posted
Encyclopedia of Prehistory - Volume 4: Europe by Peter N. Peregrine and Melvin Ember (Hardcover - Oct 1, 2001) Buy new: $265.0012 Used & new from $171.99 Get it by Monday, Mar 16 if you order in the next 6 hours and choose one-day shipping. Eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping. Excerpt - page 64: "... 64 Caucasian Neolithic stones with rubbed-out heads and ends, querns and mullers ..." Surprise me! See a random page in this book.
Detainls caucasioan peoples in Europe in prehistory.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thats a lot of money to spend just to be lied to. You could get a hooker to tell you what a great lover you are for a lot less.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
what is an education worth Mike? If you read all of the books I am posting you would at least know endough to have a measured point of view. That is not the case right now.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: [b]When it comes to ancient history, if a White person wrote it , it's probably a lie.
Debatable.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: When it's about caucasioan peoples in Europe in prehistory. It's definately a lie! There was no such thing.
Correct, there are no ancient whites, Caucasians etc.. whatever you want to call them.
Their ancient ancestors actually resembled Australians and Africans, more than recent Europeans.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Please note the nonsense about Cheddar man as an example. He was a friggin south African, yet he was a White European???
Where did you come to the conclusion that Cheddar man was a South African, or even a "white" European?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
Quote; LONDON (Reuter) British scientists Saturday celebrated their feat of tracing a living descendant of a 9,000-year-old skeleton and establishing the world's oldest known family tree.
In an astonishing piece of detective work, they matched mitochondrial DNA material extracted from the tooth cavity of Britain's oldest complete skeleton with that of a 42-year-old history teacher, Adrian Targett.
The genetic material showed without doubt that Targett is a direct descendant through his mother's line of the skeleton known as Cheddar Man, which was found in 1903 in caves in Cheddar Gorge in southwest England.
The inference is clear; since Mr. Targett is a White man, this ancient relative must also be White. Of course they didn't come right out and say that, White people are MUCH better liars than that.
Mindless-one quote: Where did you come to the conclusion that Cheddar man was a South African?
Have you forgotten that Cheddar man was mt-DNA U5, which is the same as Grimaldi.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The computer lab at the mental institution is full today. You guys are nutty as a fruitcake.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Quote; LONDON (Reuter) British scientists Saturday celebrated their feat of tracing a living descendant of a 9,000-year-old skeleton and establishing the world's oldest known family tree.
In an astonishing piece of detective work, they matched mitochondrial DNA material extracted from the tooth cavity of Britain's oldest complete skeleton with that of a 42-year-old history teacher, Adrian Targett.
The genetic material showed without doubt that Targett is a direct descendant through his mother's line of the skeleton known as Cheddar Man, which was found in 1903 in caves in Cheddar Gorge in southwest England.
The inference is clear; since Mr. Targett is a White man, this ancient relative must also be White. Of course they didn't come right out and say that, White people are MUCH better liars than that.[/b]
Yes I have actually posted that article to you showing you how Cheddar man, who retained some tropical body proportions while exhibiting an almost overall cold adapted morphology......
Had a white European descendant.
And No, actually this would have been the Mesolithic time frame, and is before the derived alleles associated with pale skin which became predominant in Europeans in the Neolithic.
TRENTON W. HOLLIDAY
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.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Mindless-one quote: Where did you come to the conclusion that Cheddar man was a South African?
Have you forgotten that Cheddar man was mt-DNA U5, which is the same as Grimaldi.
Umm Grimaldi wasn't a south African either Mike.
They were not Khoisan Mike.
Khoisan are quite distinct from ancient Africans from South Africa, and Eurasia of 36,000 years ago.
They more closely approach the likes of Oceanians.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: The computer lab at the mental institution is full today. You guys are nutty as a fruitcake.
TheAmericanPatriot: They say beevis has SOME brain, whereas butthead has none. That is how I can tell you and the mindless-one apart.
Mindless-one has a teeny little brain, you have none at all. But by all means, keep buying those books. It's just another White man suckering you, but hey, if you didn't need to feel good about yourself, you would have gotten the hooker.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ gringo's populations has the amazing ability to change/morph from black to hybrid to "morphologically" white to "cold adapted" Asians all in the same time frame!
Give him a little time and his Cheddar man will be just as African, hybrid, "morphologically white" or Palaeolithic Asian in Europe; it all depends on who he is exchanging posts with and which forum he is in. lol
quote:
quote:As noted by Dr. Shomarka Keita and other bioanthropologists, Europe was one of the last places on earth settled by modern humans, the first Europeans were still tropically adapted, and they continued to show signs of tropical adaptation as late as the mesolithic.
Soon after they lost their tropical adaptations and became morphologically white, Europeans began to **re-mix** with Black Africans and West Asians during the Neolithic.
The result is that Europeans: appear as a mixture of 2/3rds Asian 1/3rd African- Cavelli Sforza. Link
Nowadays, Gringo claims there were no Europeans before the Neolithic, the early humans in Europe were Asians and these (not white) mixed with Africans to produce a "hybrid". And it is at this stage we get the modern European 2/3 Asian and 1/3/ African, not before.
What we are seeing here is an evolution in bullshit. lol
posted
Mindless-one - I am going to go VEERY SLOOWLY.
Quote; 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.
This means that they expected the Hofmeyr skull to look pretty much EXACTLY like the skull of a present day Khoisan.
Why - People always have, and always will move around.
Additionally, as I told you in a previous post, Khoisan are not the original people in South Africa.
AND MORE Additionally, Khoisan is not a single people, it is a combination of the Khoi and the San People. Da!
Quote; 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.
This is saying that INSTEAD of looking like a PRESENT day Khoisan of south Africa. The Hofmeyr skull, which is of a south African from 36,000 years ago, looks more like the Grimaldi people who left south Africa more than 45,000 years ago.
Well Ya, the Hofmeyr were in south Africa just AFTER the Grimaldi LEFT south Africa. It is reasonable that they would be similar people.
BACKGROUND!
The Hofmeyr Skull is a 36 kya human skull specimen near Hofmeyr, a small town in Eastern Cape, South Africa.
From Scared texts:
The Grimaldi skulls of the Aurignacian period may have Bushmen characteristics, but they give indication of greater intellectual development than can be credited to those ill-fated and interesting African nomads who, prior to coming into contact with the white races, at whose hands they have suffered so.
From: Keith, Arthur. Ancient Types of Man, Chapter VI, The Grimaldi or Negroid Type in Europe.
French anthopologist Dr. Verneau - The ancient Grimaldi woman and boy from various features seen in the skeletons, had no hesitation in assigning them to a negroid race.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Mindless-one - I am going to go VEERY SLOOWLY.
Quote; 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.
This means that they expected the Hofmeyr skull to look pretty much EXACTLY like the skull of a present day Khoisan.
Why - People always have, and always will move around.
Mike the point was you said they resembled the Khoisan, but they don't.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: From: Keith, Arthur. Ancient Types of Man, Chapter VI, The Grimaldi or Negroid Type in Europe.
French anthopologist Dr. Verneau - The ancient Grimaldi woman and boy from various features seen in the skeletons, had no hesitation in assigning them to a negroid race.
There is no Negroid race, but yes Mike these individuals would be closest approached by Oceanians and Africans in phenotype because they indeed came from Africa.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mindless-one; didn't you read this one from above.The Grimaldi skulls of the Aurignacian period may have Bushmen characteristics.
TheAmericanPatriot - Is any of this sinking into your Texas cracker brain, or are you still going to spend $265.00 just to have another cracker lie to you about mythical White people in ancient Europe?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Mindless-one; didn't you read this one from above.
From Scared texts:
The Grimaldi skulls of the Aurignacian period may have Bushmen characteristics. [/qb]
Oh wow, this coming from the nitpicking semantic man who loves to discredit a scienctic finding if the article uses the words "may" "suggest" "could" "imply" etc...
What a contradicting character.
Anyway Mike, from whom does that quote derive?
Btw what is the "scared texts"?
Did you mean sacred?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike, You calling anyone a cracker is a joke, especially someone who literally has ten times the education you have. The problem is that in order to understand complex issues you have to have a foundation. If I build a home with no foundation it may well collapse. It takes four or five years of hard study to build that foundation. That is why the books I post for you are basic knowledge designed to build a strong historical foundation. My guess is you are not really interested in history but rather are brainwashed with black racist philosophy. Many of you are taught and instilled with a victim philosophy that wants to see the world in terms of racial conflict. I hope I am wrong about that because if not you will continue to live your live in a cloud of ignorance.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is not what i said Mike. Go back and read the post again and for once in your life try to grasp the content of what you are reading.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: 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.
While I'm new here I must say it comes as no surprise to me that the Hofmeyr skull shows some similarity to an early European. Early Europeans came from the ancient Africans of 30 to 40 thousand years ago, and I do not believe that Africans have simply stopped evolving, so it makes sense to me that the skull possesses traits similar to early Europeans that are no longer common among Modern Africans.
Posts: 26 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JarHed: While I'm new here I must say it comes as no surprise to me that the Hofmeyr skull shows some similarity to an early European. Early Europeans came from the ancient Africans of 30 to 40 thousand years ago,
Correct.
But remember, just because they didn't resemble the Khoisan and Bantu groups tested, doesn't mean they didn't resemble any Africans at all, as some might want you to believe.
This is because Khoisan and Bantu do not represent all of Africa phenotypically, since Africa is home to the largest diversity genetically, and phenotypically, hence them not resembling the said Africans is not surprising either.
As anthropologists Chris stringer already denoted here.....
Early Europeans still resembled modern tropical peoples -> some resemble modern Australian and Africans, more than modern Europeans [C. Stringer, R. McKie 1996]
"Nor does the picture get any clearer when we move on to the Cro-Magnons, the presumed ancestors of modern Europeans. Some were more like present-day Australians or Africans, judged by objective anatomical observations..." - African Exodus Christopher Stringer and Robin McKie 1996
quote:Originally posted by JarHed: and I do not believe that Africans have simply stopped evolving, so it makes sense to me that the skull possesses traits similar to early Europeans that are no longer common among Modern Africans.
Indeed, and the closest population noted to retain the most primitive morphology when comparing to early humans would be Oceanic's, such as Australians and Melanesian's.
Anatomically modern humans have been evolving in Africa for at least 200,000 years, these earliest humans needed to posses modern human characteristics in order to be considered anatomically modern humans, as noted by numerous anthropologists these early Africans from over 100, 000 years ago were anatomically modern human, hence do in fact resemble moderns.
Note;
"From the size of the preserved bones, we estimated that Omo I was tall and slender, most likely around 5'10" tall and about 155 pounds," University of New Mexico anthropologist Osbjorn Pearson, who co-authored at least two of the new papers, told Discovery News.
Pearson said another, later fossil was also recently found. It too belonged to a "moderately tall -- around 5'9" -- and slender individual."
"Taken together, the remains show that these early modern humans were...much like the people in southern Ethiopia and the southern Sudan today," Pearson said.
So my point is that for those nonsensical fabricators trying to say early Africans somehow evolved a different generalized phenotype for 190,000 years and then all of a sudden turned to how they looked today in the same environment, is bogus.
Basically, these early Africans were simply primitive versions of the modern inhabitants evolving in the same environment, and progressively became more modern, the ones who've actually evolved extremely from this phenotype are those who hate Africans the most, but simply cant escape this reality because evidence always points back in the same direction which is Africa.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now gringo belives early Europeans came from the ancient Africans 30 to 40kya??!
It's no longer a "hybrid" population that entered Europe around 30-40kya. (Bowcock, 1991) It's no longer Europeans after the Neolithic post OOA Africans. It's no longer "they arose as a consequence of admixture between two already differentiated populations." (Bowcock, 1991) It's no longer whites mixed with incoming Africans and Asians; Asians mixing with Africans. What will gringo think of next?
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Poor distraught stalker of ES, and his fabricated stories; the real question is, how will he think to distort me next?
It's funny that after everyone of my posts you have the distraught jackassoben saying he thought I said something (of course since he's never certain) differently, but it is never what is actually being said.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Well, you are very inconsistent, and generally, very wrong.
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: ^ Well, you are very inconsistent, and generally, very wrong.
This coming from a kid who's basically on the level of Mike111 and Egmond Codfried? Lmao
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Level isn't the issue. Consistency and correctness are. Still can't read, which is your only real consistent trait.
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: Level isn't the issue.
You're on the same basic level as them.
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: Consistency and correctness are.
Same level as Mike111 and Egmond Codfried, you are, when it comes to this.
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: Still can't read, which is your only real consistent trait.
Definitely, of course, all of the above has to do with your poor reading comprehension, of which you share this with Mike111 and Egmond just to name a couple.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^The self appointed stalker of ES, shows his horrifically disgusting face yet again, as always, and yet no substance.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben: Now gringo belives early Europeans came from the ancient Africans 30 to 40kya??!
Wasn't I the one who said that?
Lol, you'll soon find out that there are few on this board just like akoben who base their posting lives on false attributions and distortions.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been reading the forums long enough to realize that already, but thanks for the advice anyways.
Posts: 26 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mindless, I was so waiting for you try and distance yourself from your post agreeing with JarHed's comments re early Europeans coming from ancient Africans 30-40kya. You disappoint this time. Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^My reply to Jarhead is clear, and it appears above, if you'd like to take a crack at it without distortion, just let me know. Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
As to the similarities with Africans, the best way to explain it in terms of historical connections, is to assume that the Asian ancestral population that gave rise to the Australians and to the first Americans had its ultimate origins in the African continent, as it is in fact the case with all modern humans (Stringer and Andrews, 1988; Stringer and McKie, 1996; Lahr, 1994, 1996), ***but which retained a very generalized morphology.*** In accordance with Lahr (1996), the Australians are in fact the contemporary aboriginal population that retained the most primitive morphology when compared to the first modern humans. As she stressed "Groups like [...] Australo-Melanesians are all examples of relatively early diversifications without great amounts of gene flow from other groups..." (Lahr, 1996, p.335).Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I meant what *specific* traits are deemed "primitive morphology" that is presumably retained by said groups you mentioned?
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well then I'd guess one would have to read Lahr 1996 to get the specific answer, from previous readings I've saw that some Australians retain primitive brow ridges, upon more robust features.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess I'm trying to understand what the author(s) deem "primitive", especially since they proclaim that the so-called morphology is retained by some contemporary group, namely the Australian aborigines.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: I guess I'm trying to understand what the author(s) deem "primitive", especially since they proclaim that the so-called morphology is retained by some contemporary group, namely the Australian aborigines.
True, but just what would this imply by them being closest morphologically to early humans, and of course Oceanics being the least changed, closely resembling Africans, besides that these early humans looked like Africans?
Like I noted here...
So my point is that for those nonsensical fabricators trying to say early Africans somehow evolved a different generalized phenotype for 190,000 years and then all of a sudden turned to how they looked today in the same environment, is bogus.Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I mean, where does one draw the line; early modern humans likely have body plans that contemporary groups have carried on; should those also be deemed "primitive" or not?
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: I mean, where does one draw the line; early modern humans likely have body plans that contemporary groups have carried on;
Indeed, I've also noted this...
Anatomically modern humans have been evolving in Africa for at least 200,000 years, these earliest humans needed to posses modern human characteristics in order to be considered anatomically modern humans, as noted by numerous anthropologists these early Africans from over 100, 000 years ago were anatomically modern human, hence do in fact resemble moderns.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: should those also be deemed "primitive" or not?
I've noticed that most features deemed as primitive are simply more robust.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I've taken note of that trend myself. How about "melanin"; could that qualify as primitive, for example. Anyway, thanks for the response.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: How about "melanin"; could that qualify as primitive, for example.
Some might like for it to be classified as such, but then those are the ones who would say any population with melanin is primitive in everything (Ie. Europeans) but the fact that anatomically modern humans have been evolving 200,000 years in Africa, melanin is as basic as having a nose or eyes.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Anyway, thanks for the response.
Gladly.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think any climate adapted trait is primitive. But from what I can tell of Aborigines they have most of the climate adapted traits of an African, but possess some primitive features like their brow ridge. Because of the few primitive features they have Aborigines do not really look like modern Africans to me, but rather like how Africans used to look like at some point in time.
Edit:This has nothing really to do about what I just said but I believe Cro-Magnon man is at least one of the ancestors of modern Europeans but he probably mixed with other moderns migrating from Asia. However I believe Neanderthals most likely had nothing to do with the origin of modern Europeans, that has been proven already, any cold adapted traits Europeans possess are likely due to a selection for them among their tropically adapted ancestors. On a side note Eskimos are more cold-adapted than most Europeans.
Posts: 26 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Well then I'd guess one would have to read Lahr 1996 to get the specific answer, from previous readings I've saw that some Australians retain primitive brow ridges, upon more robust features.
This is so typical of you gringo. You parrot the sublet racism of Eurocentrism yet you are so clueless as to why you even do it! What the **** are "primitive" features, why is it even called that and who decides this? And why are these terms reserved for black people? Is "melanin" a primitive feature too? Gringo the sucker for white racism. lol
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Spare me the ad hominem remarks, emotional kid. 
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic