posted
This is from the Table of Contents in Coon's Races of Europe:
Chapter II: Pleistocene White Men
(1) Introducing Homo Sapiens (2) Pleistocene Climate (3) Sapiens Men of the Middle Pleistocene (4) Non-Sapiens Pleistocene Fossil Men (5) The Neanderthal Hybrids of Palestine (6) Upper Palaeolithic Man in Europe, the Evidence as a Whole (7) Chronological and Geographical Differentiation of the European Aurignacian Group (8) Upper Palaeolithic Hunters of North Africa (9) Aurignacian Man in East Africa (10) The Magdalenians (11) Upper Palaeolithic Man in China (12) Summary and Conclusions
From (12) Summary and Conclusions:
(1) Homo sapiens was fully evolved as early as the mid-Pleistocene, if not earlier.
(2) The earliest Homo sapiens known, as represented by several examples from Europe and Africa, was an ancestral long-headed white man of short stature and moderately great brain size.
(3) The negro group probably evolved parallel to this white strain, from a related sapiens ancestor. At what point the ancestors of negroes and whites diverged is not known.
quote:Originally posted by Evil Euro: This is from the Table of Contents in Coon's Races of Europe:
Chapter II: [b]Pleistocene White Men
(1) Introducing Homo Sapiens (2) Pleistocene Climate (3) Sapiens Men of the Middle Pleistocene (4) Non-Sapiens Pleistocene Fossil Men (5) The Neanderthal Hybrids of Palestine (6) Upper Palaeolithic Man in Europe, the Evidence as a Whole (7) Chronological and Geographical Differentiation of the European Aurignacian Group (8) Upper Palaeolithic Hunters of North Africa (9) Aurignacian Man in East Africa (10) The Magdalenians (11) Upper Palaeolithic Man in China (12) Summary and Conclusions
From (12) Summary and Conclusions:
(1) Homo sapiens was fully evolved as early as the mid-Pleistocene, if not earlier.
(2) The earliest Homo sapiens known, as represented by several examples from Europe and Africa, was an ancestral long-headed white man of short stature and moderately great brain size.
(3) The negro group probably evolved parallel to this white strain, from a related sapiens ancestor. At what point the ancestors of negroes and whites diverged is not known.
[/B]
Outdated coon gibberish..... Believing this is like believing that the world is flat. Nothing evolved out of Europe, except a few modifications to already existing phenotypes.The quicker you accept the fact that Africans/black/negro are the centre and root of the modern human family the better off your life will be. You will soon start to think logically.
Posts: 318 | From: PA. USA | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
Its really sad, not particularly shocking that Evil Euro has to post refuted, outdated Coon gibberish to find a way to put "Caucasoids" in East Africa. Aurignacian refers exclusively to the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic in Europe and the earliest physical remains associated with it[Grimaldi Man] don't even resemble white men. And since when are Neanderthal-Hybrids[refuted by genetics] white men? Evil Euro lost all credibility with that post.
quote:Originally posted by Keins: Outdated coon gibberish
The only thing "outdated" about Coon are some of his theories, which have been disproven. But that goes for all of the old anthropologists, including the Afronut favorites. Coon's observational data is as valid today as it was when he compiled it. He looked at skeletal remains from Pleistocene East Africa, and saw that they were Caucasoid. Nothing speculative about that. Just a cold, hard fact.
quote:The quicker you accept the fact that Africans/black/negro are the centre and root of the modern human family the better off your life will be.
Africans, yes. Blacks/Negroes, no. They're an insignificant branch of the human family whose ancestors took a wrong turn in Africa and never got back on track.
quote:Originally posted by Evil Euro: Africans, yes. Blacks/Negroes, no. They're an insignificant branch of the human family whose ancestors took a wrong turn in Africa and never got back on track.
You have been discredited with that statement.
quote:The only thing "outdated" about Coon are some of his theories, which have been disproven. But that goes for all of the old anthropologists, including the Afronut favorites. Coon's observational data is as valid today as it was when he compiled it. He looked at skeletal remains from Pleistocene East Africa, and saw that they were Caucasoid. Nothing speculative about that. Just a cold, hard fact
The fact that no anthropologist today believes Pleistocene East Africans were Caucasoids proves that Coon's data is outdated. Coon also looked at Neanderthal-Hybrids(?) and saw white men, to that you say he was wrong but to "Aurignacian East African Caucasoids" you have no problem saying he's right, its simply pointless arguing with a racist idiot who cites selected outdated material to prove what cannot be proven.
[This message has been edited by Topdog (edited 10 March 2005).]
posted
1Carleton Coon represents an interesting figure in this watershed between pre- and post-neo-Darwinism in that, although his major works were published in the 1950s and 1960s (Coon, 1962), his framework for considering evolutionary diversity in humans was essentially that of the prewar anthropologists.
quote:The fact that no anthropologist today believes Pleistocene East Africans were Caucasoids proves that Coon's data is outdated. Coon also looked at Neanderthal-Hybrids(?) and saw white men, to that you say he was wrong but to "Aurignacian East African Caucasoids" you have no problem saying he's right, its simply pointless arguing with a racist idiot who cites selected outdated material to prove what cannot be proven.
Correct. And of course Coon's discredited polygenic views are directly related to his fabrication of 'caucazoids', the most descredited concept in the history of anthropology.
The whole point of polygenesis was to establish a 'scientific' basis for white priorty, which increasingly flew in the face of the facts as fossil find after fossil find indicated African and Africoid anteriority.
Carelton Coon caucasoid polygenesis is
NULL......
Stephen Jay Gould: How could a new species evolve in lockstep parallelism from three ancestral populations spread over more than half the globe? Three groups, each moving in the same direction, and all still able to interbreed and constitute a single species after more than a million years of change? (I know that multiregionalists posit limited gene flow to Circumvent this problem, but can such a claim represent more than necessary special pleading in the face of a disabling theoretical difficulty? - Stephen Jay Gould.
and VOID.....
SOY Keita: fosils indicate the presence of anatomical modern people in supra-Saharan and Nile Valley Africa at a time when hominids in Europe had Neanderthal morphology
Citing Carleton Coon is like citing Piltdown Man as proof of the English origins of homo-sapiens. It's a confession of defeat, poorly disguised as a stubborn 'argument'.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 10 March 2005).]
posted
Just curious, but are you guys just doing this out of boredom? For Godsakes, the guy claims that blacks represent an "insignificant" branch of the human family, even though they are the people that never left Africa, where humankind originated! He insists that there were prehistoric "whites" in Africa!
What is the purpose of arguing with him? It seems the man can't accept facts, plain and simple! You've refuted, debunked, and dismissed this fool over and over again, but he is too ridiculously stubborn to accept reality! Let the guy believe that the original peoples of Africa were "mediterranean caucasoids" and get back to Egypt!! LMAO
Posts: 26280 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
The fact that no anthropologist today believes Pleistocene East Africans were Caucasoids proves that Coon's data is outdated. Coon also looked at Neanderthal-Hybrids(?) and saw white men, to that you say he was wrong but to "Aurignacian East African Caucasoids" you have no problem saying he's right, its simply pointless arguing with a racist idiot who cites selected outdated material to prove what cannot be proven.
Needless to say that you are right, as usual, in respect to Evil. Earlier, you said that Evil lost credibility...did he have one to begin with?
Let's do a quick recap here:
He claimed southern Europeans were pure...that was a non-starter.
He claimed that E3b was unrelated to E3a...so dumb, that it perhaps makes the mentally ill, look quite intelligent!
He claimed that E3b is of North African origin, with the Horn of Africa in mind...one only needs to look at a map of Africa, to see where the Horn of Africa lies - need I say more about that one.
He turns around and claims that the Horn of Africa populations were "non-negroid generalized" morderns. When pressed for the scientific definition...he has no answers.
He claims that Bantu negroids appeared recently in West Africa, and moved their way to the Horn of Africa, to explain the tropical African looks of East Africans. He attributes this to small dosages of E3a in the Horn of Africa populations, when there are no Bantu speaking groups in the Horn of Africa to speak of, to justify his claim.
In fact, E3a is found in Senegal, where there are no Bantu speakers.
He was asked to provide a chronology for the appearance of "caucasoid" and "negroid" appearance in East Africa, after being exposed for the erroneous timelime he provided for the "negroid" presence in East Africa...he fails to provide one, after the wild claims he made, and then goes onto say that it is not his job. Go figure.
He attributes the broad type facial Physiognomy to E3a, and hence the Tutsi's must have been E3b carrying people who got overrun by Bantus. He was in for a shocker with the many studies and gene maps available.
Asked to provide his definitions for "negroid" and "caucasoid", and what they meant in a scientific sense...to date, we still have no answers on these. Later on, his starts pointing fingers at outdated anthropological works that used such terminology. I gather from which, we are to conclude that there is no scientific bases for the defunct terms, he continues to use.
In fact, despite the defunct status of both "negroid" and "caucasoid" terms, unlike the "negroid" term, the "caucasoid" is a fraudulent term, because it implies something of a particular geographic origin - the Caucasus! There is not one study available, that suggests that the so-called features attributed to "caucasoid" in Africa, has anything to do with the Caucasus region.
He resorts to Larry Angel's use of the term "Bushman like Basic-Whites", a term in itself that makes no sense, however he fails to see the context of Mr. Angel's study:
J. L. Angel, The People of Lerna, p. 101:
"Although the first agricultural inhabitants of the belt from Syria-Israel-Jordan to North Africa were mainly rugged Mediterranean (A3 and some B, in varying preponderance) the eastern end of this belt (McGown, 1939; Vallois, 1936), shows some almost Bushmen-like Basic White (A4b) as well as lateral traits (E1 and C4 [DP: Mixed Alpine and Alpine] as at Jericho." Hence the first agriculturalists were mainly Mediterranean and Basic White with some Alpine and some "Bushmen-like" [DP: Khoisan] Basic Whites only in the eastern part."
But then...
J. Lawrence Angel Journal of Human Evolutiom 1972 1, Pg 307
"Against this background of disease, movement and pedomorphic reduction of body size one can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers, probably from Nubia via the unknown predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians....".
Elsewhere Thought wrote:
quote:He [Angel] is very clear about why they have these traits:
"probably from Nubia via the unknown predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians...."
SOY Keita Arethusa 26 (1993) pg 329:
"I was a student of Larry Angel and am in some postion to comment on his views, which I know from conversation, the literature and personal correspondnce."
"Angel also found evidence for a "black" (if such exists) genetic influence in neolithic and later Aegean populations. Racialists models, which imply non-overlapping gene pools, are clearly negated by Angel's work."
He claims that HBS in Sicilian populations has nothing to do with its spread from Africa, but the presence of the Benin Sickle cell belies his claim.
In fact, the mere presence of E3b shatters his entire premises, which is why he needs to have different but contradictory explanations for its non-tropical African origins!
Additional notes, that don't make Evil look good:
African Exodus
Chris Stringer and Robin McKie:
"Nor does the picture get any clearer when we move on to the Cro-Magnons, the presumed ancestors of modern Europeans. Some looked more like present-day Australians or Africans, judged by OBJECTIVE anatomical categorizations, as is the case with some early modern skulls from the Upper Cave at Zhoukoudian in China."
From the Am J Phys Anthropol. 1975 May;42(3):351-69, we have...
New studies of post-Pleistocene human skeletal remains from the Rift Valley, Kenya.
Rightmire GP.
"Prehistoric human crania from Bromhead's Site, Willey's Kopje, Makalia Burial Site, Nakuru, and other localities in the Eastern Rift Valley of Kenya are reassessed using measurements and a multivariate statistical approach. Materials available for comparison include series of Bushman and Hottentot crania. South and East African Negroes, and Egyptians. Up to 34 cranial measurements taken on these series are utilized to construct three multiple discriminant frameworks, each of which can assign modern individuals to a correct group with considerable accuracy. When the prehistoric crania are classified with the help of these discriminants, results indicate that several of the skulls are best grouped with modern Negroes. This is especially clear in the case of individuals from Bromhead's Site, Willey's Kopje, and Nakuru, and the evidence hardly suggests post-Pleistocene domination of the Rift and surrounding territory by "Mediterranean" Caucasoids, as has been claimed.
Recent linguistic and archaeological findings are also reviewed, and these seem to support application of the term Nilotic Negro to the early Rift populations."
Evil was given every chance to make a case...but it appears that he never had one.
[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 10 March 2005).]
quote:For Godsakes, the guy claims that blacks represent an "insignificant" branch of the human family, even though they are the people that never left Africa, where humankind originated! He insists that there were prehistoric "whites" in Africa! What is the purpose of arguing with him?
The point is not to persuade EuroDisney to come to his senses, but rather to expose fallacious thinking, and to share more up-to-date and accurate information regarding bioanthropology.
You could learn a lot in these threads from SOY Kieta, PA Underhill and many others if you are patient and of keen mind.
Too many African scholars and students alike, I have found - will repeat the fallacious outdated terminology/conceptions of Eurocentric anthropology without really understanding what they ARE PLAYING INTO.
It is they whom I am communicating with.
EuroDisney is just a troll-muse. A means to and end as it were. And his racist remarks simply expose his frustration level, and do not bother me (same with Horemheb).
Indeed, I personally find it less entertaining and more pointless to play with Abobo or Horemheb, because frankly it takes two to tango, and in those cases there is nobody home. Some prefer arguing with Abobo I guess because they recognize that he can't fight back? All he can do is cut and paste spam, like a retarded child. You prefer to 'debate' with him? Too each his own.
quote:Indeed, I personally find it less entertaining and more pointless to play with Abobo or Horemheb, because frankly it takes two to tango, and in those cases there is nobody home. Some prefer arguing with Abobo I guess because they recognize that he can't fight back? All he can do is cut and paste spam, like a retarded child. You prefer to 'debate' with him? Too each his own.
LOL... You are right, which is why I've given up on Abobo!
quote:The point is not to persuade EuroDisney to come to his senses, but rather to expose fallacious thinking, and to share more up-to-date and accurate information regarding bioanthropology.
You could learn a lot in these threads from SOY Kieta, PA Underhill and many others if you are patient and of keen mind.
Too many African scholars and students alike, I have found - will repeat the fallacious outdated terminology/conceptions of Eurocentric anthropology without really understanding what they ARE PLAYING INTO.
It is they whom I am communicating with.
I totally understand now. So by all means, carry on!!
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 10 March 2005).]
Posts: 26280 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
The fact that no anthropologist today believes Pleistocene East Africans were Caucasoids proves that Coon's data is outdated. Coon also looked at Neanderthal-Hybrids(?) and saw white men, to that you say he was wrong but to "Aurignacian East African Caucasoids" you have no problem saying he's right, its simply pointless arguing with a racist idiot who cites selected outdated material to prove what cannot be proven.
quote:Supercar writes: Needless to say that you are right, as usual, in respect to Evil. Earlier, you said that Evil lost credibility...did he have one to begin with?
Let's do a quick recap here:
He claimed southern Europeans were pure...that was a non-starter.
He claimed that E3b was unrelated to E3a...so dumb, that it perhaps makes the mentally ill, look quite intelligent!
He claimed that E3b is of North African origin, with the Horn of Africa in mind...one only needs to look at a map of Africa, to see where the Horn of Africa lies - need I say more about that one.
He turns around and claims that the Horn of Africa populations were "non-negroid generalized" morderns. When pressed for the scientific definition...he has no answers.
He claims that Bantu negroids appeared recently in West Africa, and moved their way to the Horn of Africa, to explain the tropical African looks of East Africans. He attributes this to small dosages of E3a in the Horn of Africa populations, when there are no Bantu speaking groups in the Horn of Africa to speak of, to justify his claim.
In fact, E3a is found in Senegal, where there are no Bantu speakers.
He was asked to provide a chronology for the appearance of "caucasoid" and "negroid" appearance in East Africa, after being exposed for the erroneous timelime he provided for the "negroid" presence in East Africa...he fails to provide one, after the wild claims he made, and then goes onto say that it is not his job. Go figure.
He attributes the broad type facial Physiognomy to E3a, and hence the Tutsi's must have been E3b carrying people who got overrun by Bantus. He was in for a shocker with the many studies and gene maps available.
Asked to provide his definitions for "negroid" and "caucasoid", and what they meant in a scientific sense...to date, we still have no answers on these. Later on, his starts pointing fingers at outdated anthropological works that used such terminology. I gather from which, we are to conclude that there is no scientific bases for the defunct terms, he continues to use.
In fact, despite the defunct status of both "negroid" and "caucasoid" terms, unlike the "negroid" term, the "caucasoid" is a fraudulent term, because it implies something of a particular geographic origin - the Caucasus! There is not one study available, that suggests that the so-called features attributed to "caucasoid" in Africa, has anything to do with the Caucasus region.
He resorts to Larry Angel's use of the term "Bushman like Basic-Whites", a term in itself that makes no sense, however he fails to see the context of Mr. Angel's study:
J. L. Angel, The People of Lerna, p. 101:
"Although the first agricultural inhabitants of the belt from Syria-Israel-Jordan to North Africa were mainly rugged Mediterranean (A3 and some B, in varying preponderance) the eastern end of this belt (McGown, 1939; Vallois, 1936), shows some almost Bushmen-like Basic White (A4b) as well as lateral traits (E1 and C4 [DP: Mixed Alpine and Alpine] as at Jericho." Hence the first agriculturalists were mainly Mediterranean and Basic White with some Alpine and some "Bushmen-like" [DP: Khoisan] Basic Whites only in the eastern part."
But then...
J. Lawrence Angel Journal of Human Evolutiom 1972 1, Pg 307
"Against this background of disease, movement and pedomorphic reduction of body size one can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers, probably from Nubia via the unknown predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians....".
Elsewhere Thought wrote:
[QUOTE]He [Angel] is very clear about why they have these traits:
"probably from Nubia via the unknown predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians...."
quote:
SOY Keita Arethusa 26 (1993) pg 329:
"I was a student of Larry Angel and am in some postion to comment on his views, which I know from conversation, the literature and personal correspondnce."
"Angel also found evidence for a "black" (if such exists) genetic influence in neolithic and later Aegean populations. Racialists models, which imply non-overlapping gene pools, are clearly negated by Angel's work."
He claims that HBS in Sicilian populations has nothing to do with its spread from Africa, but the presence of the Benin Sickle cell belies his claim.
In fact, the mere presence of E3b shatters his entire premises, which is why he needs to have different but contradictory explanations for its non-tropical African origins!
Additional notes, that don't make Evil look good:
African Exodus
Chris Stringer and Robin McKie:
"Nor does the picture get any clearer when we move on to the Cro-Magnons, the presumed ancestors of modern Europeans. Some looked more like present-day Australians or Africans, judged by OBJECTIVE anatomical categorizations, as is the case with some early modern skulls from the Upper Cave at Zhoukoudian in China."
From the Am J Phys Anthropol. 1975 May;42(3):351-69, we have...
New studies of post-Pleistocene human skeletal remains from the Rift Valley, Kenya.
Rightmire GP.
"Prehistoric human crania from Bromhead's Site, Willey's Kopje, Makalia Burial Site, Nakuru, and other localities in the Eastern Rift Valley of Kenya are reassessed using measurements and a multivariate statistical approach. Materials available for comparison include series of Bushman and Hottentot crania. South and East African Negroes, and Egyptians. Up to 34 cranial measurements taken on these series are utilized to construct three multiple discriminant frameworks, each of which can assign modern individuals to a correct group with considerable accuracy. When the prehistoric crania are classified with the help of these discriminants, results indicate that several of the skulls are best grouped with modern Negroes. This is especially clear in the case of individuals from Bromhead's Site, Willey's Kopje, and Nakuru, and the evidence hardly suggests post-Pleistocene domination of the Rift and surrounding territory by "Mediterranean" Caucasoids, as has been claimed.
Recent linguistic and archaeological findings are also reviewed, and these seem to support application of the term Nilotic Negro to the early Rift populations."
Evil was given every chance to make a case...but it appears that he never had one.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 11 March 2005).]
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic