quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: I was trolling? For raising a point that Brace's study isn't helping your case? Man, I tell you, smh
All right, so how would you reconcile all the data Swenet et al has posted (e.g. Brace, Hanihara, Strouhal) in this thread and others with whatever position you are advocating? Let's see your answers.
I simply made the observation that quoting flawed study and quoting another which uses debunked outdated racial classifications and methods doesn't help his case. Anyone who does gives Eurocentrists the greenlight to quote people like Coon, Seligmann, etc and use modern genetics to validate it, but hey, I'm just an old school vet who has debated people and has saw that scenario pay out......using the same debunked sources as your Eurocentric opposition is.well......
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^You made your points clear. It's just Truthcentric acting like he left his brain in Swenet's ass or something. Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: I simply made the observation that quoting flawed study and quoting another which uses debunked outdated racial classifications and methods doesn't help his case. Anyone who does gives Eurocentrists the greenlight to quote people like Coon, Seligmann, etc and use modern genetics to validate it, but hey, I'm just an old school vet who has debated people and has saw that scenario pay out......using the same debunked sources as your Eurocentric opposition is.well......
Do you even know what Swenet's case is? He's not denying that ancient Egypto-Nubians were indigenous, dark-skinned Africans (as opposed to the white- or tan-washed scenario presented by Eurocentrics). Rather, he is saying that Egypto-Nubians on a statistical average were physically distinct from the modern West African norm and were related to pre-OOOA, both positions you never disputed. For such purposes Brace, Hanihara, and the rest are sufficient even if these are the same studies (mis)used by Euros to argue for whitewashing.
Do you understand now?
Posts: 7082 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Truthcentric said: But yeah, the people who populated the eastern Sahara during the Holocene Wet Phase were distinct from West Africans and Bantu. No arguing with you there, even if Zaharan won't admit it.
lol, not at all. Never said they were not "distinct." Of course people in the Holocene wet phase eastern Sahara were not identical "Bantu." Who said they were? The whole point is that they are all indigenous Africans, who cluster closer to the Ancient Egyptians particularly in the early phases than non indigenous Africans like Europeans or SW Asians i.e. "Middle Easterners". The closest relative to ancient Egyptians are the Nubians not West Africans, as demonstrated in detailed data here. This is whole thrust of what Bass is questioning- the seeming attempt to water down, split away, or deny that affinity.
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: ______________________________________________________________________ Amun Ra would you say that the use of obsolete Strouhal and flawed Brace is indicative of the charges you made earlier- that there seems to be an effort to downplay the links between other Africans and Egyptians? Even Charlie Bass raises this issue, and the curious use of these examples. Could they be a symptom of what you were saying all along? __________________________________________________________________________
Of course. I'm just surprised you didn't see it before (if indeed you didn't). For me, it became almost evident just looking at the way they tried to twist the JAMA, BMJ and DNA Tribes results to fit their own racist agenda. It showed to me they were very prejudicial in their assessment of scientific results. I think this is why Bass questioned what seems to be subtle "splittism."
All African populations (and world populations for that matter) are physical distinct from each others, while showing some similarities too.
Indeed, and neither me, Bass, or you has denied this. "West Africans" are not identical to Ethiopians in all respects.
Charlie Bass said: Explain this to me, if broad trend morphology was not present in early Northeast African please explain how the Natufians acquired this morphology and their origin is said to be in Northeast Africa. Indeed, as we have demonstrated time and time again here on ES, broad trend morphology is nothing special in northeast Africa. It is part of "negroid" or "sub-Saharan" diversity (pick your label) that some keep trying to deny or downplay using "splittism" tactics.
Anyone who does gives Eurocentrists the greenlight to quote people like Coon, Seligmann, etc and use modern genetics to validate it, but hey, I'm just an old school vet who has debated people and has saw that scenario pay out......using the same debunked sources as your Eurocentric opposition is.well......
Which is the seeming pattern Amun Ra and Akachi pointed out earlier.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: I simply made the observation that quoting flawed study and quoting another which uses debunked outdated racial classifications and methods doesn't help his case. Anyone who does gives Eurocentrists the greenlight to quote people like Coon, Seligmann, etc and use modern genetics to validate it, but hey, I'm just an old school vet who has debated people and has saw that scenario pay out......using the same debunked sources as your Eurocentric opposition is.well......
Do you even know what Swenet's case is? He's not denying that ancient Egypto-Nubians were indigenous, dark-skinned Africans (as opposed to the white- or tan-washed scenario presented by Eurocentrics). Rather, he is saying that Egypto-Nubians on a statistical average were physically distinct from the modern West African norm and were related to pre-OOOA, both positions you never disputed. For such purposes Brace, Hanihara, and the rest are sufficient even if these are the same studies (mis)used by Euros to argue for whitewashing.
Do you understand now?
^^^Red Herring again.
All African populations (and World populations for that matter) are physically distinct from each others, while showing some similarities too.
Fig. 1. Neighbor-joining dendrogram for a series of prehistoric and recent human populations (Craniofacial measurements)
For example, France, Italy and Greece are not on the same branch (aka they are distinct) but are still related to each others. As they share common ancestors.
African populations are on the same branch.
Also, it's not true that only modern Horn Africans were closer to the OOA migrants at the moment of the OOA migrations, it's also true for all Y-DNA CT and MtDNA L3 haplogroups carriers. Haplogroups common all over Africa including in Yoruba and Somali for example.
It's because most African populations, including modern East and West Africans, had their common origin in North-Eastern Africa after the OOA migrations.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: I think this is why Bass questioned what seems to be subtle "splittism.". But notice now how long-time racist poster Cassiteredes has suddenly joined in.
It's not subtle at all.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
We can see African populations (including East, West Africans and African-Americans) clustering at the top and non-African populations clustering at the bottom.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by cass: The supposed Neolithic Kenyan skulls with 'narrow' features (e.g. Elmenteita A) from Bromhead's site, have been re-dated. They are only 2k years old.
The 7000 BP date is from Leakey (1935) and Protsch (1978). Rightmire (1984) shows it is erroneous:
Bromshead is only 2500 - 2000 BP.
Gamble's Cave is reliably dated to 8000 BP based on a post-cranial fragment. However the 5 skulls from Gamble's Cave are not the 'narrow' featured Elmenteita skulls commonly cited.
