posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ And it appears that you are an idiot. It's basic anthropological knowledge that all predynastic Egyptian skulls were classed as "negroid" in one way or another. Unless you can explain what whites are doing in prehistoric Africa..

---

This is what you said in another thread.

Southern Europe's mixed heritage is not surprising because it right across from Africa. [/QUOTE]

And yet you believe it doesn't work both ways? There is way too much evidence contrary to what you want everyone else to believe.

Last time I looked, I didn't find any evidence of Filipinos having been in ancient Egypt. Who looks more like the idiot?

Posts: 527 | From: usa | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike111:


Human Male European Skull

Although the concept of race assessment is controversial, certain features of the skull may be of use in differentiating ancestral groups. In this skull, the nasal root is prominent and the nasal angle is acute. The nasal spine is short and the lower part of the nostrils has a sharp nasal sill with a very vague impression of bilateral gutters.





Human Male African Skull

The nasal root is depressed and the nasal angle is obtuse. The nasal aperture is broad from top to bottom. The lower part of the nostrils has a bilateral gutter and there is no sill.




[/QB]

---

Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike111:


Human Male European Skull

Although the concept of race assessment is controversial, certain features of the skull may be of use in differentiating ancestral groups. In this skull, the nasal root is prominent and the nasal angle is acute. The nasal spine is short and the lower part of the nostrils has a sharp nasal sill with a very vague impression of bilateral gutters.





Human Male African Skull

The nasal root is depressed and the nasal angle is obtuse. The nasal aperture is broad from top to bottom. The lower part of the nostrils has a bilateral gutter and there is no sill.

---

Caution has to be made with such picture comparisons because of africa's high genetic diversity- the highest in the world from which all else flows. Prognathism, and certain skull shapes, or broad noses may indeed indicate Africoid elements but such markers are only PART of the African mix, which is not limited to the stereotypical "true negro" model put forth by Eurocentrics. BOTH skulls above can be from 'sub-Saharan" Africa.

Narrow noses for example are routine in East Africa or parts of the Sahara, being caused by the dry air of the desert or that of the cooler higher altitudes. In other words, such diversity is BUILT-IN to Africans from the beginning, without needing any "race mix" or "migrating Caucasoids" to explain the variation. But broad noses also occur in the same high altitudes and dry air, and narrow noses can also be seen in the tropics of West africa. Almost every variation can occur in Africa. Light skin for example occurs among one of Africa's oldest populations, the San or Bushmen people. Again, "Caucasoids" or "white blood" are not needed to make Africans vary in how they look.

A second point is that the diversity of africa produces substantial overlap with other population groups. Africa has the greatest cranial and phenetic variability of any region in the world. In times past and even fairly recently, white scholars have been quick to group anything without a broad nose as 'Caucasoid", "hamitic", "Mediterranean", "Middle eastern" and other labels- anything but black. But the diversity of Africa cuases overlap with many regions. The infamous Howells FORDISC study used modern computers (the FORDISC program) to make a number of assertions about Africans, in particular being used by aryo-nuts to "whiten" Nubians. But FORDISC showed a number of fatal flaws- matching ancient black Nubians with far-flung Japanese, Easter Islanders and Hungarians for example.

Kieta warns against simple cranial comparisons, noting the diversity of africa, and that a balanced package of analysis should be used- in other words- cross-check. Thus we know by cross-checking against historical data for example that Hungarians and Japanese did not sweep into ancient Nubia to give the natives civilization. Nor, depsite the fantasies of today's "Aryan" nuts, did ancient white Nordics or British. African skull data overlaps with all these peoples because it represents the original source. We know by cross-checking agaisnt cultural and material artifacts that the black peoples of the Sahara and the Sudan were also long inhabitants of the Nile Valley before egyptian civilization started, and contiued in the Nile valley to the end of ancient Egyptian civ despite attempts to airbrush them out of the picture. [/QB]

---

Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Simple Girl:

And yet you believe it doesn't work both ways? There is way too much evidence contrary to what you want everyone else to believe.

Last time I looked, I didn't find any evidence of Filipinos having been in ancient Egypt. Who looks more like the idiot?

---

Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Morpheus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Simple Girl:

And yet you believe it doesn't work both ways? There is way too much evidence contrary to what you want everyone else to believe.

Last time I looked, I didn't find any evidence of Filipinos having been in ancient Egypt. Who looks more like the idiot?

---

Simple Girl,

Are you claiming that the Ancient Egyptians are ancestral to Europe?

I have never seen any credible evidence whatsoever for this claim.

Where is the archeological, linguistic, cultural and anthropological evidence for Ancient Egyptians being ancestral to Europe?

Throughout the history of Egyptsearch not a single poster has provided evidence from a mainstream scholar for this. All we ever get are pictures of statues with the claim that they look "Caucasian", 50 - 100 year old quotes from racists like Coon classifying the skulls as Caucasian or posters trying to White Wash East Africans with outdated or distorted sources claiming they are mixed with Caucasians.

