posted
Getting sensitive? Stop being - a person who puts on a false appearance; fraud; charlatan . . . or hypocrite. Your are lying to yourself .. .and others.
-------------------- 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 |
posted
^^^ The quote: Mike wrote: "The ones that you feature represent racial melting in Egypt over a thousand years later." is accurate. That you chose to interpret that statement as relating to a massive occurrence that changed the racial dynamic of the entire population notwithstanding. To further clarify; busts, statues, mummies, etc. ALWAYS represent the elite, the average citizen cannot afford such things.
xyyman - Your point??
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fascinating how more refined knowledge has shaped up and great Black African minds stay the course with time in unflinchingly defending their history. I will continue studying the posts/thread I've missed. But this one is awesome.
I am glad this Djehuti character is being treated as he should be. I saw the disturbed, anti-Black African, sneaky mind of his long ago, and didn't hesitate to call him out and further turned up the heat on the Black African, history detractor.
Posts: 213 | From: New York City, USA | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: [QB] ^^^ The quote: Mike wrote: "The ones that you feature represent racial melting in Egypt over a thousand years later." is accurate.
No it is not and I'm tired of telling you why.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where you specified why it is wrong - with documentation. My fault, but please do me the favor of repeating it.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike this was to Rasol and he pretending NOT to see Africans features in theese Fayoum paintings. Because once one admits these people are Greaco/Romans then the debate is OVER about whether SouthernWestern Europe being homeland of Black Europeans. Clearly these people show "tradional" continental(african) features. THIS IS A TURNING POINT. . .and maybe the winning goal. Need to do more research on Fayoum.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^^^ The quote: Mike wrote: "The ones that you feature represent racial melting in Egypt over a thousand years later." is accurate. That you chose to interpret that statement as relating to a massive occurrence that changed the racial dynamic of the entire population notwithstanding. To further clarify; busts, statues, mummies, etc. ALWAYS represent the elite, the average citizen cannot afford such things.
xyyman - Your point??
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah DJ is a two-faced son of a . . . .It was easy to see through his ploy. Good riddance.
But he did make some valuable post on finding and publishing scholarly studies etc.
-------------------- 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 |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Yeah DJ is a two-faced son of a . . . .It was easy to see through his ploy. Good riddance.
But he did make some valuable post on finding and publishing scholarly studies etc.
Yes he was useful like that: heavens knows most of our brethren would never actually look stuff up and post it. Hopefully upon his return, he will drop his alias as a Filipino houseboy and declare his true self in all it's glory, as the cracker kid from suburban Georgia. But in retrospect, it's scary that someone so young was so good at playing the colored folk, then again, maybe that's not so hard.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^^^I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where you specified why it is wrong - with documentation. My fault, but please do me the favor of repeating it.
I'm not repeating anything. Do your own research. All that I can do is point you in the right direction, starting with this citation.
See: Susan Walker, ed. Ancient Faces : Mummy Portraits in Roman Egypt (Metropolitan Museum of Art Publications). New York: Routledge, 2000, p. 24-27
^^Try google books if you can't find it in a library..
posted
Sundjata - I know that you are very young; But it is never too early to learn good manners. When someone asks you for proof; it is not appropriate to say "go read the book" if we did that, all the threads would come to a standstill. What you are expected to do, if it is not an online source, is to type the relevant information and post it. If that is too long, then you may summarize.
I did follow your link to "History of Encaustic Art" it is a page about the technique of Encaustic Art. That you would reference such a source, in a serious conversation about ancient history, speaks volumes.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not sure it is matter of youthfulness with many posters here. I suspect most posters especially the vets are at least 30yrs. By 25yrs, with proper upbringing, a man should develop the patience, maturity and wisedom to nurture simple relationships.
With some guys here you can tell their lives may be all . . .messed up
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree; with the internet we can pretend to be who are NOT. A scholar, an accomplished business, a MacDaddy, world traveller, a heterosexual. . .black, white or yellow. But I believe DJ was what he said he was. He may be BSing, but who cares. We are all here to learn . . . . or teach AE history and related things. Once they keep posting/publishing, trolls and all, I think it is worthwhile
-------------------- 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 |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: [QB] Sundjata - I know that you are very young; But it is never too early to learn good manners. When someone asks you for proof; it is not appropriate to say "go read the book" if we did that, all the threads would come to a standstill. What you are expected to do, if it is not an online source, is to type the relevant information and post it. If that is too long, then you may summarize.
I did summarize, and I wasn't harsh in my directing you to the proper information. You seem to expect more courtesy than I am willing to provide, which isn't my fault. If you are too lazy to read what I've cited so that you may cite check the claims I've made, then of course that isn't my problem either. Sorry you feel this way though, I can't do much about it. I am indeed young, but I don't see the relevance. Please don't patronize me based on some age bias you may have.
quote:I did follow your link to "History of Encaustic Art" it is a page about the technique of Encaustic Art. That you would reference such a source, in a serious conversation about ancient history, speaks volumes.
What speaks volumes is the fact that the Fayum portraits are art, and the fact that you think experts in art and art historians [hence, "History of Encaustic Art] have no say in identifying which tradition a particular piece or style of art work belongs to. Such is ridiculous to even fathom. Maybe it isn't so much that I'm being rude with you, but more along the lines that you easily wear my patience with nonsense comments like this.
You also ignore the link I gave you from Egyptology Online and the Britannica quote, which "speaks volumes" also about your willingness to accept new information that you previously may not have been fully aware of. Again, not my problem. I tried to educate you but since you like to harp on "age", it's apparent that you must know everything and are set in your ways.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
Rasol writes: Lol. Then you too must be a hypocrite. Good luck trying to get thru that thick skull of xyzman.
Marc writes Rasol You accuse someone of 1) being a hypocrite and 2) having a thick skull when you invent things you attributed to Xymman and then attacked him for saying things you fantasized?
Rasol. You accuse someone of being a hypocrite and having a thick skull? Point a finger at someone you point three at yourself. Are you sure you're not talking about Rasol?
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: [QB] Sundjata - I know that you are very young; But it is never too early to learn good manners. When someone asks you for proof; it is not appropriate to say "go read the book" if we did that, all the threads would come to a standstill. What you are expected to do, if it is not an online source, is to type the relevant information and post it. If that is too long, then you may summarize.
I did summarize, and I wasn't harsh in my directing you to the proper information. You seem to expect more courtesy than I am willing to provide, which isn't my fault. If you are too lazy to read what I've cited so that you may cite check the claims I've made, then of course that isn't my problem either. Sorry you feel this way though, I can't do much about it. I am indeed young, but I don't see the relevance. Please don't patronize me based on some age bias you may have.
quote:I did follow your link to "History of Encaustic Art" it is a page about the technique of Encaustic Art. That you would reference such a source, in a serious conversation about ancient history, speaks volumes.
What speaks volumes is the fact that the Fayum portraits are art, and the fact that you think experts in art and art historians [hence, "History of Encaustic Art] have no say in identifying which tradition a particular piece or style of art work belongs to. Such is ridiculous to even fathom. Maybe it isn't so much that I'm being rude with you, but more along the lines that you easily wear my patience with nonsense comments like this.
You also ignore the link I gave you from Egyptology Online and the Britannica quote, which "speaks volumes" also about your willingness to accept new information that you previously may not have been fully aware of. Again, not my problem. I tried to educate you but since you like to harp on "age", it's apparent that you must know everything and are set in your ways.
Sundjata - Below is the full extent of our exchanges; please indicate which one is you attempt to summarize or support your position in any meaningful way. Keeping in mind that here you are not Daddy's little girl. Consequently, it's not so, just because you say it's so.
Mike111 - Xyyman – While your hypothesis is fine, you may have compromised your argument by using incorrect examples. The ones that you feature represent racial melting in Egypt over a thousand years later.
Sundiata - ^^Actually, those people represent Roman and Greek settlers Mike. This is widely established as the portraitures were created using Greco-Roman techniques and style by Greco-Roman artisans who have no reason to spend their time painting pictures of their Egyptian subordinates. Actually, the majority of people of the area during that period clearly identified themselves as Greek. Eurocentrists have in the past tried to use these pictures as evidence of what Egyptains looked like during the Roman era, which is ridiculous, and which is why few use that as an argument anymore.
"The mummy, or Fayum, portraits are Egyptian only in that they are associated with essentially Egyptian burial customs" - Britanica
Mike111 - The Portraits represent the ELITES of the ruling class, regardless of racial affinity. Britannica has become just as racist and bull sh1t as the rest.
Sundiata - Mike, you are clearly confused and automatically attributing racism to something that you don't agree with is childish and stupid. quote:
The Portraits represent the ELITES of the ruling class, regardless of racial affinity.
nobody mentioned "race" besides you and 2., you only support what I and the citations say since the said elites during the Roman era were Romans and Greeks who adhered to Roman tradition. According to Susan Walker, the majority of people at the time in the Fayum oasis and who were subjects of the portraits, even clearly identified themselves as Geek or Greco-Roman settlers, period. I have no idea why you try to turn these people into "mixed" Egyptians, when if anything, they are "mixed" Europeans..
Mike111 - ^^^You are certainly entitled to your opinion: even if it wouldn't hold up to logic and reason. Example how would Ms. Walker know whether or not those people identified themselves as whatever. But that aside; why the insults, I was certainly not discourteous to you. Seems you are picking up the bad habits of yonis, rasol and the gang.
Sundiata - ^I didn't insult you, I didn't detect racism in the Britannica quote, and I have not stated my "opinion", but a FACT, verified by inscriptions on the actual burials themselves, which "Ms. Walker" draws upon for reference. These people identified themselves as Greeks, Classicists recognize the Greco-Roman elite as being such by way of their attire, hair style, jewelry, and art tradition, and during the Roman era, Romans/Greco-Romans were THE elite, hence, "the Roman era". Your objections to this are baseless Mike and I don't understand at all your reasoning but go ahead and believe what you want to.
quote:
both Mike and Sundiata seems to agree that the people are "admixed"
Sundiata - Actually, I don't necessarily agree with that [because I have no idea from just looking at random portraits] and this isn't a case of he said, she said. I actually know what I'm talking about, but whatever... The statement "if anything" was not an admission of admixture on my part, but a semantical reply to Mike's preconceived assumption on which I didn't feel like getting into. Only thing that I know for sure is that these people don't represent the native population of Egypt at that particular moment in time and I'll again, leave it at that..
Mike111 - Sundjata - petulance is not attractive, and where did I even remotely suggest that AE were a mixed race people? To refresh your memory, my exact quote is in bold below. The Portraits represent the ELITES of the ruling class, regardless of racial affinity. If your position is that there were NO Egyptians in the elite class, then that is what you should say.
Mike111 - ^^^ The quote: Mike wrote: "The ones that you feature represent racial melting in Egypt over a thousand years later." is accurate. That you chose to interpret that statement as relating to a massive occurrence that changed the racial dynamic of the entire population notwithstanding. To further clarify; busts, statues, mummies, etc. ALWAYS represent the elite, the average citizen cannot afford such things.
Sundiata - No it is not and I'm tired of telling you why.
Mike111 - ^^^I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where you specified why it is wrong - with documentation. My fault, but please do me the favor of repeating it.
Sundiata - I'm not repeating anything. Do your own research. All that I can do is point you in the right direction, starting with this citation.
See: Susan Walker, ed. Ancient Faces : Mummy Portraits in Roman Egypt (Metropolitan Museum of Art Publications). New York: Routledge, 2000, p. 24-27
^^Try google books if you can't find it in a library..
Mike111 - Sundjata - I know that you are very young; But it is never too early to learn good manners. When someone asks you for proof; it is not appropriate to say "go read the book" if we did that, all the threads would come to a standstill. What you are expected to do, if it is not an online source, is to type the relevant information and post it. If that is too long, then you may summarize.
I did follow your link to "History of Encaustic Art" it is a page about the technique of Encaustic Art. That you would reference such a source, in a serious conversation about ancient history, speaks volumes.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will now bring this admittedly ridicules exchange to an end. I allowed it to go on because Sundjata is representative of much of today’s Black youth. They don’t know, and won’t be told, consequently they go into the outside world completely unprepared and doomed to failure. Note to Sundjata: Courtesy is not your option in the outside world; it is a requirement. You will no doubt find that failure to give it has harsh penalties.
As a reminder: This is what the disagreement is about…
Mike111 - Xyyman – While your hypothesis is fine, you may have compromised your argument by using incorrect examples. The ones that you feature represent racial melting in Egypt over a thousand years later.
Sundiata - ^^Actually, those people represent Roman and Greek settlers Mike. This is widely established as the portraitures were created using Greco-Roman techniques and style by Greco-Roman artisans who have no reason to spend their time painting pictures of their Egyptian subordinates. Actually, the majority of people of the area during that period clearly identified themselves as Greek. Eurocentrists have in the past tried to use these pictures as evidence of what Egyptains looked like during the Roman era, which is ridiculous, and which is why few use that as an argument anymore.
Mike111 - The Portraits represent the ELITES of the ruling class, regardless of racial affinity. Britannica has become just as racist and bull sh1t as the rest.
Touregypt
The Life of Ancient Egyptians Marriage and the Standing of Women
No obstacles seem to have been put in the way of marriage between people of different racial background. An Egyptian could marry a Syrian or Nubian girl, and an Egyptian woman could become a foreigner's wife. The kings themselves might take princesses from abroad as secondary wives. Ramesses II, for example, wed the Hittite princess Maathornefrerure and granted her the same title of 'Great King's Wife' as he did to his principal wife Nefertari.
From the Late Period on, Egyptians were regularly intermarrying with Greek colonists in some of the Delta towns, just as in the Roman Period they did with Latins, especially in the Faiyum.
^^Who does that have to do with who the portraits represent Mike, Jeeze, stop google scanning in desperate hopes of trying to contradict me. You just cited a source that implied Nubians were of a "different racial background" than the Egyptians. I mean though, I'm not sure where I denied any intermingling across ethnic lines [as a matter of fact, Susan Walker mentioned that if you'd have checked my citation]. The source of my rebuttal against you was your claim that THE PEOPLE IN THE PORTRAITS represent "racial mixing" in Egypt over a thousand years, when conversely it's accepted that the subjects of the portraits are mostly descendants of soldiers left behind by Alexander [not "Egyptians mixed with Latins"]. They identified themselves to the Romans as being such and it was their custom. I see not any contradiction to that view, regardless if they had taken a few Egyptian wives here and there. C'mon now Michael.
Besides, it's funny how you cite a source which implies Nubians and Egyptians to have been of a "different racial background", then turn around and call the citation from Encyclopedia Britannica, racist Your ad hominem induced accusations don't apply or address why they or the vast majority of classicists and Egyptologists are wrong.
quote:Xyyman and Mike, thanks for uploading these pics of Egyptians of the Greco-Roman period.
They were not Egyptians and didn't refer to themselves as such. Respect their self-described identity.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The last twenty or so posts have included those which looked at the nature of the Greco-Roman population in Egypt. This post deals with that subject. Of course, the ideas are based on the way I interpret the history I read.
Beginning in the Steppes, enroute to Greece, the Middle East and Europe, whites largely first traversed Bulgaria and from there, some tribes went to the Middle East and Greece and others to Europe. Of those that went to Greece some leap-frogged on to Africa, Egypt. Alexander, from Macedonia (Bulgaria) was one of those who leap-frogged to first Greece and then Egypt. Whites who claimed to be settlers from Greece have the history spoken of above behind them.
Prior to whites being in either Greece or Europe, Africans lived there. [A] shows the African population in Greece preceding Alexander and whites; [B] shows one page (there are a dozen more) showing Africans in Europe before whites arrived.
[C] Shows the likely history behind the Greco-Roman population in Egypt which rather straddle the white and African race: i.e. likely a white father and African mother. Africans (in Egypt aka Egyptians) were made slaves and men deprived of their wives when the fancy struck the new white rulers (as did slave owners in America making whoopee every night with their private harems of lovely African women entering their young adult years and the height of their beauty and feminine appeal).
[A] AFRICANS OF GREECE
[B] AFRICANS OF EUROPE (HERE BULGARIA IN ITS HEYDAY)
posted
Sundjata - Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you really believe what you are saying and are not just B.S.ing; here is a fuller explanation.
From Wiki: People of Fayum
Under Greco-Roman rule, Egypt hosted several Greek settlements, mostly concentrated in Alexandria, but also in a few other cities, where Greek settlers lived alongside some seven to ten million native Egyptians. Faiyum's earliest Greek inhabitants were soldier-veterans and cleruchs (elite military officials) who were settled by the Ptolemaic kings on reclaimed lands. Native Egyptians also came to settle in Faiyum from all over the country, notably the Nile Delta, Upper Egypt, Oxyrhynchus and Memphis, to undertake the labor involved in the land reclamation process, as attested by personal names, local cults and recovered papyri. It is estimated that as much as 30 percent of the population of Faiyum was Greek during the Ptolemaic period, with the rest being native Egyptians. By the Roman period, much of the "Greek" population of Faiyum was made-up of either Hellenized Egyptians or people of mixed Egyptian-Greek origins.
While commonly believed to represent Greek settlers in Egypt, the Faiyum portraits instead reflect the complex synthesis of the predominant Egyptian culture and that of the elite Greek minority in the city. According to Walker, the early Ptolemaic Greek colonists married local women and adopted Egyptian religious beliefs, and by Roman times, their descendants were viewed as Egyptians by the Roman rulers, despite their own self-perception of being Greek. The dental morphology of the Roman-period Faiyum mummies was also compared with that of earlier Egyptian populations, and was found to be "much more closely akin" to that of ancient Egyptians than to Greeks or other European populations. However, Kemp, from an inference of cranio-facial traits and limb proportions of numerous skeletal remains, postulated much immigration into the more northern parts of Egypt, indicative of the population "tending towards a greater similarity with European populations than had been the case earlier".
Age profile of those depicted Most of the portraits depict the deceased at a relatively young age, and many show children. According to Walker (2000), "C.A.T. scans of all the complete mummies represented [in Walker (2000)] reveal a correspondence of age and, in suitable cases, sex between mummy and image." Walker concludes that the age distribution reflects the low life expectancy at the time. It was often believed that the wax portraits were completed during the life of the individual and displayed in their home, a custom that belonged to the traditions of Greek art, but this view is no longer widely held given the evidence suggested by the C.A.T. scans of the Faiyum mummies, as well as Roman census returns. In addition, some portraits were painted directly onto the coffin; for example, on a shroud or another part.
Social status The patrons of the portraits apparently belonged to the affluent upper class of military personnel, civil servants and religious dignitaries. Not everyone could afford a mummy portrait; many mummies were found without one. Flinders Petrie states that only one or two per cent of the mummies he excavated were embellished with portraits. The rates for mummy portraits do not survive, but it can be assumed that the material caused higher costs than the labour, since in antiquity, painters were appreciated as craftsmen rather than as artists.
Three-dimensional funerary masks of painted plaster from Faiyum (1st century). Montreal, Musée des Beaux-Arts. It is not clear whether those depicted are of Egyptian, Greek or Roman origin, nor whether the portraits were commonly used by all ethnicities. The name of some of those portrayed are known from inscriptions, they are of Egyptian, Greek, Graeco-Macedonian and Roman origin. Hairstyles and clothing are always influenced by Roman fashion. Women and children are often depicted wearing valuable ornaments and fine garments, men often wearing specific and elaborate outfits. Greek inscriptions of names are relatively common, sometimes they include professions. It is not known whether such inscriptions always reflect reality, or whether they may state ideal conditions or aspirations rather than true conditions. One single inscriptions is known to definitely indicate the deceased's profession (a shipowner) correctly.The mummy of a woman named Hermione also included the term grammatike (γραμματική). For a long time, it was assumed that this indicated that she was a teacher by profession (for this reason, Flinders Petrie donated the portrait to Girton College, Cambridge, the first residential college for women in Britain), but today, it is assumed that the term indicates her level of education. Some portraits of men show sword-belts or even pommels, suggesting that they were members of the Roman military.
Culture-historical context Changes in burial habits The burial habits of Ptolemaic Egyptians mostly followed ancient traditions. The bodies of members of the upper classes were mummified, equipped with a decorated coffin and a mummy mask to cover the head. The Greeks who entered Egypt at that time mostly followed their own habits. There is evidence from Alexandria and other sites indicating that they practised the Greek tradition of cremation. This broadly reflects the general situation in Hellenistic Egypt, its rulers proclaiming themselves to be pharaohs but otherwise living in an entirely Hellenistic world, incorporating only very few local elements. Conversely, the Egyptians only slowly developed an interest in the Greek-Hellenic culture that dominated the East Mediterranean since the conquests of Alexander. This situation changed substantially with the arrival of the Romans. Within a few generations, all Egyptian elements disappeared from everyday life. Cities like Karanis or Oxyrhynchus are largely Graeco-Roman places. There is clear evidence that this resulted from a mixing of different ethnicities in the ruling classes of Roman Egypt.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Greaco/Romans living in Egypt with little admixture from the indegenous people or
the elite indegenous people with admixture Greaco/Romans.
Even within Europeans there are also disagreement. The main reason being there are SERIOUS FALLOUT if these are Greaco/Romans living in Egypt.
If it is widely known that the Greaco/Romans looked like these "negroids" then there is NO DEBATE about Africans/Negroids(huge numbers) being in Southern Europe prior to Greaco/Roman expansion. Mathilda's(eurocentric) blog says they are egyptians - she cannot say otherwise.
Infact I don't see any Nordics in the 100 or so Fayoum portraits I saw on the web. That means the nordics/germanic people were NOT part of Roman society. And this has been proven already, and is evident. Eventually they(germanic) did conquer and infiltrate Roman civilization. The "negroid" element virtually disappeared. Which is Marc's point.
BTW - are there any genetic studies conducted on the Fayoum mummys????
-------------------- 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 |
posted
Europeans arguing???? Knowing the implication.
--------------------------------- from wiki - It is estimated that as much as 30 percent of the population of Faiyum was Greek during the Ptolemaic period, with the rest being native Egyptians.[14] By the Roman period, much of the "Greek" population of Faiyum was made-up of either Hellenized Egyptians or people of mixed Egyptian-Greek origins.
from Britannica -
The mummy, or Fayum, portraits are Egyptian only in that they are associated with essentially Egyptian burial customs. Painted in an encaustic technique, they represent mostly Greek inhabitants of Egypt. Seen properly in context, as in the complete mummy of Artemidorus (British Museum), they provide a strange epilogue to the funerary art of 3,000 years of pharaonic Egypt. In this field and in a few others the vigour of the native tradition persisted artistically up to the Roman conquest. Thereafter the decline was rapid and complete. By the 3rd century ad Egypt was on the way to becoming a Christian country. The old tradition was not only destroyed, it was no longer valued. Coptic art was to find its inspiration elsewhere
-------------------- 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 |
posted
Here are some more - Are these "negroids" Greaco/romans"???
-------------------- 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 |
The dental morphology of the Roman-period Faiyum mummies was also compared with that of earlier Egyptian populations, and was found to be "much more closely akin" to that of ancient Egyptians than to Greeks or other European populations. However, Kemp, from an inference of cranio-facial traits and limb proportions of numerous skeletal remains, postulated much immigration into the more northern parts of Egypt, indicative of the population "tending towards a greater similarity with European populations than had been the case earlier".
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Yes I think we all agree that modern Egypt, particularly the delta region, is far less African and more Eurasian than ancient Kemet.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Xyyman. Mine is a comment just touching on your question not answering yes or no as I don't know if those negroids are Graeco-Roman or not. Someone else might have that information. I'm commenting on what hair can tell.
My take on the situation is that wiry, curly, or woolly hair is indicative of African blood somewhere in the genetic line. I know many whites would get mortally sick to countenance that; but many whites - go back far enough - have, as Alex Haley's ROOTS showed, African blood. Those new images you posted above have wiry hair. It's not news - you identify them as negroid.
Note that as time goes by, hair in the Middle East, Europe, and Egypt is often seen in images such as the above (people of African and white ancestry as opposed to ancient images of people clearly white - for instance, Caesar).
Going from (mostly) 400 BC to a century ago, hair in sculptures and paintings in those places, gets straighter-and-straighter, skin whiter-and-whiter (Etruscans are almost invariably brown though later, post 300 BC, brown skin with white morphology) reflecting (I'd say) increasing white populations and decreasing African populations; and by ~ 1850, wholly white populations (bar recent, i.e. 20th, 21st century African immigration).
Again, thanks to you and Mike for the images you've posted these last couple of days and directly above.
Marc
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes; some DNA has been extracted from the Paleolithic. But I guess you didn't bother to read it, or didn't understand it.
^ Actually What-Box does understand, and you don't.
The Paleolithic lineages under discussion are Homo-Sapien..... not Neanderthal.
You and Marc have some of the most hilariously stupid ideas about anthropology I've ever seen.
quote:Marc complains: Rasol. You call someone an idiot?
Marc, you still clowning?
"If you become a doctor, folks will face you with dread If you become a dentist, they'll be glad when you're dead You'll get a bigger hand if you can stand on your head
quote:ScienceDaily (July 16, 2008) — Some 40,000 years ago, Cro-Magnons -- the first people who had a skeleton that looked anatomically modern -- entered Europe, COMING FROM AFRICA. A group of geneticists, coordinated by Guido Barbujani and David Caramelli of the Universities of Ferrara and Florence, shows that a Cro-Magnoid individual who lived in Southern Italy 28,000 years ago was a modern European, genetically as well as anatomically.
The Cro-Magnoid people long coexisted in Europe with other humans, the Neandertals, whose anatomy and DNA were clearly different from ours. However, obtaining a reliable sequence of Cro-Magnoid DNA was technically challenging.
"The risk in the study of ancient individuals is to attribute to the fossil specimen the DNA left there by archaeologists or biologists who manipulated it," Barbujani says. "To avoid that, we followed all phases of the retrieval of the fossil bones and typed the DNA sequences of all people who had any contacts with them."
The researchers wrote in the newly published paper: "The Paglicci 23 individual carried a mtDNA sequence that is still common in Europe, and which radically differs from those of the almost contemporary Neandertals, demonstrating a genealogical continuity across 28,000 years, from Cro-Magnoid to modern Europeans.
posted
Grasping at straws now??? huh? So your view is Neanderthals are humans. But forget about that you seem to be misdirecting gain. We all agree your ancestors, Khoisan, were in Europe about 30kya. The point is groups of humans spread out and diffrentiated to form ethnic groups, one of which is Northern or Steppe Europeans, As time went by this ethnic group multiplied and grew to become dominant eventually spreading to Southern and Western Europe mixing and eventually replacing the indegenous black people there, These new people hand a different language structure and culture/Kurgans - IndoEuropean.
All evidence - archeological, cultural, historicl, anthropologial . . . . even some genticists- points to that is what happened. Bro you can see from the tone of many on this forum your are alone on this point of view. Some don't want to call you out because of long associations. The fool who shared your view, DJ, has his own agenda. T-rex and Mark? well. . . . .Alive? confused!
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:ScienceDaily (July 16, 2008) — Some 40,000 years ago, Cro-Magnons -- the first people who had a skeleton that looked anatomically modern -- entered Europe, COMING FROM AFRICA. A group of geneticists, coordinated by Guido Barbujani and David Caramelli of the Universities of Ferrara and Florence, shows that a Cro-Magnoid individual who lived in Southern Italy 28,000 years ago was a modern European, genetically as well as anatomically.
The Cro-Magnoid people long coexisted in Europe with other humans, the Neandertals, whose anatomy and DNA were clearly different from ours. However, obtaining a reliable sequence of Cro-Magnoid DNA was technically challenging.
"The risk in the study of ancient individuals is to attribute to the fossil specimen the DNA left there by archaeologists or biologists who manipulated it," Barbujani says. "To avoid that, we followed all phases of the retrieval of the fossil bones and typed the DNA sequences of all people who had any contacts with them."
The researchers wrote in the newly published paper: "The Paglicci 23 individual carried a mtDNA sequence that is still common in Europe, and which radically differs from those of the almost contemporary Neandertals, demonstrating a genealogical continuity across 28,000 years, from Cro-Magnoid to modern Europeans.
quote: We all agree your ancestors, Khoisan, were in Europe about 30kya.
My ancestors never lived in Europe, so you aren't making any sense.
You never make any sense.
That's the one thing we all agree on.
quote: The point is...
^ I love it when you start a sentence this way.
It's a tell.
It means you have *no real point* and will soon begin babbling off point.
quote:.... groups of humans spread out and diffrentiated to form ethnic groups
^ Perfect example of off point babbling, while making no point in contention.
quote:mixing and eventually replacing the indegenous black people there
^ This is and example of backtracking and doubletalk [mixing/uh-no/replacing] gibberish, which is to be expected of someone with a broken thesis.
The facts are clear, and you remain and idiot in denial of them...
genealogical continuity across 28,000 years, from Cro-Magnoid to modern Europeans.
quote:All evidence - archeological, cultural, historicl, anthropologial . . . . even some genticists- points to that is what happened.
^ Incoherent remark, which is also the handmaiden of a bankrupt premise. What scientists agree to, is the boldfaced text quoted from them. No scientists would *ever* agree to your inocherent babblings.
quote:Bro you can see from the tone of many on this forum your are alone on this point of view.
^ Actually, the general tone of this thread is that you are and idiot and best ignored.
You must agree, since your next sentense tries to explain your lack of support.....
quote: Some don't want to call you out because of long associations.
^ Nope. The reason no one supports you is very simple:
It's because they're smarter than you, and understood on page 1, what you cannot comprehend in 25 pages.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hi Rasol. Above you asked if I'm still clowing?
Clowning you mean? Yes you are.
The question was rhetorical.
Run that thru your thesaurus, when you're finished with spell check which you apparently forgot to do with your last post....
quote: "If you become a doctor, folks will face you with dread If you become a dentist, they'll be glad when you're dead You'll get a bigger hand if you can stand on your head
ScienceDaily (Sep. 24, 2003) — A research team co-directed by Erik Trinkaus, professor of anthropology at Washington University in St. Louis, has dated a human jawbone from a Romanian bear hibernation cave to between 34,000 and 36,000 years ago. That makes it the earliest known modern human fossil in Europe.
Other human bones from the same cave -- a temporal bone, a facial skeleton and a partial braincase -- are still undergoing analysis, but are likely to be the same age. The jawbone was found in February 2002 in Pestera cu Oase, the "Cave with Bones," located in the southwestern Carpathian Mountains. The other bones were found in June 2003.
The results on the jawbone will be published the week of Sept. 22 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS; www.pnas.org) Online Early Edition. A report on the other bones will appear in an upcoming issue of the Journal of Human Evolution (www.sciencedirect.com). The finds should shed much-needed light on early modern human biology.
"The jawbone is the oldest directly dated modern human fossil," said Trinkaus, the Mary Tileston Hemenway Professor of Anthropology. "Taken together, the material is the first that securely documents what modern humans looked like when they spread into Europe. Although we call them 'modern humans,' they were not fully modern in the sense that we think of living people."
To determine the fossils' implications for human evolution, Trinkaus and colleagues performed radiocarbon dating of the jawbone (dating of the other remains is in progress) and a comparative anatomical analysis of the sample. The jawbone dates from between 34,000 and 36,000 years ago, placing the specimens in the period during which early modern humans overlapped with late surviving Neandertals in Europe.
Most of their anatomical characteristics are similar to those of other early modern humans found at sites in Africa, in the Middle East and later in Europe, but certain features, such as the unusual molar size and proportions, indicate their archaic human origins and a possible Neandertal connection.
The researchers document that these early modern humans retained some archaic characteristics, possibly through interbreeding with Neandertals. Nevertheless, because few well-dated remains from this period have been found, the fossil remains help to fill in an important phase in modern human emergence.
"The specimens suggest that there have been clear changes in human anatomy since then," said Trinkaus. "The bones are also fully compatible with the blending of modern human and Neandertal populations. Not only is the face very large, but so are the jaws and the teeth, particularly the wisdom teeth. In the human fossil record, you have to go back a half-million years to find a specimen that has bigger wisdom teeth."
The jawbone was found by three Romanian cavers, who contacted Oana Moldovan, director of the Institutul de Speologie, a cave research institute in Cluj, Romania. Moldovan in turn, recognizing the importance of the jawbone, contacted Trinkaus.
The two met in Europe in May 2002, and Trinkaus brought the jawbone temporarily to Washington University for analysis. Trinkaus, Moldovan, the cavers and Ricardo Rodrigo, a Portuguese archaeologist, returned to the cave in June 2003 to produce a map and survey the cave's surface. In the process, the cavers and Rodrigo found the facial skeleton, temporal bone and other pieces that are now undergoing analysis.
Since then, Trinkaus and Moldovan have assembled an international team to document and excavate the cave and analyze the material after it comes out from the cave. The cave was primarily used for bear hibernation. It is not known how the human bones got into the cave, but Trinkaus says one possibility is that early humans used the cave as a mortuary cave for the ritual disposal of human bodies. Some of the bear bones were rearranged by humans, documenting past human activities in the cave.
"The jaw was originally found sitting by itself; the material this summer was found mixed up with bear bones," Trinkaus said. "After they found the face, they collected everything on the surface that might be human, packaged it up and brought it out of the cave. Some of the pieces that they carried out of the cave are, in fact, bear. We know that more of the skull is in the same place, but it was buried or not recognized at the time."
The team plans to return to Romania next summer to continue the scientific analysis of the cave and its contents.
ScienceDaily (Nov. 6, 2006) — A reexamination of ancient human bones from Romania reveals more evidence that humans and Neandertals interbred.
Erik Trinkaus, Ph.D., Washington University Mary Tileston Hemenway Professor in Arts & Sciences, and colleagues radiocarbon-dated and analyzed the shapes of human bones from Romania's Petera Muierii (Cave of the Old Woman). The fossils, discovered in 1952, add to the small number of early modern human remains from Europe known to be more than 28,000 years old.
Results were published in the current issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.
The team found that the fossils were 30,000 years old and principally have the diagnostic skeletal features of modern humans. They also found that the remains had other features known, among potential ancestors, primarily among the preceding Neandertals, providing more evidence there was mixing of humans and Neandertals as modern humans dispersed across Europe about 35,000 years ago. Their analysis of one skeleton's shoulder blade also shows that these humans did not have the full set of anatomical adaptations for throwing projectiles, like spears, during hunting.
The team says that the mixture of human and Neandertal features indicates that there was a complicated reproductive scenario as humans and Neandertals mixed, and that the hypothesis that the Neandertals were simply replaced should be abandoned.Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
ScienceDaily (Jan. 12, 2007) — Reliably dated fossils are critical to understanding the course of human evolution. A human skull discovered over fifty years ago near the town of Hofmeyr, in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa, is one such fossil. A study by an international team of scientists led by Frederick Grine of the Departments of Anthropology and Anatomical Sciences at Stony Brook University in New York published in Science magazine has dated the skull to 36,000 years ago. This skull provides critical corroboration of genetic evidence indicating that modern humans originated in sub-Saharan Africa and migrated about this time to colonize the Old World. (Science January 12, 2007)
"The Hofmeyr skull gives us the first insights into the morphology of such a sub-Saharan African population, which means the most recent common ancestor of all of us - wherever we come from," said Grine.
Although the skull was found over half a century ago, its significance became apparent only recently. A new approach to dating developed by Grine team member Richard Bailey and his colleagues at Oxford University allowed them to determined its age at just over 36,000 years ago by measuring the amount of radiation that had been absorbed by sand grains that filled the inside of the skull’s braincase. At this age, the skull fills a significant void in the human fossil record of sub-Saharan Africa from the period between about 70,000 and 15,000 years ago. During this critical period, the archaeological tradition known as the Later Stone Age, with its sophisticated stone and bone tools and artwork appears in sub-Saharan Africa, and anatomically modern people appear for the first time in Europe and western Asia with the equally complex Upper Paleolithic archeological tradition.
In order to establish the affinities of the Hofmeyr fossil, team member Katerina Harvati of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, used 3-dimensional measurements of the skull known to differentiate recent human populations according to their geographic distributions and genetic relationships. She compared the Hofmeyr skull with contemporaneous Upper Paleolithic skulls from Europe and with the skulls of living humans from Eurasia and sub-Saharan Africa, including the Khoe-San (Bushmen). Because the Khoe-San are represented in the recent archeological record of South Africa, they were expected to have close resemblances to the South African fossil. Instead, the Hofmeyr skull is quite distinct from recent sub-Saharan Africans, including the Khoe-San, and has a very close affinity with the European Upper Paleolithic specimens.
The field of paleoanthropology is known for its hotly contested debates, and one that has raged for years concerns the evolutionary origin of modern people. A number of genetic studies (especially those on the mitochondrial DNA) of living people indicate that modern humans evolved in sub-Saharan Africa and then left between 65,000 and 25,000 years ago to colonize the Old World. However, other genetic studies (generally on nuclear DNA) argue against this African origin and exodus model. Instead, they suggest that archaic non-African groups, such as the Neandertals, made significant contributions to the genomes of modern humans in Eurasia. Until now, the lack of human fossils of appropriate antiquity from sub-Saharan Africa has meant that these competing genetic models of human evolution could not be tested by paleontological evidence.
The skull from Hofmeyr has changed that. The surprising similarity between a fossil skull from the southernmost tip of Africa and similarly ancient skulls from Europe is in agreement with the genetics-based "Out of Africa" theory, which predicts that humans like those that inhabited Eurasia in the Upper Paleolithic should be found in sub-Saharan Africa around 36,000 years ago. The skull from South Africa provides the first fossil evidence in support of this prediction.
Reference: F.E. Grine, R.M. Bailey, K. Harvati, R.P. Nathan, A.G. Morris, G.M. Henderson, I. Ribot, A.W.G. Pike. Late Pleistocene Human Skull from Hofmeyr, South Africa and Modern Human Origins. Science, 12. January 2007 ____________
Europe's Ancestors: Cro-Magnon 28,000 Years Old Had DNA Like Modern Humans
ScienceDaily (July 16, 2008) — Some 40,000 years ago, Cro-Magnons -- the first people who had a skeleton that looked anatomically modern -- entered Europe, coming from Africa. A group of geneticists, coordinated by Guido Barbujani and David Caramelli of the Universities of Ferrara and Florence, shows that a Cro-Magnoid individual who lived in Southern Italy 28,000 years ago was a modern European, genetically as well as anatomically.
The Cro-Magnoid people long coexisted in Europe with other humans, the Neandertals, whose anatomy and DNA were clearly different from ours. However, obtaining a reliable sequence of Cro-Magnoid DNA was technically challenging.
"The risk in the study of ancient individuals is to attribute to the fossil specimen the DNA left there by archaeologists or biologists who manipulated it," Barbujani says. "To avoid that, we followed all phases of the retrieval of the fossil bones and typed the DNA sequences of all people who had any contacts with them."
The researchers wrote in the newly published paper: "The Paglicci 23 individual carried a mtDNA sequence that is still common in Europe, and which radically differs from those of the almost contemporary Neandertals, demonstrating a genealogical continuity across 28,000 years, from Cro-Magnoid to modern Europeans."
The results demonstrate for the first time that the anatomical differences between Neandertals and Cro-Magnoids were associated with clear genetic differences. The Neandertal people, who lived in Europe for nearly 300,000 years, are not the ancestors of modern Europeans.
____________
Body proportions in Late Pleistocene Europe and modern human origins*1
Body proportions covary with climate, apparently as the result of climatic selection. Ontogenetic research and migrant studies have demonstrated that body proportions are largely genetically controlled and are under low selective rates; thus studies of body form can provide evidence for evolutionarily short-term dispersals and/or gene flow. Following these observations, competing models of modern human origins yield different predictions concerning body proportion shifts in Late Pleistocene Europe. Replacement predicts that the earliest modern Europeans will possess “tropical” body proportions (assuming Africa is the center of origin), while Regional Continuity permits only minor shifts in body shape, due to climatic change and/or improved cultural buffering. This study tests these predictions via analyses of osteometric data reflective of trunk height and breadth, limb proportions and relative body mass for samples of Early Upper Paleolithic (EUP), Late Upper Paleolithic (LUP) and Mesolithic (MES) humans and 13 recent African and European populations. Results reveal a clear tendency for the EUP sample to cluster with recent Africans, while LUP and MES samples cluster with recent Europeans. These results refute the hypothesis of local continuity in Europe, and are consistent with an interpretation of elevated gene flow (and population dispersal?) from Africa, followed by subsequent climatic adaptation to colder conditions. These data do not, however, preclude the possibility of some (albeit small) contribution of genes from Neandertals to succeeding populations, as is postulated in Bräuer’s “Afro-European Sapiens” model.
___________
Brachial and crural indices of European Late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic humans
Trenton W. Holliday
Department of Anthropology, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana, 70118, U.S.A.f1
Among recent humans brachial and crural indices are positively correlated with mean annual temperature, such that high indices are found in tropical groups. However, despite inhabiting glacial Europe, the Upper Paleolithic Europeans possessed high indices, prompting Trinkaus (1981) to argue for gene flow from warmer regions associated with modern human emergence in Europe. In contrast, Frayeret al. (1993) point out that Late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europeans shouldnotexhibit tropically-adapted limb proportions, since, even assuming replacement, their ancestors had experienced cold stress in glacial Europe for at least 12 millennia.
This study investigates three questions tied to the brachial and crural indices among Late Pleistocene and recent humans. First, which limb segments (either proximal or distal) are primarily responsible for variation in brachial and crural indices? Second, are these indices reflective ofoveralllimb elongation? And finally, do the Late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europeans retain relatively and/or absolutely long limbs? Results indicate that in the lower limb, the distal limb segment contributes most of the variability to intralimb proportions, while in the upper limb the proximal and distal limb segments appear to be equally variable. Additionally, brachial and crural indices do not appear to be a good measure of overall limb length, and thus, while the Late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic humans have significantly higher (i.e., tropically-adapted) brachial and crural indices than do recent Europeans, they also have shorter (i.e., cold-adapted) limbs. The somewhat paradoxical retention of “tropical” indices in the context of more “cold-adapted” limb length is best explained as evidence for Replacement in the European Late Pleistocene, followed by gradual cold adaptation in glacial Europe.
________
Gough's Cave 1 (Somerset, England): an assessment of body size and shape TRENTON W. HOLLIDAY a1 and STEVEN E. CHURCHILL a2 a1 Department of Anthropology, Tulane University.
Stature, body mass, and body proportions are evaluated for the Cheddar Man (Gough's Cave 1) skeleton. Like many of his Mesolithic contemporaries, Gough's Cave 1 evinces relatively short estimated stature (ca. 166.2 cm [5′ 5′]) and low body mass (ca. 66 kg [146 lbs]). In body shape, he is similar to recent Europeans for most proportional indices. He differs, however, from most recent Europeans in his high crural index and tibial length/trunk height indices. Thus, while Gough's Cave 1 is characterized by a total morphological pattern considered ‘cold-adapted’, these latter two traits may be interpreted as evidence of a large African role in the origins of anatomically modern Europeans.
___________
Still Evolving, Human Genes Tell New Story
Article Tools Sponsored By Published: March 7, 2006
Dr. Wells, of the National Geographic Society, said Dr. Pritchard's results were fascinating and would help anthropologists explain the immense diversity of human populations even though their genes are generally similar. The relative handful of selected genes that Dr. Pritchard's study has pinpointed may hold the answer, he said, adding, "Each gene has a story of some pressure we adapted to."
Dr. Wells is gathering DNA from across the globe to map in finer detail the genetic variation brought to light by the HapMap project.
Dr. Pritchard's list of selected genes also includes five that affect skin color. The selected versions of the genes occur solely in Europeans and are presumably responsible for pale skin. Anthropologists have generally assumed that the first modern humans to arrive in Europe some 45,000 years ago had the dark skin of their African origins, but soon acquired the paler skin needed to admit sunlight for vitamin D synthesis.
The finding of five skin genes selected 6,600 years ago could imply that Europeans acquired their pale skin much more recently. Or, the selected genes may have been a reinforcement of a process established earlier, Dr. Pritchard said.
The five genes show no sign of selective pressure in East Asians.
Because Chinese and Japanese are also pale, Dr. Pritchard said, evolution must have accomplished the same goal in those populations by working through different genes or by changing the same genes — but many thousands of years before, so that the signal of selection is no longer visible to the new test.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
[Rasol writes] Just stay away from anthroplogy, which you are clearly too dumb to understand..
[Marc writes] Above I praised you for writing a post with no words spelled incorrectly. Looks like I jumped the gun. You could start your diatribe by spelling "anthroplgy" the right way. "Anthropology."
You call me dumb and you can't spell anthropology - much less use it to produce physical evidence of whites being in Europe prior to 5000 BC. Show us some cranium. Give us some physical proof. Among all who post at ES you are among those who know the least about anthropology. You are projecting your ignorance on others?
You, Mr. Bright, have called me "dumb." Can you explain why, if you're so smart, that you have to make up evidence to find something to accuse someone about?
Point a finger at others and you point three at yourself. Are you speaking about Rasol being dumb? If so, is that self-accusation earned, demonstrated, and richly deserved?
posted
. . [Rasol writes] Run that thru your thesaurus, when you're finished with spell check which you apparently forgot to do with your last post....
[Marc writes] Then, in your own next post you introduce the world to a new word writing,
Just stay away from anthroplogy, which you are clearly too dumb to understand..
There you go putting your foot in your mouth again by yourself forgetting to use spell-check and leaving out an "o" in anthropology.
And you are telling someone else to "Just stay away" from something? It seems you'd be doing yourself a favor by staying away from writing and going back to elementary school to learn how to spell. And learn how to use spell-check as well while you are at it (since spelling seems to be a hopeless attainment for you).
posted
Then came the Indo-Europeans who admixed and out-populated the above - now we have these as Europeans.
-------------------- 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 |
R1b and R1 does not equals white skin. If that was the case white women will not be . . . .white.
The white gene resides some place other than the Y-HG.
-------------------- 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 |
-------------------- 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 |
posted
Hey I am sorry. Childish of me. But saw this on the net and it reminded me so much of you.
-------------------- 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 |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Your ad hominem induced accusations don't apply or address why they or the vast majority of classicists and Egyptologists are wrong. 
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
You could start your diatribe by spelling "anthroplgy" the right way. "Anthropology." ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic