Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 12:26:22 -0400
Subject: Re: North African ''caucasoid'' and European nose opening Tut-ankh-amu
Dear name withheld,,
Thanks for your email. I actually didn't choose the term "North
African
Caucasoid" that is the term used by another team (there were three that
worked on separate reconstructions). The French team was responsible
for the reconstruction that was on the cover of National Geographic
Magazine and they also used that term.
Our team, myself and Michael Anderson of Yale, were the ones that did
the plaster reconstruction without knowledge of whose skull we were
working on. I did the biological profile (assessment of age at death,
sex and ancestry), Michael made the actual reconstruction. Based on
the
physical characters of the skull, I concluded that this was the skull
of
a male older than 15 but less than 21, and likely in the 18-20 year
range and of African ancestry, possibly north african. The possibly
north african came mostly from the shape of the face including the
narrow nose opening, that is not entirely consistent with an 'African'
designation. A narrow nose is more typical of more northerly located
populations because nose breadth is thought to be at least in part
related to the climate in which ancestral populations lived. A narrow
and tall nose is seen most frequently in Europeans. Tut's head was a
bit of a conundrum, but, as you note, there is a huge range of
variation
in modern humans from any area, so for me the skull overall, including
aspects of the face, spoke fairly strongly of his African origins - the
nose was a bit unusual. Because their is latitudinal variation in
several aspects of the skull (including nose size/shape), the
narrowness
of the nose suggested that he might be from a northerly group. This is
also, I presume, what the French focussed on. I have not been in
direct
contact with the French group, but my understanding is that by their
definition of 'caucasoid' they include Peoples from North Africa,
Peoples from Western Asia (and the Caucasus, from where the term
derives), and Eureopean peoples. So I don't think that they were
referring to a specific set of those peoples. I personally don't find
that term all that useful and so I don't use it. That it was
attributed
to me by the media is an incorrect attribution on their part. I also
never said he had a European nose, although I am sure I did say that
the
narrow nose was what led me to suggest North Africa as a possibility
and
that a narrow nose is more typically seen in Europe. Not a great
sound-bit that, so I guess it gets shortened to European nose.
As you also note, skin color today in North Africa can range from much
lighter than what they chose to much darker. And we don't know how
well today's range matches that of the past, although I suspect there
was also a range of variation in the past, as is normal for any
biological population. Michael's reconstruction did not include an
inference of skin color (or eye color), the French team's did and their
inference was, I understand, based on a 'average' skin tone for Egypt
today. I don't know the specifics of how they did that. I think,
however, it would have been as accurate to have had the same facial
reconstruction with either a lighter tone or a darker tone to the skin.
That said, skin and eye color will always be an inference.
I hope that helps explain.
Susan
Susan C. Antón
Joint Editor, Journal of Human Evolution
Director, MA Program in Human Skeletal Biology
Associate Professor, Center for the Study of Human Origins
Department of Anthropology NYU
25 Waverly Place,
New York, NY 10003
(212)992-9786
MA program website http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/anthro/programs/biology/index.html
I'm not finished in my dicussion with Dr. Susan Anton. I will post other replies when I get through.
[This message has been edited by Mazigh (edited 02 September 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
There is the first effort at spin.
I concluded that this was the skull of
a male older than 15 but less than 21, and likely in the 18-20 year range and of African ancestry, possibly north african
including
aspects of the face, spoke fairly strongly of his African origins - the
nose was a bit unusual.
the narrowness of the nose suggested that he might be from a northerly group
the French team's did and their
inference was, I understand, based on a 'average' skin tone for Egypt
today.
Have you asked Susan C Anton, what is so unusual about narrow noses in African populations? It seen across the globe, and certainly among sub-Saharan tropical Africans, as exemplified by those in the African Horn, where it is frequent. Or is that another unusual phenomenon?
Also, did they use measurements of soft tissues thickness based on Europeans or Egyptians closely related to the Ancients?
I wonder how my cousin would be reconstructed since he has a narrow-hooked nose. They would probably call him “Caucasoid” as well, LOL.
quote:
No need to spin anything, as a Eurocentric crackpot fantasizes. Just points:Have you asked Susan C Anton, what is so unusual about narrow noses in African populations? It seen across the globe, and certainly among sub-Saharan tropical Africans, as exemplified by those in the African Horn, where it is frequent. Or is that another unusual phenomenon?
Yes, and I am still in the process of asking Dr. Susan Anton about this. She mentioned she was familiar with Keita's and Dr. Jean Hiernaux literature. She also stated she did believe that avelouar prognathism was also a factor she considered and made the crania Africa. She noted that mixture did not make Tut-ankh-amun's features.
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
That pretty much ends that discussion ausar unless you guys can find some way to spin it.
why would we be spinning it when what Susan Anton said is more supportive of our point of view than of yours? sounds like you're accusing everyone else of spinning it because you don't agree with what we say. LMAO nice try. but don't try again
I personally don't find that term [Caucasian] all that useful and so I don't use it.
The features are not Caucasian if, aspects of the face, spoke fairly strongly of his African origins. Caucasians do not have facial features that speak strongly of African origins.
Elongated East Africans however have: narrow nose openings, that is not entirely consistent with an 'African'
designation.
A single feature out of many and we get a designation of Caucasian. I think the Media is to blame for this designation and not the scientist.
Spin Free.
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
Here is Super car with the second effort at brainless spin.
eurocentric crackpot, what did I interpret, much less "spin", from the email message? You frantic nazi lunatics are just besides yourselves.
Very interesting.
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:So the term Caucasian being applied to North Africans is not as widely accepted as the media would have us believe.
I personally don't find that term [Caucasian] all that useful and so I don't use it.
The features are not Caucasian if, aspects of the face, spoke fairly strongly of his African origins. Caucasians do not have facial features that speak strongly of African origins.Elongated East Africans however have: narrow nose openings, that is not entirely consistent with an 'African'
designation.A single feature out of many and we get a designation of Caucasian. I think the Media is to blame for this designation and not the scientist.
Correct.
WalklikeanEgyptian posted an interesting article on Ausar's website.
It's about Kennewick man, and early American Indian skeleton that is sighted by white supremacists as an imaginary "Aryan"-
It's highly insightful w/regards the Tut fiasco.
In time, Chatters tried to calm the storm of his unscientific absurd remarks.
He repeatedly said things like this: Kennewick Man "could also pass for my father-in-law, who happens to be Scandinavian."
Then one day he was suddenly insisting, "Nobody's talking about white here."
He insisted that he meant that the skull simply didn't resemble the classic "Mongoloid" features of Asia.
He said that Kennewick could have been Polynesian or even ancient Japanese.
Don't be confused here. The scientists themselves who fling around words like "Caucasoid" are the very ones who also admit that the "Caucasian" skull is found everywhere. That's right.
For example, another ancient skull always brought up alongside Kennewick's is a female skull found in Brazil. Nicknamed Luzia, the skull was analyzed in a report that cited the following locations for resemblance: skulls seen among early Australians, bones found in China's Zhoukoudien Upper Cave, and a set of African remains known as Taforalt 18. So we've narrowed it down to Australia, China, and Africa.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 02 September 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by kifaru:
Does anyyone have a picture of the American team's reconstruction?
Tut:
Ethiopian:
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Both teams correctly identified Tut as an African from the northern part of the continent with features resembling those of Europeans and Middle Easterners.
Thought Writes:
Dienekes and Evil E are like Abbott and Costello. One is the brains and the other the brawn Of course both lack REAL brains or brawn. Above Evil E states that NE Africans have features that **RESEMBLE** Europeans and Middle Easterners. However, Dienekes has admitted that E3b spread FROM East Africa to Europeans and Middle Easterners. Furthermore here is what Dienekes REALLY believes about the spread of the narrow nosed, narow faced East African morphology:
"The early diffusion of E3b occurred over a haplogroup I Paleolithic background. It is likely that as groups moved northward the frequency of haplogroup E3b abated, and this is in fact shown in the frequency distribution. This movement is probably associated with the narrow-faced Danubian Mediterranean racial types."
[This message has been edited by Thought2 (edited 03 September 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:Dienekes and Evil E are like Abbott and Costello. One is the brains and the other the brawn Of course both lack REAL brains or brawn.
Lol. The two ends of the Jackass is what they are. Careful though. Don't want to hurt Dienekes feelings again. 
If anyone wants to read an excellent book that analyses the psychology of racism/colonialism and its warping effect on both its victims and its perpetrators I'd recommend Frantz Fanon's Black Skins White Mask (originally published as Peau Noir Masque Blanc) and also by Fanon The Wretched of the Earth (Les Damnes de La Terre).
If anyone one wants to read a classic treatise on the caucasian physiognomy I recommend none other than, our very own, Evil Euro's treatise: "The racial traits of Pete Sampras". It's takes comparative anthropology to unseen heights especially the "got milK" photo. Evil Euro and Hor are comic geniuses. But in his comedy we may find a modicum of truth by assesing Tut against the set of criteria he outlines.
To provide some more context: these are a couple of Tut's his relatives.
quote:
Originally posted by Calypso:
I don't see why some of you guys are trying to debate the nazi nuts. They're schizophrenic and no rational discourse will alter their views. In thier madness now they're even attacking Susan Anton because the views she expressed clashes with their racist psychopathy. They totally ignore the depictions of Tut made during his life and I dare say they would attack Tut too if he came back to life today because again he'd be inconvenient to them.If anyone wants to read an excellent book that analyses the psychology of racism/colonialism and its warping effect on both its victims and its perpetrators I'd recommend Frantz Fanon's Black Skins White Mask (originally published as Peau Noir Masque Blanc) and also by Fanon The Wretched of the Earth (Les Damnes de La Terre).
If anyone one wants to read a classic treatise on the caucasian physiognomy I recommend none other than, our very own, Evil Euro's treatise: "The racial traits of Pete Sampras". It's takes comparative anthropology to unseen heights especially the "got milK" photo. Evil Euro and Hor are comic geniuses. But in his comedy we may find a modicum of truth by assesing Tut against the set of criteria he outlines.
To provide some more context: these are a couple of Tut's his relatives.
Seriously!
There is no use arguing with closed-minded individuals who go so far as to either contradict or twist the facts of what experts like Anton said.
quote:
Ausar said: Dr. Susan Anton told me personally via email that the crania of Tut-ankh-amun had avelouar porgnathism. She only said that what was unusual was the nose opening and that everything else was 'African'. I would also email the French team who examined the crania but it was Dr. Susuan Anton thatis often touted as working with Tut-ankh-amun's remains without knowing his idenity. The French and Egyptian team knew.
quote:
Originally posted by walklikeanegyptian:
she isn't applying the term "caucasoid" to him because she doesn't feel he fits into that racial group, and many don't.
No, it's because like most PC Americans, she's in race-denial:
"Anton refused, however, to assign a specific racial designation to the specimen, citing inherent problems with the concept of race."
The French team doesn't have that silly hang-up:
"Vignal deduced that Tutankhamun had a narrow nose, buck teeth, a receding chin, and Caucasian features. Such features are typical of European, North African, Middle Eastern, and Indian peoples."
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
No, it's because like most PC Americans, she's in race-denial:
"Anton refused, however, to assign a specific racial designation to the specimen, citing inherent problems with the concept of race."
The French team doesn't have that silly hang-up:
"Vignal deduced that Tutankhamun had a narrow nose, buck teeth, a receding chin, and [b]Caucasian features. Such features are typical of European, North African, Middle Eastern, and Indian peoples."
[/B]
Thought Writes:
The term *Race* is not utilized by mainstream American anthropologists because the term itself is problematic and verges on pseudo-science. There is no consistent usage of the term and hence no scientific methodology can be applied. In some ways East and by default (Holocene migration from East Africa) NE African populations share some phenotypic traits with non-Africans and in other ways they share traits with other Africans. The traits shared with non-Africans is a result of happenstance and chance. The traits shared with other Africans is due to a recent common shared lineage. If we look at Greeks we have a completely different and it seems difficult to digest scenario. Greeks share some phenotypic traits with Sub-Saharan Africans and other traits with northern Europeans. The Greek traits shared with Sub-Saharan Africans probably relates to the fact that Greeks share in the common Black African PN2 clad with Sub-Saharan populations. The traits that Greeks share with northern Europeans may relate to the fact that E3b carrying males mated with indigenous northern European females as they colonized Europe via the Danube Valley.
quote:
Originally posted by walklikeanegyptian:
the bucked teeth excuse is fucking bullshit.
Walk, there is no need to use profanity. Stupid-Euro is just in denial of the fact that the so-called "buck-teeth" is a form of prognathism.
quote:
Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:The term *Race* is not utilized by mainstream American anthropologists because the term itself is problematic and verges on pseudo-science. There is no consistent usage of the term and hence no scientific methodology can be applied. In some ways East and by default (Holocene migration from East Africa) NE African populations share some phenotypic traits with non-Africans and in other ways they share traits with other Africans. The traits shared with non-Africans is a result of happenstance and chance. The traits shared with other Africans is due to a recent common shared lineage. If we look at Greeks we have a completely different and it seems difficult to digest scenario. Greeks share some phenotypic traits with Sub-Saharan Africans and other traits with northern Europeans. The Greek traits shared with Sub-Saharan Africans probably relates to the fact that Greeks share in the common Black African PN2 clad with Sub-Saharan populations. The traits that Greeks share with northern Europeans may relate to the fact that E3b carrying males mated with indigenous northern European females as they colonized Europe via the Danube Valley.
True. The fact that they carry such traits should be no mystery; it is reflected in their gene pool.
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
Stupid-Euro is just in denial of the fact that the so-called "buck-teeth" is a form of prognathism.
There is a lesson to be learned from this.
That is the importance of attacking the root fallacy of race typologies, rather than arguing over the "correct" semantics of inherently nonsensical terms like caucaZoid.
In fact, in the history of racist ws.t anthropology, most traits that were defined as negroid or mongoloid, were simply co-opted and placed into different catagories of 'caucaZoid'.
The whole point of the Mediterranian catagory for people like Coon and Seligman was to explain away, dark hair, eyes and skin as well as curly hair, and prognathesim in southern Europeans, by expanding the concept of 'caucaZoid'.
This took place in the 1940's in the context of the NAZI's saying that the blonde pale Nordic [Aryan] whites were a pure race...and the southern European Italians, Jews, etc.. were deginerate.
At it's most laughable, Austrlian aboriginenes, Dravidians, Nubians, Khoisans all became a part of this pseudointellectual charade of a race-catagory.
And then, it all fell apart.....a typical result of taking a bad idea too far.
OK Here's more from/on Susan Antón
In the words of Susan Antón, a member of the American team, "Our group did not, in fact, find Tut to be a 'Caucasoid North African.'
We classified him as African based on many of the [skull's facio-cranial] features...."
With regard to any finding of European origins, Antón further commented that she "determined the statistical association was very low and, therefore, based on the nonmetric characters, was not likely to be accurate."
The team refused, however, to assign a specific racial designation to the specimen, citing inherent problems with the concept of race.
Further, the Americans did not assign skin or eye color. Referring to the skull's pronounced dolichocephalism, alveolar prognathism, "large teeth," receding chin and sloping cranium, Antón stated she was "in general agreement that, based on the cranial skeleton, an estimate of African is appropriate.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 04 September 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
Walk, there is no need to use profanity. Stupid-Euro is just in denial of the fact that the so-called "buck-teeth" is a form of prognathism.
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
Walk, there is no need to use profanity. Stupid-Euro is just in denial of the fact that the so-called "buck-teeth" is a form of prognathism.
sorry, he just gets on my nerves. but what you said is true. i have bucked teeth AND a prognathism of the upper jaw. so i have a protrusive face.
quote:
Originally posted by Thought2:
The term *Race* is not utilized by mainstream American anthropologists
"...most anthropologists agree on the existence of three relatively distinct groups: the Caucasoid, the Mongoloid, and the Negroid." -- The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001.
quote:
Greeks share some phenotypic traits with Sub-Saharan Africans
Greeks have ZERO Sub-Saharan traits, you inferior, culture-stealing savage. What Angel described was a primitive Neolithic type observed in the Middle East identified as "almost Bushmen-like Basic WHITE". That doesn't help your "case" much, thief.
quote:
Originally posted by Babbling Ape:
The whole point of the Mediterranian catagory for people like Coon and Seligman was to explain away, dark hair, eyes and skin as well as curly hair, and prognathesim in southern Europeans, by expanding the concept of 'caucaZoid'.
^^^^^^^^^^ Utter nonsense from an ignorant savage ^^^^^^^^^^
1) Anthropologists don't base racial classification solely on adaptable traits like pigmentation and hair type. They base it primarily on craniometric analysis. And they've determined that Mediterraneans are closely related to Nordics, with features totally unlike Negroids (Source).
2) They've traced the Mediterranean phenotype to the Paleolithic, prior to the spread of E3b. Jelinek describes two of the four skulls (24,000-26,000 YBP) from Dolni Vestonice in Czechoslovakia as gracile dolichomorphic and "practically typical Mediterranean" (Current Anthropology, 1969).
3) They've classified genetically Paleolithic Northern Europeans as Mediterranean. Coon himself identifies "two varieties of brunet Mediterranean" in Great Britain, and speaks of Welshmen belonging to "a smaller Mediterranean type" which is also found "among the Glasgow population" (The Races of Europe).
Stupid nigger
don't take no **** . i encourage all people to develop that sort of attitude.
evil euro a punk ass whiteboy who hates black because of his own insecurities. What happened euro. did a minority get a higher grade than you in school? did a black man steal your girlfriend? did they pick on you in school for being a geek? poor euro, taking all his frustrations on blacks. I bet you probably got that racist mentality at young age from your inbred brother/sister or cousin mother and father. "Oh euro don't like those blacks it's their fault were poor white trash. it's their fault that the economy is in a slump. it's blacks fault that there is crime in the world. yet euro America praises blacks because the Niggers and Jews stick together. Jews have and agenda." Yada yada ydada blah blah blah......Just a bunch of bullshit you racist utter as a scapegoat to place the world's problems of yourselves. Cuz truth be told the majority of the world's issues seem to root from the white race.
quote:
Originally posted by THR TRUTH:
that's right walk,don't take no **** . i encourage all people to develop that sort of attitude.
evil euro a punk ass whiteboy who hates black because of his own insecurities. What happened euro. did a minority get a higher grade than you in school? did a black man steal your girlfriend? did they pick on you in school for being a geek? poor euro, taking all his frustrations on blacks. I bet you probably got that racist mentality at young age from your inbred brother/sister or cousin mother and father. "Oh euro don't like those blacks it's their fault were poor white trash. it's their fault that the economy is in a slump. it's blacks fault that there is crime in the world. yet euro America praises blacks because the Niggers and Jews stick together. Jews have and agenda." Yada yada ydada blah blah blah......Just a bunch of bullshit you racist utter as a scapegoat to place the world's problems of yourselves. Cuz truth be told the majority of the world's issues seem to root from the white race.
i don't. once someone called me a nigger so i slapped him and he got a red mark on his face and he cried. his mom yelled at me but who cares, HE DESERVED IT. i don't take **** from anyone and if they think i will, they're wrong.
do you like when white people respect you? i think that we aren't respected but rather feared.
[This message has been edited by walklikeanegyptian (edited 05 September 2005).]
The purpose is to distract from the topic at hand.
Notice, when you stated that he annoyed you, you only encouraged him to respond with more of the same.
Meanwhile the topic: Ausar's email to Dr. Susan Anton on Tut-ankh-amun gets lost.
That is exactly what Eurotroll hopes to accomplish, though it is especially creepy and pathetic that a grown man is trying to anger a 13 year old girl.
Anyway, just ignore his childish antics and stay on topic you will always destroy him and his kind.
Susan Antón: "Our group did not, in fact, find Tut to be a 'Caucasoid North African.'
We classified him as African based on many of the [skull's facio-cranial] features.... we determined the statistical association [with Europeans] was very low and, therefore, based on the nonmetric characters, was not likely to be accurate."
The team refused, however, to assign a specific racial designation to the specimen, citing inherent problems with the concept of race.
Further, the Americans did not assign skin or eye color. Referring to the skull's pronounced dolichocephalism, alveolar prognathism, "large teeth," receding chin and sloping cranium, Antón stated she was "in general agreement that, based on the cranial skeleton, an estimate of African is appropriate."
She found the skull to be generally:
* African in form ,
* not European,
And in her own words: "Our group did not, in fact, find Tut to be a 'Caucasoid North African.' 
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 05 September 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
Walklikeanegyptian, the reason Eurotroll uses racist ephitats is precisely to flame the conversation.The purpose is to distract from the topic at hand.
Notice, when you stated that he annoyed you, you only encouraged him to respond with more of the same.
Meanwhile the topic: Ausar's email to Dr. Susan Anton on Tut-ankh-amun gets lost.
That is exactly what Eurotroll hopes to accomplish, though it is especially creepy and pathetic that a grown man is trying to anger a 13 year old girl.
Anyway, just ignore his childish antics and stay on topic you will always destroy him and his kind.
Susan Antón: "Our group did not, in fact, find Tut to be a 'Caucasoid North African.'
We classified him as African based on many of the [skull's facio-cranial] features.... we determined the statistical association [with Europeans] was very low and, therefore, based on the nonmetric characters, was not likely to be accurate."
The team refused, however, to assign a specific racial designation to the specimen, citing inherent problems with the concept of race.
Further, the Americans did not assign skin or eye color. Referring to the skull's pronounced dolichocephalism, alveolar prognathism, "large teeth," receding chin and sloping cranium, Antón stated she was "in general agreement that, based on the cranial skeleton, an estimate of African is appropriate."
She found the skull to be generally:
* African in form ,
* not European,
And in her own words: "Our group did not, in fact, find Tut to be a 'Caucasoid North African.'
Exactly! Notice how he accuses others of being "inferior culture-stealing" yet he tries to claim Tut and Egyptian people of Africa as being "caucasoid".
And then he rants about "mediterranean types" when we all know everyone from East Africa to the Pacific has been called "mediterranean"
stupid-euro is just mad that Susan Anton is now destroying him! LOL
Walk and others do not get mad at stupid for his racist remarks, just pity him for he is indeed very pitiful!!
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 05 September 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Thought2:
The term *Race* is not utilized by mainstream American anthropologists
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------"...most anthropologists agree on the existence of three relatively distinct groups: the Caucasoid, the Mongoloid, and the Negroid." -- The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001.
Thought Writes:
Pure comedy. Evil E considers the editors who worked on the The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition to be mainstream American anthropologists. Perhaps he is ignorant of the scientific standard known as **pure-review**.
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greeks share some phenotypic traits with Sub-Saharan Africans
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Greeks have ZERO Sub-Saharan traits, you inferior, culture-stealing savage. What Angel described was a primitive Neolithic type observed in the Middle East identified as "almost Bushmen-like Basic WHITE". That doesn't help your "case" much, thief.
Thought Writes:
Again you overlook the fact that Angel attributes these Black African traits to HYBRIDIZATION via NUBIA! This is consistent with the genetic, linguistic and archaeological data that demmonstrate a mesolithic Black African migration from the Nile Valley.
Post a reference to one of the three recent Tut reconstructions that describes him as "Negroid" or "Black". Until one of you apes can do that, there's nothing more to debate . . .
"Vignal deduced that Tutankhamun had a narrow nose, buck teeth, a receding chin, and Caucasian features. Such features are typical of European, North African, Middle Eastern, and Indian peoples."
But we already knew he was Caucasoid, because all Ancient Egyptians were Caucasoid:
quote:
Originally posted by Charlie_Bass:
Evil E considers the editors who worked on the The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition to be mainstream American anthropologists.
They're not anthropologists at all, retarded monkey. They're encyclopedia editors reporting on what "most anthropologists" believe.
quote:
these Black African traits
What "Black African traits"? The only traits Angel mentions are primitive and belong to a Basic WHITE racial type that only faintly resembles Khoisans (not Blacks).
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Back on topic:Post a reference to one of the three recent Tut reconstructions that describes him as "Negroid" or "Black". Until one of you apes can do that, there's nothing more to debate . . .
"Vignal deduced that Tutankhamun had a narrow nose, buck teeth, a receding chin, and [b]Caucasian features. Such features are typical of European, North African, Middle Eastern, and Indian peoples."
But we already knew he was Caucasoid, because all Ancient Egyptians were Caucasoid:
What "Black African traits"? The only traits Angel mentions are primitive and belong to a Basic WHITE racial type that only faintly resembles Khoisans (not Blacks).[/B]
Ancient Egyptians have few traits that are affiliated with Caucasians. They were predominantly non-Caucasoid and similar to modern day Ethiopians.
You sir are a complete idiot for wasting your life on trying to maintain a racial classification system that has been dysfunct for years.
The terms Negroid and Caucasoid break down in meaning outside of the American racial system.
quote:HELLO PEOPLE: CAN'T YOU ALL SEE WHAT I SEE????
Originally posted by osirion:
quote:
Originally posted by kifaru:
Does anyyone have a picture of the American team's reconstruction?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:Lol. I'm sure he knew that. But you're right, should check the date on threads when re-opening them.
This thread is not about the model Susan Anton, but Susan Anton the anthropologist!
quote:
Originally posted by ausar:
I'm not finished in my dicussion with Dr. Susan Anton. I will post other replies when I get through.
quote:Dear Sustan Anton,
Originally posted by ausar:
quote:Yes, and I am still in the process of asking Dr. Susan Anton about this. She mentioned she was familiar with Keita's and Dr. Jean Hiernaux literature. She also stated she did believe that avelouar prognathism was also a factor she considered and made the crania Africa. She noted that mixture did not make Tut-ankh-amun's features.
No need to spin anything, as a Eurocentric crackpot fantasizes. Just points:
Have you asked Susan C Anton, what is so unusual about narrow noses in African populations? It seen across the globe, and certainly among sub-Saharan tropical Africans, as exemplified by those in the African Horn, where it is frequent. Or is that another unusual phenomenon?
quote:^ thick nose, thin nose, prognathism, orthagonism.....
Also I wonder if that lady relizes Europeans are not the only ones on Earth to have Narrow Noses and thin lips.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
quote:^ Are Europeans mixed. Are they all unmixed?
make tese bogus claims of East Africans not being mixed
quote:True.
Originally posted by Sekhmet225:
The "race" of Ancient Egyptians will not make it belong to any one race of people because Egypt's greatness belongs to the human race;
quote:I know his post isn't substantive at all, and diserves nothing more than to be ignored, but, it irks me a little. But I'm happy to educate:
.
quote:I disagree with the above.
Originally posted by White Nord:
Anton does not explain what makes him North African vs African in general.
quote:Why African, possibly North African?
Anton:
"African ancestry, ***possibly** north african.
quote:However, she says:
"the skull overall, including aspects of the face, spoke fairly strongly of his African origins - the nose was a bit unusual.
quote:She knows this:
north african came mostly from the shape of the face including the narrow nose opening, that is not entirely consistent with an 'African'designation.
...
I did say that the narrow nose was what led me to suggest North Africa as a possibility and that a narrow nose is more typically seen in Europe.
quote:African populations have had these traits since before 'caucasians' existed, but yes, narrow nasal morphologies are much more commonly found in homo sapian sapian populations adapted to living in drier, less tropical areas.
One of the human phenotypic traits that holds the greatest diversity is cranial morphology. Because of this fact, cranial features can at times be misleading if not taken into proper context. For example, for a long time features like long narrow faces and narrow noses have been associated with “caucasian” or “caucasoid” people even though such features are present in populations throughout the globe from Africa to the Americas. The same can be said about so-called “negroid” features such as broad faces and noses which are also not just confined to Africans but various peoples in Asia, the Pacific, the Americas ('African' Olmecs anyone?) etc.
Jean Hiernaux
The People of Africa(Peoples of the World Series)
"The oldest remains of Homo sapiens sapiens found in East Africa were associated with an industry having similarities with the Capsian. It has been called Upper Kenyan Capsian, although its derivation from the North African Capsian is far from certain. At Gamble's Cave in Kenya, five human skeletons were associated with a late phase of the industry, Upper Kenya Capsian C, which contains pottery. A similar association is presumed for a skeleton found at Olduvai, which resembles those from Gamble's Cave. The date of Upper Kenya Capsian C is not precisely known (an earlier phase from Prospect Farm on Eburru Mountain close to Gamble's Cave has been dated to about 8000 BC); but the presence of pottery indicates a rather later date, perhaps around 400 BC. The skeletons are of very tall people. They had long, narrow heads, and relatively long, narrow faces. The nose was of medium width; and prognathism, when present, was restricted to the alveolar, or tooth-bearing, region......all their features can be found in several living populations of East Africa, like the Tutsi of Rwanda and Burundi, who are very dark skinned and differ greatly from Europeans in a number of body proportions.............
From the foregoing, it is tempting to locate the area of differentiation of these people in the interior of East Africa. There is every reason to believe that they are ancestral to the living 'Elongated East Africans'. Neither of these populations, fossil and modern, should be considered to be closely related to the populations of Europe and western Asia."
quote:^you (and whoever's material it is you've posted but clearly adhere to) are the one who's/ones who are confused.
White Nord:Thus she classifies him as “North African.” [...] So is it African or North African? Or more specifically Caucasian [...] why Anton refuses to be specific in designating Tut a racial classification:
quote:
Anton:
I personally don't find that term all that useful and so I don't use it.
quote:
White Nord:
Ironic remark considering this is from someone who was paid to do the
quote:This is because:
Susan Anton:
“biological profile (assessment of age at death,sex and ancestry)”
quote:There's more:
Which is why we have keen observations like these:
Jean Hiernaux "The People of Africa" 1975
p.53, 54
"In sub-Saharan Africa, many anthropological characters show a wide range of population means or frequencies. In some of them, the whole world range is covered in the sub-continent. Here live the shortest and the tallest human populations, the one with the highest and the one with the lowest nose, the one with the thickest and the one with the thinnest lips in the world. In this area, the range of the average nose widths covers 92 per cent of the world range: only a narrow range of extremely low means are absent from the African record. Means for head diameters cover about 80 per cent of the world range; 60 per cent is the corresponding value for a variable once cherished by physical anthropologists, the cephalic index, or ratio of the head width to head length expressed as a percentage....."
quote:I think these particular quotes were from my American heritage dictionary.
Originally posted by Alive-(What Box):
quote:The Caucasus is a mountain region.
Caucasian 1. adj. Of or being a purported human racial classification traditionally distinguished by light [?] to brown skin color [?] and including peoples indigenous to Europe, N Africa, W Asia, and India. Not in scientific use. 2. Of the Caucasus. n. 1. Anthro. A member of the Caucasian racial classification. 2. A native inhabitant of the Caucasus.
There's more:
quote:But most laymen will continue to do what they're free to:
Caucasoid adj. Of or relating to the Caucasian racial classification. Not in scientific use.
that is believe what they want to believe in regardless of factual basis or lack thereof.
quote:
White Nord:Caucasian nose [...] "negroid" or "black,"
quote:Ofcourse not, as race is not a taxonomic reference for humans.
and African does not denote race
quote:
the American and French teams
quote:Respectfully, I beg to disagree as I see it, Anton was a bit confused in her terminology as well in ascribing narrow noses accompanied by classic stereotyped "Africoid" traits such as prognathism, exclusively to North Africa. Though she does hold the position generally espoused by Keita, suggesting that Tut (specifically) and other INDIGENOUS northeast Africans (Arab North Africans are just that: Arab) aren't any more or less "African" than other native-born Africans who have little or nothing whatsoever to do with Europeans from Europe and other non-Africans. I believe that she was individually opposed to suggesting that Tut had any sort of "European" ancestry, but noted features usually seen universally in Africa, which isn't surprising.
You say North African as if you think it is exclusive of African, she doesn't, that's where you're confused.
quote:LMAO @ some of these liberal historians who try and cast AE in the light of some sort of "All inclusive" society with no enemies. The facts are, that ancient Egyptians held off all or most invasions that would be able to shift the demographics, until the middle kingdom. We're speaking of the indigenous people who built Egypt to its wealth and power, not the people they shared it with. Those people were clearly native Africans from the Nile valley, no migration or diffusion hypothesis necessary.
Originally posted by Sekhmet225:
The "race" of Ancient Egyptians will not make it belong to any one race of people because Egypt's greatness belongs to the human race; as a people they belong to Egypt. And I'm sure Egypt's seen a pharoah in every shade. There can never be a fine racial line in a place where there was so much power and wealth. This term is evident even today. Egyptians where aware of racial differences but it didn't define or divide them. Let's take credit for Egypt as humanity and live all the details to the rightful owners of that great civilization: The Egyptians in every shade and hue.
quote:I was never really forced to think of it in those terms since as you say in this same post, I'd figured the shift was gradual. But literally, if I were to ponder where that shift was most accelerated, I'd have to agree as this is even reflected in one of Irish's dental studies. He'd found a continuity from the pre-dynastic Badarian, all the way into the late dynastic, that was abruptly broken during this era. The Greco-Roman mummy portraits of al-Fayyum also show some evidence of "mixing" among the Greek settlers (unless some of those Greeks already possessed some degree of African ancestry).
Originally posted by Alive-(What Box):
Sundiata.
I have a question for you concerning the demographics of modern Egypt.
I know that no large scale migration from Asia could have happened prior to the Middle Kingdom.
And well into it - even given the Hyksos such a diffusion claim is questionable given the sheer 'bloody', and 'take no prisoners' nature of their invasion and expulsion.
My question is this:
When do we see the most significant shift in terms of Egypt's demographic?
If I'm not mistaken it occured during Greek rule?
This would be consistant with the fact of population continuity in terms of affinities from Pre-Dynastic on through Late Dynastic times.
quote:Agreed. That's why it's so complicated though I do put more emphasis on the south when examining the presence of indigenous representatives of the ancient population. Despite the cline, as Keita points out:
Of course, this was a continuity *with gradual change* - there exists today a South-North cline generally with the more indigenous (like those in the Phaoronic era) in the South and those less-so in the North. But all are admixed with foreigners. No one denies this. Heck, the Beja (of Sudan) are believed to bear the closest resemblance to the citizens of ancient Kemet.
quote:Yea, I'm not convinced AE was so mongrelized though. I see your point, but I wouldn't attribute those various features to such a wide geographic distribution (West Africa, Asia, "Mediteranian", or East African"). Modern Egyptians generally reflect those they came in contact with during AND after the decline of km't, while Kemetians generally seemed to trend towards the East African/Horn of Africa phenotypes, exceptions notwithstanding.
"There is limb ratio and craniofacial morphological and metric CONTINUITY in Upper-Egypt-Nubia in a broad sense from the late paleolithic through dynastic periods, although change occured." - Keita, Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships.
...
"The variability in the population in Upper Egypt increased, as its isolation decreased, with increasing social complexity of southern Egypt from the predynastic through dynastic periods (Keita 1992). The Upper Egyptian population apparently began to converge skeletally on Lower Egyptian patterns through the dynastic epoch; whether this is primarily due to gene flow or other factors has yet to be finally determined. The Lower Egyptian pattern is intermediate to that of the various northern Europeans and West African and Khoisan." - Keita.
And you could still see many of the types of Dynastic times in modern Egypt. There was a wonderfully perfect example of this that Djehuti used to post, of these Egyptian kids wherein you could see individuals of "East African", so-called "Mediteranian", "West African", and traces of so-called 'Asian/Mongoliod/San' physical appearance.
But it got taken down.
...
quote:
Originally posted by Sundiata:
I was never really forced to think of it in those terms since as you say in this same post, I'd figured the shift was gradual. But literally, if I were to ponder where that shift was most accelerated, I'd have to agree as this is even reflected in one of Irish's dental studies. He'd found a continuity from the pre-dynastic Badarian, all the way into the late dynastic, that was abruptly broken during this era. The Greco-Roman mummy portraits of al-Fayyum also show some evidence of "mixing" among the Greek settlers (unless some of those Greeks already possessed some degree of African ancestry).
quote:Agreed. That's why it's so complicated though I do put more emphasis on the south when examining the presence of indigenous representatives of the ancient population. Despite the cline, as Keita points out:
Of course, this was a continuity *with gradual change* - there exists today a South-North cline generally with the more indigenous (like those in the Phaoronic era) in the South and those less-so in the North. But all are admixed with foreigners. No one denies this. Heck, the Beja (of Sudan) are believed to bear the closest resemblance to the citizens of ancient Kemet.
"Cosmopolitan northern Egypt is less likely to have a population representative of the core indigenous population of the most ancient times".- Keita (2005), pp. 564
quote:Well stated.
The Islamic invasions can't be overstated either. Such is ultimately responsible for the most enduring language shift, religious affiliation/shift, and cultural shift. It goes without saying that it was the source of a significant demographic shift as well. Egypt has been through a lot.
quote:thanks
Nice pictures btw..
quote:
Originally posted by ausar:
From: "Susan C Anton" <susan.anton@nyu.edu> [Add to Address Book] Add to Address Book
To: email withheld
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 12:26:22 -0400
Subject: Re: North African ''caucasoid'' and European nose opening Tut-ankh-amu
Dear name withheld,,
Thanks for your email. I actually didn't choose the term "North
African
Caucasoid" that is the term used by another team (there were three that
worked on separate reconstructions). The French team was responsible
for the reconstruction that was on the cover of National Geographic
Magazine and they also used that term.
Our team, myself and Michael Anderson of Yale, were the ones that did
the plaster reconstruction without knowledge of whose skull we were
working on. I did the biological profile (assessment of age at death,
sex and ancestry), Michael made the actual reconstruction. Based on
the
physical characters of the skull, I concluded that this was the skull
of
a male older than 15 but less than 21, and likely in the 18-20 year
range and of African ancestry, possibly north african. The possibly
north african came mostly from the shape of the face including the
narrow nose opening, that is not entirely consistent with an 'African'
designation. A narrow nose is more typical of more northerly located
populations because nose breadth is thought to be at least in part
related to the climate in which ancestral populations lived. A narrow
and tall nose is seen most frequently in Europeans. Tut's head was a
bit of a conundrum, but, as you note, there is a huge range of
variation
in modern humans from any area, so for me the skull overall, including
aspects of the face, spoke fairly strongly of his African origins - the
nose was a bit unusual. Because their is latitudinal variation in
several aspects of the skull (including nose size/shape), the
narrowness
of the nose suggested that he might be from a northerly group. This is
also, I presume, what the French focussed on. I have not been in
direct
contact with the French group, but my understanding is that by their
definition of 'caucasoid' they include Peoples from North Africa,
Peoples from Western Asia (and the Caucasus, from where the term
derives), and Eureopean peoples. So I don't think that they were
referring to a specific set of those peoples. I personally don't find
that term all that useful and so I don't use it. That it was
attributed
to me by the media is an incorrect attribution on their part. I also
never said he had a European nose, although I am sure I did say that
the
narrow nose was what led me to suggest North Africa as a possibility
and
that a narrow nose is more typically seen in Europe. Not a great
sound-bit that, so I guess it gets shortened to European nose.
As you also note, skin color today in North Africa can range from much
lighter than what they chose to much darker. And we don't know how
well today's range matches that of the past, although I suspect there
was also a range of variation in the past, as is normal for any
biological population. Michael's reconstruction did not include an
inference of skin color (or eye color), the French team's did and their
inference was, I understand, based on a 'average' skin tone for Egypt
today. I don't know the specifics of how they did that. I think,
however, it would have been as accurate to have had the same facial
reconstruction with either a lighter tone or a darker tone to the skin.
That said, skin and eye color will always be an inference.
I hope that helps explain.
Susan
Susan C. Antón
Joint Editor, Journal of Human Evolution
Director, MA Program in Human Skeletal Biology
Associate Professor, Center for the Study of Human Origins
Department of Anthropology NYU
25 Waverly Place,
New York, NY 10003
(212)992-9786
MA program website http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/anthro/programs/biology/index.html
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
^ White Nerd.
Please do not pollute this forum with your retarded replies.
quote:^ Are Europeans mixed. Are they all unmixed?
make tese bogus claims of East Africans not being mixed
The blondes and brunettes?
The pale skinned and olive skinned?
The curely haired and the straight haired.
Those who have almost entirely R1b lineaeges from paleolithic Europe, and those who have 25% East African E3b and another 25% Arabian Peninsula J?
Those Europeans with Benin Hbs sickle haplotype?
These Europeans....
Unless you can prove Europeans are not mixed - which you can't - then mixture is irrelevant to your argument, and your reply is retarded.
quote:
Originally posted by Egmond Codfried:
http://sankofaworldpublishers.com/Queen%20Tiye.jpg
Queen Tiye
King Tut's grandmother Queen Tiye