When are we going to get an essay from a reputed source on this level which summarizes the evidence for the true biogeographic origins of the Ancient Egyptians?


The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians

---

Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Simple Girl:
The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians


Has anyone here actually read and interpreted what this article is saying?

---

Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Simple Girl:
The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians


Has anyone here actually read and interpreted what this article is saying?

---

Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
Not one bit of research I have found contradicts the following which substantiates at least a tenet of Afrocentric claims:

G. Paoli, in "ABO Typing of Ancient Egyptians" IN _Population biology of ancient Egyptians_, edited by D.R. Brothwell and B.A. Chiarelli, London, New York, 1973, showed that the Dynastic Egyptians were most closely matched with the Haratin of the northern Sahara. Paoli mentions the theory of
Cabot-Briggs (Cabot-Briggs, L. (1958), _The Living Races of the Sahara Desert, Massachussets) that this resemblance might indicate the origin of the Haratin. Here are the figures given for the two groups from Paoli (p. 464):



Modern Northern Haratin and Dynastic Egyptian
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. O A B AB p q r
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Egyptians 160 34 64 34 28 34.35 21.45 44.20 (Paoli)
Haratin 202 40 80 57 25 30.99 23.14 48.87 (Mourant)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

Good reference. I think Keita mentions Paoli in one of his articles. The Haratin are considered to be "Negroid" in physical type (Livingstone, 1967) and black northern Haratin who are also held to be the probable descendants of the original Saharans by (Hiernaux, 1975). This means part of the ancient aboriginal population of North Africa not recent introductions by the slavetrade. The Haratin are considered Berbers according to the Encyclopedia Brittanica- "Berber Tribes", 2006:
"The Berbers are divided into a number of groups that speak distinct languages. The largest of these are the Rif, Kabyle, Shawia, Tuareg, Haratin, Shluh, and Beraber."

Frequencies on some "q" gene elements by both peoples (Haratin and Egyptians) were almost twice those in typically European populations. (Montagu, A. _Introduction to Physical Anthropology_ 1960, p. 334).

Other serological tests have shown close affinity of certain Berber-speaking groups with tropical Africans in the high rates of cDe, P and V, and low Fy^a antigens(Keita 1990, Mourant et al., 1976, Chamla, 1980). They also group close with West Africans in the high incidence of HbC, HbS and the sickle cell condition (Livingstone, 1967). Noted in S.O.Y. KEITA, "Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern Africa", AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 83:35-48 (1990)[10]

The reference also helps contradict the notion that "Berber" means "white." The Haratin are Berbers and no one is going to mistake them for "Caucasoid" soon. To the contrary as ES has documented extensively, Berbers are a mixed bag, a language category, not a "racial" one. There are plenty of "blacks" in that mix. A 2005 gene study by Cherni, et al. for example found that the Berbers studied (Kesra) showed twice the frequency of Sub-Saharan lineages normally in coastal populations and matched up with western Sahara populations better than non-Berber groups like Arabs. It warns of the complexity of the region noting that: "The North African patchy mtDNA landscape has no parallel in other regions of the world.." cautioning against the rigged samples and shaky race percentage claims of Eurocentrics.

Paoli's reference helps us get a more balanced view, particularly with the number of rigged samples and stacked decks in studies of African peoples.

Poloni 1997 for example drew his "representative" samples from the far north of Egypt near Port Said. Hammer 1997 likewise drew his "representative" samples from the far north, near Cairo, as has Cavalli-Sforza on a number of occassions. Bosch studied "North Africa" but somehow excluded almost all of Mali, Chad, Niger and the Sudan, (or used Arabized samples for one location), places typically classified as 'North Africa" by several other scholars. Ironically, even with the deck stacked in Poloni's study, Egyptians linked closer to other Africans, such as Ethiopians and Lemba, than with Europeans or Middle Easterners.

Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Simple Girl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ And it appears that you are an idiot. It's basic anthropological knowledge that all predynastic Egyptian skulls were classed as "negroid" in one way or another. Unless you can explain what whites are doing in prehistoric Africa..

---

This is what you said in another thread.

Southern Europe's mixed heritage is not surprising because it right across from Africa.

---

quote:

---

Last time I looked, I didn't find any evidence of Filipinos having been in ancient Egypt. Who looks more like the idiot?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti many times before:

Cranial Features:
The human phenotypic trait that holds the greatest diversity is cranial morphology. Because of this fact, cranial features can at times be misleading if not taken into proper context. For example, for a long time features like long narrow faces and narrow noses have been associated with “caucasian” or “caucasoid” people even though such features are present in populations throughout the globe from Africa to the Americas. The same can be said about so-called “negroid” features such as broad faces and noses which are also not just confined to Africans but various peoples in Asia, the Pacific etc.

Which is why we have studies like this:

J. Edwards, A. Leathers, et al.
...based on Howell’s sampling Fordisc 2.0 authors state that "there are no races, only populations," yet it is clear that Howell was intent on providing known groups that would be distributed among the continental "racial" groups.
We tested the accuracy and effectiveness of Fordisc 2.0 using twelve cranial measurements from a homogeneous population from the X-Group period of Sudanese Nubia (350CE-550CE). When the Fordisc program classified the adult X-Group crania, only 51 (57.3%) of 89 individuals were classified within groups from Africa. Others were placed in such diverse groups as Polynesian (11.24%), European (7.86%), Japanese (4.49%), Native American (3.37%), Peruvian (3.36%), Australian (1.12), Tasmanian (1.12%), and Melanesian (1.12%). The implications of these findings suggest that classifying populations, whether by geography or by "race", is not morphologically or biologically accurate because of the wide variation even in homogeneous populations.

And...

Forensic Misclassification of
Ancient Nubian Crania:
Implications for Assumptions
about Human Variation -April 2005, Current Anthropology:

It is well known that human biological variation is principally clinal (i.e., structured as gradients) and not racial (i.e., structured as a small number of fairly discrete
groups). We have shown that for a temporally and geographically homogeneous East African population, the most widely used “racial”
program fails to identify the skeletal material accurately. The assignment of skeletal racial origin is based principally upon stereotypical features found most frequently in the most geographically distant populations. While this is useful in some contexts (for example, sorting
skeletal material of largely West African ancestry
from skeletal material of largely Western European ancestry), it fails to identify populations that originate elsewhere and misrepresents fundamental patterns of human biological diversity.

These exact same mistakes were made in classifying Egyptian skulls and is also the reason you hear these old studies speak of a percentage of “Caucasoid” and even a percentage of “mongoloid” skulls!

Jean Hiernaux
The People of Africa(Peoples of the World Series) 1975
The oldest remains of Homo sapiens sapiens found in East Africa were associated with an industry having similarities with the Capsian. It has been called Upper Kenyan Capsian, although its derivation from the North African Capsian is far from certain. At Gamble's Cave in Kenya, five human skeletons were associated with a late phase of the industry, Upper Kenya Capsian C, which contains pottery. A similar associationis presumed for a skeleton found at Olduvai, which resembles those from Gamble's Cave. The date of Upper Kenya Capsian C is not precisely known (an earlier phase from Prospect Farm on Eburru Mountain close to Gamble's Cave has been dated to about 8000 BC); but the presence of pottery indicates a rather later date, perhaps around 400 BC. The skeletons are of very tall people. They had long, narrow heads, and relatively long, narrow faces. The nose was of medium width; and prognathism, when present, was restricted to the alveolar, or tooth-bearing, region......all their features can be found in several living populations of East Africa, like the Tutsi of Rwanda and Burundi, who are very dark skinned and differ greatly from Europeans in a number of body proportions.............
From the foregoing, it is tempting to locate the area of differentiation of these people in the interior of East Africa. There is every reason to believe that they are ancestral to the living 'Elongated East Africans'. Neither of these populations, fossil and modern, should be considered to be closely related to the populations of Europe and western Asia.


"Claims that Caucasoid peoples once lived in eastern Africa have been
shown to be wrong," - JO Vogel, Precolonial Africa

So features like narrow faces and noses do NOT indicate foreign ancestry or ‘admixture’ let alone designate "cacasoid"!

Fulani (West African)


Somali (East African)


Egyptian (North African)


Tutsi (Central African)


Ironically, another trait all of these people above share in common besides facial features is skeletal structure of their bodies. Their body structure has been called “super-negroid” indicating their extra-tropical adapted bodies compared to stereotypical blacks of West Africa who only have plain “negroid” builds. This is another indication that these people definitely have NO non-African ancestry!

Also, just because someone happens to have the same features as those you consider ‘true blacks (negroes)’ does not mean they are even African. As seen by this Andamanese person below.

Southeast Asian


Jean Hiernaux, The People of Africa 1975
p.53, 54

"In sub-Saharan Africa, many anthropological characters show a wide range of population means or frequencies. In some of them, the whole world range is covered in the sub-continent. Here live the shortest and the tallest human populations, the one with the highest and the one with the lowest nose, the one with the thickest and the one with the thinnest lips in the world. In this area, the range of the average nose widths covers 92 per cent of the world range:

only a narrow range of extremely low means are absent from the African record. Means for head diameters cover about 80 per cent of the world range; 60 per cent is the corresponding value for a variable once cherished by physical anthropologists, the cephalic index, or ratio of the head width to head length expressed as a percentage....."

So all this talk of such peoples being “not black” and “mixed” because of certain looks is downright silly... And why there really are no 'races' because most of human diversity *comes from Africans*.

---

Posts: 26243 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Simple Girl:
The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians


Has anyone here actually read and interpreted what this article is saying?

---

Posts: 26243 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged |