natufians we find affinities to Type B:
The Natufian skull from Shuqbah in Palestine that was illustrated and briefly described by Keith('31, pp. 221-223) is very like some of our Type B specimens, although the mandibular angle is more open, the mandible itself less massive, and the cranial vault fuller and more rounded as viewed from the side. The orbits are slightly rounder, and the nose is broader throughout its entire length. The resemblance remains none the less impressive.
Here again we find affinites to Type B in Greece and the Natufians, who have a slight Nubian affinity according to Lawrence Angel though I can't find the exact quote where he stated this.
Source:
L. Cabot-Briggs Stone Age Races of Northwest Africa pgs 61, 62
Comments?????????
[This message has been edited by S.Mohammad (edited 20 December 2004).]
posted
You mean the Southern Europeans don't get E3b and Benin sickle cell from 'proto-caucasoid' sources! Deinekes will be infuriated! So much of the argument of the Eurocentrists is simply based on ignoring the fact that the game has moved on since Carelton Coon.
So called 'mainstream' anthropology moves closer and closer to Diop which each passing year. (whether he gets any 'credit' or not)
It was Diop who was among the 1st to state that the Medit-Caucasian race was little more than a face saving rhetorical effort to disguise heterogeniety in Europe.
quote:Originally posted by S.Mohammad: Now moving on, we find populations outside of Africa with affinities to Type B Northwest African Mesolithic crania, which we have just established, was akin to Lower Nubians and a series of crania from gabon west Africa, which makes type b undoubtedly Negroid. We even find populations with affinites to Type B in Greece and among the Natufians, read:
We find that Type B is also remarkably close to Angel's ('44) Ancient Greek "Classic Mediterranean" Type B, which, in its turn, is even closer to Derry's Siwa series than are el Batrawi's A-Group Lower Nubians.
And also in the Natufians we find affinities to Type B:
The Natufian skull from Shuqbah in Palestine that was illustrated and briefly described by Keith('31, pp. 221-223) is very like some of our Type B specimens, although the mandibular angle is more open, the mandible itself less massive, and the cranial vault fuller and more rounded as viewed from the side. The orbits are slightly rounder, and the nose is broader throughout its entire length. The resemblance remains none the less impressive.
Here again we find affinites to Type B in Greece and the Natufians, who have a slight Nubian affinity according to Lawrence Angel though I can't find the exact quote where he stated this.
Source:
L. Cabot-Briggs [b]Stone Age Races of Northwest Africa pgs 61, 62
Comments?????????
[This message has been edited by S.Mohammad (edited 20 December 2004).][/B]
quote:Originally posted by rasol: You mean the Southern Europeans don't get E3b and Benin sickle cell from 'proto-caucasoid' sources! Deinekes will be infuriated! So much of the argument of the Eurocentrists is simply based on ignoring the fact that the game has moved on since Carelton Coon.
One thing Dienekes has failed to address concerning Coon was that Coon stated THIS as per quoted from the same source:
Coon ('39, p.63) has remarked that "many living Europeans of Mediterranean extraction" show a considerable negroid tendency, but here it assumes the role of a sexual as well as racial characteristic
L. Cabot Briggs Stone Ages of Northwest Africa p. 62
[This message has been edited by S.Mohammad (edited 20 December 2004).]
[This message has been edited by S.Mohammad (edited 20 December 2004).]
posted
I am afraid to ask what is meant by 'sexually' Negroid as opposed to racially. Good old Carleton Coon.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Black Folk Here and There Vol.1 St. Clair Drake
If the early Delta population was Natufian, even Carleton Coon, an anthropologist whose racist statements sometimes embarrassed his colleagues, would concede a Negroid tinge. On one occasion he wrote of Natufians that "the wide, low vaulted nose, in combination with prognathism, gives a somewhat negroid cast to the face." But he hastened to conclude that these people were REALLY "white," that "these late Natufians represent a basically Mediterranean type with minor Negroid affinities." These same people would probably be classified as "Negroes" in the United States, where such MINOR Negroid affinities are always enough to tip the scales. In the Middle East, however, they remain "white". Such inconsistencies have evoked charges against the professional taxonomists ranging from hypocrisy to racism, by those Blacks who are aware of their operations. They see a definite attempt to insist that the Neolithic innovators who developed agriculture, pottery, metallurgy, and weaving could not possibly have been what we now call "Negroes".
One thing that the recent studies on the Natufians has revealed is that Paletine and not Norther (Lower Egypt) was actually the buffer zone between indigenous African populations and Eurasians up to the end of the New Kingdom.
....from someone who quotes from wikipedia and britannica as primary sources on physical anthropology and linguistics.
I don't quote any wikipedia. Just admit you don't know **** about physical anthropology. You are just talking out of your ass all the time and you think someone takes you seriously.
Just don't think i take you seriously dude.
quote:rasol:
...from someone who believes that Ethiopians are descendant from King Solomon and Moses.
Let me get your point straight... Are you denying cultural relationships between northern Ethiopians and southern Arabians?
King Solomon and Moses were both Semitic speakers (Hebrew and Arabic are semitic languages), so were southern Arabians.
Proto-Semitic is basically the same as Afro-Asiatic but the modern Semitic speech (called Sabaean) and script was introduced to Ethiopia from southern Arabia during the first millennium B.C.
During the first millennium B.C. and possibly even earlier, various Semitic-speaking groups from Southwest Arabia began to cross the Red Sea and settle along the coast and in the nearby highlands. These migrants brought with them their Semitic speech (Sabaean and perhaps others) and script (Old Epigraphic South Arabic) and monumental stone architecture. A fusion of the newcomers with the indigenous inhabitants produced a culture known as pre-Aksumite. The factors that motivated this settlement in the area are not known, but to judge from subsequent history, commercial activity must have figured strongly. The port city of Adulis, near modern-day Mitsiwa, was a major regional entrepôt and probably the main gateway to the interior for new arrivals from Southwest Arabia. Archaeological evidence indicates that by the beginning of the Christian era this pre-Aksumite culture had developed western and eastern regional variants. The former, which included the region of Aksum, was probably the polity or series of polities that became the Aksumite state. http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/sahelaselassie.html
quote:rasol:
....from someone who thinks that Berber originates with the FlintStone-age tool making industry.
What have the Imazighen anything to do with the subject?
You are not even relevant just admit you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
quote:rasol:
....from a total fool, from whom only a foolish conclusion can ever be deduced. [/B]
The only straw head here is you so keep your bs shut.
By relying on old craniology (which was also used by the nazis and racist British) you just demonstrate how much you know about physical anthropology. http://skepdic.com/cranial.html
[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 21 December 2004).]
quote:Originally posted by Orionix: Bringing back old and outdated craniometry!?
Again: Any conclusion can be deduced.
[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 21 December 2004).]
Listen X4Dummy, anyone who goes on talking about North Africa Capsians is still stuck on Coon. You need to update your sources and test them for validity.
...from someone who believes that Ethiopians are descendant from King Solomon and Moses.
quote:Let me get your point straight... Are you denying cultural relationships between northern Ethiopians and southern Arabians?
No, I am saying you are a bit of a knucklehead. Got it straight now?
Case in point.....
quote:Proto-Semitic is basically the same as Afro-Asiatic
No knucklehead, Proto-Semitic refers to a single language that is the ostinsible basis of all semitic. Semetic is one sub-group of Afro-Asiatic language group which consists of hundreds of different languages and many sub groups. They are not 'basically the same e thing'. Ignorance of this fact is no crime. However the fact that this has been explained serveral times by several posters, and yet you are unable to grasp it shows that you are 'basically' a fool. And that is how we regard you. Case dismissed.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Listen X4Dummy, anyone who goes on talking about North Africa Capsians is still stuck on Coon. You need to update your sources and test them for validity.
LOL it's quite obvious that you and rasol are one of the same. No wonder you two always "hang around" by the same time.
The first inhabitants of Northwest Africa were prehistoric Cro-Magnons, any strawhead would know that.
No knucklehead, Proto-Semitic refers to a single language that is the ostinsible basis of all semitic. Semetic is one sub-group of Afro-Asiatic language group which consists of hundreds of different languages and many sub groups. They are not 'basically the same e thing'. Ignorance of this fact is no crime. However the fact that this has been explained serveral times by several posters, and yet you are unable to grasp it shows that you are 'basically' a fool. And that is how we regard you. Case dismissed.
What is your source for this?
Proto-Semitic is the same as Afro-Asiaitic, the language family which spread out of Africa.
Also Akkadian is the earliest-attested Semitic language.
The Semitic language family has the longest recorded history of any linguistic group. The Akkadian language is first attested in cuneiform writing on clay tablets from ancient Mesopotamia (modern Iraq) from the mid-third millennium B.C., and Semitic languages continue to be spoken in the Middle East and in northeastern Africa today. http://www.bartleby.com/61/10.html
[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 21 December 2004).]
quote:Listen X4Dummy, anyone who goes on talking about North Africa Capsians is still stuck on Coon. You need to update your sources and test them for validity.
Well said. That title is also well earned.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 21 December 2004).]
quote:Originally posted by Orionix: What is your source for this?
YOU HAVE ALREADY BEEN SO PROVIDED. Yet here you are, still begging for a hand-holding, elementary training-wheels included free education.... by making ignorant statements and baiting others into repettition of facts until they finally penetrate your thick skull, eh?
Go back and read the replies to you from Thought, AlTakuri, myself and Ausar, and the sources cited. Don't repeat your ignorant remarks any more until you understand them.
You can lead the mule to water, but you can't make him drink.
Educating you is too dirty a job. Do your own dirty work!
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 21 December 2004).]
YOU HAVE ALREADY BEEN SO PROVIDED. Yet here you are, still begging for a hand-holding, elementary training-wheels included free education.... by making ignorant statements and baiting others into repettition of facts until they finally penetrate your thick skull, eh?
Make one more personal attack and don't expect me to take you seriously. Fact is that during this whole process you are the one being educated, what obviously drives you mad.
quote:Thought Writes: One thing that the recent studies on the Natufians has revealed is that Paletine and not Norther (Lower Egypt) was actually the buffer zone between indigenous African populations and Eurasians up to the end of the New Kingdom.
I always laughed at the idea that Egypt is supposedly a'unique' geography allowing for the denormalisation of historical inquery into it's peoples, cultures and origins. Yes Egypt is a geographical crossroads as is Palestine-Isreal, Turkey and Greece, Syria, Iran and Iraq, etc..
quote:Originally posted by Orionix: LOL it's quite obvious that you and rasol are one of the same. No wonder you two always "hang around" by the same time.
The first inhabitants of Northwest Africa were prehistoric Cro-Magnons, any strawhead would know that.
X4Dummy you still don't get it, do you? The crania I'm talking about are Mechta, Afalou, Aioun Berich, etc, these crania are the ones that are called "Cro-Magnoid", UP, or Cro-Magnon, you actually argue without knowing anything.
quote:Originally posted by Orionix: What is your source for this?
Proto-Semitic is the same as Afro-Asiaitic, the language family which spread out of Africa.
Also [b]Akkadian is the earliest-attested Semitic language.
The Semitic language family has the longest recorded history of any linguistic group. The Akkadian language is first attested in cuneiform writing on clay tablets from ancient Mesopotamia (modern Iraq) from the mid-third millennium B.C., and Semitic languages continue to be spoken in the Middle East and in northeastern Africa today. http://www.bartleby.com/61/10.html
[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 21 December 2004).][/B]
Proto-Semitic is NOT the same as Afro-Asiatic, it belongs in the same family as Afro-Asiatic, thats like saying Proto-Romance languages are Indo-European, though Romance languages are a branch from Indo-European.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: I am afraid to ask what is meant by 'sexually' Negroid as opposed to racially. Good old Carleton Coon.
I think by that he meant it shows more frequently in one gender than in the other. I dont know whether he thought it shows more in females than in males but to me it seems that Med girls often have a variety of prognathism thats rarer in their males. The same for their nasal characteristics that approach sub platyriny, rounded tip, and open nostrils to a greater extent than the males.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
X4Dummy you still don't get it, do you? The crania I'm talking about are Mechta, Afalou, Aioun Berich, etc, these crania are the ones that are called "Cro-Magnoid", UP, or Cro-Magnon, you actually argue without knowing anything.
Cro-Magnons well also found in Europe. They were no "race", the were prehistorical anatomically modern humans. You have no point.
quote:Said Mohammmad:
Proto-Semitic is NOT the same as Afro-Asiatic, it belongs in the same family as Afro-Asiatic, thats like saying Proto-Romance languages are Indo-European, though Romance languages are a branch from Indo-European.
So? It is still in the Afro-Asiaitic group of languages. Also the speakers of Proto-Semitic were illiterate. The script and dialect were introduced from the Near East Sumerian culture (4,000 years ago).
[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 21 December 2004).]
quote:Originally posted by Orionix: [QUOTE]Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
[QUOTE][B]X4Dummy you still don't get it, do you? The crania I'm talking about are Mechta, Afalou, Aioun Berich, etc, these crania are the ones that are called "Cro-Magnoid", UP, or Cro-Magnon, you actually argue without knowing anything.
[B]
Cro-Magnons well also found in Europe. They were no "race", the were prehistorical anatomically modern humans. You have no point.
[/QUOTE]
X4Dummy, you still don't get it again. European Cro-Magnon and North African Cro-Magnon are differentiated though still similar. North African Cro-Magnon were more prognathous and had wider noses than European Cro-Magnon. You saw the descriptions of the types I posted and none of them fit the standard Howell's Caucasoid traits.
[This message has been edited by S.Mohammad (edited 21 December 2004).]
European Cro-Magnon and North African Cro-Magnon are differentiated though still similar. North African Cro-Magnon were more prognathous and had wider noses than European Cro-Magnon. You saw the descriptions of the types I posted and none of them fit the standard Howell's Caucasoid traits.
You cannot even compare them with modern humans!
Their brain was about 4% larger than the modern human. We are not exactly the same.
quote:Also who the hell says that prognathism is a African trait?
This comes from the very same pseudo-scientific methods of distinguishing Africans from Europeans by some mythical physically inherited traits.
Aveloar prognathism is a negriod trait. These measurements are still used by Forensic scientiist,and thus still used by mainstream specialists. Corey Sparks, a leading anthropology student, published a journal article about how your genetics effects chracteristics of crania.
The old theories of Franz Boaz has been proven to be wrong.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Study Suggests Genetics Shape Skulls By BILL BERGSTROM Associated Press Writer
PHILADELPHIA (AP)--Nearly a century ago, Franz Boas, the man known as the founder of modern anthropology, launched a study of cranial measurements of 13,000 people and concluded that skull shapes are determined more by environment than by race.
It was a powerfully influential finding, because at the time, skull size and shape were thought to be connected to intelligence.
Now, though, a new analysis suggests the distinguished anthropologist got it wrong: Race--or more properly, ethnicity _ is a bigger determinant than environment.
Whether Boas deliberately distorted his findings is not clear. But researchers think he may have had preconceived ideas about what the data should show.
``It's pretty clear that Boas was in the forefront of racial equality and sex equality, and it's pretty clear that he was in the forefront of rejecting the ideas of racial typology and scientific racism that existed in the early century,'' University of Tennessee anthropology professor Richard Jantz said. ``It wouldn't be hard to imagine that he had a pretty good idea of what he wanted to get out of this study, but I wouldn't want to say we know that's true.''
Jantz also said that Boas was ``seriously hamstrung because he couldn't analyze all that data with the resources available to him at the time.''
In Boas' day, the general view was that Europeans were the dominant race, an argument often based on brain size. For decades, scholars opposed to such notions have cited Boas' study of immigrants and their offspring.
But Jantz and Penn State graduate student Corey Sparks used a computer to re-crunch Boas' numbers. They reported in the Oct. 7 issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that the data actually show that race had more influence than environment on skull dimensions.
``Unfortunately, research design was deficient, and his findings were never critiqued in a systematic way until recently,'' Jantz and Sparks said in their paper.
But American Anthropologist, the journal of the American Anthropological Association--which Boas helped found in 1902 _ plans to publish another study in March in which researchers led by Clarence C. Gravlee of the University of Michigan conclude, ``Boas got it right.''
Gravlee said he had not interpreted Boas' study as saying race or genetics had no influence on head shapes, only that environment also played some part.
``We independently find that there are differences between those born in Europe and those born in the United States. In a single generation, there was some change, no matter how small,'' he said.
The magazine has asked Jantz and Sparks to write a companion piece for which they will do more research into how and why Boas reached his conclusions.
Sparks said he and Jantz are not suggesting a return to the idea Boas rejected--namely, that a larger cranium equals a bigger brain equals higher intelligence.
``There still are occasional individuals that think that, but it's pretty much been debunked. There is so much variation in brain size that we all overlap in brain size with other population groups,'' Sparks said.
Boas, who immigrated to the United States from Germany in the 1880s, taught at Clark University and at Columbia University and founded the anthropology department at Barnard College. His students included Margaret Mead.
Boas took measurements of skull length, width and the ratio between the two in 1909 and 1910 of European-born immigrants and their American-born children from seven population groups: Bohemians, Central Italians, Poles, Hungarians, Scots, Sicilians, and a group of people of Jewish ancestry from western Russia, Poland, Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Romania.
Boas did not directly compare the study subjects' cranial volume _ that is, their brain size.
In a 1912 American Anthropologist article, Boas said the length of exposure to the American environment had dramatic effects on cranial form. He said this was evidence of cranial ``plasticity,'' the idea that environment caused changes in skull dimensions and that differences were due more to environment than heredity.
For example, he reported that Eastern European Jews tended to have very round heads but were becoming more long-headed, while southern Italians were exceedingly long-headed but were becoming more short-headed.
But Jantz and Sparks said that in America, blacks and whites have not converged toward a common skull shape, as might be expected if Boas' theory were correct.
Jantz and Sparks said their analyses did show small differences between the European-born and American-born members of the same population groups, but not as great as the differences between population groups.
``We're not sure if it was wishful thinking on his part before he even started the whole thing, or whether he saw these very small differences and said that was enough to prove his point,'' Sparks said.
posted
Biological difference between populations have been identified by nonmetric criteria in the cranium, as the skull has been shown to be the best indicator of race (Brues, 1990) For forensic anthropologists the need to understand and identify individuals of mixed ancestry is necessary as secular changes occur in the United States.
posted
{Proto-Semitic is basically the same as Afro-Asiatic}
Thought Writes:
Orionox, “proto” means first. Semitic is a branch of the Afro-Asiatic language family and proto-Semitic is the pristine form of Semitic. Proto-Afro-Asiatic is the first form of the Afro-Asiatic languages.
“Evidence indicates that all Semitic languages have developed from a common language in use long before writing (and hence unattested), which Semitists term Proto-Semitic. This would have been a member of the Afro-Asiatic family of languages, along with sister languages, possibly including some ancestor of Egyptian (Proto-Egyptian?), along with other languages. At a much earlier date there would presumably have been a Proto-Afro-Asiatic. The territory of the Afro-Asiatic languages would have been Western Asia (the Middle East), and parts of Africa, although for all we know Proto-Semitic may have originated in Africa and migrated to the Middle East.”
quote:Originally posted by S.Mohammad: X4Dummy you still don't get it, do you? The crania I'm talking about are Mechta, Afalou, Aioun Berich, etc, these crania are the ones that are called "Cro-Magnoid", UP, or Cro-Magnon, you actually argue without knowing anything.
Thought Posts:
COLIN P. GROVES AND ALAN THORNE 1999 The Terminal Pleistocene and Early Holocene Populations of Northern Africa. Homo 50(3):249-262. ISSN 0018-442X. Abstract:
We studied three northern African samples of human cranial remains from the Pleistocene/Holocene boundary: Afalou-bou-Rhummel, Taforalt, and Sudanese Nubia (Jebel Sahaba and Tushka), and compared them to late Pleistocene Europeans and Africans. Despite their relatively late dates, all three of our own samples exhibit the robusticity typical of late Pleistocene Homo sapiens. As far as population affinities are concerned, Taforalt is Caucasoid and closely resembles late Pleistocene Europeans, Sudanese Nubia is Negroid, and Afalou exhibits an intermediate status. Evidently the Caucasoid/Negroid transition has fluctuated north and south over time, perhaps following the changes in the distribution of climatic zones.
Thought Writes:
In the same study, Groves and Throne find the "intermediate" Afalou to be closest to the modern Dogon!
quote:Originally posted by Thought2: As far as population affinities are concerned, Taforalt is Caucasoid and closely resembles late Pleistocene Europeans, Sudanese Nubia is Negroid, and Afalou exhibits an intermediate status.
Thought Writes:
What is most interesting about this study is that the Afalou unit POST-DATES the Taforalt unit, implying gene flow from south to north with the onset of the Holocene wet-phase.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: [QUOTE]Yes Egypt is a geographical crossroads as is Palestine-Isreal, Turkey and Greece, Syria, Iran and Iraq, etc..
Thought Writes:
Which is why it is important to contextualize history within the framework of a multi-disciplinary approach. Prior to the late Neolithic period population density would have been greater in Africa than anywhere else in the world. Hence if these regions were cross-roads, the roads were being crossed primarily FROM Africa to Eurasia.
Aveloar prognathism is a negriod trait. These measurements are still used by Forensic scientiist,and thus still used by mainstream specialists. Corey Sparks, a leading anthropology student, published a journal article about how your genetics effects chracteristics of crania.
The old theories of Franz Boaz has been proven to be wrong.
Biologically there is no such thing as racial traits since race is social and most anthropologists regard it as such:
Most anthropologists regard race as a cultural concept rather than a biological reality. In the biological sciences, the term race has historically been used to describe a distinct population in which all the members share a suite of biological traits. Today, most anthropologists agree that there is no way to divide the world's human population in the cut-and-dry manner that the definition of race traditionally requires.
...A forensic anthropologist must extract as much information as possible to assist in the identification of an individual. Part of that job requires identifying that individual's ancestral phenotype. Ancestral phenotypes are suites of traits that are associated with geographic populations. At first, this sounds a lot like a synonym for race; however, the difference lies in the lack of distinct divisions. The task simply relies on the idea that any given individual may have characteristics known to be common in a particular geographic area. http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/faq/race.htm
Also the Human Genome Project proves that when traditional racial classifications are used (Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid) many (if not most) populations are intermediate.
quote:Cavalli-Sforza begins by admitting that, yes, human groups do vary strikingly in a few highly visible characteristics, such as "skin color, eye shape, hair type, body and facial form--in short, the traits that often allow us to determine a person's origin at a single glance (p.9)." He further admits that these traits are at least partly genetically determined, and that they evolved in the most recent period of human evolution as a response to the various environments that the human groups are exposed to. In his own words: "...there are clear biological differences between populations in the visual characteristics that we use to classify races (p.9)."
According to Cavalli-Sforza, these biological differences are only minor, as the remainder of mankind's genetic makeup is supposedly almost the same in all races.
He states: "It is because they are external that these racial differences strike us so forcibly, and we automatically assume that differences of similar magnitude exist below the surface, in the rest of our genetic makeup. This is simply not so: the remainder of our genetic makeup hardly differ at all." http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/LifeScience/HumanRaces/Meaning ofRace/MeaningofRace.htm
[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 21 December 2004).]
quote:Originally posted by Orionix: Biologically there is no such thing as racial traits since race is social [This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 21 December 2004).]
Thought Writes:
Thought Writes:
Race is a social construct, however phenotypic traits based upon genetic adaptation may be mapped via the use of locus-specific measurements. Natural selection may act on different alleles to produce a similar adaptive phenotype in populations.
You do realize that Cro-Magnons ARE anatomically modern?
Orionox Wrote:
Yes mainly but not completely.
Thought Writes:
Source?
Orionox Wrote:
Their brain was about 4% larger than the modern human
Thought Writes:
Of course “Cro-Magnons” were diverse and did not represent a single taxonomy or culture. Hence “Cro-Magnons” as a group would NOT have brains about 4% larger than the modern humans.
quote:Originally posted by supercar: That is why I asked you, Thought, what you were referring to as “Negroid”. What constitutes that terminology?
Thought Writes:
Gottcha, let me preface my comment by stating that I do not use the term. However, within the context of this sort of discussion I interpret it to mean the stereotypical "True Negro" or "Broad African" type, following Keita. There is no precise or technical use for this term.