Friday, July 24, 2020

Adam = Man or Humankind?


Adamah is a word, translatable as ground or earth, which occurs in the Biblical account of Creation of the Book of Genesis. The etymological link between the word adamah and the word adam is used to reinforce the teleological link between humankind and the ground, emphasising both the way in which man was created to cultivate the world, and how he originated from the "dust of the ground". Because man is both made from the adamah and inhabits it, his duty to realise his own potential is linked to a corresponding duty to the earth. In Eden, the adamah has primarily positive connotations, although Adam's close relationship with the adamah has been interpreted as likening him to the serpent, which crawls upon the ground, thus emphasising his animal nature.

Adam (HebrewאָדָםModern: ʼAdamTiberian: ʾĀḏāmArabicآدَم‎, romanizedʾĀdamGreekἈδάμromanizedAdámLatinAdam) is a figure in the Book of Genesis in the Hebrew Bible, from where he was adopted into Christian belief and the Quran. According to the creation myth[1] of the Abrahamic religions, he was the first man. In both Genesis and Quran, Adam and his wife were expelled from a Garden of Eden for eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Various forms of creationism and biblical literalism consider Adam to be a historical person. Scientific evidence does not support the idea that the entire human population descends from a single man.[2][3][4][5][6]
The word adam is also used in the Bible as a pronoun, individually as "a human" and in a collective sense as "mankind".[7] Biblical Adam (man, mankind) is created from adamah (earth), and Genesis 1–8 makes considerable play of the bond between them, for Adam is estranged from the earth through his disobedience.[8] 

Origin

The majority view among scholars is that the book of Genesis dates from the Persian period (the 5th and 4th centuries BCE),[9] but the absence from the rest of the Hebrew Bible of all the other characters and incidents mentioned in chapters 1–11 of Genesis, (Adam appears only in chapters 1–5, with the exception of a mention at the beginning of the Books of Chronicles where, as in Genesis, he heads the list of Israel's ancestors[10]) has led a sizable minority to the conclusion that Genesis 1–11 was composed much later, possibly in the 3rd century BCE.[11]

Usage

Mankind—human being—male individual

The Bible uses the word אָדָם ( 'adam ) in all of its senses: collectively ("mankind", Genesis 1:27), individually (a "man", Genesis 2:7), gender nonspecific ("man and woman", Genesis 5:1-2), and male (Genesis 2:23-24).[7] In Genesis 1:27 "adam" is used in the collective sense, and the interplay between the individual "Adam" and the collective "humankind" is a main literary component to the events that occur in the Garden of Eden, the ambiguous meanings embedded throughout the moral, sexual, and spiritual terms of the narrative reflecting the complexity of the human condition.[12] Genesis 2:7 is the first verse where "Adam" takes on the sense of an individual man (the first man), and the context of sex is absent; the gender distinction of "adam" is then reiterated in Genesis 5:1–2 by defining "male and female".[7]

Connection to the earth

A recurring literary motif is the bond between Adam and the earth (adamah): God creates Adam by molding him out of clay in the final stages of the creation narrative. After the loss of innocence, God curses Adam and the earth as punishment for his disobedience. Adam and humanity are cursed to die and return to the earth (or ground) from which he was formed.[13] This "earthly" aspect is a component of Adam's identity, and Adam's curse of estrangement from the earth seems to describe humankind's divided nature of being earthly yet separated from nature.[13] God himself, who took of the dust from all four corners of the earth with each color (red, black, white, and green), then created Adam therewith,[14] where the soul of Adam is the image of God.[15]

In the Hebrew Bible

Genesis 1 tells of God's creation of the world and its creatures, with humankind as the last of his creatures: "Male and female created He them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam ..." (Genesis 5:2). God blesses mankind, commands them to "be fruitful and multiply", and gives them "dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth" (Genesis 1.26-27).
In Genesis 2, God forms "Adam", this time meaning a single male human, out of "the dust of the ground" and "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life" (Genesis 2:7). God then places this first man in the Garden of Eden, telling him that "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" (Genesis 2:16-17). God notes that "It is not good that the man should be alone" (Genesis 2:18) and brings the animals to Adam, who gives them their names, but among all the animals there was not found a companion for him (Genesis 2:20). God causes a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and forms a woman (Genesis 2:21-22), and Adam awakes and greets her as his helpmate.
Genesis 3, the story of the Fall: A serpent persuades the woman to disobey God's command and eat of the tree of knowledge, which gives wisdom. Woman convinces Adam to do likewise, whereupon they become conscious of their nakedness, cover themselves, and hide from the sight of God. God questions Adam, who blames the woman. God passes judgment, first upon the serpent, condemned to go on his belly, then the woman, condemned to pain in childbirth and subordination to her husband, and finally Adam, who is condemned to labour on the earth for his food and to return to it on his death.[16] God then expels the man and woman from the garden, lest they eat of the Tree of Life and become immortal.
The chiastic structure of the death oracle given to Adam in Genesis 3:19 forms a link between man's creation from "dust" (Genesis 2:7) to the "return" of his beginnings.[17]
A you return
B to the ground
C since ( ) from it you were taken
C' for ( ) dust you are
B' and to dust
A' you will return
Genesis 4 deals with the birth of Adam's sons Cain and Abel and the story of the first murder, followed by the birth of a third son, Seth. Genesis 5, the Book of the Generations of Adam, lists the descendants of Adam from Seth to Noah with their ages at the birth of their first sons (except Adam himself, for whom his age at the birth of Seth, his third son, is given) and their ages at death (Adam lives 930 years). The chapter notes that Adam had other sons and daughters after Seth, but does not name them.

Post-Biblical Jewish traditions


Body

Adam possessed a body of light, identical to the light created by God on the first day.[18] According to Jewish mystical tradition the original glory of Adam can be regained through mystical contemplation of God.[8]

Adam, Lilith and Eve


The rabbis, puzzled by the verse of Genesis 1 which states that God created man and woman together, told that when God created Adam he also created a woman from the dust, as he had created Adam, and named her Lilith; but the two could not agree, for Adam wanted Lilith to lie under him, and Lilith insisted that Adam should lie under her, and so she fled from him, and Eve was created from Adam's rib.[19] Her story was greatly developed, during the Middle Ages, in the tradition of Aggadic midrashim, the Zohar and Jewish mysticism. Other rabbis explained the same verse as meaning that Adam was created with two faces, male and female, or as a single hermaphrodite being, male and female joined back to back, but God saw that this made walking and conversing difficult, and so split them apart.[20]

Eve's fault in the Fall

The serpent approached Eve rather than Adam because Adam had heard the word of God with his own ears, whereas Eve had only his report; Eve tasted the fruit and knew at once that she was doomed to death, and said to herself that it was better she trick Adam into eating so that he too would die, and not take another woman in her place.[21] Adam ate the fruit unaware of what he was doing, and was filled with grief.[21] When Adam blamed Eve after eating the forbidden fruit, God rebuked him that Adam as a man should not have obeyed his wife, for he is the head, not her.[22]

Children of Adam and Eve

Adam withdrew from Eve for 130 years after their expulsion from Eden, and in this time both he and Eve had sex with demons, until at length they reunited and Eve gave birth to Seth.[19] A 2nd-century BCE Jewish religious work, the Book of Jubilees, tells how Adam had a daughter, Awân, born after Cain and Abel,[23] and another daughter, Azûrâ, born after Seth,[24] and they had nine other sons;[25] Cain married Awân and Seth married Azûrâ, thus accounting for their descendants. The Life of Adam and Eve and its Greek version the Apocalypse of Moses recount how Adam repented his sin in exile and was rewarded by being transported to the heavenly paradise, foreshadowing the destiny of all the righteous at the end of time.[8]

Adam's death and burial

The Archangel Michael attended Adam's death, together with Eve and his son Seth, still living at that time, and he was buried together with his murdered son Abel.[26] Because they repented, God gave Adam and Eve garments of light, and similar garments will clothe the Messiah when he comes.[27]
According to the Apocalypse of Moses, which probably originates in first-century CE Jewish literature, the altar of the Temple of Solomon was the centre of the world and the gateway to God's Garden of Eden, and it was here that Adam was both created and buried.[28]

Attitude towards Adam

In the 17th-century book Kav ha-Yashar, the author warns not to talk negatively about Adam, and writes that those who talk positively about Adam will be blessed with a long life.[29] A similar warning can be found in The Zohar.[30]

Adam and the angel Raziel

The Sefer Raziel HaMalakh (רזיאל המלאך) (Raziel the Angel) is a collection of esoteric writings, probably compiled and edited by the same hand, but originally not the work of one author, which according to tradition was revealed to Adam by the angel Raziel. The book cannot be shown to predate the 13th century, but may in parts date back to Late Antiquity, and like other obscure ancient texts such as the Bahir and Sefer Yetzirah, it has been extant in a number of versions. Zunz ("G. V." 2d ed., p. 176) distinguishes three main parts: (1) the Book Ha-Malbush; (2) the Great Raziel; (3) the Book of Secrets, or the Book of Noah. These three parts are still distinguishable—2b–7a, 7b–33b, 34a and b. After these follow two shorter parts entitled "Creation" and "Shi'ur Ḳomah", and after 41a come formulas for amulets and incantations.[31]

In Christianity

Original sin

The idea of original sin is not found in Judaism nor in Islam, and was introduced into Christianity by the Apostle Paul, drawing on currents in Hellenistic Jewish thought which held that Adam's sin had introduced death and sin into the world.[32][33] Sin, for Paul, was a power to which all humans are subject, but Christ's coming held out the means by which the righteous would be restored to the Paradise from which Adam's sin had banished mankind.[33][8] He did not conceive of this original sin of Adam as being biologically transmitted or that later generations were to be punished for the deeds of a remote ancestor.[33] It was Augustine who took this step, locating sin itself in male semen: when Adam and Eve ate of the fruit they were ashamed and covered their genitals, identifying the place from which the first sin was passed on to all succeeding generations.[34] Only Jesus Christ, who was not conceived by human semen, was free of the stain passed down from Adam.[35] (Augustine's idea was based on the ancient world's ideas on biology, according to which male sperm contained the entire unborn baby, the mother's womb being no more than a nurturing chamber in which it grew.)[36]

Adam's grave: Golgotha replaces Solomon's Temple

As mentioned above, the Apocalypse of Moses, a Jewish writing containing material probably originating from the first century CE, places both Adam's place of creation and his burial at the altar of the Temple of Solomon, seen as the centre of the world and the gateway to the Garden of Eden.[28] The early Christian community adapted this to their own legend of Golgotha, replacing the altar with the place of Jesus's crucifixion.[37] According to this Christian legend, current in the time of Origen (early 3rd century CE), the holy blood of Christ trickled down and restored to life the father of the human race, who then led the saints who appeared to many in Jerusalem on that day as described in Scripture.[38]

In Islam

In Islam, God created Adam (Arabicآدم) from a handful of earth taken from the entire world, which explains why the peoples of the world are of different colours.[39] According to the Islamic creation myth, he was the first prophet of Islam and the first Muslim. The Quran says that all the prophets preached the same faith of submission to God. When God informed the angels that he would create a vice-regent (a khalifa) on Earth, the angels enquired, saying, "will You place therein such that will spread corruption and bloodshed?" So God showed the angels, saying, "Tell Me the names of these?" The angels had no knowledge of these, as God had not taught them. Then God allowed Adam to reveal these names to them, saying, "Did I not say to you (angels) that I know what is unseen in the heavens and the earth and I know what you (angels) reveal and what you (Satan) conceal;" the scholar Al-Tabari explained that God was referring to Iblis (Satan) of his evil plans and to the angels of their honesty.[40]
Adam and Eve both ate of the Tree of Immortality, and both shared guilt equally, for Eve neither tempted Adam or ate before him; nor is Eve to blame for the pain of childbirth, for God never punishes one person for the sins of another.[41] The Shia school of Islam does not even consider that their action was a sin, for obedience and disobedience are possible only on Earth and not in heaven, which is the location of Paradise.[41] Adam fell on a mountain in India, the tallest in the world and so the closest to Heaven, and from there God sent him to Mecca, where he repented and was forgiven.[42] At Mecca he built the first Sanctuary (the Kaabah - it was later rebuilt by Ibrahim) and was taught the ritual of the Hajj, and wove the first cloak for himself and the first veil and shift for Eve, and after this returned to India where he died at the age of 930, having seen the sons of the sons of his children, 1400 in all.[43]
According to the Ahmadiyya sect Adam was not the first human being on earth, but when the human race came into existence, and spread all over the world and developed the ability to receive revelation, God sent Adam to each and every branch and civilization. According to a revelation received by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the founder of the community, the Adam mentioned in the Quran was born 4,598 years before Muhammad.[44]
In the Quran Adam is given the name by God known as the (Adam-I-Safi) or The Chosen One.[45][46]


Thursday, July 23, 2020

Nicene Christianity


Nicene Christianity is a set of Christian doctrinal traditions which reflect the Nicene Creed, which was formulated[1] at the First Council of Nicaea in AD 325 and amended at the First Council of Constantinople in AD 381.[2]

History

At the time of the First Council of Nicaea, the main rival of Nicene Christian doctrine was that of Arianism, which became eclipsed during the 7th century AD with the conversion of the Gothic kingdoms to Nicene Christianity. The main points of dissent between the two centered on Christology, or the nature of Jesus' divinity. Nicene Christianity regards Jesus as divine and co-eternal with God the Father, while Arianism treats him as the first among created beings and inferior to God the Father. Various other non-Nicene doctrines and beliefs have existed since the early medieval period, all of which have been considered heresies.[1]
Today's mainstream Christian Churches (including all of the CatholicEastern OrthodoxOriental OrthodoxAssyrian and Ancient ChurchesLutheran and Anglican churches, as well as most Protestant denominations) adhere to the Nicene Creed and thus exemplify Nicene Christianity.
(Not shown are non-Nicenenontrinitarian, and some restorationist denominations.)

Chalcedonian Christianity forms a large subset of Nicene Christianity. In addition to subscribing to the Nicene Creed, Chalcedonian Christians also subscribe to the decisions of the First Council of Ephesus in AD 431 and of the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451. Most Nicene Christians also adhere to the beliefs of Chalcedonian Christians, as defined by the Chalcedonian Creed. However, those denominations that hold to the Nicene Creed, but do not adhere to the Chalcedonian Definition (or the Chalcedonian Creed), include portions of Eastern Christianity (i.e., the Oriental Orthodox Churches and, historically, the Church of the East [which also rejects the outcome of the First Council of Ephesus]) and would therefore be considered non-Chalcedonian Nicene Christians.
Today, examples of non-Nicene Christian denominations encompass both Protestant and non-Protestant non-trinitarian groups. Examples of these groups include the majority of the Latter Day Saint movement (with the exception of the Nicene Mormon group known as the Community of Christ [formerly known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints]), the Unitarian Church of TransylvaniaOneness Pentecostals, and others.

See also[edit]

Wednesday, July 22, 2020

First Humans may have arrived on the American continent 30,000 years ago


Archaeologists explore the vast Chiquihuite Cave in the Chiapas Highlands of northwest Mexico.

First Americans may have arrived to the continent 30,000 years ago

By Laura Geggel - Associate Editor

However, they didn't have a population boom until about 14,700 years ago.

The early inhabitants of North America left behind precious few clues of their existence — a footprint here, a weapon and a mummy there — leading scientists to wonder exactly when the first people arrived on the continent. 

Now, two new studies report a stunningly early date: Humans may have been living on the continent at least 30,000 years ago. 

That would mean that the first North Americans may have arrived before the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), between about 26,500 and 19,000 years ago, when ice sheets covered much of what is now the northern U.S. and Canada. However, humans didn't become widespread on the continent until about 14,700 years ago, when the population boomed. 

"These are fascinating studies," said William Harcourt-Smith, a paleoanthropologist at Lehman College and the American Museum of Natural History, both based in New York City, who wasn't involved with the research. "It's now very clear that modern humans were in the Americas far earlier than we used to think. There have been other sites and scholars suggesting this, but it is rigorous studies like this that really seals the deal."

In one study, archaeologists analyzed a remote cave in northwestern Mexico containing human-made stone tools that are up to 31,500 years old, according to dating models. This would push back dates for human dispersal into North America to as early as 33,000 years ago, the researchers said. 

In the other study, archaeologists took already-published dates from 42 archaeological sites in North America and Beringia (the region that historically connected Russia and America), and plugged them into a model that analyzed human dispersal. This model found an early human presence in North American dating to at least 26,000 years ago. 

Both studies, published online today (July 22) in the journal Nature, go against the "Clovis-first" model, a decades-old hypothesis that early humans arrived in the Americas via Beringia as the last ice age was ending, about 13,000 years ago. However, scientists have been chipping away at this model for years, as even older sites, including the newly analyzed cave in Mexico, are discovered and dated.
 
Cave in the mountains
In 2010, researchers found ancient stone tools in Chiquihuite Cave, a site in the mountains that sits 9,000 feet (2,740 meters) above sea level and about 3,200 feet (1,000 m) above the valley floor, the researchers wrote in the study. The terrain at the cave is challenging to navigate — the roof at the cave's entrance collapsed about 12,000 years ago, sealing it off — so the team did excavations about 165 feet (50 m) inside the cave. It was so hard to travel to and from the cave, that the archaeologists ended up living at the site for two seasons — a total of 80 days — in 2016 and 2017.

During that time, the team worked steadily, collecting bone, charcoal and sediment. They used two techniques to date the roughly 1,900 stone tools in the cave:  radiocarbon dating and optically stimulated luminescence (OSL). With OSL, researchers assessed when quartz grains in the sediment had last been exposed to sunlight. To avoid biasing the results, "when we extracted the samples, it had to be in complete darkness," said study lead researcher and director of the excavation, Ciprian Ardelean, an archaeologist at the Autonomous University of Zacatecas.

 The radiocarbon dating and the OSL dates matched, suggesting that the dating was accurate, Ardelean said. Then, the researchers divided the layers into two main sections — a younger layer dating to between 16,600 and 12,200 years ago, which contained about 88% of the stone tools, and an older layer that was about 16,600 to 33,000 years old, which held about 12% of the stone tools.

Ardelean noted that the stone tools show clear signs of human sculpting, including signs that ancient humans hit one type of rock with another to make a sharp, pointed edge, known as a flake.  "You can also see repeated blows on the same spot from different angles when it was harder for them to separate the flakes and they are trying again and again," Ardelean told Live Science. 

However, a hunt for genetic material in the cave yielded only plant and animal DNA (including junipers, firs and pines, bats, bears, voles, deer mice and marmots), but not human DNA. 

The tools were of a style never seen before by archaeologists, but this style didn't change much over the thousands of years. Also, there weren't many tools given how long the cave was used, so it appears that the cave was used sparsely, he said. More evidence of human activity may lie closer to the entrance of the cave, but that area would be challenging to excavate because of the collapsed entrance, he said. 

In addition, the team found evidence of sulfur, potassium and zinc, elements that could be signs of human activities, such as butchering animals or urination, although it's also possible that these elements were left by carnivores using the cave, Ardelean said.

Chiquihuite Cave is one of the few analyzed sites indicating that humans lived in North America before the beginning of the LGM, said Justin Tackney, an associate researcher in the Department of Anthropology at the  University of Kansas, who was not involved in the study.

"If the authors are correct, Chiquihuite Cave would represent a very significant discovery in our field," because the site was used up to about 30,000 years ago, Tackney told Live Science. "This would then lead to questions of which physical routes would these humans have taken to get that far south at such an early date, particularly during the maximal extent of the ice sheets."

These dates are so early, "the focus now will be on the veracity of those few older lithic artifacts," Tackney said.

However, the analysis of all of these stone tools shows that the humans who used the cave were flexible enough to deal with the elements so high above sea level, Harcourt-Smith said. What's more, "it shows that Mexico is an important region to be focusing on in relation to understanding the earliest humans in the Americas," Harcourt-Smith told Live Science.

North American travels

The other study pulled data from archaeological analyses of early North American sites. In particular, the researchers were interested when humans first began occupying each site, "since people are present in a region before an archaeological site is created," said study lead researcher Lorena Becerra Valdivia, an archaeological scientist at the University of Oxford in England and the University of New South Wales in Australia. 

"It is reasonable to assume, for example, that there were people in North America before we see their trace in Mexico at Chiquihuite Cave," Becerra Valdivia told Live Science in an email. "In this way, our study was to identify large-scale patterns of human migration into and through the continent over time."

After analyzing data from 42 archaeological sites across the continent, the researchers found that "whilst there were humans in North America before, during and immediately after the Last Glacial Maximum, populations expanded significantly across the continent much later, during a period of abrupt global climate warming at the end of the Ice Age, beginning at around 14,700 years ago," said Becerra Valdivia, who was also a co-researcher on the Chiquihuite Cave study. 


This analysis is based on the fact that three major stone tool traditions — the Clovis, Western Stemmed and Beringian — all began at about the same time, as well as genetic evidence that points to a population spike. This population growth likely played a role in the decline of large animals such as mammoths and camels, although climate change at the end of the last ice age likely contributed too, she said. 

"It seems, therefore, that the initial arrivals did not have a marked, immediate impact in megafaunal decline," Becerra Valdivia said. "Population expansion and growth later on were key."

Related: 10 Extinct Giants That Once Roamed North America

She acknowledged that because this study focuses only on North American, similar research on South America is needed. "Only by unlocking the history of initial human occupation there [in South America] will we be able to see the entire picture and understand the full migration pattern," Becerra Valdivia said.

This statistical modeling does make some assumptions about occupation dates, "making their conclusions more open to interpretation and debate," Harcourt-Smith said. However, it also shows "that if we take a total evidence approach to the first occupation of the Americas, the data suggest (only suggest) that humans may have been around as far back as 30,000 years ago, which is extraordinary," Harcourt-Smith said. "Obviously, we'll need hard evidence [such as human remains or DNA] to back up this suggestion, but it's exciting to think about."


Originally published on Live Science.

Tuesday, July 21, 2020

How Europeans evolved white skin and RACE


By Ann GibbonsApr. 2, 2015 , 5:00 PM

ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI—Most of us think of Europe as the ancestral home of white people. But a new study shows that pale skin, as well as other traits such as tallness and the ability to digest milk as adults, arrived in most of the continent relatively recently. The work, presented here last week at the 84th annual meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, offers dramatic evidence of recent evolution in Europe and shows that most modern Europeans don’t look much like those of 8000 years ago.
1820 drawing of a Book of Gates fresco of the tomb of Seti I, depicting (from left) four groups of people: Libyans, a Nubian, an Asiatic, and an Egyptian.
The origins of Europeans have come into sharp focus in the past year as researchers have sequenced the genomes of ancient populations, rather than only a few individuals. By comparing key parts of the DNA across the genomes of 83 ancient individuals from archaeological sites throughout Europe, the international team of researchers reported earlier this year that Europeans today are a mix of the blending of at least three ancient populations of hunter-gatherers and farmers who moved into Europe in separate migrations over the past 8000 years. The study revealed that a massive migration of Yamnaya herders from the steppes north of the Black Sea may have brought Indo-European languages to Europe about 4500 years ago.

Now, a new study from the same team drills down further into that remarkable data to search for genes that were under strong natural selection—including traits so favorable that they spread rapidly throughout Europe in the past 8000 years. By comparing the ancient European genomes with those of recent ones from the 1000 Genomes Project, population geneticist Iain Mathieson, a postdoc in the Harvard University lab of population geneticist David Reich, found five genes associated with changes in diet and skin pigmentation that underwent strong natural selection.

First, the scientists confirmed an earlier report that the hunter-gatherers in Europe could not digest the sugars in milk 8000 years ago, according to a poster. They also noted an interesting twist: The first farmers also couldn’t digest milk. The farmers who came from the Near East about 7800 years ago and the Yamnaya pastoralists who came from the steppes 4800 years ago lacked the version of the LCT gene that allows adults to digest sugars in milk. It wasn’t until about 4300 years ago that lactose tolerance swept through Europe.

When it comes to skin color, the team found a patchwork of evolution in different places, and three separate genes that produce light skin, telling a complex story for how European’s skin evolved to be much lighter during the past 8000 years. The modern humans who came out of Africa to originally settle Europe about 40,000 years are presumed to have had dark skin, which is advantageous in sunny latitudes. And the new data confirm that about 8500 years ago, early hunter-gatherers in Spain, Luxembourg, and Hungary also had darker skin: They lacked versions of two genes—SLC24A5 and SLC45A2—that lead to depigmentation and, therefore, pale skin in Europeans today.

But in the far north—where low light levels would favor pale skin—the team found a different picture in hunter-gatherers: Seven people from the 7700-year-old Motala archaeological site in southern Sweden had both light skin gene variants, SLC24A5 and SLC45A2. They also had a third gene, HERC2/OCA2, which causes blue eyes and may also contribute to light skin and blond hair. Thus ancient hunter-gatherers of the far north were already pale and blue-eyed, but those of central and southern Europe had darker skin.

Then, the first farmers from the Near East arrived in Europe; they carried both genes for light skin. As they interbred with the indigenous hunter-gatherers, one of their light-skin genes swept through Europe, so that central and southern Europeans also began to have lighter skin. The other gene variant, SLC45A2, was at low levels until about 5800 years ago when it swept up to high frequency.

The team also tracked complex traits, such as height, which are the result of the interaction of many genes. They found that selection strongly favored several gene variants for tallness in northern and central Europeans, starting 8000 years ago, with a boost coming from the Yamnaya migration, starting 4800 years ago. The Yamnaya have the greatest genetic potential for being tall of any of the populations, which is consistent with measurements of their ancient skeletons. In contrast, selection favored shorter people in Italy and Spain starting 8000 years ago, according to the paper now posted on the bioRxiv preprint server. Spaniards, in particular, shrank in stature 6000 years ago, perhaps as a result of adapting to colder temperatures and a poor diet.

Surprisingly, the team found no immune genes under intense selection, which is counter to hypotheses that diseases would have increased after the development of agriculture.

The paper doesn’t specify why these genes might have been under such strong selection. But the likely explanation for the pigmentation genes is to maximize vitamin D synthesis, said paleoanthropologist Nina Jablonski of Pennsylvania State University (Penn State), University Park, as she looked at the poster’s results at the meeting. People living in northern latitudes often don’t get enough UV to synthesize vitamin D in their skin so natural selection has favored two genetic solutions to that problem—evolving pale skin that absorbs UV more efficiently or favoring lactose tolerance to be able to digest the sugars and vitamin D naturally found in milk. “What we thought was a fairly simple picture of the emergence of depigmented skin in Europe is an exciting patchwork of selection as populations disperse into northern latitudes,” Jablonski says. “This data is fun because it shows how much recent evolution has taken place.”


Anthropological geneticist George Perry, also of Penn State, notes that the work reveals how an individual’s genetic potential is shaped by their diet and adaptation to their habitat. “We’re getting a much more detailed picture now of how selection works.”

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

White people is a racial classification and skin color specifier, used mostly and exclusively for people of European and (more technically) Western Eurasian descent; depending on context, nationality, and point of view. The term has at times been expanded to encompass persons of Middle Eastern and North African descent (for example, in the US Census definition), persons who are often considered non-white in other contexts, and at times excluded people of Southern European descent. The usage of "white people" or a "white race" for a large group of mainly or exclusively European populations, defined by their light skin, among other physical characteristics, and contrasting with "black people", Amerindians, and other "colored" people or "persons of color", originated in the 17th century. It was only during the 19th century that this vague category was transformed in a quasi-scientific system of race and skin color relations.

The concept of a unified white race did not achieve universal acceptance in Europe when it first came into use in the 17th century, or in the centuries afterward. Nazi Germany regarded some European peoples such as Slavs as racially distinct from themselves. Prior to the modern age, no European peoples regarded themselves as "white", but rather defined their race, ancestry, or ethnicity in terms of their nationality. Moreover, there is no accepted standard for determining the geographic barrier between white and non-white people. Contemporary anthropologists and other scientists, while recognizing the reality of biological variation between different human populations, regard the concept of a unified, distinguishable "white race" as socially constructed. As a group with several different potential boundaries, it is an example of a fuzzy concept.

The concept of whiteness has particular resonance in the Anglosphere: e.g., in the United States (White Americans), Canada (white Canadians), Australia (white Australians), New Zealand (white New Zealanders), the United Kingdom (white British), and South Africa (white South Africans). In much of the rest of Europe, the distinction between race and nationality is more blurred; when people are asked to describe their race or ancestry, they often describe it in terms of their nationality. Various social constructions of whiteness have been significant to national identity, public policy, religion, population statistics, racial segregation, affirmative action, white privilege, eugenics, racial marginalization, and racial quotas.


The term "white race" or "white people" entered the major European languages in the later 17th century, in the context of racialized slavery and unequal social status in the European colonies. Description of populations as "white" in reference to their skin color predates this notion and is occasionally found in Greco-Roman ethnography and other ancient or medieval sources, but these societies did not have any notion of a white, pan-European race. Scholarship on race distinguishes the modern concept from pre-modern descriptions, which focused on physical complexion rather than race.

According to anthropologist Nina Jablonski:
In ancient Egypt as a whole, people were not designated by color terms […] Egyptian inscriptions and literature only rarely, for instance, mention the dark skin color of the Kushites of Upper Nubia. We know the Egyptians were not oblivious to skin color, however, because artists paid attention to it in their works of art, to the extent that the pigments at the time permitted.
 The Ancient Egyptian (New Kingdom) funerary text known as the Book of Gates distinguishes "four groups" in a procession. These are the Egyptians, the Levantine and Canaanite peoples or "Asiatics", the "Nubians" and the "fair-skinned Libyans".[27] The Egyptians are depicted as considerably darker-skinned than the Levantines (persons from what is now Lebanon, Israel, Palestine and Jordan) and Libyans, but considerably lighter than the Nubians (modern Sudan).
The assignment of positive and negative connotations of white and black to certain persons date to the very old age in a number of Indo-European languages, but these differences were not necessarily used in respect to skin colors. Religious conversion was sometimes described figuratively as a change in skin color. Similarly, the Rigveda uses krsna tvac "black skin" as a metaphor for irreligiosity.
Classicist James H. Dee states "the Greeks do not describe themselves as 'white people'—or as anything else because they had no regular word in their color vocabulary for themselves." People's skin color did not carry useful meaning; what mattered is where they lived. Herodotus described the Scythian Budini as having deep blue eyes and bright red hair. and the Egyptians – quite like the Colchians – as melánchroes (μελάγχροες, "dark-skinned") and curly-haired. He also gives the possibly first reference to the common Greek name of the tribes living south of Egypt, otherwise known as Nubians, which was Aithíopes (Αἰθίοπες, "burned-faced").[33] Later Xenophanes of Colophon described the Aethiopians as black and the Persian troops as white compared to the sun-tanned skin of Greek troops.

Explore the evidence for human evolution in this interactive timeline - climate change, species, and milestones in becoming human.
The Earth's climate has fluctuated between warm and cold during human evolution..
Some of the most important milestones in human evolution occurred during times of greatest fluctuations.
Explore the relationship between climate and human evolution more deeply by magnifying the timeline

Modern racial hierarchies

The term "white race" or "white people" entered the major European languages in the later 17th century, originating with the racialization of slavery at the time, in the context of the Atlantic slave trade[35] and the enslavement of indigenous peoples in the Spanish Empire.[36] It has repeatedly been ascribed to strains of blood, ancestry, and physical traits, and was eventually made into a subject of scientific research, which culminated in scientific racism, which was later widely repudiated by the scientific community. According to historian Irene Silverblatt, "Race thinking […] made social categories into racial truths."[36] Bruce David Baum, citing the work of Ruth Frankenberg, states, "the history of modern racist domination has been bound up with the history of how European peoples defined themselves (and sometimes some other peoples) as members of a superior 'white race'."[37] Alastair Bonnett argues that 'white identity', as it is presently conceived, is an American project, reflecting American interpretations of race and history.[38]
According to Gregory Jay, a professor of English at the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee,
Before the age of exploration, group differences were largely based on language, religion, and geography. […] the European had always reacted a bit hysterically to the differences of skin color and facial structure between themselves and the populations encountered in Africa, Asia, and the Americas (see, for example, Shakespeare's dramatization of racial conflict in Othello and The Tempest). Beginning in the 1500s, Europeans began to develop what became known as "scientific racism," the attempt to construct a biological rather than cultural definition of race […] Whiteness, then, emerged as what we now call a "pan-ethnic" category, as a way of merging a variety of European ethnic populations into a single "race" […]
— Gregory Jay, "Who Invented White People? A Talk on the Occasion of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, 1998"[39]
In the 16th and 17th centuries, "East Asian peoples were almost uniformly described as white, never as yellow."[40] Michael Keevak's history Becoming Yellow, finds that East Asians were redesignated as being yellow-skinned because "yellow had become a racial designation," and that the replacement of white with yellow as a description came through scientific discourse.[41]

A social category formed by colonialism

A three-part racial schema in color terms was used in seventeenth-century Latin America under Spanish rule.[42] Irene Silverblatt traces "race thinking" in South America to the social categories of colonialism and state formation: "White, black, and brown are abridged, abstracted versions of colonizer, slave, and colonized."[43] By the mid-seventeenth century, the novel term español ("Spaniard") was being equated in written documents with blanco, or "white".[43] In Spain's American colonies, AfricanNative American (indios), Jewish, or morisco ancestry formally excluded individuals from the "purity of blood" (limpieza de sangre) requirements for holding any public office under the Royal Pragmatic of 1501.[44] Similar restrictions applied in the military, some religious orders, colleges, and universities, leading to a nearly all-white priesthood and professional stratum.[44][45] Blacks and indios were subject to tribute obligations and forbidden to bear arms, and black and indio women were forbidden to wear jewels, silk, or precious metals in early colonial Mexico and Peru.[44] Those pardos (people with dark skin) and mulattos (people of mixed African and European ancestry) with resources largely sought to evade these restrictions by passing as white.[44][45] A brief royal offer to buy the privileges of whiteness for a substantial sum of money attracted fifteen applicants before pressure from white elites ended the practice.[44]
In the British colonies in North America and the Caribbean, the designation English or Christian was initially used in contrast to Native Americans or Africans. Early appearances of white race or white people in the Oxford English Dictionary begin in the seventeenth century.[28] Historian Winthrop Jordan reports that, "throughout the [thirteen] colonies the terms ChristianfreeEnglish, and white were […] employed indiscriminately" in the 17th century as proxies for one another.[46] In 1680, Morgan Godwyn "found it necessary to explain" to English readers that "in Barbados, 'white' was 'the general name for Europeans.'"[47] Several historians report a shift towards greater use of white as a legal category alongside a hardening of restrictions on free or Christian blacks.[48] White remained a more familiar term in the American colonies than in Britain well into the 1700s, according to historian Theodore W. Allen.[47]

Science of race

Western studies of race and ethnicity in the 18th and 19th centuries developed into what would later be termed scientific racism. Prominent European scientists writing about human and natural difference included a white or west Eurasian race among a small set of human races and imputed physical, mental, or aesthetic superiority to this white category. These ideas were discredited by twentieth-century scientists.[49]

18th century beginnings

In 1758, Carl Linnaeus proposed what he considered to be natural taxonomic categories of the human species. He distinguished between Homo sapiens and Homo sapiens europaeus, and he later added four geographical subdivisions of humans: white Europeans, red Americans, yellow Asians and black Africans. Although Linnaeus intended them as objective classifications, his descriptions of these groups included cultural patterns and derogatory stereotypes.[50]
The skull Johann Friedrich Blumenbach discovered in 1795, which he used to hypothesize origination of Europeans from the Caucasus.
In 1775, the naturalist Johann Friedrich Blumenbach asserted that "The white colour holds the first place, such as is that of most European peoples. The redness of the cheeks in this variety is almost peculiar to it: at all events it is but seldom to be seen in the rest.".[51]
In the various editions of his On the Natural Variety of Mankind, he categorized humans into four or five races, largely built on Linnaeus' classifications. But while, in 1775, he had grouped into his "first and most important" race "Europe, Asia this side of the Ganges, and all the country situated to the north of the Amoor, together with that part of North America, which is nearest both in position and character of the inhabitants", he somewhat narrows his "Caucasian variety" in the third edition of his text, of 1795: "To this first variety belong the inhabitants of Europe (except the Lapps and the remaining descendants of the Finns) and those of Eastern Asia, as far as the river Obi, the Caspian Sea and the Ganges; and lastly, those of Northern Africa."[52][50][53][54] Blumenbach quotes various other systems by his contemporaries, ranging from two to seven races, authored by the authorities of that time, including, besides Linnæus, Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de BuffonChristoph Meiners and Immanuel Kant.
In the question of color, he conduces a rather thorough enquire, considering also factors of diet and health, but ultimately believes that "climate, and the influence of the soil and the temperature, together with the mode of life, have the greatest influence".[55] Blumenbach's conclusion was, however, to proclaim all races' attribution to one single human species. Blumenbach argued that physical characteristics like skin color, cranial profile, etc., depended on environmental factors, such as solarization and diet. Like other monogenists, Blumenbach held to the "degenerative hypothesis" of racial origins. He claimed that Adam and Eve were Caucasian inhabitants of Asia,[56] and that other races came about by degeneration from environmental factors such as the sun and poor diet. He consistently believed that the degeneration could be reversed in a proper environmental control and that all contemporary forms of man could revert to the original Caucasian race.[57]

19th and 20th century: the "Caucasian race"

Example of an outdated distribution of races after the Pleistocene according to C. S. Coon
 Caucasoid race
 Negroid race
 Capoid race
 Mongoloid race
 Australoid race
During the period of the mid-19th to mid-20th century,[58] race scientists, including most physical anthropologists classified the world's populations into three, four, or five races, which, depending on the authority consulted, were further divided into various sub-races. During this period the Caucasian race, named after people of the North Caucasus (Caucasus Mountains) but extending to all Europeans, figured as one of these races, and was incorporated as a formal category of both scientific research and, in countries including the United States, social classification.[59]
There was never any scholarly consensus on the delineation between the Caucasian race, including the populations of Europe, and the Mongoloid one, including the populations of East Asia. Thus, Carleton S. Coon (1939) included the populations native to all of Central and Northern Asia under the Caucasian label, while Thomas Henry Huxley (1870) classified the same populations as Mongoloid, and Lothrop Stoddard (1920) classified as "brown" most of the populations of the Middle EastNorth Africa and Central Asia, and counted as "white" only the European peoples and their descendants, as well as some populations in parts of Anatolia and the northern areas of Morocco, Algeria And Tunisia.[60] Some authorities[who?], following Huxley (1870), distinguished the Xanthochroi or "light whites" of Northern Europe with the Melanochroi or "dark whites" of the Mediterranean.[61]
Although modern neo-nazis often invoke National Socialist iconography on behalf of white nationalism, National Socialist Germany repudiated the idea of a unified white race, instead promoting Nordicism. In National Socialist propaganda, Eastern European Slavs were often referred to as Untermensch, and the relatively under-developed status of Eastern European countries such as Poland and the USSR were attributed to the racial inferiority of their inhabitants.[62] Fascist Italy took the same view, and both of these nations justified their colonial ambitions in Eastern Europe on racist, anti-Slavic grounds.[63] These nations were not alone in their view; there are numerous cases in the 20th century where some European ethnic groups labeled or treated other Europeans as members of another, inferior race.

21st century

Alastair Bonnett has stated that a strong "current of scientific research supports the theory that Europeans were but one expression of a wider racial group (termed sometimes Caucasian)," a group that, Bonnett notes, would include not only Europeans, but also South AsiansNorth Africans, and even Northeast Africans such as Ethiopians.[64][65] Bonnett notes that this scientific definition of a Caucasoid race has little currency "outside certain immigration bureaucracies and traditional anthropology," and concludes that popular notions of whiteness are not scientific, but socially constructed.[64]
Racial categories remain widely used in medical research, but this can create important problems. For example, researchers Raj Bhopal and Liam Donaldson opine that since white people are a heterogeneous group, the term white should therefore be abandoned as a classification for the purposes of epidemiology and health research, and identifications based on geographic origin and migration history be used instead.[66]
According to geneticist David Reich, based on ancient human genomes that his laboratory sequenced in 2016, ancient West Eurasians descend from a mixture of as few as four ancestral components related to the Eastern Hunter Gatherers (EHG), the Neolithic Iran, the Neolithic Levant and Natufians, and the Western Hunter-Gatherers (WHG):[67]
whatever we currently believe about the genetic nature of differences among populations is most likely wrong... “whites” are not derived from a population that existed from time immemorial, as some people believe. Instead “whites” represent a mixture of four ancient populations that lived 10,000 years ago and were each as different from one another as Europeans and East Asians are today.[68]
The cultural boundaries separating white Americans from other racial or ethnic categories are contested and always changing. Professor David R. Roediger of the University of Illinois, suggests that the construction of the white race in the United States was an effort to mentally distance slave owners from slaves.[257] By the 18th century, white had become well established as a racial term. According to John Tehranian, among those not considered white at some points in American history have been: the GermansGreekswhite HispanicsArabsIraniansAfghansIrishItaliansJewsSlavs and Spaniards.[258] Finns were also on several occasions "racially" discriminated against[259] and not seen as white, but "Asian". The reasons for this were the arguments and theories about the Finns originally being of Mongolian instead of "native" European origin due to the Finnish language belonging to the Uralic and not the Indo-European language family.[260]
During American history, the process of officially being defined as white by law often came about in court disputes over pursuit of citizenship. The Immigration Act of 1790 offered naturalization only to "any alien, being a free white person". In at least 52 cases, people denied the status of white by immigration officials sued in court for status as white people. By 1923, courts had vindicated a "common-knowledge" standard, concluding that "scientific evidence" was incoherent. Legal scholar John Tehranian argues that in reality this was a "performance-based" standard, relating to religious practices, education, intermarriage and a community's role in the United States.[261]
In 1923, the Supreme Court decided in United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind that people of Indian descent were not white men, and thus not eligible to citizenship.[262] While Thind was a high caste Hindu born in the northern Punjab region and classified by certain scientific authorities as of the Aryan race, the court conceded that he was not white or Caucasian since the word Aryan "has to do with linguistic and not at all with physical characteristics" and "the average man knows perfectly well that there are unmistakable and profound differences" between Indians and white people.[262] In United States v. Cartozian (1925), an Armenian immigrant successfully argued (and the Supreme Court agreed) that his nationality was white in contradistinction to other people of the Near East—Kurds, Turks, and Arabs in particular—on the basis of their Christian religious traditions.[263] In conflicting rulings In re Hassan (1942) and Ex parte Mohriez, United States District Courts found that Arabs did not, and did qualify as white under immigration law.[264]
Still today the relationship between some ethnic groups and whiteness remains complex. In particular, some Jewish and Arab individuals both self-identify and are considered as part of the White American racial category, but others with the same ancestry feel they are not white nor are they perceived as white by American society. The United States Census Bureau proposed but then withdrew plans to add a new category to classify Middle Eastern and North African peoples in the U.S. Census 2020, over a dispute over whether this classification should be considered a white ethnicity or a race.[265] According to Frank Sweet "various sources agree that, on average, people with 12 percent or less admixture appear White to the average American and those with up to 25 percent look ambiguous (with a Mediterranean skin tone)".[266]
The current U.S. Census definition includes as white "a person having origins in any of Europe, the Middle East or North Africa."[256] The U.S. Department of Justice's Federal Bureau of Investigation describes white people as "having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa through racial categories used in the Uniform Crime Reports Program adopted from the Statistical Policy Handbook (1978) and published by the Office of Federal Statistical Policy and Standards, U.S. Department of Commerce."[267] The "white" category in the UCR includes non-black Hispanics.[268]
White Americans made up nearly 90% of the population in 1950.[253] A report from the Pew Research Center in 2008 projects that by 2050, non-Hispanic white Americans will make up 47% of the population, down from 67% projected in 2005.[269] According to a study on the genetic ancestry of Americans, white Americans (stated "European Americans") on average are 98.6% European, 0.19% African and 0.18% Native American.[270] Southern states with higher African American populations, tend to have higher percentages of African ancestry. According to the 23andMe database, up to 13% of self-identified white American Southerners have greater than 1% African ancestry.[270] Southern states with the highest African American populations, tended to have the highest percentages of hidden African ancestry.[271] Robert P. Stuckert, member of the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Ohio State University, has poignantly stated that today the majority of the descendants of African slaves are white.[272]

One-drop rule

The "one-drop rule"–that a person with any amount of known black African ancestry (however small or invisible) is considered black–is a classification that was used in parts of the United States.[273] It is a colloquial term for a set of laws passed by 18 U.S. states between 1910 and 1931, many as a consequence of Plessy v. Ferguson, a Supreme Court decision that upheld the concept of racial segregation by accepting a "separate but equal" argument. The set of laws was finally declared unconstitutional in 1967, when the Supreme Court ruled on anti-miscegenation laws while hearing Loving v. Virginia, which also found that Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924 was unconstitutional. The one-drop rule attempted to create a bifurcated system of either black or white regardless of a person's physical appearance, but sometimes failed as people with African ancestry sometimes passed as "white", as noted above. This contrasts with the more flexible social structures present in Latin America (derived from the Spanish colonial era casta system) where there were less clear-cut divisions between various ethnicities.
As a result of centuries of having children with white people, the majority of African Americans have some European admixture,[274] and many white people also have African ancestry.[275][276] Writer and editor Debra Dickerson questions the legitimacy of the one-drop rule, stating that "easily one-third of black people have white DNA".[277] She argues that in ignoring their European ancestry, African Americans are denying their fully articulated multi-racial identities. The peculiarity of the one-drop rule may be illustrated by the case of singer Mariah Carey, who was publicly called "another white girl trying to sing black", but in an interview with Larry King, responded that—despite her physical appearance and the fact that she was raised primarily by her white mother—due to the one-drop rule she did not "feel white".[278][279] Recently, the possibility of genetic testing has raised new questions about the way African Americans describe their race.[280]

Puerto Rico

Puerto Rico by the Spanish and US Census 1812–2010
YearPopulationPercentRef(s)
Self-identified as white
181285,66246.8%[281]
1899589,42661.8%[281]
20003,064,86280.5%[282]
20102,825,10075.8%[283]

Contrary to most other Caribbean places, Puerto Rico gradually became predominantly populated by European immigrants.[281] Puerto Ricans of SpanishItalian (primarily via Corsica) and French descent comprise the majority. (See: Spanish settlement of Puerto Rico).
In 1899, one year after the U.S acquired the island, 61.8% or 589,426 people self-identified as white.[281] One hundred years later (2000), the total increased to 80.5% (3,064,862);[282] not because there has been an influx of whites toward the island (or an exodus of non-White people), but a change of race conceptions, mainly because of Puerto Rican elites to portray Puerto Rico's image as the "white island of the Antilles", partly as a response to scientific racism.[284]
Hundreds are from CorsicaFranceItalyPortugalLebanonIrelandScotland, and Germany, along with large numbers of immigrants from Spain. This was the result of granted land from Spain during the Real Cedula de Gracias de 1815 (Royal Decree of Graces of 1815), which allowed European Catholics to settle in the island with a certain amount of free land.
Between 1960 and 1990, the census questionnaire in Puerto Rico did not ask about race or color.[285] Racial categories therefore disappeared from the dominant discourse on the Puerto Rican nation. However, the 2000 census included a racial self-identification question in Puerto Rico and, for the first time in since 1950, allowed respondents to choose more than one racial category to indicate mixed ancestry. (Only 4.2% chose two or more races.) With few variations, the census of Puerto Rico used the same questionnaire as in the U.S. mainland. According to census reports, most islanders responded to the new federally mandated categories on race and ethnicity by declaring themselves "white"; few declared themselves to be black or some other race.[286] However, it was estimated 20% of white Puerto Ricans may have black ancestry.[287]

See also