Yet and still Greece was a WHITE European civilization, no matter IF there was African ancestry in the lineages of some Greeks. Similarly, ancient Egypt was a BLACK African civlization, even if SOME had levantine ancestry. The U.S. is a WHITE civilization even if there are MANY people from MANY backgrounds present in the U.S. The same goes for modern European countries, who all have sizable foreign populations. The presence of foreigners does not mean that everyone is "mixed" and no matter how much people talk about it, the U.S. is not really a "melting pot", where everyone blends together into a "mixed" ethnic identity. Therefore, trying to put ancient Egypt into a "mixed" category, as if MOST ancient Egyptians were of "mixed" ancestry is ridiculous, and if they WERE mixed with anyone, it was OTHER Africans, not Levantines or Europeans. This where EVIDENCE is important as there IS NO EVIDENCE of ancient Egyptian populations being derived from LEVANTINE sources. HOWEVER, there is AMPLE and OVERWHELMING evidence of ancient Egyptians being derived from African populations to the South and West. Therefore, EVIDENCE is what separates SPECULATION from FACT and FANTASY from REALITY.
Probably like the Dominican Republic compared to Haiti. Both have lighter and darker skinned people. But the level of predominance is different.
^This is a dreadfully terrible example simply given the obvious fact that Dominicans are not for the most part (not to exclude in significant part) predominantly of African ancestry, unlike the ancient Egyptians.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:In fact the, uniserial harpoon may have spread from the LGM Great Lakes region to the Sahara during the early holocene among Y-Chromosome haplogroup A carriers. Africans practiced pre-LGM fishing cultivation techniques that may have created a cultural predisposition for the later cultivation of crops. The understanding of the cyclical nature of rain, sun and "fish farming" could be the basis of later "neolithic revolutions".
Could you expand on this and provide me with a refereed citation, please.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
This is a person who sees thru and rejects Jamie's mixed-race racist ideology.
OOOOOOOOOOOHHHHH!!!!!!! Ok, I understand this dude now. I really never payed attention to this Mustafino guy because I really sincerely didn't get his beef with Egyptians being black or black skin or whatever lol. It's always lovely to finally understand things in life.
So he is one of those hybrid mofo's that advocates that the whole world(in a racial construct) is mixed?!?!?
That is just HIS way of coping with the fact that he is mixed(which is something ALL humans have to do in our psyche...COPE). You guys shouldn't brow beat him for that anymore than he can brow beat African Americans being slaves to whites in America and couldn't do a thing about it. That is an issue that is deep rooted and isn't going to be changed nor facilitated on EITHER side.
Why argue with this guy when he is ACTUALLY being honest and sincere in his perception of the argument..he technically isn't trolling, but this issue technically isn't going to change him.
Jaime you just need to say what most mulattos say and that is "I have the best of both worlds..or three or whatever you are".
WHEW I'm glad I am not mixed lmao!!!!!! I guess now in 2007 Africans that aren't mixed can FINALLY have something to be proud of
Just remember folks....The Universe, Galaxy, Planets REVOLVE..Existence/life is a CYCLE..catch it at the right time!!!!! Posts: 336 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: Evergreen wrote:
quote:In fact the, uniserial harpoon may have spread from the LGM Great Lakes region to the Sahara during the early holocene among Y-Chromosome haplogroup A carriers. Africans practiced pre-LGM fishing cultivation techniques that may have created a cultural predisposition for the later cultivation of crops. The understanding of the cyclical nature of rain, sun and "fish farming" could be the basis of later "neolithic revolutions".
Could you expand on this and provide me with a refereed citation, please.
Evergreen Writes:
I certainly can. There are a number of different information nodes in my paragraph above. I am not going to blindly provide references and expand without knowing specifically which part of my statement you are questioning?
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:quote: Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: Evergreen wrote: quote: In fact the, uniserial harpoon may have spread from the LGM Great Lakes region to the Sahara during the early holocene among Y-Chromosome haplogroup A carriers. Africans practiced pre-LGM fishing cultivation techniques that may have created a cultural predisposition for the later cultivation of crops. The understanding of the cyclical nature of rain, sun and "fish farming" could be the basis of later "neolithic revolutions". Could you expand on this and provide me with a refereed citation, please. Evergreen Writes:
I certainly can. There are a number of different information nodes in my paragraph above. I am not going to blindly provide references and expand without knowing specifically which part of my statement you are questioning?
Maybe in this group every request for information is seen as a "questioning" and you did ignore my other request on another thread, but I just want more information. I'm also a fiend for references .
I was particularly interested in getting an expansion and reference for "In fact the, uniserial harpoon may have spread from the LGM Great Lakes region to the Sahara during the early holocene among Y-Chromosome haplogroup A carriers. "
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: Evergreen wrote: [QUOTE] Africans practiced pre-LGM fishing cultivation techniques that may have created a cultural predisposition for the later cultivation of crops. The understanding of the cyclical nature of rain, sun and "fish farming" could be the basis of later "neolithic revolutions".
ANTHROPOLOGY AND ARCHAEOLOGY African finds revise cultural roots
By BRUCE BOWER New evidence indicates that people living in Africa 90,000 years ago carved barbed bone points to spear fish and even organized annual fishing expeditions. This discovery challenges the widely accepted theory that the complex thinking and behavior necessary for major cultural changes arose in Europe no earlier than 35,000 years ago. "What's exciting is that we're seeing strategic planning for subsistence by people who lived so long ago," says Alison S. Brooks, an archaeologist at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. "Humans in Africa invented sophisticated [tool] technologies long before their European counterparts, who have often been credited with initiating modern culture." Brooks and John E. Yellen, an archaeologist at the National Science Foundation in Arlington, Va., directed excavations between 1986 and 1990 at a location in eastern Zaire called Katanda. Work there yielded eight barbed bone points, three unbarbed bone points, and a dagger-shaped bone, Brooks and her colleagues report in the April 28 Science. These artifacts were made by grinding a rib or limb bone from a large mammal on a stone anvil or with a stone grinder, the researchers hold. Prehistoric Katanda toolmakers cut a row of three-edged barbs on one side of a bone point and carved rings around the base so that it could be fastened to a wooden shaft. Comparable bone implements in Europe date only to 14,000 years ago, Brooks says. Excavations also unearthed the bones of many animals. Remains of large catfish turned up in particular abundance. These fish spawn in shallow water during the rainy season, which is probably when the Katanda people made visits to the area, armed with bone-tipped spears, Brooks argues. Clusters of artifacts and animal bones at Katanda resemble the debris produced by modern hunter-gatherer families living in the same area, she notes. Current residents still fish, although they now use boats. At other archaeological sites, evidence for organized fishing extends back no earlier than 20,000 years ago. Brooks and her colleagues assign an age of at least 89,000 years to the Katanda finds, based on analyses of uranium content and breakdown in several mammal teeth and measurements of the stored radiation dose in quartz sand just above the artifacts. "This is a highly significant discovery," asserts Jack W. K. Harris, an archaeologist at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J., who directs an Ethiopian excavation (SN: 4/15/95, p.237). "Technological innovations that gave people a reliable food source occurred much earlier than we thought -- and in Africa rather than Europe."
An early form of sedentary living may have emerged at Katanda around 90,000 years ago, with settlements set up during annual periods of intense fishing , Harris contends.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: [QUOTE]I was particularly interested in getting an expansion and reference for "In fact the, uniserial harpoon may have spread from the LGM Great Lakes region to the Sahara during the early holocene ...."
Evergreen Posts:
Barbed bone points: Tradition and continuity in Saharan and Sub-Saharan Africa By J E Yellen African Archaeological Review Vol. 15, No.3, 1998
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: [QUOTE]I was particularly interested in getting an expansion and reference for "In fact the, uniserial harpoon may have spread from the LGM Great Lakes region to the Sahara during the early holocene ...."
Evergreen Posts:
Barbed bone points: Tradition and continuity in Saharan and Sub-Saharan Africa By J E Yellen African Archaeological Review Vol. 15, No.3, 1998
Thanks. Your original post said that the harpoons were diffused in the early Holocene and by y-chromosome haplogroup A carriers.
The passage you quoted from science Daily referred to events 90,000 years ago. not the Holocene-- right?
My university library does not give me access to Yellen's paper, but I've asked someone to get it for me. Does it describe the genetics you refer to?
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: [QUOTE]Your original post said that the harpoons were diffused in the early Holocene and by y-chromosome haplogroup A carriers.
Evergreen Writes:
1) EARLY HOLOCENE DIFFUSION: The Yellen paper addresses the timing for the diffusion of this technology from the Great Lakes region to the Sahara.
2) HAPLOGROUP A CARRIERS: The Great Lakes region is within the ancestral range of Africans that carry the Y-Chromosome A lineage. Hence, if humans migrated from the Great Lakes region and into the Sahara after the LGM one would naturally assume they were Africans that carried this lineage. Haplogroup A is ancestral to East Africa, but has its highest frequency in Sudan. A demic diffusion model is possible, but not required.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: [QUOTE]Your original post said that the harpoons were diffused in the early Holocene and by y-chromosome haplogroup A carriers.
Evergreen Writes:
1) EARLY HOLOCENE DIFFUSION: The Yellen paper addresses the timing for the diffusion of this technology from the Great Lakes region to the Sahara.
2) HAPLOGROUP A CARRIERS: The Great Lakes region is within the ancestral range of Africans that carry the Y-Chromosome A lineage. Hence, if humans migrated from the Great Lakes region and into the Sahara after the LGM one would naturally assume they were Africans that carried this lineage. Haplogroup A is ancestral to East Africa, but has its highest frequency in Sudan. A demic diffusion model is possible, but not required.
Yet and still Greece was a WHITE European civilization, no matter IF there was African ancestry in the lineages of some Greeks. Similarly, ancient Egypt was a BLACK African civlization, even if SOME had levantine ancestry. The U.S. is a WHITE civilization even if there are MANY people from MANY backgrounds present in the U.S. The same goes for modern European countries, who all have sizable foreign populations. The presence of foreigners does not mean that everyone is "mixed" and no matter how much people talk about it, the U.S. is not really a "melting pot", where everyone blends together into a "mixed" ethnic identity. Therefore, trying to put ancient Egypt into a "mixed" category, as if MOST ancient Egyptians were of "mixed" ancestry is ridiculous, and if they WERE mixed with anyone, it was OTHER Africans, not Levantines or Europeans. This where EVIDENCE is important as there IS NO EVIDENCE of ancient Egyptian populations being derived from LEVANTINE sources. HOWEVER, there is AMPLE and OVERWHELMING evidence of ancient Egyptians being derived from African populations to the South and West. Therefore, EVIDENCE is what separates SPECULATION from FACT and FANTASY from REALITY.
Probably like the Dominican Republic compared to Haiti. Both have lighter and darker skinned people. But the level of predominance is different.
^This is a dreadfully terrible example simply given the obvious fact that Dominicans are not for the most part (not to exclude in significant part) predominantly of African ancestry, unlike the ancient Egyptians.
No it is not as we are talking perception, not admixture. People from different parts of the world can turn up looking similar without having the same ancestry. By and large Egyptians portayed themselves as more varied than their Southern Neighbors.
Posts: 169 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by maa'-kherew: [QUOTE]What stupidity. greece is not a White population and the US is not a White country. It's largest ethnicity is White.
Evergreen Writes:
Yet earlier you claimed there were no humans who were White or Black. No credibility.
Nice try. It is called an ethnicity. In the US there is the White ethnicity. Not a race. In fact, many people who identify as White have multiple ancestries.
Posts: 169 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: [QUOTE]"A small core of cultivators from central Turkey first tookagriculture westward, the researchers propose. Striking anatomical similarities link early farmers in central Turkey to people who, around 8,000 years ago, began growing crops in Greece and nearby parts of southeastern Europe." [/qb]
Evergreen Writes:
This is correct Mystery Solver. Brace's email response is misleading. Angel analyzed EARLY Neolithic remains in Anatolia and Greece and noted Sub-Saharan affinities. Food production and population increases go hand-in-hand. So the spill over into Eurasia from the Nile Valley is reasonable.
Effective population size was greater in Africa than other regions of the world because Africans were the first people to invent microlithic tools such as the sickle, arrow-heads, etc. They were also far in advance as it relates to grindstones and the uniserial harpoon.
In fact the, uniserial harpoon may have spread from the LGM Great Lakes region to the Sahara during the early holocene among Y-Chromosome haplogroup A carriers. Africans practiced pre-LGM fishing cultivation techniques that may have created a cultural predisposition for the later cultivation of crops. The understanding of the cyclical nature of rain, sun and "fish farming" could be the basis of later "neolithic revolutions".
Upper Nile Valley Africans similarly practiced a delayed-response, cultivators culture along the pre-Holocene Nile. This culture was disrupted during the late LGM and these Africans migrated into the Levant.
Brace's response:
quote:The Nea Nikomedia sample I measured in Greece was from the Early Neolithic, and had no hints of Africa. The Neolithic in North Africa all came from t he Middle East, and it did have hints of Africa in it, but I suspect that came from the Pleistocene predecessors in the area. It soon disappeared by and large because of increasing flow from the Middle East. It should be noted that the Neolithic of Anatolia did not come north from the Nile Valley. Instead, agriculture was first developed in the northern part of the Near East, and then went south into the Nile valley. It also went west along the Mediterranean shore of North Africa, but the people who carried it had no traces of Africa in them. In the Neolithic that went west through Greece and beyond, there was no hint of Africa, so there are no African traces in the Neolithic of Italy, Switzerland, France, Portugal, Germany, Denmark and England, and I have measured Neolithic samples from each of those countries. What Larry Angel saw in the Levantine Mesolithic was just larger teeth (and hence prognathism) than in more recent samples. It was the same reason that Albert Gaudry and Marcellin Boule claimed to see something African in the Grimaldi specimen from Monaco. In fact, Boule had taken out the deciduous molars, excavated the premolars and permanent second and third molars and in fact installed an adult dentition on the face of a ten-year-old child whose face was shortened by a third by the removal of those adult teeth from their alveolar location. Of course he had prognathism. But as you get back into the Pleistocene, teeth are larger and prognathism more pronounced, but it is not African influence but just larger jaws and teeth. And carried back another 20,000 years or so, the form is simply called Neanderthal. C. L. Brace
posted
^Evergreen and Rasol have addressed those statements made by Brace before, but as usual you never listen.
quote:Originally posted by incorrigible troll: Neither of which has straight hair like Tuthmosis, but you do show one point...[qb]
Nice nitpicking, but you show NO point. It's already been known that the hair of a of millenia old mummies are altered from their original form.
quote: Same country same time period, one is East African decent all the way, the other's ancestors migrated from somewhere else: West Africa (Hamar tribe is Bantu)
WRONG agiain! Hamar are NOT Bantus but are native to East Africa! Not only do they not carry any West or Central African lineages but ancient East African lineages, but the Hamar language is an Afrasian language!!
As usual your try at a smart sensible response fails. But you are free to try again Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
The Nea Nikomedia sample I measured in Greece was from the Early Neolithic, and had no hints of Africa. The Neolithic in North Africa all came from the Middle East, and it did have hints of Africa in it, but I suspect that came from the Pleistocene predecessors in the area.
Brace obviously likes to play acrobatics with words whenever he uses "hint of Africa", "hint of sub-Saharan", or what have you.
Firstly, he got it wrong, when he said that the "Neolithic of North Africa all came from the "Middle East"", with "Middle East" being another word of play by Eurocentrists. The Nile Valley Neolithic is considered to be independent of that of "southwest Asia". Now, what he presumes to be a "hint of Africa" in the Neolithic of "southwest Asia", whether by this he means biologically, culturally or both, is to be expected, given the outflow of Africans from the Nile Valley into the Levant in the late Paleolithic. This migration was accompanied by flow of culture, as indicated by new lithic tools [see Bar Yosef] and linguistics [Ehret et al.].
"Brace's response":
It soon disappeared by and large because of increasing flow from the Middle East. It should be noted that the Neolithic of Anatolia did not come north from the Nile Valley.
Brace is beating a strawman here. Of course the "Neolithic of Anatolia" didn't come directly from the Nile Valley, but it came directly from the Levant, where the Neolithic was sparked by descendants of the aforementioned upper Paleolithic migrants in the region.
"Brace's response":
Instead, agriculture was first developed in the northern part of the Near East, and then went south into the Nile valley.
Another play of words by ambiguously using "northern part of the Near East". It is indicative of the shaky premises of argumentation. The Neolithic revolution occurred in the "Levant" in "Southwest Asia", amongst the group referred to by "Natufians", and again, he got his "facts" wrong. The Nile Valley Neolithic is independent from that of "Southwest Asia". The burden of proof is on Brace to demonstrate otherwise.
"Brace's response":
It also went west along the Mediterranean shore of North Africa, but the people who carried it had no traces of Africa in them.
This [yet another ambiguous claim] is based on what; skeleton or genetics, or both?
"Brace's response":
In the Neolithic that went west through Greece and beyond, there was no hint of Africa, so there are no African traces in the Neolithic of Italy, Switzerland, France, Portugal, Germany, Denmark and England, and I have measured Neolithic samples from each of those countries.
Wishful thinking that directly contradicts his very own study about Neolithic African and modern specimens, Neolithic southern and Northern Europeans specimens, contemporary Europeans specimens, and Natufian specimens. He proclaimed that there was a "clear sub-Saharan" element in the Natufians he had examined, and yet now, he will have us believe there is only a "whiff of sub-Saharan" in the them. Brace has yet to demonstrate why his "Neolithic Northern European" specimens contrast the contemporary groups of that region, while less so in southern Europe. It is this sort of play with words into ambiguous claims, that is undoubtedly affecting Brace's credibility yet again.
"Brace's response":
What Larry Angel saw in the Levantine Mesolithic was just larger teeth (and hence prognathism) than in more recent samples. It was the same reason that Albert Gaudry and Marcellin Boule claimed to see something African in the Grimaldi specimen from Monaco. In fact, Boule had taken out the deciduous molars, excavated the premolars and permanent second and third molars and in fact installed an adult dentition on the face of a ten-year-old child whose face was shortened by a third by the removal of those adult teeth from their alveolar location. Of course he had prognathism. But as you get back into the Pleistocene, teeth are larger and prognathism more pronounced, but it is not African influence but just larger jaws and teeth. And carried back another 20,000 years or so, the form is simply called Neanderthal.
C. L. Brace
This response is at the very height of hypocrisy, whereby in his recent study, the man [Brace] proclaimed that there was a "clear sub-Saharan" element in the Natufians, as I have just stated moments ago above, and now telling people that the so-called "sub-Saharan" traits are nothing more than essentially archaic traits:
If the late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, there was ****clearly*** a sub-Saharan African element present of ***almost equal importance*** as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element. - C.L. Brace (2005)
^Wow, talk about hyprocrisy!
Fact of the matter is, Larry Angel in his own words, attributes this to the flow of Africans into 'southwest Asia". And this goes beyond mere "prognathism". In the man's own word:
one can identify Negroid traits of **nose** and **prognathism** appearing in Natufian latest hunters(McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers (Angel, 1972), probably from Nubia via the predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians" - Larry Angel
Angel clearly attributes his observation to "movement" of Africans into the Levant, which is interesting in that years later, this would be corroborated by genetics.
^Now, let see Brace try to misintrepret this.
Elsewhere I posted:
Mugharet El- Wad (also spelled Magharet El-Wad or Wady El-Magarah) is a cave on the western side of Mt. Carmel, near the town of Athlit, in present day Israel. Translated into English, Mugharet El-Wad means 'cave of the valley.' It is the largest cave found on Mt. Carmel.
Proof of human occupation at this site has been found dating back approximately 45,000 years. The most significant finds, however, belong to the Natufian Culture of approximately 10,500 to 8,500 years ago (after the retreat of the last glaciation). This was a highly developed culture that made the transition from a Paleolithic to a Neolithic culture and transformed from a hunter-gatherer life-style to one of plant cultivation and animal domestication. The term Natufian was coined by Miss Dorothy Garrod. She was a pre-historian at Cambridge University, who was responsible for a large number of excavations in Palestine from 1928 to 1934, under the direction of the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem and the American School of Prehistoric Research. Some of the subsequent excavations at this site include a (1980-1981) dig by F. Falla and O. Bar Yosef, and since 1980 by M. Weinstein-Evron.
The findings at this site include more than one hundred individual human burials on the terrace directly in front of the cave. The burials reveal body positions that were tightly flexed, like that of a fetal position. Some were found with ornamentation of bone, stone, or dentalia shell.
Many flint tools were also found at the site, many of these were the lunate, a crescent or arc shaped blade probably used to tip reed arrows (Albright P.59). Other tools found include scrapers for treating animal skins, points for wood and bone working, awls for piercing, stones used as fishing weights, skins and decorative beads (Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs). Also of note were the sickle blades attached to a wooden or bone scythe which would indicate the agricultural inclinations of the Natufians. An ornately carved deer scapula was found to have use-wear markings that wound indicate that it was used in the smoothing and straightening of wooded shafts (Campana P. 237).
Albright, William Foxwell. The Archaeology of Palestine. Baltimore, Maryland Penguin Books 1961.
Campana, Douglas V. "A Natufian Shaft-Straightener from Mugharet El Wad, Israel: An Example of Wear Pattern Analysis" Journal of Field Archaeology 6 (1979): 237-242.
Written by: Travis Calvert
And now, courtesy of the University of Cambridge, the department of archeology:
Garrod’s unpublished Shukbah field diary, first day of exca-vation, 5 April 1928. 65 “Trench started against E. wall . . . Some pottery, flint (some derived Mousterian), bones. At 70 cm depth found skeleton of child. It lay on its side with legs drawn up . . . Fragments of a second juvenile skeleton lay against the wall at the same level.” On 5 April 1928, as well as finding evidence of a Mousterian unknown in Europe, Garrod also immediately unearthed the first remains of the Natufians who were “perhaps the earliest farmers” (Bar-Yosef 1998b: 162).“Larger blunted-back knives are common,” Garrod (1932a: 258) observed, “and a number of these have on their edges the peculiar polish produced by cutting corn or grass.” These discoveries at Shukbah set the agenda for future research by raising new and persistent questions concerning the origin of agriculture and the proper definition of the Neolithic. (By courtesy of the MAN.)
According to Bar-Yosef (1998b: 159), the most documented sequence from foraging to farming is in the Near East and the Natufian, with its evidence of cereal harvesting, is the “threshold for this major evolutionary change.” “The Natufian,” wrote Caton-Thompson (1969: 346) “is the turning point between the desert and the sown, between food gatherers and food producers, between wild animal and the domestic.” Garrod did not seem to recognise the importance of the Natufian finds at first; she was surprised that there was no pottery nor domesticated animals as would be expected in Europe (Garrod 1932a). Although Dorothea Bate later found that the then Middle Natufian, or Shukbah Natufian, had domesticated dogs, Garrod’s 1928 report concentrated on the Mousterian with its implications for the origins of the Upper Palaeolithic in Europe rather than the origins of agriculture or the Neolithic revolution in the Near East. “Little at that time could she have realised that she had found the nucleus of future discoveries,” observed Caton- Thompson (1969: 346). Only later did Garrod (1957: 226) clearly note that her discovery of evidence of harvesting and of the domestication of dogs, without evidence of pottery, questioned the European definition of the Neolithic; “the old terms Mesolithic and Neolithic are no longer strictly applicable,” she concluded…
In 1928, Charles Lambert had uncovered, during a preliminary investigation at el- Wad, the first prehistoric art object discovered in the Near East, a finely carved bone animal head. He had also discovered human, later **identified as Natufian**, burials.
^The above collection seems to serve as a window for observation of the change in attitude towards these specimens called "Natufians"; from the status of being mere "cannibals" to early "agriculturalists", the Natufians have gained a distinction of "civilizing" Europeans.
Fact of the matter is, Euro researchers had long recognized the "sub-Saharan" affinities of the Natufians at the moment it was first revealed to the scientific community in the 20th century. Initially, these Natufian crania were greeted with relative 'indifference' and associated with little significance; it was only later, as archeological finds piled, that the true significance of these "Natufian" finds began to gain appreciation, and thereby, emphasis on their Levantine homeland and 'accomplishments' in early agriculture began to take hold more so than their "Negroid" appearance, which was the center of attention when these specimens were initially revealed in the 20s or 30s than their accomplishments in setting the stage for agriculture in the "Near East". Brace's claim makes it seem like Angel was either the first person or one of the few people to recognize the "sub-Saharan" traits in Natufians, by downplaying the point that this had been attributed to the 'movement' and subsequent 'miscegenation' between African migrants and in situ Levantine groups, as noted by not one researcher but several; fact is, this was recognized by many others before Angel, as clearly evident here:
They were clearly a Negroid people, said Sir Arthur, with wide faces flat- noses and long large heads. - 1932 New York Times publication discussed here...
"[The caves of Erq-el-Ahmar] . . . Produced 132 individuals for Miss Garrod. All these Natufians share the same physical type, completely different from that of earlier Palestinians. They are short, about 160 cm.* and dolichocephalic. They were probably Cro-Magnoid Mediterraneans, presenting certain Negroid characteristics attributable to crossbreeding..." - Furon
….which again, is attributed to the ‘movement’ of people, presumably from Africa into the Levant.
On an interesting note, this piece from the above citation:
All these Natufians share the same physical type, completely different from that of **earlier Palestinians**. - Furon
...stabs Brace's claim at the heart, when he tries to imply that the so-called "Negroid" traits are nothing more than persistance of archaic traits in Paleolithic and Neolithic populations, in this piece:
But as you get back into the Pleistocene, teeth are larger and prognathism more pronounced, but it is not African influence but just larger jaws and teeth. And carried back another 20,000 years or so, the form is simply called Neanderthal. - "Brace's e-mail response" to a Egyptsearch poster
^"Different from that of earlier Palestinians", kind 'a puts the nail in the coffin to that rationale, doesn't it!
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Agreed. And considering the self-contradicting and "senility" perhaps this is just more distortion from our mixed-up troll(?) Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^Evergreen and Rasol have addressed those statements made by Brace before, but as usual you never listen.
quote:Originally posted by incorrigible troll: Neither of which has straight hair like Tuthmosis, but you do show one point...[qb]
Nice nitpicking, but you show NO point. It's already been known that the hair of a of millenia old mummies are altered from their original form.
quote: Same country same time period, one is East African decent all the way, the other's ancestors migrated from somewhere else: West Africa (Hamar tribe is Bantu)
WRONG agiain! Hamar are NOT Bantus but are native to East Africa! Not only do they not carry any West or Central African lineages but ancient East African lineages, but the Hamar language is an Afrasian language!!
As usual your try at a smart sensible response fails. But you are free to try again
LMAO. Nice try. Straightened hair my ass.
Somalia: Information on the treatment of the Reer Hamar tribe in Somalia
According to a Somali field consultant for the Horn of Africa Reflief and Development Organization, the Reer Hamar belong to the Bantu tribe (26 Jan. 1994). This source stated that clans of Bantu origin are despised in Somalia and that the Reer Hamar are ostracized. The Reer Hamar reportedly left Somalia for Djibouti after the fall of Siad Barre, but they were ostracized and returned to Hargeisa, the capital of Somaliland. According to the source, Hargeisa is hostile to non-Isaaqs and the Reer Hamar have been subject to harassment. This information could not be corroborated by sources available to the DIRB. http://www.unhcr.org/home/RSDCOI/3ae6ab0b0.html
As usual, you are full of it.
Posts: 169 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Hamer language (Hamer-Banna), is classified as part of the Afro-Asiatic linguistic group, this language is spoken primarly in the Southern part of Ethiopia by the Hamer people ethnic group.
quote:Originally posted by maa'-kherew: Somalia: Information on the treatment of the Reer Hamar tribe in Somalia
According to a Somali field consultant for the Horn of Africa Reflief and Development Organization, the Reer Hamar belong to the Bantu tribe (26 Jan. 1994).
That was a big blunder you just made the Hamer of Ethiopia and the reer Hamar of Somalia are not the same group of people
''reer'' =People,Family
''Hamar''= Somali name for Mogadishu
the Somali Bantu's are not the Hamer of Ethiopia please research your info a bit first before posting it!
Posts: 275 | From: .. | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again he shows that he is totally out of touch with reality, but he believes he is totally correct. This nonsense of NON Africans trying to "label" who is and isnt a REAL black African is totally absurd. Yet everyday we get these armchair experts from thousands of miles away from Africa, speaking this nonsense.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by maa'-kherew: Somalia: Information on the treatment of the Reer Hamar tribe in Somalia
According to a Somali field consultant for the Horn of Africa Reflief and Development Organization, the Reer Hamar belong to the Bantu tribe (26 Jan. 1994).
That was a big blunder you just made the Hamer of Ethiopia and the reer Hamar of Somalia are not the same group of people
''reer'' =People,Family
''Hamar''= Somali name for Mogadishu
the Somali Bantu's are not the Hamer of Ethiopia please research your info a bit first before posting it!
Lol, this is pattern of all idiots and trolls.
Knee jerk response and arguments that get more and more ridiculous as their desparation grows.
The result being they make bigger and bigger fools of themselves.
We're officially in the 3rd stage of the Online destruction of Jamie wannabe Octeroon. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nice try. On this one, I admit the mistake yes I did confuse them. But I admit my mistakes not like you fakes. I'm still waiting for your evidence of straightening of hair. LOL
Posts: 169 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:On this one, I admit the mistake yes I did confuse them.
Boooooo.
You're stupid, and a liar is the problem.
Admit that, and show some signs of integrity for once on your life, or continue to wallow in the self imposed stereotype of the miserable mulatto loser.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^LMAO Indeed his knee-jerk response only ended up humiliating him!!
It was the Ethiopian Hamar whose picture I posted and who I was referring to, NOT the Reer Hamar of Somalia! LOL
Also, the evidence from the source I posted still stands. Feel free to prove that the alkali based embalming chemicals from the mummification process didn't straighten hair. We are dealing with simple scientific facts, specifically chemistry.
Of course as usual you cannot disprove it and will just debase yourself even more. Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL. a Bunch of problems with Fari's article. One there are no Caucasian and Black races, so he is arguing a strawman. Clinal variation. You will find populations that have thicker hair than others, and this is not exclusive to African. Second, diameter as an indication of region does not mean it was straight or waivy, just that it was thick or thin. Thirdly. Oxidiation in the hair, may lighten it, but there is plenty of hair that is not lightened and STILL straight. Finally, where is the straightening process? And I like Myra's note: Note: Dark skin may be associated with frizzy or kinky hair or curly or wavy or straight hair, all of which are found among different indigenous peoples in tropical regions. American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race"
Judging a persons hair color/texture alone is insufficient to characterize a race.
So go get a clue.
Posts: 169 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Honestly, if any of this is from Brace, it's starting to sound a bit senile.
Every statement contradicts what was said before.
Whatever the case, I won't chase this stuff around.
My response would be: 1st, make up your mind, then I'll address your thoughts.
Hey, he was the one who decided to quote Brace. Mind you brace is the one who still uses words like Caucasoid. And wrote a paper that race didn't exist. I have always taken what he said with a grain of salt. I have been entertained. I guess we descend from Neanderthals now. LMAO.
Evergreen, Brace resonded to you.
quote:No, there is no contradiction or hypocrisy. The Natufians do have traces of Africa in them as my measurements and statistics show. And I know that Ofer Bar-Yosef has pushed the Natufians as the instigators of agriculture, but other archaeologists do not agree. My authority on such archaeological interpretations is Kent Flannery who has dug in the Middle East for years and taught a course on Egyptian archaeology for us for a long time. And there is no evidence that Late Upper Paleolithic people came north out of Africa to settle the Middle East. And what genetics has shown is that the influence went the other way. Hemoglobin S is probably of Middle Eastern origin and spread to sub-Saharan Africa along with the agriculture that modified the terrain to make breeding areas for the anopheles mosquito that spread malaria.
C.L. Brace
In another email when I asked him about the Neanderthal element he mentioned he answered this. I don't know about you, but I don't beleive in the Neanderthal hypothesis.
quote:the data I have collected show that early Homo sapiens evolved in situ from Neanderthal ancestors.
C. L. Brace
That goes contrary to all the genetics studies I have read.
Posts: 169 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
C'mon man. You know damn well they can't make no Silver Surfer in no effen movie. He just move too gawdamn fast, can eminate too much raw energy. How they gon' get it right? He gon look too phony.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Well Takruri, that's why we have "special effects" including CGI.
Besides, I think Jaime thinking process is about as slow as Silver Surfer is fast.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Brace's response:[QUOTE]The Nea Nikomedia sample I measured in Greece was from the Early Neolithic, and had no hints of Africa.
Evergreen Writes:
This is not true. Figure 1 in his own study shows Nea Nikomedia on the same twig as Neolithic Algeria and Figure 2 shows Nea Nikomedia right next to Neolithic Algeria and not far from Somalia!
quote:Brace's response:[QUOTE]The Neolithic in North Africa all came from the Middle East...
Evergreen Writes:
What is the peer-reviewed basis for this odd claim?
quote:Originally posted by maa'-kherew:
quote:Brace's response:[QUOTE]It should be noted that the Neolithic of Anatolia did not come north from the Nile Valley. Instead, agriculture was first developed in the northern part of the Near East, and then went south into the Nile valley.
Evergreen Writes:
Again, peer reviewed source? Brace is shooting from the hip to cover is tracks. But I have him in my high-beam!
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: The Neolithic revolution occurred in the "Levant" in "Southwest Asia", amongst the group referred to by "Natufians", and again, he got his "facts" wrong.
Evergreen Writes:
I would go further. I would say that the very concept of a "Neolithic Revolution" is tricknology designed to fool those who are mentally blind. There was no Neolithic "Revolution". The word neolithic simply means NEW STONE-TECHNOLOGY. This is referencing microliths which evolved in Africa over 60,000 years ago. The reason it is termed a revolution is to give the impression that it suddenly appeared with "Mediterranean" genius. Mediterranean therein means White. I lump "Neolithic Revolution" with "Western Civilization" and the "Greek Genius".
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by maa'-kherew: [QUOTE]Brace:
I know that Ofer Bar-Yosef has pushed the Natufians as the instigators of agriculture, but other archaeologists do not agree. My authority on such archaeological interpretations is Kent Flannery who has dug in the Middle East for years and taught a course on Egyptian archaeology for us for a long time. And there is no evidence that Late Upper Paleolithic people came north out of Africa to settle the Middle East.
Evergreen Writes:
Please ask Mr. Brace to direct us to the peer-reviewed study produced by Mr. Flannery on this subject. More tricknology. But why use tricknology?
Tricknology is used to conceal the fact that Black people were the fathers and mothers of civilization in Africa and in Europe:
Evergreen Posts:
Black Folk Here and There By St. Clair Drake Pg. 155 and 156
"IF THE EARLY DELTA POPULATION WAS NATUFIAN, EVEN CARLETON COON, AN ANTHROPOLOGIST WHOSE RACIST STATEMENTS SOMETIMES EMBARRASSED HIS COLLEAGUES, WOULD CONCEDE A NEGROID TINGE. ON ONE OCCASION HE WROTE OF NATUFIANS THAT 'THE WIDE, LOW VAULTED NOSE, IN COMBINATION WITH PROGNATHISM, GIVES A SOMEWHAT NEGROID CAST TO THE FACE.' BUT HE HASTENED TO CONCLUDE THAT THESE WERE REALLY 'WHITES', THAT 'THESE LATE NATUFIANS REPRESENT A BASICALLY MEDITERRANEAN TYPE WITH MINOR NEGROID AFFINITIES.' THESE SAME PEOPLE WOULD PROBABLY BE CLASSIFIED AS 'NEGROES' IN THE UNITED STATES, WHERE SUCH MINOR NEGROID AFFINITIES ARE ALLWAYS ENOUGH TO TIP THE SCALES....SUCH INCONSISTENCIES HAVE EVOKED CHARGES AGAINST THE PROFESSIONAL TAXONOMISTS RANGING FROM HYPOCRISY TO RACSIM, BY THOSE BLACKS WHO ARE AWARE OF THIER OPERATIONS. THEY SEE A DEFINITE ATTEMPT TO INSIST THAT THE NEOLITHIC INNOVATORS WHO DEVELOPED AGRICULTURE, POTTERY, METTALLURGY, AND WEAVING COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN WHAT WE NOW CALL 'NEGROES'."
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: The Neolithic revolution occurred in the "Levant" in "Southwest Asia", amongst the group referred to by "Natufians", and again, he got his "facts" wrong.
Evergreen Writes:
I would go further. I would say that the very concept of a "Neolithic Revolution" is tricknology designed to fool those who are mentally blind. There was no Neolithic "Revolution". The word neolithic simply means NEW STONE-TECHNOLOGY. This is referencing microliths which evolved in Africa over 60,000 years ago. The reason it is termed a revolution is to give the impression that it suddenly appeared with "Mediterranean" genius. Mediterranean therein means White. I lump "Neolithic Revolution" with "Western Civilization" and the "Greek Genius".
Point taken, and of course, by "Neolithic Revolution" if they are referring to the emergence of the Neolithicagricultural economy in the Levant for the first time, well than...it should simply be referred to as "Neolithic agricultural economy (revolution)".
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: [QUOTE]Point taken, and of course, by "Neolithic Revolution" if they are referring to the emergence of the Neolithic agricultural economy in the Levant for the first time, well than...it should simply be referred to as "Neolithic agricultural economy (revolution)".
Evergreen Writes:
Yet, even at this level of specificity was it really a revolution or an evolution?
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
"Its comparison with the female European Mesolithic skulls strengthens the above hypothesis. In the comparative table 1, four female "Protomediteranean» Mesolithic skulls are reported, one from Monclus - S. France (Ferembach, 1974a, 1974b) and the average value of other three skulls from the Crimean necropolis of Voloshki (Debetz, 1955). At Voloshki a total of nine crania (six male and three female) have been found. Six of them are "Protomediterranean" and the other three (male) present also some Negroid features which remind of Mesolithic skulls from the M. East (Debetz, 1955), also similar to some of those from the coasts of N. Africa (Ferembach, 1962). However, they are quite different to the typically Negroid skulls found p.ex. in Kenya (Leaky, 1935) and in Sudan (Greene & Armelagos, 1972)."
-------------------- Black Roots. Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
Point taken, and of course, by "Neolithic Revolution" if they are referring to the emergence of the Neolithic agricultural economy in the Levant for the first time, well than...it should simply be referred to as "Neolithic agricultural economy (revolution)".
Evergreen Writes:
Yet, even at this level of specificity was it really a revolution or an evolution?
Good question. For "southwest Asia", I would say that it was both; the two terms need not be mutually exclusive of one another in this case.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^It seems Jaime is just talking out of his anus so to speak. He claims Brace said 'this' or 'that', yet what he claims Brace said contradicts his earlier statements and studies. Now the guy claims that the Neolithic in North Africa was not an indigenous development but an introduction from Asia. Where is the peer-reviewed studies? Where is any primary source for that matter??
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic