Caucus Mountain Myth - Fact or Fiction?

Blacks are labeled negroid and this term is derived from the word negro meaning black, but whites are labeled caucasoid and this term pertains to the fact (or myth) that they originated in the caucus mountains. Is this truth or fiction? I also read on other discussion forums and web sites that the original inhabitants of this place were banished albino africans who couldn't handle the sun due to their lack of pigmentation, and since albinism was supposedly so prevalent in that region a race of pigment deficient people were spawned. There you have it - the Caucus Mountain myth. Do you buy into this or do you think it's total fabrication?

The difference in skin color can be attributed to a balance between getting skin cancer and getting ricketts (sp?). The pigments in the skin are in the upper levels of the skin (ie closest to the enviroment) to give protection to the skin cells from UV radiation. UV radiation can cause breakage in our DNA strands. There is a repair mechanism within our cells that can handle a certain amount of UV induced breakages and repair them. (The amount of damage a person can withstand varies from person to person). While all that I said is true, it is also true that in the lower skin levels there is a mechanism with in those skin cells to use UV radiation as an energy source to make vitamin D from precursers (sp?). Humans get vitamin D from two sources; from the food they eat or via the previously discribed mechanism. Thus, light skinned people run a higher risk of skin cancer when their skin is exposed to prolonged exposure to the sun's UV radiation. Likewise, darker skinned people can become sick if their diet and ability to produce vitamin D does not keep them from getting ricketts. In an article I saw at a local hospital, there was an increase in ricketts cases when breast feeding became popular. This was due to the fact that we fortify milk and milk formulas with vitamin to prevent ricketts. The infants systems were not able to produce enough vitamin D and their diets also failed to deliver enough vitamin D to keep them healthy.

That reply was very educational and well appreciated, but do you think there's any truth in the myth that was originally mentioned?

Originally posted by NEGROPOLIS
That reply was very educational and well appreciated, but do you think there's any truth in the myth that was originally mentioned?

I really don't know. It would take some research into the anthropological studies that focus on this question. I think the reason for this theory is that the lightest skin colored people come from this area. Although this may not be true since people who come from the UK such as the Irish are very light in skin color and can have the same skin issues as Poles, Russians and et. al.

Originally posted by NEGROPOLIS
whites are labeled caucasoid and this term pertains to the fact (or myth) that they originated in the caucus mountains.

I suspect that this idea is tied up in the aryan myth, as the caucus ranges are often traditionally posited as the original home of the aryans or the proto-indo-europeans.

were banished albino africans who couldn't handle the sun due to their lack of pigmentation, and since albinism was supposedly so prevalent in that region a race of pigment deficient people were spawned.

Thats not how the biology and genetics of albinism works however. White people and black people have the same pigment, melanin. They just have varying concentrations of the chemical in their skin. An albino, of course, has no pigment. One might expect that an albino and a heavily concentrated melanin person would mix to make a less concentrated melanin person, however, albinism is inhereted under genetic control, and you don't get 'mixes' of it.

Also, if this idea was true, then how would a race of albinos form in the depths of africa anyway? Even if an albino was born, he'd only have pigment bearing people to 'mix' with, and thus albinism would never get beyond a small number of people. And if it somehow did, then why would it 'mix' with blacks into 'whites' in the caucus, but not africa?

Also, from what we know of migrations via genetics, this 'caucus homeland' idea isn't well supported, irrespective of if it was started by black albinos.

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by NEGROPOLIS
whites are labeled caucasoid and this term pertains to the fact (or myth) that they originated in the caucus mountains.

Also, if this idea was true, then how would a race of albinos form in the depths of africa anyway? Even if an albino was born, he'd only have pigment bearing people to 'mix' with, and thus albinism would never get beyond a small number of people. And if it somehow did, then why would it 'mix' with blacks into 'whites' in the caucus, but not africa?

I suspect that this idea is tied up in the aryan myth, as the caucus ranges are often traditionally posited as the original home of the aryans or the proto-indo-europeans.
Also, from what we know of migrations via genetics, this 'caucus homeland' idea isn't well supported, irrespective of if it was started by black albinos.

My guess is that if Africans banished albinos and vitilago sufferers to the caucus mountain, there would be nothing but lighter people already living in that region from earlier banishments. So when a new one comes and attempts to live out the rest of his or her life they'd eventually find a lifemate and produce offspring. Two recessive genes couple themselves into dominance making it possible for this trait to be passed on for many generations and maybe even evolving or mutating somewhat.

Aside from that, please tell me why this 'caucus homeland' idea is not supported and what exactly is a proto-indoeuropean; what color were they? I don't know much about them.

Skin color depends on more than one gene. I believe that between three to six genes control skin color. Also the alleles for these genes may have more than two types. That is the reason for the variance in skin color. As for albinos, I believe there is some other reason than the genes being all in the off position. Being light skinned is recessive because having some pigment produced will cause the skin to be darker. As I stated before, skin color is a balancing act that involves protection from UV radiation and the need for Vitamin D. A lack of vitamin D either produced via the skin or consumed in the diet is what probably led to the establishment of the caucausin (sp?) ethnic group. This would have taken many generations where it could have been believed that it was better (healthwise) to be light skinned in a region where vitamin D was a limiting factor in the wellbeing of the community. The casting out of albinos would not cause the light skinned ethnic group to appear because albinoism is different. Now if the arguement was that some lighter skinned people were casted out due to getting sick easier, then this arguement would have more weight.

Originally posted by NEGROPOLIS
Aside from that, please tell me why this 'caucus homeland' idea is not supported

Its complex really. Breifly, since the idea of an aryan invasion is rejected, the need for a caucus homeland is rejected too.

and what exactly is a proto-indoeuropean; what color were they? I don't know much about them.

In the not too distant past, some researchers realized that Sankskrit and Latin are surprisingly similar. This ultimately lead to the recognition of the Indo-European language family, that languages like latin, sanskrit, greek, german, iranian, etc, are related, stemming from the same language, similar to the way in which italian, french, and spanish are all stemming from Latin and are part of the latin language family.

This recognition also lead in part to the idea that there was thus a group of people who started off in one point, and then expanded into a world empire, spreading their language everywhere they went, just likesay with latin spreading to most of europe and then millenia later resulting in french spanish and italian.

One of the things that seemed to confirm this was that you could find records that seemed to suggest that places like india were invaded by a chariot riding groups of foreigners from the north-west, and that the middle east was invaded by similarly foreign chariot/horse riders from the north, and that even greece-turkey was invaded by chariot riding barbarians from the north/north-east. Some even noted that these invasions/destructions were followed by a change in the material culture, and that at least in europe and turkey you started finding burials of 'big cheifs' in these giand mounds, and that that seemed to correlate with an earlier culture from central asia that also used to bury it cheifs under these artificial hills called khurgans, etc.

So thats the basis of the Aryan invasion theory, and because of thes elines of evidence it was postulated that the original home-land of these aryans was the caucus ranges. Often instead of 'indo-eurpean' the language family was called 'indo-aryan'.

However, there were problems. The evidence didn't strictly support foreign invasions in all these cases, there were anomolies in the linguistics that didn't really work out to support a single giant spread of a tribe, and all sorts of other problems. India, for example, doesn't seem to have been invaded by a caste of super-warriors from the north.

Also, there's no reason to say that simply because a language spread that it was violently spread by a single tribe or anything like that. Language doesn't correlate strictly with ethnicity.

So what we have now is still the idea of an Indo-european language family, but not enough evidence to support a civilization destroying aryan super-power out of the caucus mountains.


"I told you that story to tell you this story", as they say.

Proto-Indo-European is the idea that you can re-construct, by examining the earliest variations of the indo-european languages, the language spoken by the earliest tribe to speak it, henceforth called "The proto-indo-europeans'. This term shouldn't be thought of as being synonymous with 'aryans' though, and, for example, the 'proto-indo-europeans' didn't necessarily invade and destroy harrapa, for example.

Based on the reconstructions of the language, however, you can see what kinds of words they had. A person uses words for things around them and thus you can reconstruct the environment of the proto-indo-europeans, by looking at the species of trees that they had names for, or how many words for 'river' they had, etc. Absurdly also, the linguists are able to reconstruct, amoung this limited vocabulary two words for 'fart', one 'to fart' and another 'to fart loudly'! Guess that was important to the PIE people.
Based on the geographic reconstructions, some have speculacted areas essentially north of the caucus, others have postlated the ukraine, and still others have postulated india itself or even deeper parts of central asia.

Intruigingly, others have applied the same methodology of reconstructing the language to reconstructing the religion and mythos of the PIE people, and have been able to draw attention to 'tripartite divisions of the world' (likesay, heaven, earth, hell, father son, ghost, king, worker, administrator, etc etc) and even a 'primeval' myth of "Mann and Tvinn" or man and his duplicate or twin.

Originally posted by IbeuniquetooA lack of vitamin D either produced via the skin or consumed in the diet is what probably led to the establishment of the caucausin (sp?) ethnic group.

So if a group of people lived away from sunlight (like in a cave) and had no food source for vitamin D for generations then they would eventually turn white? I've heard that animals that live in caves have a high rate of albinism and poor eyesight as well. I read somewhere that neanderthals (cave people) were found only in Europe.
I'm just curious to know how the races of the world began. I have a mixed niece and she could pass for mostly any other race here on earth. So it would seem that the world was black at first and some of them turned white somehow and then they started creating mulattos all over the globe. Is there any way that black people could have evolved from whites? These type of questions have been dominating my mind lately and they may enter your mind from time to time as well and since two heads (or four) are better than one; maybe we can figure 'em out together.

Originally posted by NEGROPOLIS
So if a group of people lived away from sunlight (like in a cave) and had no food source for vitamin D for generations then they would eventually turn white?

Better to say that without any pressure to maintain melanin in the skin, mutatins would accumulate and wipe out the ability to make melanin, and result in albinos.

I read somewhere that neanderthals (cave people) were found only in Europe.

Neanderthals made use of caves, but didn't live in them, definitly not the to degree that they'd be affected by this sort of thing. Neanderthals existed in spain, the ukraine, and israel, and its probable that thats not the limits themselves, but just close to it.

I'm just curious to know how the races of the world began.

Skin colour is caused by melanin concentration. White people and black people have different concentrations of this pigment, melanin. Interestingly, both white people and black people have the same number of melanocytes, cells in the skin that produce melanin.

With an increased concentration of melanin, there is less sunlight/radiation passing through the surface of the skin and into the tissues beneath it. This is "good" when there is intense and direct sunlight, as in the equatorial regions. This is bad when in regions where sunlight is indirect and the sky is very cloudly, like the more temperate regions. Thus in tropical/equatorial regions, a population of people will have selection pressure to become darker and in sub-polar forests or at dim cloudy regions, the population will have selection pressure to develop lighter skin (because sunlight is needed to manufacture vitamin-d).

This is why, for example, the people in the south of india are so much darker, on average, than the people in the north of india. And this is why blacks in africa and aboriginies in australia have similar skin tones on the one hand, and fins and eskimos and koreans have similar skin tones on the other.

So it doesn't have to do with creating to very different races and then having various mixes of them to produce other 'races'. You start with a naturally variable population, which, in my opinion, in the begining probably was very dark skinned, and you move them into different environments, and you will get the variation that we see today. Keeping in mind that, along with this process, there is admixture and movemetn between and with-in populations, so you get a really wide variety of characteristics.

As far as characteristics not related to melanin concentration, they'd each have their own histories. Neanderthals were stocky and 'barrel chested'. So, apparently, are eskimos/inuits. This is thought to be because having stumpier and shorter proportions is advantageous in cold windy regions, because you hold in body heat longer. Whereas people in tropical climates, irrespective of being closely related to one antoher, tend to have lanky bodies and longer limb proportions and are more gracile in build, probably because this is an advantage in a warm climate to prevent over heating.

Is there any way that black people could have evolved from whites?

White people produce melanin, so definitly, you could have conditions where there is selective pressure to increase the concentration of melanin in the population, and thus have darker people.
Or you could start off with very dark people and get all the rest, or start at some middle point and spread out in both directions.

I'd expect that actual albinos have little to do with this overall process.

Interesting, Charles Darwin thought about these sorts of things too. He figured that some stuff was just not important enough to make a dramatic difference in terms of survival. After all, white people don't die of sunburn in the tropics and blacks don't fall apart in england because of lack of vitamins.

He figured that the different characteristic 'racial' features were, perhaps if started by natural selection, were maintained and reinforced and exxagerated by sexual selection. That is, consider that a peacock has a crazy colourful tail. It serves no advantage, except that peahens really dig multicolored tails. So that trait gets maintained and even exagerated.
So Darwin figured that amoung humans, each group has its own idea of whats attractive, and that that has lead to the differences between peoples. So europeans, for whatever the reason, started to favour light skin and fair hair, thus anyone with very light skin and very fair hair or very blue eyes was highly desirous as a mate. Or in africa it'd be the opposite, pale people with no colour in their hair would be regarded as freaks, and who'd want to mate with that? Or in the far east perhaps very straight hair was much favoured, adn any one with curly hair was rejected, or anyone with red hair was rejected, etc etc.

As some examples (all in the name of science mind you)

you can see that this woman
cremesti.com...

is considered beautiful in one culture put perhaps not beautiful in the culture that considers this woman beautiful
cremesti.com...

or that perhaps neither society woudl consider this woman beautiful
cremesti.com...

who's society would probably want nothing to do with this woman
cremesti.com...
but perhaps that society would also find this woman acceptable
cremesti.com...

And so on and so on. Heck, here
cremesti.com...
you can see a country by country break down.

To me this makes some sense. Though, consider what was 'desirous' in a mate 100 years ago in the west and compare that to now and you can see that these ideas of beauty are pretty fickle, so I don't know if they can really be in effect long enogh to have an evolutionary effect.

These type of questions have been dominating my mind lately and they may enter your mind from time to time as well and since two heads (or four) are better than one; maybe we can figure 'em out together.

[edit on 2-2-2006 by Nygdan]

I think you guys broke it down about as much as it could possibly be broken. Good job! So it's actually all about melanin, vitamin D, and the environment; henceforth the caucus mountain / albino myth is out the window. You've made a believer out of me...

Well there is one more thing. II Kings chapter 5 verse 27 of the bible has a story about this dude (Gehazi) who gets cursed with biblical leprosy (vitilago) along with all his descendants forever and ever. There are those who think that "this" is the origin of white folks, but biblical stories are often too far fetched for me to believe; although I have seen pictures of blacks with this disease and they do look like whites if it has spread enough. When one gets vitilago, is it synonymous with albinism in terms of pigmentation?

Here is a few links that goes into great detail on the whole matter though:
stewartsynopsis.com...

www.bio.davidson.edu...

Scroll down towards the bottom of the page and Look at this man's face.
www.stewartsynopsis.com...

I found a link on demystifying the Aryan myth.
www.rabenclan.de...

Intereting ideas. Why are you equating vitelligo with lyprosy?

If you want, this book discusses the issue of indo-european origins
Mallory, J.P. - In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology, and Myth.

I'd go for one of those used ones for $8.

Regarding the question of who came first, blacks or whites, we do now have a definite answer. After doing many DNA surveys, the human species started out in Africa. Yes, our ancestors all were Black-skinned. National Geographic has a 5 year study going on, which you can join for $100. It will trace your DNA back to where it originated from. All of them go back to Africa eventually. In ancient times, Africans began to immigrate northward through Europe. After many generations, they became lighter-skinned because they had less sunlight.
You can go to the National Geographic website and look at/get involved in this DNA study.
So, no this Caucasus myth is just that, a myth.

-Forestlady

Originally posted by forestlady

Regarding the question of who came first, blacks or whites, we do now have a definite answer. After doing many DNA surveys, the human species started out in Africa. Yes, our ancestors all were Black-skinned. National Geographic has a 5 year study going on, which you can join for $100. It will trace your DNA back to where it originated from. All of them go back to Africa eventually. In ancient times, Africans began to immigrate northward through Europe. After many generations, they became lighter-skinned because they had less sunlight.
You can go to the National Geographic website and look at/get involved in this DNA study.
So, no this Caucasus myth is just that, a myth.

-Forestlady

Sounds good! I'll look into it. Thank you all for shedding light on this issue.

There are two forms of modern leprosy—the tubercular, or nodular, and the anesthetic, or nervous; generally both forms are present. The nodular form begins, as a rule, as round or irregularly shaped spots, commonly of a mahogany or sepia color. These often disappear, and are followed by the appearance of nodules. In an advanced stage the face is covered with firm, livid, nodular elevations: the nose, lips, and ears are swollen beyond their natural size, the eyelashes and eyebrows are lost, and the eyes are staring; the whole producing a hideous disfigurement. As the disease progresses, insensibility of the skin and paralysis ensue, and the fingers and toes may rot away.

In the Biblical description, one is immediately impressed by the absence of all allusion to the hideous facial deformity, the loss of feeling, and the rotting of the members. If such conspicuous manifestations had existed they could not possibly have escaped observation. The Levitical code prescribed that the several examinations of the person suspected should be made at intervals of seven days, thus enabling the priest to note the progress of the disease. Leprosy is an exceedingly slow disease, particularly in the beginning, and a fortnight would show absolutely no change in the vast majority of cases. Moreover, the "lepra Hebræorum" was a curable disease. When the leper was cured the priest made an atonement before the Lord, and expiatory sacrifices in the form of a sin-offering and a trespass-offering were made also. Modern leprosy is, except in isolated instances, incurable.

Bible KJV -

Exodus 4:6,7
6. And the Lord said furthermore unto him, Put now thine hand into thy bosom. And he put his hand into his bosom: and when he took it out, behold, his hand was leprous as snow.
7. And he said, put thine hand into thy bosom again. And he put his hand into his bosom again: and plucked it out of his bosom, and, behold, it was turned again as his other flesh.

Numbers 5:1-3
1. And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
2. Command the children of Israel, that they put out of the camp every leper, and every one that hath an issue, and whosoever is defiled by the dead:
3. Both male and female shall ye put out, without the camp shall ye put them; that they defile not their camps, in the midst whereof I dwell.
4. And the children of Israel did so, and put them out without the camp: as the Lord spake unto Moses, so did the children of Israel.

2 Kings 5:27
The leprosy therefore of Naaman shall cleave unto thee, and unto thy seed for ever. And he went out from his presence a leper as white as snow.

thanks

Just to throw a small amount of new information about skin colour development

The work suggests that the skin-whitening mutation occurred by chance in a single individual after the first human exodus from Africa, when all people were brown-skinned. That person's offspring apparently thrived as humans moved northward into what is now Europe, helping to give rise to the lightest of the world's races.

www.washingtonpost.com

mod edit to shorten link

[edit on 1-3-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

So by callin' white skin a mutation you are saying what? That whites are mutants? That's cold blooded man, cold blooded...

Since the Original poster for this thread is on global ignore, and their comments are invisible, I am closing the thread.