posted 20 July 2005 08:38 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Subjective in this context means subject to how the person interperets the evidence and not in and of itself readily apparent.

---

Physical appearance IS subjective in that context.

quote:

---

So, back to the original point, you cannot use such subjective concepts to prove something that those same concepts only vaguely identify.

---

You argue from myopia [singular/narrow focus on egyptian art which is ok, except - it is not the topic of this thread] and root assumptions which YOU THINK are self evident but that are in fact, anything but.

This thread is about the identity of ancient peoples as assessed by genetics: Underhill is a geneticist.

Flawed Assumption # 1: You assume that looks are critical to identity.

Not everyone agrees. Some say that culture for instance is important and looks are therefore irrelevant.

Flawed Assumption # 2: Skin color is the primary determinent of looks.

Not everyone agrees. Some would say that skin color is the most superficial aspect of how people look and so tells you nothing about there identity.

Flawed Assumption # 3: Looks can be "objectively assessed".

This assumption is self evidently flawed but made even worse when you remember that you are actually applying it to ancient 'artwork', which is even more subjective and interpretive.

quote:

---

Therefore, using markers to identify a person as caucasian means what?

---

It means nothing, because the concept of caucasian 'race' means nothing, not because genetics is 'retarded' as you put it, or useless or irrelevant.

The signficance of genetics can be put quite plainly:

ONLY GENETICS CAN REVEAL LINEAGE, or ancestry - who is actually related to whom, and how. If you agree that this is significant to identity then the relevance of genetics is understood by you.

Less pretentiously: This thread ain't about what Egyptian art looks like. Just because that's all that matters to you, doesn't mean it's all that matters.

posted 20 July 2005 09:32 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
It means nothing, because the concept of caucasian 'race' means nothing, not because genetics is 'retarded' as you put it, or useless or irrelevant.

The signficance of genetics can be put quite plainly:

ONLY GENETICS CAN REVEAL LINEAGE, or ancestry - who is actually related to whom, and how. If you agree that this is significant to identity then the relevance of genetics is understood by you.

Less pretentiously: This thread ain't about what Egyptian art looks like. Just because that's all that matters to you, doesn't mean it's all that matters.

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 20 July 2005).]

---

This is an Egyptian web forum isn't it? Didnt this whole series of ongoing threads on genetics come about due to some claiming that certain Africans are more "caucasian" due to things like genetics or other markers and therefore NOT like other Africans? Basically isn't this train of thought used to lay a foundation for saying that the ancient Egyptians were NOT like other Africans, to the point of being non-African?

So no, I am not obsessed with how the AE looked. However, what I am concerned about is why arguments over genetics and geneaology are so heatedly debated here, unless it is related to how Northern Africans, including Egyptians are somehow NOT like other Africans, ie. dark brown. Basically, no matter what lineage or dna type Africans have in various parts of Africa, they originally were all brown skinned. This point goes without saying, since it is blatantly obvious.

Modern genetic studies have proven that two people that look dissimilar can be very closely related genetically. The opposite has also been found, that people that look similar can also be quite dissimilar genetically. Therefore, if you are trying to ascertain how a certain group of people looked at a certain point of time, SOME aspects like skin color and other variations cannot be determined solely by genetics alone. Hence the fact that modern scientists do away with the notion of "race". However, that does not mean that people do not vary in physical appearance. And it is often quite useful to know how these variations came about and what were the predominant characteristics prevalent in various populations at different points in time. So, it all boils down to different ways of categorizing people. The original notion of categorization, racial identification purely by skin color, is obviously no longer in vogue. However, newer categories using other identifiers is not necessarily a "better" way of categorizing people either. People can be offended either way and in reality it is all about HOW the categories are used, versus the fact that there is the possibility of categorizing people at all.

