Post 2/2
1. Not related to the previous. But putting this here since the Anatolian PIE hypothesis spoke of IE languages spreading with neolithic farming (implicitly drawing a connection between IE and farming technology, that IE people were the ones who invented and at least dispersed farming in Europe).
IIRC, Renfrew/Anatolian hypothesis has Anatolia as the proto-PIE homeland, with Hittites as a less techy (more stone-agey, less metallurgy) early "IE" population branch. Or something.
The timeframes concerning the Hittites are interesting.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hittites
So considering the timeframes given by the Kurgan and Anatolian PIE hypotheses for both 1. the Hittites (above) AND 2. PIE (4500 and 2500 BCE)
the following certainly can't be swallowed up for oryanism:
(In case anyone didn't yet know: Anatolia is now ~Turkey.
And IIRC Turkey is not even included in the countries of the "Fertile Crescent", wherefrom farming is to have emanated in at least non-Anatolian Hypotheses.)
Anyway, the point was, at least we know that Renfrew's version of Oryanism in Anatolia can't claim that farming was *invented* by Oryans. 12000 years BP=10,000 years BCE of the civilisation at Gobekli Tepe predates not just the Hittites - regardless of whether they were native (Anatolian Hypothesis) or invading (Kurgan Hypothesis) IE-speakers, but also predates the commonly assigned dates for the existence of PIE language, Kultur und Urheimat as accepted by the mainstream (i.e. the Anatolian, Kurgan hypotheses for PIE).
Of course, Next (aka "tomorrow"), the oryanists - say, Victor Mair's equivalent for Turkey - will pounce on Gobekli Tepe as "Oryan". Nothing, but nothing is safe from oryanising, after all.
2. At that western blog alluded to in Kaushika's post further above, in its blog entry discussing the dark La Brana Stone Age European, it had people rushing to declare that the Tarim basin mummies had red hair. But - as IF member dhu had pointed out long ago - hair of the mummified turning red (and even yellowish) over time is a natural chemical process. Nevertheless, oryanists and other white supremacists would rather be ignorant about such inconvenient facts and insist on seeing oryans/European populations not just in the Tarim Basin in China's vicinity or in Egypt but also in the mummified Peruvians. I'm not kidding. The web is full of people - only western people, note - declaring that since all these mummies have red hair (never mind that it is owing to mummification) that this all points to some grand "white" civilisations that in ancient times had settled the world and built the pyramids in Egypt, the grand structures in Peru
niggers: and oh yeah, hung out in the Tarim basin.
chemistry.about.com/b/2013/02/27/haircolor-changes-after-you-die.htm
Of course that hasn't prevented the west from peddling that these mummies were all "Europeans" originally. Again: I don't know why oryanists didn't claim the red and fairer-haired mammoths that have been found were "oryans (mammoths) too"? (Although the palaeontologists who found those mammoths said the hair lightening in their case could be owing to environmental conditions like discolouration from the soil, and thus need not be inherent to those mammoths either.) Also, to repeat: never mind that:
Sounds like the Tarim basin entities are likely to have had their hair discoloured by the mummification/natural process too...
Though I wouldn't put it past oryanists/other aliens in the west to next start claiming that "therefore" the IVC was populated by red-haired Europeans and must have been "Euro-Oryan" and Skt speaking (while, when native Hindus claimed a continuity of their ethnic native Vedic ancestors in the IVC, this was dismissed as "of course IVC is not 'IE' and hence didn't speak Skt and is not Vedic". The minute the oryans want to claim IVC as part of their European ancestors' stuff, IVC will magically become IE.)
3. And more "white"-centrist stupidity at
[color="#0000FF"]economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21597881-homo-sapiens-became-black-beat-cancer-skinny-skin-colour[/color]
(found via rajeev2004.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/black-is-right-color-for-humans-helps.html)
The people at the economist are obviously morons.
- Zebras have actually white and actually black stripes.
- The so-called self-declared "white" people - i.e. Europeans - are a range of pinkish-orange skintones. Anyone who has ever done photo-realistic painting will know that much (but not "white"-centrist aliens of course).
- Some very fair Korean people look closer to the colour of white paper (or white snow) than many European populations do. And I'm not talking about absolute skin-reflectivity here, but about nearness to perceived paper/snow colour.
- Sub-Saharan Africans are a range of browns. Not "black".
(- Indians and a whole bunch of other populations on the planet are ranges of browns. At times mixed with different/custom ranges of oranges. E.g. Indians have brown and orange ranges that are different from Europe's orange range of skintones. Likewise Chinese and Japanese populations cover brown, orange and pink ranges that are different again from Europe's pink-orange ranges and India's brown and orange ranges.
- Etc.)
I've seen many European and African people, but I've never seen a person who was actually black or actually white.
The skin of chimpanzees - as is visible on parts of their bodies where they have no fur - ranges from some non-descript shades of brown to colours that come closer to black (or grey) than anything I've seen in humans.
See pictures at link below. The pics at this link happen to be of the Fongoli Chimpanzees, but other chimpanzees share these skintones. [Note that Fongoli chimpanzees are very like us humans/our monkey ancestors: not only have they left the trees and taken to live on the savannah as our own ancestors did, sometimes the Fongoli chimpanzees stand and walk *upright* for a brief time, to see over the high grass of the savannah. And they have likewise been caught on film making and using spears - tools! - to kill bushbabies, other mammals. (HTGAP-3.) And no, tool-making and usage is not unique to humans among the apes. With any luck these chimps will give rise to some sane humanoids that will replace homo sapiens when the niche becomes free...] Anyway, the pictures:
[color="#0000FF"]ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/04/chimps-with-spears/frans-lanting-photography.html[/color]
(Actually, people can just google for "chimpanzee" images and see for themselves how far they agree with the Ecomonist's silly statement.)
As is obvious, where the skin on these chimps is visible, it is some shades of brownish - with even pinky edges on the ears and lips at times (also seen in humans wherever the blood is somewhat visible past these areas of thinner membrane*) - ranging to very dark skin.
[*Palms are another area where humans and IIRC some monkeys too tend to be more pinkish - perhaps the skin is less thick/more translucent here and we can see through to the flesh; maybe less thick skin in the inner hand/fingers area is to improve tactile sense- in any case, it once again doesn't mean that the colour of humans' or monkeys' palms is representative of their "actual" skintone. (It is representative only of the skintone of their palms.) <- This is why when Hindoos colour Krishna blue or Meenakshi green, they still seem to consistently colour the palms of these Gods a somewhat ruddy or pinkish colour.]
Anyone who pretends that chimps have "white" skin is therefore obviously a "white"-centrist moron. The proof is in the pictures combined with the fact that anyone who wants to make a photo-realistic painting of these chimps will *never* colour these animals "white" in the fur-less areas (btw, they're not even really the colours of European pinkish-orange tones...)
And I don't understand why people conclude that humans are the only ones that "became 'black' (to beat skin cancer)". As seen in some of the chimp photos, many chimps (definitely among the adult-sized ones) are really dark in their fur-less areas and closer to the actual colour black than any human I've ever seen.
I wonder whether the whole "chimps were originally 'white', and humans 'became' 'black' to beat cancer" spin - I'm not denying that evolving high pigmentation is to cope with cancer risks from the sun, which is known, my issue concerns the Economist's silly phrasing on colour in an article that's supposed to be about science - I'm wondering whether that whole spin is in order to sinisterly declare that "humans were/would have been 'white' originally and only became 'black' thereafter" in order to compensate for the Stone Age La Brana European turning out to be some shade of "dark", as also mankind's ancestors in the African Urheimat...
I mean, there's no other reason for the Economist to declare chimps to be "white" 'underneath', is there? (Especially when - as seen in chimpanzee photos in web search images - the exposed skin areas like face, hands and feet of some chimps' are darker than human ranges of dark skintones...)
[color="#0000FF"]The previous post is more relevant to this thread than this one.[/color]
1. Not related to the previous. But putting this here since the Anatolian PIE hypothesis spoke of IE languages spreading with neolithic farming (implicitly drawing a connection between IE and farming technology, that IE people were the ones who invented and at least dispersed farming in Europe).
IIRC, Renfrew/Anatolian hypothesis has Anatolia as the proto-PIE homeland, with Hittites as a less techy (more stone-agey, less metallurgy) early "IE" population branch. Or something.
The timeframes concerning the Hittites are interesting.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hittites
Quote:History[edit]
Background[edit]
[IMG: Map of Indo European migrations from circa 4000 to 1000 BC according to the Kurgan model. The Anatolian migration (indicated with a dotted arrow) could have taken place either across the Caucasus or across the Balkans. The magenta area corresponds to the assumed Urheimat (Samara culture, Sredny Stog culture). The red area corresponds to the area that may have been settled by Indo-European-speaking peoples up to circa 2500 BC, and the orange area by 1000 BC.]
Around 5000 BC, the region centered in Hattusa, that would later become the core of the Hittite kingdom, was inhabited by people with a distinct culture who spoke a non-Indo-European language. The name "Hattic" is used by Anatolianists to distinguish this language from the Indo-European Hittite language that appeared on the scene at the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC and became the administrative language of the Hittite kingdom over the next six or seven centuries.
The early Hittites, whose prior whereabouts are unknown, borrowed heavily from the pre-existing Hattian and Hurrian cultures, and also from that of the Assyrian colonisers ââ¬â in particular, the cuneiform writing and the use of cylindrical seals.[citation needed]
Since Hattic continued to be used in the Hittite kingdom for religious purposes, and there is substantial continuity between the two cultures, it is not known whether the Hattic speakers ââ¬â the Hattiansââ¬â were displaced by the speakers of Hittite, were absorbed by them, or just adopted their language.[citation needed]
Origins[edit]It is generally assumed that the Hittites came into Anatolia some time before 2000 BC.[citation needed] While their earlier location is disputed, there has been strong evidence for more than a century that the home of the Indo-Europeans in the fourth and third millennia was in the Pontic Steppe, present day Ukraine around the Sea of Azov.[citation needed] This is known as the Kurgan Hypothesis.
The arrival of the Hittites in Anatolia in prehistoric times was one of a superstrate imposing itself on a native culture, either by means of conquest[8] or by gradual assimilation.[9] In archaeological terms, relationships of the Hittites to the Ezero culture of the Balkans and Maikop culture of the Caucasus have been considered within the migration framework.[10] The Indo-European element at least establishes Hittite culture as intrusive to Anatolia in scholarly mainstream[9] (excepting the opinion of Colin Renfrew, whose Anatolian hypothesis assumes that Indo-European is indigenous to Anatolia[11][12]).
The Hittites and other members of the Anatolian family then came from the north, possibly along the Caspian Sea. Their movement into the region may have set off a Near East mass migration sometime around 1900 BC.[citation needed] The dominant inhabitants in central Anatolia at the time were Hurrians and Hattians who spoke non-Indo-European languages (some have argued that Hattic was a Northwest Caucasian language, but its affiliation remains uncertain). There were also Assyrian colonies in the country; it was from the Assyrians that the Hittites adopted the cuneiform script. It took some time before the Hittites established themselves, as is clear from some of the texts included here. For several centuries there were separate Hittite groups, usually centered on various cities. But then strong rulers with their center in Boßazköy succeeded in bringing these together and conquering large parts of central Anatolia to establish the Hittite kingdom.[13]
Early period[edit]
Hittite chariot, from an Egyptian reliefThe early history of the Hittite kingdom is known through tablets that may first have been written in the 17th century BC, possibly in Hittite;[14] but survived only as Akkadian copies made in the 14th and 13th centuries BC. These reveal a rivalry within two branches of the royal family up to the Middle Kingdom; a northern branch first based in Zalpa and secondarily Hattusa, and a southern branch based in Kussara (still not found) and Kanesh. These are distinguishable by their names; the northerners retained Hattian names, and the southerners adopted Hittite and Luwiyan names.[15]
So considering the timeframes given by the Kurgan and Anatolian PIE hypotheses for both 1. the Hittites (above) AND 2. PIE (4500 and 2500 BCE)
the following certainly can't be swallowed up for oryanism:
Quote:[color="#0000FF"]"Gobekli Tepe" - located in what's now Turkey - "contains some of the oldest buildings in the world" (btw, with intricately carved animal figurines on pillars) "dating to nearly three times the age of the first Egyptian pyramids": Gobekli Tepe buildings are dated to "12000 years before present". The people farmed wheat, already ushering in the Neolithic. The wheat had a mutation which became widespread owing to human dispersal/artificial selection.[/color]
(HTGAP-3)
(In case anyone didn't yet know: Anatolia is now ~Turkey.
And IIRC Turkey is not even included in the countries of the "Fertile Crescent", wherefrom farming is to have emanated in at least non-Anatolian Hypotheses.)
Anyway, the point was, at least we know that Renfrew's version of Oryanism in Anatolia can't claim that farming was *invented* by Oryans. 12000 years BP=10,000 years BCE of the civilisation at Gobekli Tepe predates not just the Hittites - regardless of whether they were native (Anatolian Hypothesis) or invading (Kurgan Hypothesis) IE-speakers, but also predates the commonly assigned dates for the existence of PIE language, Kultur und Urheimat as accepted by the mainstream (i.e. the Anatolian, Kurgan hypotheses for PIE).
Of course, Next (aka "tomorrow"), the oryanists - say, Victor Mair's equivalent for Turkey - will pounce on Gobekli Tepe as "Oryan". Nothing, but nothing is safe from oryanising, after all.
2. At that western blog alluded to in Kaushika's post further above, in its blog entry discussing the dark La Brana Stone Age European, it had people rushing to declare that the Tarim basin mummies had red hair. But - as IF member dhu had pointed out long ago - hair of the mummified turning red (and even yellowish) over time is a natural chemical process. Nevertheless, oryanists and other white supremacists would rather be ignorant about such inconvenient facts and insist on seeing oryans/European populations not just in the Tarim Basin in China's vicinity or in Egypt but also in the mummified Peruvians. I'm not kidding. The web is full of people - only western people, note - declaring that since all these mummies have red hair (never mind that it is owing to mummification) that this all points to some grand "white" civilisations that in ancient times had settled the world and built the pyramids in Egypt, the grand structures in Peru
niggers: and oh yeah, hung out in the Tarim basin.chemistry.about.com/b/2013/02/27/haircolor-changes-after-you-die.htm
Quote:"Haircolor Changes After You Die
By Anne Marie Helmenstine, Ph.D.
February 27, 2013
If you've ever seen a mummy in a museum, you might have thought the ancients went a little overboard with henna and other red dyes. While people have colored their hair practically forever, it's more likely what you're seeing is the change in haircolor that occurs after a person dies. The color of hair comes from the mixture of two melanin pigments: eumelanin (yellow-brown-black) and pheomelanin (red). Pheomelanin is more stable, so over time the eumelanin oxidizes while most of the pheomelanin remains. This is reason most [color="#0000FF"]Egypian mummies[/color] appear to have reddish hair. The change occurs more slowly under dry oxidizing conditions, such as burials in ice or sand, than under wet reducing conditions, such as burials in wooden coffins or damp caves. Therefore, you would expect to see a more faster or more dramatic haircolor change in a body from the jungle, for example, than a corpse from the desert."
Photo: [color="#0000FF"]Pre-Columbian Peruvian mummy.[/color]
Of course that hasn't prevented the west from peddling that these mummies were all "Europeans" originally. Again: I don't know why oryanists didn't claim the red and fairer-haired mammoths that have been found were "oryans (mammoths) too"? (Although the palaeontologists who found those mammoths said the hair lightening in their case could be owing to environmental conditions like discolouration from the soil, and thus need not be inherent to those mammoths either.) Also, to repeat: never mind that:
Quote:Hemphill's biodistance analysis of cranial metrics, however, provides compelling evidence that the ancestry of the Tarim Basin groups was non-European (Hemphill, 2000). Rather, his analysis reveals a biological affinity with the Indus Valley population of northern India for the earlier groups, whereas the later groups show affinity to populations of the Oxus River valley in south-central Asia."
(Clark Spencer Larsen's "Bioarchaeology: The Lives and Lifestyles of Past People", from "Journal of Archaeological Research". June 2002, Vol. 10, No. 2. [color="#0000FF"]www.clas.ufl.edu/users/davidson/Arch%20of%20Death/Week%2007/Larson%202002%20bioarchaeology.pdf )[/color]
Sounds like the Tarim basin entities are likely to have had their hair discoloured by the mummification/natural process too...
Though I wouldn't put it past oryanists/other aliens in the west to next start claiming that "therefore" the IVC was populated by red-haired Europeans and must have been "Euro-Oryan" and Skt speaking (while, when native Hindus claimed a continuity of their ethnic native Vedic ancestors in the IVC, this was dismissed as "of course IVC is not 'IE' and hence didn't speak Skt and is not Vedic". The minute the oryans want to claim IVC as part of their European ancestors' stuff, IVC will magically become IE.)
3. And more "white"-centrist stupidity at
[color="#0000FF"]economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21597881-homo-sapiens-became-black-beat-cancer-skinny-skin-colour[/color]
(found via rajeev2004.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/black-is-right-color-for-humans-helps.html)
Quote:Human evolution
The skinny on skin colour
[color="#0000FF"]Homo sapiens became black to beat cancer[/color]
Mar 1st 2014 | From the print edition Tweet..
Protect and survive
[color="#0000FF"]SHAVE a chimpanzee and you will find that beneath its hairy coat its skin is white.[/color]
The people at the economist are obviously morons.
- Zebras have actually white and actually black stripes.
- The so-called self-declared "white" people - i.e. Europeans - are a range of pinkish-orange skintones. Anyone who has ever done photo-realistic painting will know that much (but not "white"-centrist aliens of course).
- Some very fair Korean people look closer to the colour of white paper (or white snow) than many European populations do. And I'm not talking about absolute skin-reflectivity here, but about nearness to perceived paper/snow colour.
- Sub-Saharan Africans are a range of browns. Not "black".
(- Indians and a whole bunch of other populations on the planet are ranges of browns. At times mixed with different/custom ranges of oranges. E.g. Indians have brown and orange ranges that are different from Europe's orange range of skintones. Likewise Chinese and Japanese populations cover brown, orange and pink ranges that are different again from Europe's pink-orange ranges and India's brown and orange ranges.
- Etc.)
I've seen many European and African people, but I've never seen a person who was actually black or actually white.
The skin of chimpanzees - as is visible on parts of their bodies where they have no fur - ranges from some non-descript shades of brown to colours that come closer to black (or grey) than anything I've seen in humans.
See pictures at link below. The pics at this link happen to be of the Fongoli Chimpanzees, but other chimpanzees share these skintones. [Note that Fongoli chimpanzees are very like us humans/our monkey ancestors: not only have they left the trees and taken to live on the savannah as our own ancestors did, sometimes the Fongoli chimpanzees stand and walk *upright* for a brief time, to see over the high grass of the savannah. And they have likewise been caught on film making and using spears - tools! - to kill bushbabies, other mammals. (HTGAP-3.) And no, tool-making and usage is not unique to humans among the apes. With any luck these chimps will give rise to some sane humanoids that will replace homo sapiens when the niche becomes free...] Anyway, the pictures:
[color="#0000FF"]ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/04/chimps-with-spears/frans-lanting-photography.html[/color]
(Actually, people can just google for "chimpanzee" images and see for themselves how far they agree with the Ecomonist's silly statement.)
As is obvious, where the skin on these chimps is visible, it is some shades of brownish - with even pinky edges on the ears and lips at times (also seen in humans wherever the blood is somewhat visible past these areas of thinner membrane*) - ranging to very dark skin.
[*Palms are another area where humans and IIRC some monkeys too tend to be more pinkish - perhaps the skin is less thick/more translucent here and we can see through to the flesh; maybe less thick skin in the inner hand/fingers area is to improve tactile sense- in any case, it once again doesn't mean that the colour of humans' or monkeys' palms is representative of their "actual" skintone. (It is representative only of the skintone of their palms.) <- This is why when Hindoos colour Krishna blue or Meenakshi green, they still seem to consistently colour the palms of these Gods a somewhat ruddy or pinkish colour.]
Anyone who pretends that chimps have "white" skin is therefore obviously a "white"-centrist moron. The proof is in the pictures combined with the fact that anyone who wants to make a photo-realistic painting of these chimps will *never* colour these animals "white" in the fur-less areas (btw, they're not even really the colours of European pinkish-orange tones...)
And I don't understand why people conclude that humans are the only ones that "became 'black' (to beat skin cancer)". As seen in some of the chimp photos, many chimps (definitely among the adult-sized ones) are really dark in their fur-less areas and closer to the actual colour black than any human I've ever seen.
I wonder whether the whole "chimps were originally 'white', and humans 'became' 'black' to beat cancer" spin - I'm not denying that evolving high pigmentation is to cope with cancer risks from the sun, which is known, my issue concerns the Economist's silly phrasing on colour in an article that's supposed to be about science - I'm wondering whether that whole spin is in order to sinisterly declare that "humans were/would have been 'white' originally and only became 'black' thereafter" in order to compensate for the Stone Age La Brana European turning out to be some shade of "dark", as also mankind's ancestors in the African Urheimat...
I mean, there's no other reason for the Economist to declare chimps to be "white" 'underneath', is there? (Especially when - as seen in chimpanzee photos in web search images - the exposed skin areas like face, hands and feet of some chimps' are darker than human ranges of dark skintones...)
[color="#0000FF"]The previous post is more relevant to this thread than this one.[/color]
Death to traitors.