Cleopatra was 'of African descent'

[docoflove1974]

This latest find, if it really holds water, will just add to the seemingly eternal debate over the ancestry, and by proxy the appearance, of Cleopatra

 

BBC News: Cleopatra was 'of African descent'.

 

The legendarily beautiful Egyptian queen Cleopatra was part African, says a documentary team who believe they have found the tomb of her sister.

 

It was traditionally thought that Mark Anthony's lover was of Greek descent.

 

But remains of the queen's sister Princess Arsinoe, found in Ephesus, Turkey. indicate that her mother had an "African" skeleton.

[caesar novus]

I hope they get more precise about the evidence. Nowdays it's the scientists that operate on faith rather than reason, and skim over the facts and veil the degree of certainty if it can prop up the sacred cause of victimology (human or ecological).

 

For example, the case of Thomas Jefferson fathering a slave child was mainly thru "winking" innuendo which could not be supported by DNA theory (the child DNA being related to any male Jefferson, not any particular one, and the family living context not limiting things to Tommy).

 

Edit: victimhood in the Cleo case being a bit different in the sense of wanting to boost the esteem of present day perceived victims by delivering them a heroine (or well known or notorious personage?). If it looks true, fine... if it looks plausible, disclose; just don't play games with half truths.

Edited March 16, 2009 by caesar novus

[Ingsoc]

ARCHEOLOGISTS and forensic experts believe they have identified the skeleton of Cleopatra

[Caesar CXXXVII]

http://u21museums.unimelb.edu.au/museumcol...opatra-Coin.jpg

 

http://library.thinkquest.org/CR0210200/an...opatra_coin.jpg

 

If the coins are authentic one can "judge" for himself (how ? I don't know)

[Pompieus]

Sorry, but as you all say, this is nonsense. The literary sources identify every ancestor of Cleopatra VIII and Arsinoe all the way back to Ptolemy I. They were ALL known Macedonians (often siblings!) with only one possible exception - the grandmother who was apparently a concubine of Ptolemy VIII Lathyrus. This woman could concievable have been a native Egyptian - or a Martian! - but it aint likely. Considering the social and political enviornment in the Ptolemaic court, she was probably a Greek courtesan. Nor is it believable that her "African" characteristics are detectable in the 2000 year old skeleton of what is supposed to be her grandaughter. Apparently the forensic scientists are trying to take over history like the chemists have usurped biology.

[Northern Neil]

I do not understand the 'all or nothing' approach to this. Wether Cleopatra had African ancestry or not does not exclude her Greek ancestry. A line of descent three centuries old is likely to have several different strands, much the same as with any individual who is part of an immigrant population.

[caesar novus]

Wether Cleopatra had African ancestry or not does not exclude her Greek ancestry. A line of descent three centuries old is likely to have several different strands, much the same as with any individual who is part of an immigrant population.

True, even the historical geneology records should remain open to challenge since there may have been ulterior motives for pretending a certain ancestory. But based on measurements of a now vanished skull, and would one eighth ancestory or whatever have such a great effect on the skull?

 

I've recently stopped following Egyptian archeology, but seem to recall various mummies with funny skull shapes being reasoned away by distortion pressures over the passage of time (I'm not just talking about that Akenaten-sp? oddball). Cleo's sister skull was measured a century ago when they probably didn't recognize when or where plasticity was possible in ancient skulls.

 

I wonder what skull types they consider local for that time period. Maybe not the Egyptian arab kind, but Egyptian nubian (like in current Aswan) which may be more distinctive than arab compared to Greek? Well, anyway this is based on a chain of assumptions like this is really her full sister.

 

I wish such key assumptions in social sciences could be flagged with explicit certainty factors. Too often we hear xyz is the most likely, not knowing whether the speaker means something like 5%, 50% or 95% likely... that is whether there are strong alternatives. When computers were young, there was a lot of excitement in modelling artificial intelligence by assigning certainty factors and doing the math when chaining them together. I think it came up with surprising and good results.

Edited March 16, 2009 by caesar novus

[Fedor]

History channel should stick to the new shows that they have like bigfeets and aliens. This is Hannibal portrayed in History channels new series Battle B.C.

 

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=9462

 

 

Edited March 17, 2009 by Fedor

[P.Clodius]

Hmmm...Well he kinda looks like the MMA Hannibal.

[Primus Pilus]

History channel should stick to the new shows that they have like bigfeets and aliens. This is Hannibal portrayed in History channels new series Battle B.C.

 

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=9462

 

 

 

I didn't realize that Carthaginians had the Bowflex. Hannibal wasn't just a warrior, apparently he was a workout warrior as well.

[Tribunicus Potestus]

I hope they get more precise about the evidence. Nowdays it's the scientists that operate on faith rather than reason, and skim over the facts and veil the degree of certainty if it can prop up the sacred cause of victimology (human or ecological).

 

For example, the case of Thomas Jefferson fathering a slave child was mainly thru "winking" innuendo which could not be supported by DNA theory (the child DNA being related to any male Jefferson, not any particular one, and the family living context not limiting things to Tommy).

 

Edit: victimhood in the Cleo case being a bit different in the sense of wanting to boost the esteem of present day perceived victims by delivering them a heroine (or well known or notorious personage?). If it looks true, fine... if it looks plausible, disclose; just don't play games with half truths.

 

You refer to a single family line that was discredited, that does not change the fact that others did descend from Jefferson. But your point as I see it regards the motives of those making claims to support one or another agenda of the moment. And I agree we have to take a look at the agendas of those pushing a theory for a specific reason unrelated to the search for truth.

 

Some are bound and determined push the claim that Cleopatra was sub-saharan african for their own agendas. While paradoxically the Egyptians are trying to disguise the same "blackness" of Tut and others of the pharaonic lines. We should keep open minds and look to the evidence. The fact that agendas are present does not change the facts, just that the agendas should be taken into account and ignored when considering the facts.