So, given that there are so many NEWER ways to categorize people, we must make sure that we are talking apples to apples and oranges to oranges. Otherwise we are talking past each other and going round in circles. Case in point, the article that started this thread pointed out how Bantus are TYPICAL NEGROES and that this is where the negroid strain originated in Africa. The problem is that the term TYPICAL NEGRO is never defined.
This is where the problem starts. In this case, they use skull shape to determine who is and who isn't a Negro based on the relation to other skulls throughout the world. But in reality, if you are comparing a European skull to a African skull and calling them physically the "same" in appearance, then obviously there is a serious flaw in the research. Since, yes, the skulls of some Africans may not be the same, but that does NOT mean that they did not share other features in common either. When the term negroid first appeared , it mainly was defined as dark black skinned, with big lips, wooly hair and brown eyes. Skull shape had nothing to do with it, since a skull cannot tell you what kind of hair, eye color, lip shape or skin color a person had. Therefore, to say that Negroid now is defined by skull shape or that skull shape can be used to determine other traits considered "negroid" is ludicrous.

The reason it is ludicrous is because the same skulls that they say are so different from other Southern Africans, were in the bodies of people who had many OTHER FEATURES in common with the REST OF AFRICANS. Namely, the brown eyes, big lips, big noses and also dark skin. Therefore are we now to say that skulls alone are enough to determine the distribution of these other features amongst a population? No. There are so many variations that can occur at the level of skin, cartiledge and tissue amongst people with the SAME skull shape, that it is therefore just as ludicrous to try and categorize people as being PHYSICALLY related or the SAME IN APPEARANCE purely due to skull shape. For example, skulls of people in Africa being the same as others from Europe or elsewhere. Therefore, the idea that these similarities somehow disproves other superficial similarities BETWEEN Africans is therefore UNFOUNDED. In other words, find some present day Africans with NON-Negroid skulls and see if they still possess the rest of the traits we consider as Negroid. If you do, (and I am sure you can) then you cannot say that such skulls are an indication of a person NOT being negroid.

So what is the point being made? Is it that since they are genetically different and may have different physical "markers", that they are not "African"? What is the point of distinguishing the dna differentiation, unless there is a larger point being made. Bottom line, I don't think we are arguing over African genetics just for the sake of arguing genetics.....

But maybe I am wrong.

[This message has been edited by Doug M (edited 20 July 2005).]

[This message has been edited by Doug M (edited 20 July 2005).]

posted 20 July 2005 10:11 PM            

quote:

---

However, what I am concerned about is why arguments over genetics and geneaology are so heatedly debated here, unless it is related to how Northern Africans, including Egyptians are somehow NOT like other Africans, ie. dark brown.

---

lol. Once again, crippling MYOPIA. Your whole concept of like or unlike is soley rooted in color.

It is as if you cannot conceive that there are many parameters for the AE to be like or unlike other Africans, and there are plenty of dark brown people who are not 'like' Africans in any other way.

quote:

---

Basically, no matter what lineage or dna type Africans have in various parts of Africa, they are all brown skinned.

---

But having brown skin does not make you an African, not having brown skin does not make you a non African.

Here's something relevant to this thread, please follow the link and read this

If you can expand your thinking at all beyound a singular limited obsession with skin color it may help you better understand these issues....

posted 20 July 2005 10:33 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
Actually there are Bantus in Somalia, but they are a small minute minority and they all live in the very south of the country close to Kenya.

The idea that Somalis are black-looking because of Bantu ancestry is totally proposterous and insane!!

If the Somalis on this board find out about Stupid-Euro's comments, they will chew his dumbass up!!

---

Well, he's already been chewed up by genetics. M2 lineages are near absent in Cushitic speakers, and the majority of the populations in the African Horn and further north. The attempt to use mtDNA lineages as an alternative explanation, has proven equally fruitless. How about linguistics?Zip!

"An East African origin of L1a seems likely, given that Central African types tend to be more derived in the tree...

L1a seems likely to have been brought to southeastern Africa by the eastern stream of the Bantu expansion, having been picked up in East Africa...

L1a may therefore have been introduced into the Bantu community by assimilation of East African non-Bantu speakers, rather than being dispersed from western Central Africa. This suggests that approximately a quarter of the lineages in southeastern Bantu have an East (or eastern central) African origin." - Salas et al. 2002.

As for M Doug,

The point of genetics in the ancient Egyptian context, is to use bio-history to highlight the primary tropical African extraction of the Nile Valley populations. But this becomes more effective, by utilizing the discipline with linguistics and archeology. The bottom line is that, the 'indigenous' African base of Ancient Egypt is best understood through a multidisciplinary approach, which leaves very little room for doubts about the fact. Utilizing this method, is bad news for those who apply pseudo-scholarship to forward their political needs. This is exemplified by one unhappy individual/poster here, who feels that need to mix pseudo-science with science, as therapeutic tool for dealing with the reality of not being ‘pure’. Pseudo-scholarship crumbles in the face of science, precisely because progress and modernity has ensured a setup, in which science is dealt with in an ‘objective’ and ‘systematic’ manner, and not subjectively. The whole point of applying multidisciplinary approach, including the various fields in science, is to remove subjectivity as much as possible in the discourse of the base from which Nile Valley complex sprang.

posted 21 July 2005 04:00 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
But having brown skin does not make you an African, not having brown skin does not make you a non African.

Here's something relevant to this thread, please follow the link and read this

If you can expand your thinking at all beyound a singular limited obsession with skin color it may help you better understand these issues....

The Y-chromosome clade defined by the PN2 transition (PN2/M35, PN2/M2) shatters the boundaries of phenotypically defined races and true breeding populations across a great geographical expanse21. African peoples with a range of skin colors, hair forms and physiognomies have substantial percentages of males whose Y chromosomes form closely related clades with each other, but not with others who are phenotypically similar. The individuals in the morphologically or geographically defined 'races' are not characterized by 'private' distinct lineages restricted to each of them.

---

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO.

But thanks for proving my point. If GENETICS similarity does not necessarily reflect similarity in PHYSICAL APPEARANCE OR GEOGRAPHIC ORIGIN, then WHY IS IT BEING USED IN A DEBATE OF PHYSICAL APPEARANCE AND GEOGRAPHIC ORIGIN? (Not that this is a debate over physical appearance. But to me the link you posted only proves that genetics has NOTHING TO DO WITH PHYSICAL APPEARANCE.)

What I AM saying is that YOU CAN CLASSIFY PEOPLE BY ANY MEASURE YOU WANT. Be it foot size, hair color, nasal index, genetics, skull shape or WHATEVER. But making sure that EVERYONE agrees on WHAT YOU USE TO CLASSIFY PEOPLE IS WHAT COUNTS. If you are going to use skull indices to classify Africans, then you must remember that there are MANY NON AFRICANS THAT HAVE THE SAME SKULL INDICES. So how does that trait SHOW A DISTINCT AFRICAN TRAIT that can be USED TO DISTINGUISH AFRICANS FROM NON-AFRICANS? This is not about WHAT I USE TO DISTINGUISH AFRICANS FROM EVERYONE ELSE. Dont you see that yet? Just like you said, Africans are not the only brown skin people on the planet, so brown skin cannot be used to distinguish who IS AN AFRICAN from who is not. I AGREE. But you must also AGREE THAT SKULL INDEX DOESNT EITHER. THAT IS MY POINT.

So once again, the point of this thread is to show that skull shape (amongst other incices) is a TRUE INDICATOR OF AFRICANNESS. My point is that IT IS NOT.

Everyone HUMAN has 2 arms, 2 legs and a head don't they? So arent we FUNDAMENTALLY all the same? So if you are not CLEAR in WHAT markers YOU USE to distinguish WHAT MAKES ONE individual different from ANOTHER, then there is no way to differentiate. When most people compare the DIFFERENCE between two PEOPLE it is based on PHYSICAL APPEARANCE: skin color, eye color, nose shape, lip shape, phyisical stature (tall, short) and build. And these things are ONLY SKIN DEEP. HOwever, that is just HUMAN PHYSIOGNOMY. The whole point of these modern definitions of these so-called MODERN attempts to redefine RACE have to remember one thing, that you have to FIND DISTINCT markers that can be used to identify the difference between group of people and another. Therefore, if these markers are spread all over the planet, then there is NO WAY THAT THESE MARKERS ACTUALLY CLARIFY ANYTHING.

In this case, African as a way of categorizing people, has mainly to do with CONTINENT OF ORIGIN. In a modern sense, anyone who has been born in Africa can be called an African, no matter what they look like. However, in a more ancient context, which is what this thread is about, genetics is not something that REPLACES the concept of geographic origin. Ancient Africans are still ancient Africans because they are people that ORIGINATED FROM THE CONTINENT OF AFRICA. NO MATTER WHAT SKULL SHAPE, FOOT SIZE, SKIN COLOR or any other ATTRIBUTE.

The fist MAN was called AFRICAN not because of GENETIC MAKEUP, but because the first evidence of MODERN HUMANS WAS FOUND IN AFRICA. If you dont AGREE ON USING geographic location as a TERM FOR DEFINING WHO IS AND ISNT AFRICAN, then CREATE A NEW WORD. African ALWAYS MEANS GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION OF ORIGIN, NOT SKULL SHAPE. Actually, the whole idea of the relationship between skin color and geographic origin is purely based loosely around the PREVALENT physical attributes found in populations from a certain geographic area. Therefore, Europeans are generally categorized as white and Africans are generally categorized as black. However, words like African, European and Asian are not RACIAL TERMS. African, European and Asian are still GEOGRAPHIC categories of HUMAN ORIGIN and are heavily dependent on scale of time. Therefore, a person can be considered African even though he actually descended from recent migrants to Africa from Europe.

And as for skin color, SKIN COLOR IS A FACT OF HUMAN EXISTENCE. IT IS A BIOLOGICAL BYPRODUCT OF HUMAN ADAPTATION. Therefore, to argue that skin color is somehow NOT part of what CAN be used to IDENTIFY DIFFERENCES FROM ONE GROUP OR INDIVIDUAL to ANOTHER IS PURE D NONSENSE. And all I said was is that SKELETAL REMAINS AND GENETIC MARKERS ARE NOT GOING TO PROVE THE PHYSICAL APPEARANCE OF THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS, ESPECIALLY IN THE MODERN WAY WE INTERPERET SUCH THINGS. Evidence LIKE EGYPTIAN PAINTINGS is a extremely important PIECE OF EVIDENCE. Just like a picture is worth a thousand words(even though Egyptian art is not photographic either).

posted 21 July 2005 07:39 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:
Thus when we read the passage in its proper context we can see that Salas et tal is talking about two possible explanations for the introduction of L1a into southeastern African populations. The point of my original post was the origin of L1a.

---

No, it's more complicated than that. The authors don't know for sure where L1a originated and are proposing two possible theories:

"L1a may therefore have been introduced into the Bantu community by assimilation of East African non-Bantu speakers [theory 1], rather than being dispersed from western Central Africa [theory 2]."

[ . . . ]

"This deletion is common in southeastern African Bantu speakers, as well as some East and Central African groups. It was absent not only in all Khoisan groups but also in virtually all southwestern African Bantu speakers (with the exception of three Ambo individuals from Namibia, for whom a southeastern Bantu origin was proposed; see also Soodyall and Jenkins 1993). They propose a Central rather than an East African origin for the deletion; we concur that, although L1a seems most likely to have originated in East Africa, L1a2 may have emerged in Central Africa."

posted 21 July 2005 07:48 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
the fact of Black African migrations into West Asia and Southern Europe, or that southern Europeans continue to carry their lineages to this day.

---

Which brings us back to your contradiction, and the question that you can't answer . . .

quote:

---

Question:

Are Greeks "racially mixed" because of their E3b Y-chromosomes as you've claimed many times, or are Y-chromosomes unconnected to race and morphology as you claimed with the Lemba?

Or, we can try it this way:

Do you accept Underhill's statement that "There are no known genes on the Y that dictate bone morphology", or do you continue to maintain that so-called "negroid traits" in Levantines and Greeks are the result of their E3b Y-chromosomes?

---

posted 21 July 2005 10:01 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
NO, NO, NO, NO, NO.

But thanks for proving my point. If GENETICS similarity does not necessarily reflect similarity in PHYSICAL APPEARANCE OR GEOGRAPHIC ORIGIN, then WHY IS IT BEING USED IN A DEBATE OF PHYSICAL APPEARANCE AND GEOGRAPHIC ORIGIN?

---

Actually genetics does tell us much about both geographic and biological origns and the article by Dr. Keita clearly makes this point and answers your question.

However you don't seem to be able to understand any of it as it flies right over your head. So I'm not sure how to further help you?

Do you want me to link you to other sources explaining how population genetics tells us about biological affinity?

quote:

---

But to me the link you posted only proves that genetics has NOTHING TO DO WITH PHYSICAL APPEARANCE.)

---

Silly statement, and you will flunk out of public school biology saying things like that, and you flunk reading comprehension if that's what you got out of the article posted - which is about how genetics CAN reveal true lineage whereas phenotype alone often cannot.

Your problem is that you need to start with some entry level readings on biology and genetics. Otherwise this is all a waste of your time.

quote:

---

What I AM saying is that YOU CAN CLASSIFY PEOPLE BY ANY MEASURE YOU WANT. Be it foot size, hair color, nasal index, genetics, skull shape or WHATEVER. But making sure that EVERYONE agrees on WHAT YOU USE TO CLASSIFY PEOPLE IS WHAT COUNTS.

---

And precisely how would you "make sure that everyone agrees"? Especially given that you don't understand biology to begin with? ?

Your statement is babblement.

quote:

---

If you are going to use skull indices to classify Africans, then you must remember that there are MANY NON AFRICANS THAT HAVE THE SAME SKULL INDICES.

---

Now you are rambling. this thread is not about skull indices, and it's not about 'brown skin'. It is about genetics.

One of the many problems with Egyptsearch is that subjects do not stay on topic.

This occurs when people who can't address the topic; hi-jack it, and stray far away from the subject. And this is what you are doing.

If you can't address the subject of genetics and you don't care to learn anything about it, then just move on to a subject that interests you. Thanks.

posted 21 July 2005 10:18 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
Indeed; the evil bedraggled mouse continues to be caught red handed...as usual.

---

quote:

---

This poor man needs a psychologist...he's in denial....one day his brain will explode...I'm wondering what his education background is...does he have a high school degree?
Relaxx

---

quote:

---

Correct, that's why people invent crazy theories on Dodona, and we have a paranoiac and schizophrenic Greek spamming this forum and his with insane arguments. Relaxx

---

posted 22 July 2005 02:15 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
If GENETICS similarity does not necessarily reflect similarity in PHYSICAL APPEARANCE OR GEOGRAPHIC ORIGIN, then WHY IS IT BEING USED IN A DEBATE OF PHYSICAL APPEARANCE AND GEOGRAPHIC ORIGIN?

Evidence LIKE EGYPTIAN PAINTINGS is a extremely important PIECE OF EVIDENCE. Just like a picture is worth a thousand words .........

[This message has been edited by Doug M (edited 21 July 2005).]

---

posted 22 July 2005 02:29 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Look at the images from ancient Egypt. They did not need the help of genetic markers or modern concepts of racial categorizations to depict themselves accurately the way they looked.... dark brown. Therefore, we dont need such things either to take our focus from the central issue of what skin color were the ancient Egyptians. Using genetics and outdated racial categories can do nothing to prove that fact.

The Ancient Egyptians themselves used fairly simple language in the form of pictographs everyone could understand, to show themselves and the other ethnic (races some say) groups they encountered. Really simple: 1)Libyans light, US (Egyptian) Brown, Nubians Darker Brown, Europeans very light.

Really quite simple.

---