Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The assumption that cave art conventions reflect actual pigmentation is pretty shaky. The egyptian statue reference is just wrong - there's a long tradition of females being depicted as yellow or white versus red or brown for males. This probably has some basis in men engaging in more outdoors activity, but this art is definitely not a photo-realistic rendering. If you want a modern analogy, think the Simpsons! Here's some academic work that mentions the gender conventions:

http://www.mywire.com/a/Oxford-Encyclopedia-Ancient-Egypt/Ge...

I don't know anything about the other points in the article, but these errors make me doubt their accuracy.



The redness of men in Egyptian art is based on the fact that men's skin is redder, due to more hemoglobin closer to the surface.


Another good point is that fairer skin is, and has long been, a sexually desirable trait. A pharaoh has his pick of anyone he wants.


Since the European conquest of the planet, the fairer skin preference has been projected back onto many other groups of people, but is inherently suspicious given the circumstances within which we've learned about their cultures.


It long predates that. European slave girls (and boys) were particularly prized in the caliphate when Europe was a backwater.


Historically pale skin was prized because rich women didn't work in the fields, they stayed in doors out of the sun. Tans came into fashion with air travel. Only the wealthy could fly to say the Med for their holidays Also I suppose poor slum dwellers didn't get much sun. They only got rickets due to a subsequent lack of vitimum D.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: