tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post8204521388213302407..comments2024-03-22T15:55:34.030-04:00Comments on Evo and Proud: In the eye of the ancient beholderPeter Frosthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04303172060029254340noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-28766138585970293442015-08-10T13:24:47.470-04:002015-08-10T13:24:47.470-04:00Hello Mr. Frost,
Could it be that (long) mutual ga...Hello Mr. Frost,<br />Could it be that (long) mutual gazes matter much more among some cultures/ethnies than among others? It truly would be great to know your opinion about that topic.Erwin Schmidthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04403383980437554603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-23237167732819351132015-08-09T15:58:21.420-04:002015-08-09T15:58:21.420-04:00Anon,
One can say that the ancient Egyptians were...Anon,<br /><br />One can say that the ancient Egyptians were visibly darker in skin color than the ancient Jews and Syrians without saying they were "black." You're confusing the issue with your reference to Afrocentric writers.<br /><br />I could argue this point at great length, but it seems pretty obvious. Go to the Ancient Egypt section of any museum. In all of their artwork, the Ancient Egyptians portrayed themselves as either reddish-brown (men) or yellow (women). This was true for all social classes. They also repeatedly depicted the peoples of the Levant as being much lighter in color. And this impression is confirmed by what Jewish and Syrian observers wrote.<br /><br />Malcolm,<br /><br />In the Middle East, "ruddy" or "red" was a common term for light-skinned people. The Persians were considered "red." This is also a common usage in Africa. Lighter-skinned Africans are often called "red" in many parts of Africa.<br /><br />Reader,<br /><br />In the pre-modern era, the range of skin color within any one population was very narrow. Even with people who today say they belong to a single national origin ("English", "French", "Italian") we are looking at people who result from a much more exogamous environment than existed in the past.<br /><br />In any case, there will always be a range of variation for any physical trait, even though normalizing selection is acting to compress that range of variation. This is partly because new mutations are constantly occurring and partly because normalizing selection is never 100% effective.<br /><br />In many societies, assortative mating also increases the range of variation. We see this throughout much of Asia: lighter-skinned women have more opportunities for hypogamy, thus whitening the dominant class.<br /><br />Hulse, F.S. (1967). Selection for skin color among the Japanese. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 27, 143-156.<br />Peter Frostnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-31890873986381266412015-08-09T11:06:21.297-04:002015-08-09T11:06:21.297-04:00But then why do pale men and dark women exist in t...But then why do pale men and dark women exist in the population, even though the traditional reproductive preferences are the opposite? Is it a random "spandrel" of the fact that both of these genes persist in the population, but sometimes come out gender-inappropriately? Or, is it the fact that there are some mating strategies that can benefit them in some way, and the pale men/dark women have figured out how to reproduce more or less successfully, despite them being contrary to traditional preferences?Readernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-57226556691663125342015-08-08T17:09:12.425-04:002015-08-08T17:09:12.425-04:00Again, these terms are relative ones. Not pale or ...Again, these terms are relative ones. Not pale or ruddy in the English or Irish sense, but probably auburn-haired and fairer-than-average complexion of the sort that still occurs in a minority of people in Syria/Palestine/Lebanon today. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-41469375912701585492015-08-08T17:02:24.133-04:002015-08-08T17:02:24.133-04:00I notice that, in I Sam 16:12, 17:42. David was de...I notice that, in I Sam 16:12, 17:42. David was described as "ruddy" (<i>admônî</i>). What does this mean?Malcolm Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00672612354161787023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-71934656958194327032015-08-08T16:58:30.155-04:002015-08-08T16:58:30.155-04:00Apart from Afrocentric writers who rely heavily on...Apart from Afrocentric writers who rely heavily on cherry-picked (and even doctored) "evidence," there has always been a general agreement among scholars that the Egyptians of antiquity were fundamentally the same, on average, as modern Egyptians in in their physical traits. The difference in appearance between the Egyptians and Hebrews in ancient times would therefore probably have been scarcely greater than that which exists between, say, Copts and Palestinians today. <br /><br />A mental association between dark complexion and slavery (or lower social status in general) could easily have taken shape in the absence (or near-absence) of people whom we would nowadays call "black" or sub-Saharan African. In dry subtropical regions like the Middle East and North Africa, skin tone can vary enormously depending on exposure to the Sun. People who regularly labored outdoors would have appeared substantially darker than elite personages - kings, scribes, priests, etc - without differing much in underlying genetic ancestry. Paler skin - particularly in women - would thereby have become associated with gentility and high socioeconomic standing. (No doubt, some actual genetic changes could have been brought about by these conventions over time via associative mating.)<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com