Just because someone posts something on mystical Atlantis is not a reflection on the site- its
a reflection on the poster. In the article below there is a racist gay guy quoted doubting the
Holocaust, but no one is going around saying that HuffPost is "filled with Holocaust deniers."
Why is there necessarily any "connection" of Atlantis to the site unless troll strawmen are being set up?
The troubling ascent of the LGBT right wing
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/26/ascent-lgbt-right-wing-afdLikewise a staid, mainstream publication like National Georgaphic has a piece on Atlantis below-
news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/150318-atlantis-morocco-santorini-plato-adams-ngbooktalk/but no one is going around claiming that National Geographic is "filled with believers in Atlantis."
Not referring to anyone here, but such lame tactics are typical of the defeated, embittered trolls
who have no credible answer to the hard data on African history and diversity that debunks their bogus
claims at every turn. So they set up bogus strawmen. That being said I think there should be more
focus on the real issues.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In any event the literature on Atlantis is filled with multiple location hypothesis including
North Africa, Crete, Spain, Sicily, Italy, TUrkey, Ireland etc. Another African location
simply joins the long list of speculation and is not a "reflection on the site" anymore than
racist gays are a reflection on HuffPost, or Atlantis believers are a reflection on Natl Geographic.
No one is being fooled by such lameness ..
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Location_hypotheses_of_AtlantisAs regards XYZ's thesis on gayness, I don't think being gay has anything to do with
the work in question. Much more relevant is the entrance of "techie" types into the field who
have a lot of gee-whiz tools but do not understand the broad context of the history, archaeology,
and anthropology of a region, and thus fall prey to misinterpretation. On this issue XYZ may have
a point. This is the problem with a recent book on Egypt, as critiqued in another thread, & summarized below.
egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/post/18212Recent 2016 book by Zakrewski et al, offers primer on scientific techniques
that might be profitably applied in "Egyptology broadly,
and in Egyptian archaeology in particular."
PUB DESCRIPTION: Zakzewski et al 2016. Science in the Study of Ancient Egypt
Science in the Study of Ancient Egypt demonstrates
how to integrate scientific methodologies into
Egyptology broadly, and in Egyptian archaeology in
particular, in order to maximise the amount of
information that might be obtained within a study
of ancient Egypt, be it field, museum, or laboratory-based.
The authors illustrate the inclusive but varied
nature of the scientific archaeology being undertaken,
revealing that it all falls under the aegis of
Egyptology, and demonstrating its potential for
the elucidation of problems within traditional
Egyptology. Curiously the text or coauthors seem quite concerned about avoiding "Afrocentrism" and mention it twice. Strangely, they do not name Eurocentrism as a matter of concern, as can be seen in the statements below, where it is seems barely to exist. Apparently neither race or Afrocentrism is to be discussed. Fair enough, but why is it "race" and "Afrocentrism," and not race, "Eurocentrism" and "Afrocentrism"? ANd why is it "Afrocentrism and associated issues" but no mention is made of the massively more pernicious influence of Eurocentrism, which existed long before "Afrocentrism" showed up significantly in the 1960s? Subtly, it appears EUROCENTRISM is not a "problem" at all, but a bogeyman "Afrocentrism".. Interesting... QUOTE:
"It is worth noting that biological and physical differences exist between humans on a global geographic scale (Howells 1973; 1989; 1995; Lahr 1996), and between groups within non-human species (Ridley 1993). Although some attention has been paid to physical and biological definitions of groups or populations for humans, this has been laden with racist overtones, particularly with regard to Egypt.
This book is not a venue for a discussion either of race or the relative merits of Afrocentrism. It is, however, rather a discussion of aspects of human variation and diversity and their uses to inform as to population history and hence migration."
-pg 209
"Despite the past use of race and skin colouration within Egyptian archaeology and Egyptology,
this volume is not the venue for a prolonged discussion of Afrocentrism and associated issues. By contrast, the concepts of ethnicity and population affinity are more useful for scientific analyses. Ethnicity is a personal construct, and hence is fluid and malleable in nature (Beck 1995; Lucy 2005). Population affinity is simply an evaluation of biological relatedness. It is clear that the ancient Egyptians constructed ethnic groupings as people from different geographic areas who were depicted and illustrated in different forms. For example, by the time of the New Kingdom, Puntite and Egyptian males were usually depicted in similarly reddish skins, whereas Nubians typically had darker skins and Libyans generally had light-coloured or yellowish skin (O’Connor & Reid 2003). It is unclear whether these matched biological reality, or were simply part of the Egyptian artistic canon. Viewing ethnicity as a category of social identity that may be either assigned or self-imposed permits the use of integrative contextual analysis, in the same manner as the social age groups noted above."
pg 220
--Sonia Zakrzewski, Andrew Shortland, Joanne Rowland. 2016. Science in the Study of Ancient Egypt. pg 209; 220
A bit disingenuous, or lacking up to date knowledge:- they say- quote:
For example, by the time of the New Kingdom, Puntite and Egyptian males were usually depicted in similarly reddish skins, whereas Nubians typically had darker skins and Libyans generally had light-coloured or yellowish skin (O’Connor & Reid 2003). It is unclear whether these matched biological reality, or were simply part of the Egyptian artistic canon.What the authors say as to depiction is true, but- 5 points as to what they say is "unclear":
(a) it has been well established that the Egyptians often used the "red" and "yellow" artistic convention,
(O'connor and Reid 2003, Yurco 1989 et al).
(b) the Nubians themselves were variable in color (just like other Africans- Morkot 2005, 2000)
They didn't ALL look like CERTAIN peoples from the SUdanic area- i.e. Dinka etc. The authors
seem not to fully grasp the diversity of the peoples of Africa.
(c) Numerous Egyptians wall paintings ALSO show not simply "red" men, but realistic
Egyptians depicted with dark skin as well. Dark skin is not, and never was "foreign"
to Egypt. This was always the "biological reality" of Kemet.
(d) Climatic variation over time in the Nile Valley which stretches from cool Mediterranean
zone to hot tropical belt (even Egypt itself is partly in the tropical zone) makes it painfully
obvious that just on climatic factors alone, there would be the "Biological reality" of variation
in skin color over time and space. These variations have always been in place. It is strange that
the authors, who again, hold that new high tech tools can provide so much, seem "unclear"
about such basic facts.
(e) Dark skinned people were always a "biological reality" in ancient Egypt. For the authors to
claim "it is unclear" as they set up an either-or color dichtomy, suggests a degree of disingenousness,
or lack of up to date knowledge re the archaeology and anthropology of ancient Egypt. In a book purporting
to argue for greater scientific rigor and application in Ancient Egypt, this is another weakness.
Another flaw in the book is how the authors avoid any. significant discussion or coverage on limb proportions
even though these are one key component in determining population relationships in ancient Egypt, and indeed
have also been sometimes helpful in such things as estimating stature and sex. This is strange in a book that in Chapter 3 says it is examining population, and mentions numerous other things,
like the use of COmputed Tomography scans on crania, strontium isotopes, high tech chemical analysis of plant and
bone fragments to examine breast-feeding practices, etc, etc etc.. yet can't find much space for limb proportions-
a valid, well-established tool of analysis. Limb analysis primarily comes in in the context of bone changes,
bone disease, bone stress, etc etc.. Very curious...
It is also strange that the authors find time to mention "Afrocentrism" twice, but could not find space to significantly
mention the data and applications one of the key tools in analysis of ancient Egyptian populations- limb proportion
analysis. Such analysis is routinely mentioned in even beginning textbooks on physical anthropology. Nowhere
in the book does the published data appear on Ancient Egyptians on this variable, nor do even standard items such
as Allen's or Bergmann's Rule (which deal with limb and body proportions- again a routine matter). And yet the
goal of the book is purportedly to put the study of ancient Egypt on a more scientific footing- yet, ironically,
the very same book excludes solid science on Ancient Egypt. Whatever the issues of coverage, (or lack of, invoking
an "Afrocentrism" bogeyman seems a neat way to avoid a credible FULL discussion on population. Interesting...
CONTRADICTORY CLAIMS BASED ON NEW TECHNIQUES Shiny new techniques like use of strontium and oxygen isotopes on dental enamel at Tombos
for example brings the conclusion that a majority of population there was "non-local." But traditional
Egyptological excavations almost 20 years ago at TOmbos contradict this, and established that some
Egyptians were buried there, along with the remains of local Nubians, with intermixture between the
two groups in place. The final isotope conclusion is misleading. And it is difficult to see what substantial
added value the isotope analysis adds to the extensive archaeological data already done. It is admitted
that the isotope survey confirms the intermingling of the groups, but this is later contradicted
by the "non-local" claim, and seems to indicate that shiny new techniques, and themselves subject to
narrow interpretations, and may not yield the additional understanding the authors claim.
The official Tombos archaelogical Projects notes that the site is key in- quote:
"documenting the interaction and entanglement of Egyptian colonists and local Nubians
during these major sociopolitical changes in the region."THis is a more accurate and richer understanding of the site, as opposed to narrow
techniques that do not seem to grasp the full picture.
Conclusion
In the book's introduction, the authors say their purpose is:
".. to develop and deepen our understanding of the past individuals, groups and communities
who inhabited Egypt and travelled through its deserts from the earliest times onwards."
But the book has numerous gaps that make it miss this standard. Rather it appears like a 'cookbook' of
techniques, that while impressive technically, seems to lack a broader understanding of the deep
archaeology and analysis of the traditional discipline. When a key data items such as limb proportions
is left out for example, how does this illuminate understanding? Likewise the rather strange claim
of being "unclear" about skin color in Kemet, shows a lack of grasp of this deep context.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wish XYZ had spent a bit more time on the "shallow techie" problem..