|
Post by alexandrian on May 18, 2005 17:17:27 GMT -5
2) the information you present is either mis-informened or mis-interpreted or both, much can be gathered about your credibility from previous posts. hahahahaha...I'm the only one in this debate who posts actual genetic studies or physical evidence or verifiable reconstructions. For all those who say the AEs were black, they can't find a single survey saying they were Negroid. Find one, will you? Also, for all those who think modern Egyptians are mullattoes, find a single survey giving Egyptians SS-African DNA even close to 50%. Of course you can't. Because it doesn't exist. Because those are all lies.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on May 18, 2005 18:37:00 GMT -5
The human why are you using someone so cleary misinformed and contradicting for in the first place?
No you used him to push your view,then when the very same guy disproves himself (and you),you turn around and throw around dates and explain how outdated he and erroneous he is..You make me laugh!
Listen in the future don't use fualty or outdated sources if you have problems with them.
Who cares about Coon?!
POINT IS all Genetic tests have shown 0 Negroid admixture in the Ancient/modern Egyptians,stop beating a dead horse.Deal with it!
Alexandrian has posted enough proof.
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on May 18, 2005 19:05:17 GMT -5
There's no reason to turn this into a Coon-bashing thread. Yes, the man was clearly wrong about some things, but to condemn his entire body of work because he believed East Africans were partially Caucasoid is silly. Some of the stuff he says is true, some of it is his own wild speculation, and yes, some of it is based on now discredited Eurocentric pseudoscience that he wrongly assumed was infallible. It takes knowledge to rightly divide the facts from the fiction. It takes wisdom to respect that Coon was a product of his age, but a pioneer of physical anthropology nonetheless.
That's my take on Coon. If anything, he had valuable insight.
|
|
|
Post by kir on May 18, 2005 21:09:43 GMT -5
There's no reason to turn this into a Coon-bashing thread. Yes, the man was clearly wrong about some things, but to condemn his entire body of work because he believed East Africans were partially Caucasoid is silly. Some of the stuff he says is true, some of it is his own wild speculation, and yes, some of it is based on now discredited Eurocentric pseudoscience that he wrongly assumed was infallible. It takes knowledge to rightly divide the facts from the fiction. It takes wisdom to respect that Coon was a product of his age, but a pioneer of physical anthropology nonetheless. That's my take on Coon. If anything, he had valuable insight. Coon’s theories need a good bashing, to ensure that they are scientificly just. Without this process, Coon’s theory would have to be accepted on the grounds of faith. Physical Anthropology is a soft science, since it emulates mathematics the least, as compared to physics and chemistry, therefore we should be more critical of it. However, Coon was correct when he noticed that East Africans are partially Caucasoid, as his theory is justified by molecular biology, and genetics.
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on May 18, 2005 21:17:36 GMT -5
I have no problem with people who bash his theories, because some of them are just ridiculous. I bash his theories all the time (i.e. the Ainu are definitely not Caucasian, but Coon had no way of knowing that and it's not like he was alone in thinking they were, so I don't blame him).
I just don't like it when people try to pass him off as some kind of Eurocentrist Nazi whose works are useless (they aren't if anybody bothers to read the good stuff). He wasn't espousing any kind of Guenther-esque Nordicist doctrine (if anything he was a Mediterraneanist). Anyway, I think he truly believed in the integrity of his work. If he knew what we know today about the various races, I have no doubt in my mind he would write a new, up-to-date book correcting his original hypotheses.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on May 19, 2005 0:45:47 GMT -5
Brace still groups both Lower and Upper Egyptian groups close to groups known as Caucasian. His opinions on race don't change anything of his findings. Yes and I can cite studies where other anthropologists[Froment and Keita et tal] grouped predynastic Upper Egyptians much closer to East Africans and Nubians and I can point out as well that according to dental traits Naqadans[the sample used in Brace's study] are more similar to Lower Nubians. Furthermore, Brace doesn't believe in terms like Caucasian so don't misinterpret his work for your agendas. Circumcision has been practiced all around Africa so what is your point? Just because Hebrews may have practiced it in 1800 B.C.[you haven't shown any proof] doesn't mean the practice could have came from Ethiopia[Nubia, not modern Ethiopia]. If reconstructions has progressed so much why have you rejected those reconstructions of Tut that show him to be Negroid? Blacks did sit on the throne of Egypt as pharaohs, it is you who's out to deny any blacks did anything. Egyptians did always show themselves to look one way so quit generalising, there are quit a few that do show Negroid features as well as mixed and everything between both extremes. Puntites are of African origin stop lying.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on May 19, 2005 0:53:02 GMT -5
Coon’s theories need a good bashing, to ensure that they are scientificly just. Without this process, Coon’s theory would have to be accepted on the grounds of faith. Physical Anthropology is a soft science, since it emulates mathematics the least, as compared to physics and chemistry, therefore we should be more critical of it. However, Coon was correct when he noticed that East Africans are partially Caucasoid, as his theory is justified by molecular biology, and genetics. Genetics show that East Africans have absorbed some Eurasian ancestry that is high in some and low to negligent in others. If you subtract the Eurasian ancestry East Africans would still be distinct and would not look like stereotypical 'true Negroes'. Northern Cameroonians have even higher levels of Eurasian ancestry but it has not affected there phenotype, likewise for East Africans, so Coon is only partially correct in the broad sense.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on May 19, 2005 0:54:52 GMT -5
hahahahhaha...I like how you think you can make a comment on internal Egyptian politics..it's quite entertaining. FYI, Cairo is the epitome of Egypt. It is home to nearly 20 million people (including all the suburbs and exurbs), that's over 1/4 of the Egyptian population. Moreover, the inhabitants of Cairo are from all over Egypt, from villages in the Delta to the towns of Upper Egypt, they all go to Cairo. It is the single best representation of Egyptians. But you'd probably prefer they base the entire Egyptian population on a small frontier town on the Sudanese border, right? Egyptians had ZERO interaction with WEst African groups. Egyptians did have Asian eyes in some portrayals- that's more than their nonexistenet AFrican features. Furthermore, egyptians only interacted with one black African group- the Nubians, they interacted with INdians and Chinese before WEst Africans, and with more Middle Eastern/Mediterranean groups than AFrican ones. Human beings might originate in Africa, but we're not all originally negroes. I'm not the one with a complex, you are in you and your kinsmen desperate attempts to try and fabricate a connection to Egypt since you guys are so ashamed of your own, nearly nonexistent, heritage. I'm sorry you don't know what tribe you came from or if your great-great-great-great-great-great grandpapa was some chief, but it doesn't mean you need to try and pretend that you are a descendant of RAmses II. I've heard some idiots claim that the AEs fled to Nigeria and the modern Egyptians are merely a group of Arabs. How hilarious....see what kind of people you associate yourself with? Once again, I am not ashamed of anything and my people do have a heritage so quit repeatedly spamming the same crap about African American, thats an ad-hominem.
|
|
|
Post by Minstrel on May 19, 2005 5:12:36 GMT -5
OMG ......lol I did'nt know you'd go there but you did lol you went so far as to say ancient egyptians share physical similarities with chinese huh? I suppose anything but SSA, that is incredible, but i somehow saw it coming ;D hmmmmmm Lol if that is not a "negro" I don't know what is. dsc.discovery.com/convergence/realeve/face/face.htmlAnd what is more entertaining than fooliosh afrocentric claims, is the fact that alexandrian gets flustered and angry over it! ;D lol, comedy aside, there is plenty for west africans to be proud about, being a west african (american) kicks-ass , we have a world influenced by our culture, kick-ass empires like mali, loango the ashanti, our own literature (timbuktu), universitys, interpretation of islam and christianity, we kicked ass in haiti and totally overthrew european oppression. Our general lack of "heritage" stems mostly from general ignorance and lack of knowing what we already have, a rich, culture stemming back centuries.
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on May 19, 2005 10:06:06 GMT -5
Agreed. Once you weed out all the outmoded or incorrect information, there's still plenty of good stuff that can be attained. This is true of all the physical anthropologists of past eras. And I totally agree with you, human2, people who pull off the old dusty racial books and take what the authors say as gospel are in for a rude awakening.
|
|
|
Post by kir on May 19, 2005 12:50:23 GMT -5
Genetics show that East Africans have absorbed some Eurasian ancestry that is high in some and low to negligent in others. If you subtract the Eurasian ancestry East Africans would still be distinct and would not look like stereotypical 'true Negroes'. Northern Cameroonians have even higher levels of Eurasian ancestry but it has not affected there phenotype, likewise for East Africans, so Coon is only partially correct in the broad sense. Y chromosomes show migration patterns, but they do not reflect “Phenotype” well. This is the case with Cameroon, with 50% R, and E3b etc, with little to no WE on the maternal side. If you are concerned about the race of AE and ME, let’s look at their mtDNA, which is more related to “Phenotype”. mtDNA from Gurna (Upper Egypt): H - 14.7 I - 5.9 J - 5.9 L1a - 11.7 L1e - 5.9 L2a - 2.9 M1 - 17.6 N1b - 8.8 T - 5.9 U - 8.8 U3 - 2.9 U4 - 5.9 L3*(a) - 5.9 L3*(b) - 2.9 Other - 2.9 Total - 100 -The haplogroup that divides Egyptians form Middle Eastern Populations is M1. -The haplogroup that divides East African form other African is M1. -M1 is believed to have spread Afro-Asiatic Languages, and hence represent a “Dominant Population” in the Region. Don’t you think, the most dominant population, would be the same population to craft a civilisation like Egypt. I’m not saying that M1 is the only element of AE, just that it is the most obvious.
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on May 19, 2005 15:58:19 GMT -5
What you leave out of the Gurna study is that that study also searched people in Assiut, Cairo, and MInya. It ofund zero connection to Ethiopians among any of the people of the above 3 cities, and found it only half of the inhabitants of the small fringe town of Gurna. What do you think is more representative of the Egyptian population. A collection of cities that make up nearly 1/3 of the population or a remote town with a population in the single-thousands?
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on May 19, 2005 16:04:19 GMT -5
Yes and I can cite studies where other anthropologists[Froment and Keita et tal] grouped predynastic Upper Egyptians much closer to East Africans and Nubians and I can point out as well that according to dental traits Naqadans[the sample used in Brace's study] are more similar to Lower Nubians. Furthermore, Brace doesn't believe in terms like Caucasian so don't misinterpret his work for your agendas. Post those studies then. I'm not misinterpreting Brace, but its clear that the predynstic Upper Egyptians are closer to groups that we know are Caucasoid and Lower Egyptians are very very well within the sphere composed of other Caucasian groups. Face it, Upper Egypt is debatable, Lower Egypt is most definitely Caucasian. Circumcision has been practiced all around Africa so what is your point? Just because Hebrews may have practiced it in 1800 B.C.[you haven't shown any proof] doesn't mean the practice could have came from Ethiopia[Nubia, not modern Ethiopia]. MOst students of the Bible estimate Abraham to have come around 1800 BC. The practice of cirumcision started with Abraham. There was no organized society at that time in Ethiopia. If reconstructions has progressed so much why have you rejected those reconstructions of Tut that show him to be Negroid? Blacks did sit on the throne of Egypt as pharaohs, it is you who's out to deny any blacks did anything. Because that reconstruction isn't proper and true. The fact of the matter is that it was based purely on a museum artist's conception of what Tut looked like and an outdated xray from the 60s. On the other hand, we saw three groups of people from three different regions of the world, one of whom didn't know who they were working on, who were correctly able to identify Tut to very similar levels and their reconstruction of him all showed a man who is unmistakably Caucasian and looks relatively the same in all three. These reconstructions came out of the first time Tut actually left his coffin since the 1920s. Also, they were based on CT scan 3-D Images, the most high-tech system out there. If you are going to doubt the verifibiablity of CT Scans thats your call. But if you're going to say that the most recent CT-derived thrice-done reconstructions are not accurate, it only makes you look like a bigger idiot, espeically when you are citing the accuracy of an unprofessional museum work made for the general public's amusement. Egyptians did always show themselves to look one way so quit generalising, there are quit a few that do show Negroid features as well as mixed and everything between both extremes. Puntites are of African origin stop lying. Prove Putnites are of African origin. Axum was founded by ARabians, why can't it be the same case with Punt?
|
|
|
Post by kir on May 19, 2005 19:29:03 GMT -5
What you leave out of the Gurna study is that that study also searched people in Assiut, Cairo, and MInya. It ofund zero connection to Ethiopians among any of the people of the above 3 cities, and found it only half of the inhabitants of the small fringe town of Gurna. What do you think is more representative of the Egyptian population. A collection of cities that make up nearly 1/3 of the population or a remote town with a population in the single-thousands? About M1: M1 most likely originated in the near east 12,000ybp and spread westward into North Africa, bringing Afro-asiatic Languages into places like Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Morocco(second highest) and Ethiopia (highest). It’s presence in Ethiopia, doesn’t make it an Ethiopian marker, since M1 exist in all North African population. M1 is a North African Marker, as apposed to sub-sub-Saharan one, but you know that, right? Also M1 in Upper Egypt, might not be a sign of Ethiopian gene flow, rather it could have been there ever since the 12,000 year old expansion from the Near East. From the main researcher on M1, Anne Holden: www.mcdonald.cam.ac.uk/genetics/ahindex.html
|
|
|
Post by topdog on May 21, 2005 1:52:46 GMT -5
We've been over this before again and again, there is no general agreement over where M1 originated but the consensus is that its an East African marker. North African M1 isn't the exact same M1 as East African M1, so until a detailed analysis is done on M1 its better to leave it alone instead of arguing about its origins.
|
|