The Bromhead's site is only 4 miles from Gamble's Cave, which is why they are often confused.
The two skulls (IV, V) from Gambles' Cave are damaged; in fact they're mostly speculative plaster reconstructions, and accurate measurements cannot be taken:
quote:With respect to the two skulls from Gamble's Cave, the qualification must be made that they are very fragmented and heavily recon-structed in plaster so that the measurements are not very reliable
- Bräuer, G. (1980). "Human skeletal remains from Mumba rock shelter, northern Tanzania". American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 52(1), 71-84.
quote:The skeletons were said by L. B. S. Leakey (1935) and others to show a number of non-Negroid characteristics. However the evidence has never been very solid. Of five burials exhumed at Gamble's Cave, only two have crania that are even partially complete, and neither of these have been reconstructed entirely satisfactorily. Skull number 4 has been warped, and much of the base and part of the face are present in plaster only.
- Rightmire, 1984
Look here:
This is Skull V without the plaster. How on earth did they decide this had a narrow nasal aperture?
LOL.
Skull IV is even more damaged than V.
Once you take these out the equation, and since Bromhead has been re-dated to 2000 BP - there are no prehistoric 'narrow' featured skulls in Kenya.
Cass, Cass, Cass, how come you show up all of a sudden to argue along a "splittism" line? Strange.. Its these same type of arguments Bass notes, and perhaps they will be further supported. We will see. More to come. Anyhow, all you have shown as to Gamble's Cave is that some specimens were incomplete or had damage. But of the usable material or remnants, credible schlolars demonstrate their character as indigenous which you have been denying for years. Let me school you again, as I have in the past:- QUOTE:
""However Rightmire (1975, 1981) fund that these East African remains, as well as those from the related sites of Willy Kopje, Nakuru and Makalia, cluster with one or other sub-Saharan populations in multivariate statistics... These findings are important , for they suggest that not only late Pleistocene to early Holocene remains ilke Gamble's Cave and Elementetia should not be interpreted as Caucasoid immigrants, but that the great levels of cranial variation observed today in sub-Saharan Africa were probably even greater in the Pleistococene." ---Lahr 1996. Evolution of Modern Human Diversity
Now how come you missed this Cass? I have demonstrated this to you before, both textually as again above, and graphically/visually in detail, yet you suddenly appear to push this "splittism" line. Very convenient.. So you still persist in saying that narrow nosed samples must be related to mystical "wandering Caucasoids"?
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by cass: The Admin is the "sam" dude by email.
I no longer really do this 'race' stuff and don't plan to post here after now, but if you guys have Amazon accounts... Just buy Climatic Races and Descent Groups by Grover Krantz (1980).
He discusses a "Saharan climatic race":
"Saharan: Skin color was dark with a medium fringe on the northern edge. Dark eyes and hair were universal. Cranial hair was wavy or curly with tight spiraling only in the extreme south. Body and facial hair were probably scant."
He goes on to describe their noses as being narrow or narrowish: "There is no distinction here between the Caucasoid and Saharan climatic races" and also discusses their elongated limbs, which in post-crania puts them closer to "Negroid". He describes Saharan's as being an intermediate eco-cline between "Caucasoids" and "Negroids", but as the result of in situ climatic adaptation to the dry-heat of the Sahara, rather than some outdated admixture Hamitic model.
Krantz' "Saharan climatic race" is basically the northern reddish/lighter brown skinned variant of Hierneux' "Elongated African" that Keita referenced in his debate with Snowden. The ancient egyptians were predominantly this reddish northern "Elongated African" or "Saharan".
Laughably obsolete and the putative "Caucasoid" approach therein have been rejected years ago by a majority of ES. There is no "Saharan climatic race" and there is no intermediate eco-cline between "Caucasoids" and "Negroids", as long shown here on ES. The people in question are all indigenous Africans. Africa has no "eco-apartheid" barrier that makes for "climatic races". As demonstrated to you 2 years ago narrow noses are nothing special in Africa- they are partly a function of arid dry air as in deserts, and are as indigenous to Africa as broad noses. Let me school you again: - QUOTE:
"The role of tall, linearly built populations in eastern Africa's prehistory has always been debated. Traditionally, they are viewed as late migrants into the area. But as there is better palaeoanthropological and linguistic documentation for the earlier presence of these populations than for any other group in eastern Africa, it is far more likely that they are indigenous eastern Africans. ... prehistoric linear populations show resemblances to both Upper Pleistocene eastern African fossils and present-day, non-Bantu-speaking groups in eastern Africa, with minor differences stemming from changes in overall robusticity of the dentition and skeleton. This suggests a longstanding tradition of linear populations in eastern Africa, contributing to the indigenous development of cultural and biological diversity from the Pleistocene up to the present." (L . A . SCHEPARTZ, "Who were the later Pleistocene eastern Africans?" The African Archaeological Review, 6 (1988), pp. 57- 72)
"..presents all tropical Africans with narrower noses and faces as being related to or descended from external, ultimately non-African peoples. However, narrow-faced, narrow-nosed populations have long been resident in Saharo-tropical Africa... and their origin need not be sought elsewhere. These traits are also indigenous. The variability in tropical Africa is expectedly naturally high. Given their longstanding presence, narrow noses and faces cannot be deemed `non-African." [/i] --(S.O.Y. Keita, "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History in Africa 20 (1993), page 134 )
Perhaps you will pick up more support for your "splittism" approach. And what date is Krantz cite from that you post up above pray tell?
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: I think this is why Bass questioned what seems to be subtle "splittism.". But notice now how long-time racist poster Cassiteredes has suddenly joined in.
It's not subtle at all.
What do you make of Cass's "splittism" approach above that you exposed in earlier pages of this thread?
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^ Frankly, I didn't give much attention to Cass's posts.
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: All African populations (and world populations for that matter) are physical distinct from each others, while showing some similarities too.
Indeed, and neither me, Bass, or you has denied this.
All Sweety's and his Truthcentric lackey's posts in this thread are straw-man and red herring bullshit.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
Cacausoids were always in Africa. ...Europeans entered Africa relatively recently. Caucasoids entered Europe from Africa!....
I maintain that kinky hair is a recent adaptation...
The “gradation pattern “ shows an African origin of de-pigmentaion for both SLC45A2 and SLC24A5. Both genes are found throughout SSA. Africans have a higher variability in promoter regions of these genes. Sources cited.
there is growing evidence that Bantu South Africans have started to depigment just as the Khoi-San. It labeled as OCA4
does this mean some ancient Egyptians might have been indigenous African caucasoid? The Basals?
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Australian Aborigines have inhabited the deserts of Australia for ten's of thousands of years. Yet, they show no sign of adaptive modification in nasal-form to the arid/dry-heat desert climate. Birdsell (1993) who recorded measurements of 5000 living Australian Aborigines [the largest anthropometric study to date] did not find a single Aborigine with a narrow nose. This is explained by the fact upper canine teeth have roots that rise to the sides of the nose. So if you have a large dental complex (Aborigines have the largest teeth of any modern population) - this will prevent reduction in nasal breadth due to dentognathic constraints via anterior palatal breadth dimensions/intercanine distances.
Since large teeth prevent nasal narrowing: shifts in human nasal morphology only occurred by tooth-size reduction when it became common to cook food – first traceable to prehistoric earth-ovens. Brace et al. (1987, 1991) and Brace (2000) note that earth-ovens only became common in Western Eurasia between 100,000 and 50,000 years ago. They later spread to the east, finally south:
- Brace, 2000
Cooking only reached Australia during the Holocene, so that is why desert Aborigines are not adapted in nasal-form to their environment.
Narrowish nasal aperture first appeared in Europe around 40,000 years ago:
- Oase 2
There are no Upper Paleolithic African fossils with narrow nasal aperture because dental reduction occurred there fairly late. None of the Afalou skulls are even narrow.
So its a fairytale if you think Europeans derived their narrow noses from some "African diversity". If you think though it is down to adaptive convergence among populations (post-dental reduction) then that is what I agree with, and the evidence shows. So yes, narrow noses among dry-heat/arid adapted African populations were not introduced by "wandering Caucasoids". I have retracted this claim for some while now.
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
Cacausoids were always in Africa. ...Europeans entered Africa relatively recently. Caucasoids entered Europe from Africa!....
I maintain that kinky hair is a recent adaptation...
The “gradation pattern “ shows an African origin of de-pigmentaion for both SLC45A2 and SLC24A5. Both genes are found throughout SSA. Africans have a higher variability in promoter regions of these genes. Sources cited.
there is growing evidence that Bantu South Africans have started to depigment just as the Khoi-San. It labeled as OCA4
does this mean some ancient Egyptians might have been indigenous African caucasoid? The Basals?
He's stuck. If 'caucasoids' originated in Africa where are the narrow featured skulls? They don't appear until the Holocene, yet they're already in Europe ten's of thousands of years before. Oops.
As silly as the Aryan/Hamitic model is, at least it made more sense time-wise because the 'caucasoid' skulls appear outside of Africa first. However the Hamitic model failed to take biological in situ adaptation into account as Hierneux (1975) exposed. Thus the same features didn't need 'wandering caucasoids' to later appear in Africa at all.
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
Australian Aborigines have inhabited the deserts of Australia for ten's of thousands of years. Yet, they show no sign of adaptive modification in nasal-form to the arid/dry-heat desert climate. Birdsell (1993) who recorded measurements of 5000 living Australian Aborigines [the largest anthropometric study to date] did not find a single Aborigine with a narrow nose. This is explained by the fact upper canine teeth have roots that rise to the sides of the nose. So if you have a large dental complex (Aborigines have the largest teeth of any modern population) - this will prevent reduction in nasal breadth due to dentognathic constraints via anterior palatal breadth dimensions/intercanine distances.
Since large teeth prevent nasal narrowing: shifts in human nasal morphology only occurred by tooth-size reduction when it became common to cook food – first traceable to prehistoric earth-ovens. Brace et al. (1987, 1991) and Brace (2000) note that earth-ovens only became common in Western Eurasia between 100,000 and 50,000 years ago. They later spread to the east, finally south:
- Brace, 2000
Cooking only reached Australia during the Holocene, so that is why desert Aborigines are not adapted in nasal-form to their environment.
Narrowish nasal aperture first appeared in Europe around 40,000 years ago:
- Oase 2
yet below is the forensic reconstruction of the above skull Oase 2
quote:To my eyes, and many readers know I'm hardly alone, the face of Oase 2 has always looked Asian in appearance -- it has prominent (anteriorly placed) cheekbones, a relatively vertical facial profile with a very low nasal angle. That's not to say it's an Asian skull -- it doesn't have rounded orbits, for example. But it contrasts with other early Upper Paleolithic females like Mladec 1. --- John Hawkes
posted
Interesting. I would think the heat map would have E1b1a8 in Ghana somewhere not Libya saharan and it looks like Mozambique. The map seems to support a Bantu origin near the Great Lakes, which is central to the two highest frequency region.
Source and authencity?
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: I am going to bite...for the thrist for knowledge.
What images? Anything worthwhile.
quote:Originally posted by :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: And I am told the supposedly so much "mo betta" FB page is rather sluggish, with the same few people talking to one another, using leached material originally posted on Dinekenes and elsewhere, as some on ES have noted in various theads. ........................ Fine. If it's so bad, shouldn't they be off "pioneering" these supposedly vast new vistas of information? What happened? If they have better places to be, why are they still here?
This for the most part is nonsense. As it stands the group has 112 images. Many posted from Purchased books and 224 Uploaded documents. There is no official post count. If there was any kind of consistency in files that are actually UPLOADED instead of simply posted the file count, I would guess.......would be perhaps 600. Compare that to the posts here or ESR. Matter of fact compare that to posts on any board.
I stopped back here cause some jackass dumbo keeps calling my name.
All kinds of stuff. I will not share what others have posted. But I just added this yesterday :
Here is a map from U175. Which is E1b1a8
Know of any others on the web?
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is the map also showing the pre-dominating sub-clade of M2 in Madagascar is E1b1a8?
That is really fascinating.
This may give credence to Dr Winters theory of a possibly land mass in the Indian Ocean. Or naval travel by the Neolithic in that part of the Africa.
I thought Madagascans carried E1b1a not E1b1a8
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
You see? Exactly as predicted. No straight answer. It just reeks of trolling. He's wasting everyones time. Every time he says my excerpts hurt my case, what he is saying is that they hurt HIS case.
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: All right, so how would you reconcile all the data Swenet et al has posted (e.g. Brace, Hanihara, Strouhal) in this thread and others with whatever position you are advocating? Let's see your answers. [/QB]
He knows he can't reconcile all of the data without approaching my position and abandoning his own. Pseudoscience:
Confirmation bias, also called myside bias, is the tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's beliefs or hypotheses. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. People also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position.Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
I actually have the nasal measurements of the skull. Its NH is 49, and its NB is 24, so it comes out low mesorrhine. So like I said, narrowish. That reconstruction is obviously wrong.
Most Upper Paleolithic Europeans skulls are narrow or narrowish nosed, but among the wide nosed skulls are: Kostenki 14 (Markina Gora), Enfants 4, and the two Grimaldi crania. However it has been claimed the latter were crushed post-mortem. Morant (1930) reconstructed one of them as narrow nosed, which is why Hooton (1946) and Coon (1962) went along with them just being 'Caucasoid'.
In multivariate analyses though, a large portion of the Upper Palaeolithic European crania do not cluster with the European reference samples in the FORDISC dataset. They're coming out Zulu, Australian Aborigine etc:
So the regional skeletal continuity found in most living Europeans is probably only limited the nasal/mid-facial region.
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Cass, Cass, Cass, how come you show up all of a sudden to argue along a "splittism" line? Strange.. Its these same type of arguments Bass notes, and perhaps they will be further supported. We will see. More to come.
'splittism'... yet i'm not the one clinging to an "African" genetic/morphological cluster (which doesn't exist). ??? You're splitting humans into continental groups which is basically the old Linnean concept of race. Are you not?
By "Saharan climatic race" I merely meant people who show biological adaptation to the Saharan region. I can split up Africa based on its different eco-zones. Scientists have done this. But yes, its arbitrary: where does the Sahara desert exactly begin when it grades into the Sahel? and so on. That's why I said Krantz' "climatic races" are eco-clines.
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:ORiginally posted by Cass: You're splitting humans into continental groups which is basically the old Linnean concept of race.
^POW!!
The irony.. the irony people.. You know this forum has gone to sh!t when these ES "vets" are caught red-handed violating the tenets of their own anti- race ideology (which they clearly only support conditionally). Notice that by arguing against substructure in the Sahara he (Zaharan) is also undermining his purported support for OOA (OOA predicts populations will be structured according to isolation by distance). Just where do these flip-floppers stand?
--Refuted by OOA literature --Refuted by race denouncing literature --Refuted by Brace' empirical data --Refuted by Hanihara's empirical data --Refuted by Irish' empirical data --Refuted by Ricaut's empirical data --Refuted by Strouhal's empirical data
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Laughably obsolete and the putative "Caucasoid" approach therein have been rejected years ago by a majority of ES. There is no "Saharan climatic race" and there is no intermediate eco-cline between "Caucasoids" and "Negroids", as long shown here on ES. The people in question are all indigenous Africans. Africa has no "eco-apartheid" barrier that makes for "climatic races". As demonstrated to you 2 years ago narrow noses are nothing special in Africa- they are partly a function of arid dry air as in deserts, and are as indigenous to Africa as broad noses. Let me school you again: - QUOTE:
Saharans fall as an 'intermediate' hemispheric (is that a word?) eco-cline between Europeans and Sub-Saharan Africans. By 'intermediate' I just mean between those two greater geographical extremes. Just look at a world chart that maps skin pigmentation by latitude: Saharan populations fall between Euros/West Asians and Sub-Saharan Africans. Again, yes, this division is arbitrary: its a cline.
quote:The people in question are all indigenous Africans. Africa has no "eco-apartheid" barrier that makes for "climatic races".
You're saying a Pygmy is adapted to the Sahara desert? lol. There's obviously ecological barriers that seperate populations in Africa. The problem just comes with demarcating them in a clear-cut fashion (its impossible). But you get that with most things. Absolutely none of these different ecotypes, or "climatic races" in Africa cluster together though. Do you understand this? When Hierneux coined "broad africans" and "elongated africans" he didn't cluster/pool them together.
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:ORiginally posted by Cass: You're splitting humans into continental groups which is basically the old Linnean concept of race.
^POW!!
The irony.. the irony people.. You know this forum has gone to sh!t when these ES "vets" are caught red-handed violating the tenets of their own anti- race ideology (which they clearly only support conditionally). Notice that by arguing against substructure in the Sahara he (Zaharan)
That's completely ridiculous. Sweety the clown is back again with new straw men, red herrings and stupidness.
Nobody in this thread argue against substructures in Africa. So that's moot.
There's both substructures in Africa as well as common structures and foundations. There's both similarities and differences between various African populations, as well as human populations as a whole.
For example, there's many different (sub)haplogroups within the E haplogroup, But at the same time all the E haplogroup carriers are related to each others through a common ancestor.
We must study and take into account both.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
The indications of exclusion, however, are much easier to interpret. For example, the likelihood that either the Giza or Naqada configuration could occur in West Africa, the Congo, or points south is vanishingly small-0.000 and 0.001. --Brace 1993
We collected measurements for a single specimen from what was called the Nubian X Group in Reisner’s terminology (Reisner, 1909). This was a population that immediately preceded the early Christian Nubians of AD 550 (Carlson and Van Gerven, 19791, and, in the subjective treatment of a generation gone by, had been regarded as evidence for a “Negroid incursion’’ (Batrawi, 1935; Smith, 1909; Seligman, 1915). As our figures show, the probability of finding our representative specimen in a sub- Saharan population is 0.009, which is highly unlikely. Its column loadings are generally similar to the loadings in the column for the Predynastic Naqada sample, and, except for the fact that it is only marginally unlikely that it can be excluded from the Giza sample, it cannot be denied membership in the Naqada, European, or South Asian samples. --Brace 1993
The authors are always at pains to point out that the pure negro element appears to have been minute in the groups analysed; two skeletons in a hundred, for example, at Naga-ed-Der in early predynastic times, and one in fifty-four in Lower Nubia (Massoulard, 1949, p396 and pp410-411), although all anthropologists concur in acknowledging the existence of a "negroid" component in the mixed population which constitutes the primitive Egyptian "ethnic group", at least from neolithic times onwards. --Vercoutter 1974
Of the total of 117 [Badarian] skulls, 15 were found to be markedly Europoid, 9 of these were of the gracile Mediterranean type (Figs. ia & b), 6 were of very robust structure reminiscent of the North African Cromagnon type.24 Eight skulls were clearly Negroid (Figs. 2a and b), and were close to the Negro types occurring in East Africa. --Strouhal 1971
Regardless of this, however, the Negroid component among the Badarians is anthropologically well based. Even though the share of 'pure' Negroes is small (6.8 per cent), being half that of the Europoid forms (12-9 per cent), the high majority of mixed forms (80.3 per cent) suggests a long-lasting dispersion of Negroid genes in the population. --Strouhal 1971
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
At best 2% of the dynastic Upper Egyptian (Abydos) series classified with West/Central Africans, per Keita 1996.
Caveat Keep in mind that these are statistical and pseudo- statistical analyses. While they're useful to make inferences about the segments of the AE samples that looked like individuals or averages from other populations in terms of the employed variables, they don't say if individuals from these foreign populations were actually present. In other words, these analyses do not provide support that any of the crania that classified as European or "mixed" were necessarily biologically European or European- African hybrids.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:To my eyes, and many readers know I'm hardly alone, the face of Oase 2 has always looked Asian in appearance -- it has prominent (anteriorly placed) cheekbones, a relatively vertical facial profile with a very low nasal angle. That's not to say it's an Asian skull -- it doesn't have rounded orbits, for example. But it contrasts with other early Upper Paleolithic females like Mladec 1. --- John Hawkes
^^^ One can see the resemblance of the Oase 2 skull to the Asian skull, very similar nasal apeture.Also the shape above the front teeth in between the top of the mouth to the bottom of the nose, the shape slopes at the side like a triangle pointing up inot that nasal opening. This is similar on the Oase and Asian skulls. But on the African and European skull that shape is more rectangular the sides are vertical, not sloping. Hawkes noted a very low nasal angle. It looks Asian to me
As per African skulls, they vary and don't always have a rounded top to the nasal aperture
here as some of the skulls from the Rwandan genocide, peace be upon them, notice the nasal shape
posted
"Meanwhile we may note that a detailed analysis of 571 modern Negro crania, made by advanced mathematical techniques, has shown that these crania gravitate between two poles, a Mediterranean Caucasoid and a Pygmy one. The former type is again divisible into an ordinary Mediterranean and a Western Asian type, which suggests more than a single northern point of origin for the Caucasoid element. As we shall in greater detail in Chapter 8 and 9, the Negroes resemble Caucasoids closely a number of genetic traits that are inherited in a simple fashion. Examples of these are fingerprints, types of earwax, and the major blood groups. The Negroes also have some of the same local, predominantly African, blood types as the Pygmies. " This evidence suggests that the Negroes are not a primary sub-species but rather a product of mixture between invading Caucasoids and Pygmies who lived on the edges of the forest, which at the end of the Pleistocene extended farther north and east than it does now.
The Living Races of Man by Carleton S. Coon
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^It's the same concept as your image and your accompanying question. Some Africans gravitate more towards OOA populations than other Africans primarily due to isolation by distance, and secondarily due to admixture here and there. The same thing can be said to be the case on the other end of the cline, only the reasons for relative closeness to Africans seem to be reversed for OOA populations (i.e. admixture primarily and isolation by distance secondarily).
quote:Originally posted by lioness: ^^^ at what number position would ancient Egyptians be? [/url]
quote:ORiginally posted by Cass: You're splitting humans into continental groups which is basically the old Linnean concept of race.
^POW!!
The irony.. the irony people.. You know this forum has gone to sh!t when these ES "vets" are caught red-handed violating the tenets of their own anti- race ideology (which they clearly only support conditionally). Notice that by arguing against substructure in the Sahara he (Zaharan) is also undermining his purported support for OOA (OOA predicts populations will be structured according to isolation by distance). Just where do these flip-floppers stand?
--Refuted by OOA literature --Refuted by race denouncing literature --Refuted by Brace' empirical data --Refuted by Hanihara's empirical data --Refuted by Irish' empirical data --Refuted by Ricaut's empirical data --Refuted by Strouhal's empirical data
Dude you're straight up lying, everyone here knows what my views are about African variability and that they pretty much mirror those of Keita, if you can't debate without calling people trolls when someone challenges you I think you have a problem.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where did I say that you deny African variability? Where did I call you/equate you with a troll?
I think you're getting defensive because you can't refute a thing I'm saying and you know it. Somewhere along the line I hit a sore spot when I argued for substructure in the Sahara. You resent me for saying things you know you will never be able to contradict with academic sources. But if you know you can't contradict what I'm saying, yet resent these statistical inferences, what are you into bio-anthropology for?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^That's the 1 thing I hate about these forums...Anyone who gets challenged...Get upset, instead of just posting the Facts.
Why get upset...Its a perfect chance to teach people your perspective.
Guys work together, not against. We are all searching for Truth. Just lay it down and let the audience reach their own conclusion.
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: Dude you're straight up lying, everyone here knows what my views are about African variability and that they pretty much mirror those of Keita, if you can't debate without calling people trolls when someone challenges you I think you have a problem. [/QB]
posted
Very well stated, here are more crania from the West Rwanda, Karongi genocide. Apparently the first example in your post by "bones and clones", is based on arbitrary. And literally holds no reality, since they are replicas. Below shows reality to which "bones and clones" rather doesn't subject.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
replicas African,___Asian____European
quote:To my eyes, and many readers know I'm hardly alone, the face of Oase 2 has always looked Asian in appearance -- it has prominent (anteriorly placed) cheekbones, a relatively vertical facial profile with a very low nasal angle. That's not to say it's an Asian skull -- it doesn't have rounded orbits, for example. But it contrasts with other early Upper Paleolithic females like Mladec 1. --- John Hawkes
^^^ One can see the resemblance of the Oase 2 skull to the Asian skull, very similar nasal apeture.Also the shape above the front teeth in between the top of the mouth to the bottom of the nose, the shape slopes at the side like a triangle pointing up inot that nasal opening. This is similar on the Oase and Asian skulls. But on the African and European skull that shape is more rectangular the sides are vertical, not sloping. Hawkes noted a very low nasal angle. It looks Asian to me
As per African skulls, they vary and don't always have a rounded top to the nasal aperture
here as some of the skulls from the Rwandan genocide, peace be upon them, notice the nasal shape
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: One can see the resemblance of the Oase 2 skull to the Asian skull, very similar nasal apeture.Also the shape above the front teeth in between the top of the mouth to the bottom of the nose, the shape slopes at the side like a triangle pointing up inot that nasal opening. This is similar on the Oase and Asian skulls. But on the African and European skull that shape is more rectangular the sides are vertical, not sloping. Hawkes noted a very low nasal angle. It looks Asian to me
Because Europeans were still going through dental reduction and nasal narrowing at that time. They hadn't reached leptorrhiny. Oase 2 shows signs of nasal narrowing, but the nasal index is 48.9.
The leptorrhine skulls in Europe appear later, e.g. Cro-Magnon 1 and Dolni Vestonice 3 (28,000 - 26,000 BP). So that is why I called Oase 2, narrowish, as opposed to narrow.
It is Europe where nasal narrowing first occurred, because this is where dental-reduction begun by cooking food. Cooking only became common in southern regions much later. See the extract from Brace (2000) I posted, continued:
"Reduction [in teeth] has amounted to at least 40 - 45 percent in those who live in the north temperate zone between Europe and the Middle East. This is the maximum amount of dental reduction visible in modern Homo sapiens, though it is equaled in spots in eastern Asia such as Hong Kong and the northern island of Hokkaido in Japan. The amount of reduction is evident in Australia where is runs 10 and 15 percent. In sub-Saharan Africa, the amount of reduction in the groups in the Congo Basin and in West Africa with the largest jaw is around 25 percent, but it runs up to 40 percent in the Horn of Africa".
Europeans have smaller jaws and teeth than all Sub-Saharan populations, including Horners. This shows in Hanihara's study on overall tooth size.
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
The CI study seems worth a read, even though the last time it was referenced by Ben on ES in March, the interpretation appeared to be different.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
Fig. 1. Neighbor-joining dendrogram for a series of prehistoric and recent human populations (Craniofacial measurements)
For example, France, England, Italy and Greece are not on the same branch (aka they are distinct) but are still related to each others. As they share common ancestors (as we know it genetically, linguistically,etc for examples, or can see it a bit on the graph above).
African populations are on the same branch. But even if they weren't, it wouldn't mean that they don't share common ancestors and some biological traits from that historical period with other Africans, while some other traits would have drift differently after their separation and migration to other areas within Africa.
The reason why African populations share more genes and physical appearances that some would expect from such ancient population is because most African populations, including modern East and West Africans, had their common origin in North-Eastern Africa after the OOA migrations. So this common origin in North-Eastern Africa is pretty recent in term of human history.
The migrations of African people like Niger-Congo people, Bantu people (also Niger-Congo), Nilo-Saharan, Cushitic, etc. Is a relatively recent phenomena. Recent would be post-dating the OOA migrations. Before those "recent" migrations within Africa, most African populations shared a common origin in North-eastern Africa .
You can see it on the graph above. You can also see it genetically through the common E and E-P2 ancestors as well as common L2a, L3eikx, L3bf, L0a, etc MtDNA ancestors. Other haplogroups are related to each others through admixtures.
After the OOA migrations. Africa was not static and there was also "inside Africa migrations", starting in North-Eastern Africa for all African language groups and populations.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by cass: It is Europe where nasal narrowing first occurred, because this is where dental-reduction begun by cooking food. Cooking only became common in southern regions much later.
LOL. Cooking began with Homo Erectus when they discovered fire. There is abundant evidence that Africans during the Aqualithic period made stews.
quote:Originally posted by cass: It is Europe where nasal narrowing first occurred, because this is where dental-reduction begun by cooking food. Cooking only became common in southern regions much later.
LOL. Cooking began with Homo Erectus when they discovered fire. There is abundant evidence that Africans during the Aqualithic period made stews.
Cooking did not originate in Europe.
.
Yeah, that bit was ridiculous too. Cooking existed in humans since a very long time ago, much before the OOA migrations (and that's an understatement).
Also the earliest pottery in the world, used for storing and cooking food, came from Ounjougou, Mali, in the South-Western Sahara.
quote:Wild grasses and pearl millet started sprouting on the former desert land. But for man to be able to eat and properly digest the new plants, they had to be stored and cooked in pots.
"Man had to adapt his food and way of life by inventing pottery," said the Geneva professor.
quote: “Just buy Climatic Races and Descent Groups by Grover Krantz (1980).
He discusses a "Saharan climatic race":
"Saharan: Skin color was dark with a medium fringe on the northern edge. Dark eyes and hair were universal. Cranial hair was wavy or curly with tight spiraling only in the extreme south .”
Not exactly sure where the “extreme south” would be in this sense, or the implications from an ancient Egyptian perspective, but there are Egyptian afro combs from the Badarian into the dynastic period.
From Michael Rice's Egypt's Making:
"They [the Badarians] also manufactured a very striking range of combs in ivory; the shape of these is distinctly African and is like the combs used even today by Africans and those of African descent" (p25).
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: ^'Ben'?
The CI study seems worth a read, even though the last time it was referenced by Ben on ES in March, the interpretation appeared to be different.
Its much the same, but Zaharan is too dumb to understand what was posted. lol. He named the thread this: "Brachychephaly in Nile Valley shows Egyptians were not tropical" (?) when I stated the opposite - that brachycephaly hardly appears in any pre-dynastic/early dynastic cranial series:
quote:Cass There is no influx of brachycephaly (it is as low as 1 - 3 percent) until Dynasty IX, and the mesocephaly is always low or fairly low, until the late historical periods (Romans, Greeks etc).
quote:Ben
* Only 1% of pre-dynastic Egyptian skulls are brachycephalic (round or spherical): El Amrah 1% (101 skulls), Nagada, 1.9% (314 skulls), El Badari 0% (79 skulls).
* From Dynasty I to VI (Old Kingdom), brachycephaly does also not exceed a single percent. However during the First Intermediate Period of Egypt 2181–2055 BC or Dynasty IX, 11.6% of skulls are brachycephalic or round.
There was a 10% increase in brachycephalic skulls during Dynasty IX. This is consistent with a migration of Eurasian rounder-headed peoples. But by no means was this 'influx' into Egypt ever big, they only equated to about 1/10 of the population.
Dart (1959, 1974) linked these brachycephalic intruders to "Armenoids" from the Levant.
- Dart, R. A. (1959). Africa's Place in the Emergence of Civilisation. Van Riebeeck Lectures. S. Afr. Broadcasting Corporation. - Dart, R. (1974). "Cultural Diffusion from, in and to Africa". In: Grafton Elliot Smith: The Man and His Work. Elkin, A. P (ed). Sydney University Press.
It is very strange my post there was opposed or received with so much hostility: when it shows there was only ever small Eurasian migration into Egypt, until the much later historical periods.
Ancient Egyptians were predominantly long-headed (dolichocephalic) however as I noted - their indices are higher than Sub-Saharan population means (who are more lower dolicho's, and have a greater tendency towards hyper-dolichocephalism):
quote:Ben And while the majority are dolichocephalic, there is a sizable amount of borderline or low mesocephalic skulls, even in some (early) dynasties reaching 40%. Basically this supports Beals data; we should expect the cephalic index of the ancient Egyptians at subtropical latitude, being more temperate than the tropics, to grade into mesocephaly. So they are less long-headed than 'blacks'.
quote:Cass
...the mesocephaly is always low or fairly low, until the late historical periods (Romans, Greeks etc). So the pre-dynastic/dynastic Egyptians were predominantly long-headed.
I did say borderline/low/grading into mesocephaly, not that mesocephaly was itself high, but perhaps I should have rephrased it better.
Mean Cephalic Index variation is distributed clinally: it gradually increases the further north you are of the equator. So in the 'intermediate' or medial zones (e.g. "sub-tropics"), you will find population averages that are either high dolichocephalic or borderline mesocephalic:
I hardly posted at ESreloaded. I used it to download a paper (Angel, J. Lawrence. "Biological relations of Egyptian and Eastern Mediterranean populations during Pre-dynastic and Dynastic times.") And my thread was just this:
This was my only serious discussion there. My other 20 posts or so were trolling the site posing as a typical Anthroscaper after someone was guessing at my identity. But I presume people knew it was me since I referenced the Dart study. Its too obscure for it to be anyone else, since I have a history for posting this sort of stuff...
The comment I did leave leave on skin colour though, was true, as far as I can tell:
quote:What skin color was primitive for the hominid lineage?
Before questions about changes in integumentary pigmentation in modern human evolution can be addressed, consideration must be given to the probable primitive condition of the integument in the earliest members of the human lineage. It is likely that the integument of the earliest protohominids was similar to that of our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, being white or lightly pigmented and covered with dark hair (Post et al., 1975b). In the chimpanzee, exposed areas of skin vary considerably in their coloration depending on the species and subspecies under consideration, but in all groups facial pigmentation increases with age and exposure to UV radiation (Post et al., 1975b). Except for the face, eyelids, lips, pinnae, friction surfaces, and anogenital areas, the epidermis of most nonhuman primates is unpigmented due to an absence of active melanocytes (Montagna & Machida, 1966; Montagna et al., 1966a,, suggesting that this is the primitive condition for primates in general.
- Jablonski, N. G., & Chaplin, G. (2000). The evolution of human skin coloration.Journal of human evolution, 39(1), 57-106.
In evolutionary terms of primates, dark skin was acquired recently in humans (Mid Pleistocene?) and it is a highly 'abnormal' specialized adaptation in comparison to other primates. It is not a defect at all, so i'm not trying to reverse the "Melanin" theory/albino claims.
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: cass said:
quote: “Just buy Climatic Races and Descent Groups by Grover Krantz (1980).
He discusses a "Saharan climatic race":
"Saharan: Skin color was dark with a medium fringe on the northern edge. Dark eyes and hair were universal. Cranial hair was wavy or curly with tight spiraling only in the extreme south .”
Not exactly sure where the “extreme south” would be in this sense, or the implications from an ancient Egyptian perspective, but there are Egyptian afro combs from the Badarian into the dynastic period.
From Michael Rice's Egypt's Making:
"They [the Badarians] also manufactured a very striking range of combs in ivory; the shape of these is distinctly African and is like the combs used even today by Africans and those of African descent" (p25).
I agree. There's no established link between hair texture and climate. Krantz doesn't also list it as a "climatic trait". I don't know why he mentions it there. The ancient Egyptian artwork though shows curly or wavy hair was far more common than woolly.
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
Because hair is perceived as a racial identifier. That's why he tried to marginalise "hair with tight spiralling" with his reference to the "extreme south" (of wherever).
quote: Krantz' "Saharan climatic race" is basically the northern reddish/lighter brown skinned variant of Hierneux' "Elongated African"
Do these people still exist? Does he give examples/best fits?
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by cass: It is Europe where nasal narrowing first occurred, because this is where dental-reduction begun by cooking food. Cooking only became common in southern regions much later.
LOL. Cooking began with Homo Erectus when they discovered fire. There is abundant evidence that Africans during the Aqualithic period made stews.
Cooking did not originate in Europe.
.
If erectines were chewing cooked or boiled food, they would show dental/jaw-size reduction (cooking renders food more tender, meaning that less chewing was necessary). They don't though. All fossilized teeth and jaws of erectus are massive.
The earliest evidence for prehistoric ovens is from Europe - which is why Europeans have the smallest teeth and jaws, and is why nasal-narrowing is first found in the European fossil record.
And yea... I'd take Brace's word on this more seriously than anyone. He's basically the world expert on the subject of human tooth size reduction.
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:ORiginally posted by Cass: You're splitting humans into continental groups which is basically the old Linnean concept of race.
^POW!!
The irony.. the irony people.. You know this forum has gone to sh!t when these ES "vets" are caught red-handed violating the tenets of their own anti- race ideology (which they clearly only support conditionally). Notice that by arguing against substructure in the Sahara he (Zaharan) is also undermining his purported support for OOA (OOA predicts populations will be structured according to isolation by distance). Just where do these flip-floppers stand?
--Refuted by OOA literature --Refuted by race denouncing literature --Refuted by Brace' empirical data --Refuted by Hanihara's empirical data --Refuted by Irish' empirical data --Refuted by Ricaut's empirical data --Refuted by Strouhal's empirical data
I've baited him and got those same "cluster" replies, I see them also here, where all Africans are some cluster, that group before non-Africans:
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: The whole point is that they are all indigenous Africans, who cluster closer to the Ancient Egyptians particularly in the early phases than non indigenous Africans like Europeans or SW Asians i.e. "Middle Easterners".
And yes, I was always branded a "racist"/"evil" or whatever for doing this before, but instead for Europeans/West Asians i.e. 'caucasoids' (of course). I've since abandoned all that nonsense, yet he's doing the exact same now for Africa, while at the same time criticizing others who do it for 'caucasoids', especially the 'HBD' people.
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
Because hair is perceived as a racial identifier. That's why he tried to marginalise "hair with tight spiralling" with his reference to the "extreme south" (of wherever).
quote: Krantz' "Saharan climatic race" is basically the northern reddish/lighter brown skinned variant of Hierneux' "Elongated African"
Do these people still exist? Does he give examples/best fits?
They're just people who show regional/local adaptation to the Sahara desert, but there's a cline inside the desert itself (so people to the southern border are darker skinned than the northerners). Any divisions of the eco-clines are arbitrary, but some sort of split is needed to study adaptation to environmental conditions or climatic variables. "Climatic races" or ecotypes are functional entities, and exist ecologically, regardless if we can classify or categorize them.
On the Concept of Biological Race and Its Applicability to Humans Kaplan, Jonathan and Pigliucci, Massimo (2002)
Abstract Biological research on race has often been seen as motivated by or lending credence to underlying racist attitudes; in part for this reason, recently philosophers and biologists have gone through great pains to essentially deny the existence of biological human races. We argue that human races, in the biological sense of local populations adapted to particular environments, do in fact exist; such races are best understood through the common ecological concept of ecotypes. However, human ecotypic races do not in general correspond with `folk` racial categories, largely because many similar ecotypes have multiple independent origins. Consequently, while human natural races exist, they have little or nothing in common with `folk` races.
So people adapted to the Saharan desert would be more or less as Krantz described them, perhaps with no regard to hair texture. The number of "climatic traits" is incredibly small, so any classification of "climatic races"/ecotypes is going to be pretty simplistic anyway.
Because all this is a cline, I agree there would have been ancient Upper Egyptians that could be perceived indistinguishable from the 'blacks' (i.e. dark brown skinned) Sub-Saharan Africans.
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I agree with Swenet on most the stuff here now having read a few of his posts on this thread (perhaps excluding OOA though, but that's pretty irrelevant to this debate). Once you understand clines you can reconcile all the old data like Strouhal, Coon etc., when they speak of 'Negroid-Caucasoid' hybrids, and so on. Its not that any of the data Coon or Strouhal reported is wrong, only that they falsely/wrongly interpreted it.
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by cass: ............ Once you understand clines you can reconcile all the old data like Strouhal, Coon etc., when they speak of 'Negroid-Caucasoid' hybrids, and so on. Its not that any of the data Coon or Strouhal reported is wrong, only that they falsely/wrongly interpreted it.
This. BTW since everyone here knows who you are. perhaps you wouldnt mind sharing the works you published on North East Africa??
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: Because all this is a cline, I agree there would have been ancient Upper Egyptians that could be perceived indistinguishable from the 'blacks' (i.e. dark brown skinned) Sub-Saharan Africans.
As you'll have read in this thread, the debate was about which 'sub-Saharan' phenotype would have been modal in Egypt. The approach I find most persuasive, independently of reading the argument here, is that they would have mostly -though not exclusively- been what Keita described in a youtube presentation as "Somali-like", or "elongated".
I'm also reminded of this:
"Strouhal (1971) microscopically examined some hair which had been preserved on a Badrarian skull. The analysis was interpreted as suggesting a stereotypical tropical African-European hybrid (mulatto). However this hair is grossly no different from that of Fulani, some Kanuri, or Somali and does not require a gene flow explanation any more than curly hair in Greece necessarily does. Extremely "wooly" hair is not the only kind native to tropical Africa.." (S. O. Y. Keita.(1993). "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History in Africa 20 (1993) 129-54)
What's your own personal view on the idea that the ancient Egyptians, in terms of their appearance, were mostly "Somali-like"?
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
This file photo shows relatives and fellow journalists praying over the body of Somali journalist Mohamed Mohamud Timacade, on October 27, 2013, during his funeral after he succumbed to severe bullet injuries at a hospital in the capital, Mogadishu (AFP Photo/Mohamed Abdiwahab)
Somali National Army (SNA) soldiers sit during a passing-out ceremony 17 March 2012 marking the conclusion of a 10-week advanced training course conducted by the military component of the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM)
Sharif Sheikh Ahmed, President of Somali (2009–2012)
Oromo Liberation Front Rebels
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: @ cass
quote: Because all this is a cline, I agree there would have been ancient Upper Egyptians that could be perceived indistinguishable from the 'blacks' (i.e. dark brown skinned) Sub-Saharan Africans.
As you'll have read in this thread, the debate was about which 'sub-Saharan' phenotype would have been modal in Egypt. The approach I find most persuasive, independently of reading the argument here, is that they would have mostly -though not exclusively- been what Keita described in a youtube presentation as "Somali-like", or "elongated".
I'm also reminded of this:
"Strouhal (1971) microscopically examined some hair which had been preserved on a Badrarian skull. The analysis was interpreted as suggesting a stereotypical tropical African-European hybrid (mulatto). However this hair is grossly no different from that of Fulani, some Kanuri, or Somali and does not require a gene flow explanation any more than curly hair in Greece necessarily does. Extremely "wooly" hair is not the only kind native to tropical Africa.." (S. O. Y. Keita.(1993). "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History in Africa 20 (1993) 129-54)
What's your own personal view on the idea that the ancient Egyptians, in terms of their appearance, were mostly "Somali-like"?
Population Affinities of the Jebel Sahaba Skeletal Sample (Trenton Holliday 2013)
Oddly on this limb ratio chart Nubians are somewhat distant from Kerma ( and Jebel Sahaba-Sudan) Egyptian and AAs being in between them
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
[/url]
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic