posted
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
posted
That pretty much ends that discussion ausar unless you guys can find some way to spin it.
Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: There is the first effort at spin.
you understand it surely better than me (because i can hardly understand it), but i based my reply on the following sentences:
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.
posted
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?
posted
Why would they use the average skin tone of modern Egyptians? From what I’ve read here, many modern Egyptians aren’t even descendants of the Ancients, so why use moderns.
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.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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
posted
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.
posted
i know i debate with Horemheb but why do we bother? he's so dense and he can't accept anything other than his own propaganda so why do we bother?
Posts: 752 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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).]
posted
Both teams correctly identified Tut as an African from the northern part of the continent with features resembling those of Europeans and Middle Easterners. The fact that Anton is unwilling to apply the accurate label of "Caucasoid" (shameful for a physical anthropologist) has no bearing on the empirical evidence.
Posts: 906 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
she isn't applying the term "caucasoid" to him because she doesn't feel he fits into that racial group, and many don't.
Posts: 752 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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).]
posted
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.
Posts: 1038 | From: Franklin Park, NJ | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26267 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
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."
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 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.
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).]
posted
I second that, especially coming from a 13 year old girl!!
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).
posted
i highly doubt you'd have the courage to call anyone here a nigger in real life. i wouldn't stand for it if you did. but you only said it because you have a computer screen to protect you. you said it on a computer because you know we'd all kick your ass in real life. i have been racially attacked many times and i enflicted pain on every person who said it.
Posts: 752 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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).]
posted
Walklikeanegyptian, the reason Eurotroll uses racist epithets 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.'
[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).]
Posts: 26267 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
evile euro ur in idiot blacks dont come all dark im black. My mother is meduim brown and both my grandmothers are light. Everybody in my family has diffrent features and diffrent skin tones. Now about and Ae i think its ludacris to say they where white or caucasion or even black or negro. They where mixed people like some hispinic nations like puera ricans i can mistaken pr to my family members cause there mix yello skin and kinky hair. So i think this term negro and caucasion needs to be toss out cause nether of the are in scientfic use any more. But also my grandmothers look nothing like west africans and there black probaly not pure but very little mixture but they look nothing like nigreans or westen africa. But most of my family members look like east africans i look more like a western african. But my question too u is where would these stupid sceintist put my light skinned grandmothers and my meduim toned other family members who look like eastern africans and the dark ones like what would be the catorgory. Me and the dark one under negro meduim toned ones un monglo and light ones under caucasion when where all the same blood same ethic african americans. Im not trying to start an argument im just trying to question ur views i think u can understand what im trying to say.
Posts: 188 | From: canton,ma,united states | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
^ LOL This thread is not about the model Susan Anton, but Susan Anton the anthropologist!
And anyway, if you were paying attention you would know that "negro" and "caucasoid" are defunct terms that have no scientific value.
And Ebony Allen, there's no point in trying to respond to Evil-Euro as he has been banned from this forum for a couple of years now.
The point of this thread is to point out Anton's mistake of saying Tut's nasal opening was "European". She admits the rest of the skull is African but called the nose opening European because it was narrow. Of course everyone in here knows that narrow noses have NOTHING to do with Europeans and that there are many Africans with such noses.
Posts: 26267 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:This thread is not about the model Susan Anton, but Susan Anton the anthropologist!
Lol. I'm sure he knew that. But you're right, should check the date on threads when re-opening them.
There is no more profound testiment to the uselessness of the faux-race-morphologies negroid and caucasoid than the fruitless back and forth over who is 'one' or the 'other'.
A 'scientific' dialectic rooted in false assumptions can have no logical resolution other than to reject the dialectic.
Which is why most anthropologist no longer attempt to classify skeletypes into n-groid vs. m-loid vs. k-zoid.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I found it, so here is the rest of the exchange I believe. Good read btw..
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:Originally posted by ausar:
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.
Dear Sustan Anton,
Many people from the horn of Africa have narrower nose profiles than say a bantu. I feel that perhaps forensic scientist should have used people from the Horn of Africa as their model instead of such a narrow consideration. Are you familiar with the ''Hamitic myth'' that postulated that caucasoids from early times came into Africa and civlized the more sedentary ''negriod'' population. Thus all narrow features found in Nilotic types,Northern Africans,and eastern Africans were atributed to these Hamitic immigrants.
You might want to consult the works of bio-anthropologist Dr. Shomarka Keita and also Jean Hiernax. Are you familiar with these groups.
Let me also point out that many modern Egyptians from the area Tut-ankh-amun came from have features like avelouar porgnathism. Was this taken into consideration?
Yes this is true and this is precisely why I felt (although I did not know where the individual was from) that this was an individual of African ancestry, and why I so stated. The problem, as you say, in trying to fit an individual back into a population of origin is two-fold. It is the problem of the range of variation available in any given population and the problem of how you wish to define your groups and what your comparative samples are. For my 'north african' I will mean simply those peoples from north of the equator - rather than say Morocco etc. I should also say that I don't see his narrow nose as an indication that he is not african or that he or his people had any genetic input from groups that were not african - it was only another clue for me to try to narrow the scope somewhat (since I had an unknown and 'African origin' is a pretty big designation), if imperfectly.
Yes, alveolar prognathism was taken into account (at least by me, I can't speak for the other groups) and is another part of the reason for my estimation of African ancestry in this individual. You should recall that all the other groups that worked on this individual knew that this was Tut's skull. We did not know either who this was particularly or if it was a forensic case or an archaeological case (I worked from the CT reconstruction of the skull from which it is impossible to infer such age clues as you might.) For part of the analysis I ran cranial metrics through FORDISC which has two alternative cranial comparative databases. One is a modern forensic database from individuals of known cases in the states. The other is an archaeologically derived sample (the one that W.W. Howells collected) which does include indviduals from Egypt among a number of other wordlwide populations. Although I was convinced by the nonmetric data (e.g. the alveolar prognathism, the shape of the cranial vault etc), that this was an individual of African ancestry, the metric data - whether compared with the modern sample or the archaeological sample - did not place him near any of the comparative groups.
Yes, I'm familiar with the work of the groups you site - and concur with Keita that individuals from the whole of Africa should be included in the construct of what is 'African' in terms of identifying skeletal remains (rather than the categories which the French team uses) and this is why this skull ended up indicating to me its African Ancestry.
I am familiar with Howells database and this same database has come under fire for correct examination of individuals. What time period does the FORDISC have these Egyptian sames. In the study by Dr. Keita it meantions that it was a late dyanstic period ''Giza E'' series. According to the study by Dr. Sonia Zakrzewski the sample in the Howells database came from the 26th dyansty. According to her study on pre-dyanstic Egyptian remains there was slight change in the crania from around the Late Dyanstic period. This is to be expected because of the migration of Greeks,Jews,Phonecians and Syrians into Egypt. What is your opinion on this?
Although not related, I find that forensic anthropologist and geneticist are often ignorant of historical population movements in areas they study. For instance, in modern Egypt there is a village in southern Egypt called Marris where according to folklore the local women were raped by French soliders. These females are typically lighter than the surrounding Egyptian population. What is your opinion on this.
Yes, this is the problem with comparative databases. It is not feasible to include examples from every possible place and time and so you get results, like I did in this case, where if you read the statistics carefully, even though it is giving you an answer (in this case it said that the skull I was looking at was most like a Berg Male) the specimen in question doesn't really look like anything in the comparative sample (recent or the archaeological). It is the case that the Howells database egyptian sample is the Giza series you refer to and even if that sample doesn't have influences from the groups that you mention, there is clearly no reason to expect that a single series from a single time should tell you about the entire range of variation in that region. Since I didn't know where the skull was from there wasn't any way to say, well, if I had more samples from X place, perhaps I would have a better read - so all I could deduce from that comparison was that it wasn't like anything in the comparative databse. But the nonmetric traits were convincing enough to me that he was of African origin, that this is what I went with and what Michael worked with.
I think that historic populations movements are only the tip of the iceberg as to what makes determining ancestral origin from skeletal remains extremely difficult in most cases and nearly impossible in others. The biggest reason for this is that humans are all one species. And beyond that discrete boundary (that we are humans rather than say chimps) there are no other discrete boundaries among human groups. So if boundaries aren't discrete, if there is more variation between than within groups, then trying to put an individual back into a group is really problematic. Biologically, there should be no reason you should be able to do it 100% of the time. Biologically, the most you should expect would be able to do it maybe 70 or 80% of the time, if there is no operator error and if your comparative samples are good. There are good evolutionary reasons why groups whose ancestors have lived in certain kinds of climates over long periods of time might look, on average, different than groups evolving in other areas - but there is no reason why any given member of either group will look like the 'mean' of that group. You see the problem. And that doesn't even address the issue of trying to infer skin color for which there is no evidence in the skeleton.
My real name is *****. The reason I don't use > it in email is for security purposes. I don't trust > yahoo enough to give out personal information. > > > I appreciate you answering my questions about the > identification of Tut-ankh-amun. One thing I did > notice in a Ontario news paper about identification of > a burn victim that according to forensic officals was > a ''dark caucasian'' from Egypt,Sudan,Somalia,or > Ethiopia? I am curious why would foresnic scientist > use such terms for these following countries? > > > Also do you know how I might contact the French > examiner of Tut-ankh-amun? I would like to ask them > also how they came to the conclusions they did.
Hi ****, Thanks for your answer.
Not knowing the case I don't know the answer. The most straightforward answer would be that they have unburned skin retained on the corpse and I can imagine it might be because they have an unidentified person and they are trying to jog someone's memory about who it might be and they think that this might help. It could be they were using the same definition of 'caucasian' as the French did (i.e., including parts of Africa in the designation) or it could be that they had some other means of knowing that the victim was from one of those countries and they were specifying 'dark caucasian' based on skin color (from the corpse) to differentiate from a darker skin tone that they think people might assume for those countries (i.e., in the latter case they would be using caucasian to refer to a light skin color). So much of forensic evidence is not based on the skeleton that it's not even possible to know, unless the article explicitly said so, whether evaluation of the skeleton had anything to do with their assessment and categories. There are so many possibilities it's hard to know. Sorry I can't be more help.
I don't know how to reach the French team, although from the Nat Geo press releases I know they are Anthropologist Jean-Noël Vignal and Sculptor Elisabeth Daynčs. You might try searching the web - I've seen her work in museums before so she may have a website. From the Nat Geo website http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/05/0510_051005_tutsface.html I extracted the following information. There are also other links there to the reconstruction process.
"Led by Zahi Hawass, head of Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities, a National Geographic Society team commissioned French experts to create the lifelike bust. Using the CT scans (see "King Tut Mummy Scanned"), French forensic anthropologist Jean-Noël Vignal determined the basic measurements and features of Tutankhamun's face. 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.
Paris-based forensic sculptor Elisabeth Daynčs then created the bust shown above. She used Vignal's estimates of skin thickness and other data, plus wooden sculptures of Tut made in his youth. Soft-tissue features, such as the nose and ears, had to be guessed at, though within a scientifically determined range. Daynčs based the skin tone on an average shade of Egyptians today and added the eyeliner that the king would have worn in life."
btw there is no gag order for Scott Woodard's studies..they are all available online and he does not support your claims for Yuya.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic