quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: [QB] Lets try this, show us an academically and or scientific verified source that names any Pre-dynastic culture tied to Dynastic Egypt in Europe or anywhere outside of Africa.
David Rohl.
His works show the Mesopotamian basis of early dynastic egyptian religion & culture.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: [QB] Lets try this, show us an academically and or scientific verified source that names any Pre-dynastic culture tied to Dynastic Egypt in Europe or anywhere outside of Africa.
David Rohl.
His works show the Mesopotamian basis of early dynastic egyptian religion & culture.
And he is just reviving what has already been known for well over a century. It's amazing how political correctness can damage the truth.
Posts: 527 | From: usa | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Simple Girl: If there is that much diversity within a small area, then show me an extremely black couple that have children with red hair, blue eyes and fair skin. It's that simple.
Negroids have the least phenotype diversity. This is why the Afronuts now extend their racial category under the bogus 'tropical african' label as they can cluster themselves with Australoids (Australian Aborigines) to claim wavy hair, Capoids (Bushman) to claim epicanthic folds and lighter brown skin, and lastly if they include the pygmies in their 'tropical african' group they can claim they have the most diversity in stature.
Its easy to spot what they are doing. They all do it out of self-hate of the Negroid phenotype, so instead they will cluster themselves with other races to claim other phenotypes such as the australoid wavy hair etc.
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Simpleton Girl: I'll bet that I can show more evidence linking those ancient civilizations to earlier civilizations in Europe, than you can to places in Africa. I've already called you out on this and you just ignored me.lol
Since when??!! I have cited actual Egyptologists stating Egypt's cultural origins in Africa. YOU on the other hand have cited NONE! I have cited close cultural parallels and apparel YOU on the other hand cite off hand similarities that have NO common origins!
The period when sub-Saharan Africa was most influential in Egypt was a time when neither Egypt, as we understand it culturally, nor the Sahara, as we understand it geographically, existed. Populations and cultures now found south of the desert roamed far to the north. The culture of Upper Egypt, which became dynastic Egyptian civilization, could fairly be called a Sudanese transplant. Egypt rapidly found a method of disciplining the river, the land, and the people to transform the country into a titanic garden. Egypt rapidly developed detailed cultural forms that dwarfed its forebears in urbanity and elaboration. Thus, when new details arrived, they were rapidly adapted to the vast cultural superstructure already present. On the other hand, pharaonic culture was so bound to its place near the Nile that its huge, interlocked religious, administrative, and formal structures could not be readily transferred to relatively mobile cultures of the desert, savanna, and forest. The influence of the mature pharaonic civilizations of Egypt and Kush was almost confined to their sophisticated trade goods and some significant elements of technology. Nevertheless, the religious substratum of Egypt and Kush was so similar to that of many cultures in southern Sudan today that it remains possible that fundamental elements derived from the two high cultures to the north live on.--Joseph O. Vogel (1997)
The evidence also points to linkages to other northeast African peoples, not coincidentally approximating the modern range of languages closely related to Egyptian in the Afro-Asiatic group(formerly called Hamito-Semetic).These linguistic similarities place ancient Egyptian in a close relationship with languages spoken today as far west as Chad, and as far south as Somalia. Archaeological evidence also strongly supports an African origin. A widespread northeastern African cultural assemblage, including distinctive multiple barbed harpoons and pottery decorated with dotted wavy line patterns, appears during the early Neolithic (also known as the Aqualithic, a reference to the mild climate of the Sahara at this time. Saharan and Sudanese rock art from this time resembles early Egyptian iconography. Strong connections between Nubian (Sudanese) and Egyptian material culture continue in later Neolithic Badarian culture of Upper Egypt. Similarities include black-topped wares, vessels with characteristic ripple-burnished surfaces, a special tulip-shaped vessel with incised and white-filled decoration, palettes, and harpoons... Other ancient Egyptian practices show strong similarities to modern African cultures including divine kingship, the use of headrests, body art, circumcision, and male coming-of-age rituals, all suggesting an African substratum or foundation for Egyptian civilization.-- Donald Redford (2001)
The independence and leadership roles of ancient Egyptian women may be part of an African cultural pattern that began millennia ago and continued into recent times. In the 1860s the famous Dr. David Livingstone wrote of meeting female chiefs in the Congo, and in most of the monarchical systems of traditional Africa there were either one or two women of the highest rank who occupied a position on a par with that of the king or complementary to it. Anthropologist who have studied tribes and records of early travelers and missionaries tell us that "everywhere in Africa that one scrapes the surface one finds ethno-historical data on the authority once shared by women." Recent work with traditional African societies has revealed that both men and women were recognized as having important roles in the public sphere. Thus it is not too surprising to find that in Egypt in several excavated cemeteries from the early cultural periods the richest tombs were those of women. In another grave at Badari (grave no. 3740) a woman was buried with a weapon that was commonly used in sacrifice, a "knobbed mace-head of pink limestone," as well as a slate cosmetic palette. These were valuable objects and indicated high status as well as wealth. If prominent roles for females were the norm for many African societies and for this reason show up already in ancient Egypt, perhaps there are other indications of an African cultural heritage pertinent to our study...-- Barbara Lesko (1999)
I just cited three scholars who all specifically cite African Saharan and Nilotic origins for Egyptian culture NOT European, you thimble-headed, pea-brained, twit!!
Now cite me an equal number of scholars who support YOUR claims!
quote: Well let me put it this way. Take a country like Egypt or Sudan or even Ethiopia. You explain the amount of diversity that exists within these relatively confined regions of the earth as diversity that is indigenous to those people. Do you actually want to make me believe that extreme diversity can exist within these areas for thousands and thousands of years without any outside influence? How stupid do you think people are?
You are trying to make it look as if these people can go from one extreme to another without having any influence from outside.lol....I don't have to show you any DNA evidence because you'll just distort and twist the facts to suit your own agenda.
Obviously you are totally ignorant about genetics and bio-anthropology. Because humankind originated in Africa, African populations as the oldest populations possess the greatest amount of genetic and therefore phenotypic diversity! We have already cited many studies showing this. That you find it hard to believe or comprehend is not our problem but YOURS.
quote:Show me at least 10 extremely dark couples from any of the regions that I have mentioned that have children that vary from one extreme to the other, and I might start to believe you. Show me at least 1 couple anyways. Show me at least one extremely dark couple that has children that look like they do, and children that look like someone from say Northern Europe.
Show me an extremely dark couple that have children that are not albino with red hair and blue eyes and fair skin. I'll bet that you can't unless they have adopted them.And everyone knows that black people could care less about adopting white children...lol
Stupidass strawman argument. Just because African people possess the greatest phenotypic diversity does NOT mean they have all people of COLD ADAPTED European phenotype among them, dumbass! LOLPosts: 26240 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by castrated: Negroids have the least phenotype diversity. This is why the Afronuts now extend their racial category under the bogus 'tropical african' label as they can cluster themselves with Australoids (Australian Aborigines) to claim wavy hair, Capoids (Bushman) to claim epicanthic folds and lighter brown skin, and lastly if they include the pygmies in their 'tropical african' group they can claim they have the most diversity in stature.
Its easy to spot what they are doing. They all do it out of self-hate of the Negroid phenotype, so instead they will cluster themselves with other races to claim other phenotypes such as the australoid wavy hair etc.
Yet you fail to define exactly WHAT constitutes a "negroid" let alone "cacasoid". I find it funny how Cacasoids are diverse yet Negroids are not since the latter has a much larger range of habitation in Sub-Saharan Africa. Why are Cacasoids divided into say 'Nordic', 'Alpine', and 'Mediterranean' but Negroids are not??
Posts: 26240 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
By anyones logic it means that either one of those two white people had a recent black ancestor or she received a good ol fashioned Bantu dick down leaving her child lite brown for her hubby was a clown. And really?? you read Essence?? My aren't you the enlighten racist troll,or just keeping up on secrets on how to get a blackman.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ LMAO So true! The white loser is so desperate he will read anything from Ebony to Jet if he thinks it will support his absurd and twisted point! As for that couple having a child like that. The moron thinks that whites or 'caca-soids' are so genetically diverse they can have a child like that. As you say, it is more likely one or the other parent has black ancestry. The moron desperately tries to escape from the FACT that Africans are the source of all genetic diversity NOT Europe!
Posts: 26240 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Simpleton Girl: I'll bet that I can show more evidence linking those ancient civilizations to earlier civilizations in Europe, than you can to places in Africa. I've already called you out on this and you just ignored me.lol
Since when??!! I have cited actual Egyptologists stating Egypt's cultural origins in Africa. YOU on the other hand have cited NONE! I have cited close cultural parallels and apparel YOU on the other hand cite off hand similarities that have NO common origins!
The period when sub-Saharan Africa was most influential in Egypt was a time when neither Egypt, as we understand it culturally, nor the Sahara, as we understand it geographically, existed. Populations and cultures now found south of the desert roamed far to the north. The culture of Upper Egypt, which became dynastic Egyptian civilization, could fairly be called a Sudanese transplant. Egypt rapidly found a method of disciplining the river, the land, and the people to transform the country into a titanic garden. Egypt rapidly developed detailed cultural forms that dwarfed its forebears in urbanity and elaboration. Thus, when new details arrived, they were rapidly adapted to the vast cultural superstructure already present. On the other hand, pharaonic culture was so bound to its place near the Nile that its huge, interlocked religious, administrative, and formal structures could not be readily transferred to relatively mobile cultures of the desert, savanna, and forest. The influence of the mature pharaonic civilizations of Egypt and Kush was almost confined to their sophisticated trade goods and some significant elements of technology. Nevertheless, the religious substratum of Egypt and Kush was so similar to that of many cultures in southern Sudan today that it remains possible that fundamental elements derived from the two high cultures to the north live on.--Joseph O. Vogel (1997)
The evidence also points to linkages to other northeast African peoples, not coincidentally approximating the modern range of languages closely related to Egyptian in the Afro-Asiatic group(formerly called Hamito-Semetic).These linguistic similarities place ancient Egyptian in a close relationship with languages spoken today as far west as Chad, and as far south as Somalia. Archaeological evidence also strongly supports an African origin. A widespread northeastern African cultural assemblage, including distinctive multiple barbed harpoons and pottery decorated with dotted wavy line patterns, appears during the early Neolithic (also known as the Aqualithic, a reference to the mild climate of the Sahara at this time. Saharan and Sudanese rock art from this time resembles early Egyptian iconography. Strong connections between Nubian (Sudanese) and Egyptian material culture continue in later Neolithic Badarian culture of Upper Egypt. Similarities include black-topped wares, vessels with characteristic ripple-burnished surfaces, a special tulip-shaped vessel with incised and white-filled decoration, palettes, and harpoons... Other ancient Egyptian practices show strong similarities to modern African cultures including divine kingship, the use of headrests, body art, circumcision, and male coming-of-age rituals, all suggesting an African substratum or foundation for Egyptian civilization.-- Donald Redford (2001)
The independence and leadership roles of ancient Egyptian women may be part of an African cultural pattern that began millennia ago and continued into recent times. In the 1860s the famous Dr. David Livingstone wrote of meeting female chiefs in the Congo, and in most of the monarchical systems of traditional Africa there were either one or two women of the highest rank who occupied a position on a par with that of the king or complementary to it. Anthropologist who have studied tribes and records of early travelers and missionaries tell us that "everywhere in Africa that one scrapes the surface one finds ethno-historical data on the authority once shared by women." Recent work with traditional African societies has revealed that both men and women were recognized as having important roles in the public sphere. Thus it is not too surprising to find that in Egypt in several excavated cemeteries from the early cultural periods the richest tombs were those of women. In another grave at Badari (grave no. 3740) a woman was buried with a weapon that was commonly used in sacrifice, a "knobbed mace-head of pink limestone," as well as a slate cosmetic palette. These were valuable objects and indicated high status as well as wealth. If prominent roles for females were the norm for many African societies and for this reason show up already in ancient Egypt, perhaps there are other indications of an African cultural heritage pertinent to our study...-- Barbara Lesko (1999)
I just cited three scholars who all specifically cite African Saharan and Nilotic origins for Egyptian culture NOT European, you thimble-headed, pea-brained, twit!!
Now cite me an equal number of scholars who support YOUR claims!
quote: Well let me put it this way. Take a country like Egypt or Sudan or even Ethiopia. You explain the amount of diversity that exists within these relatively confined regions of the earth as diversity that is indigenous to those people. Do you actually want to make me believe that extreme diversity can exist within these areas for thousands and thousands of years without any outside influence? How stupid do you think people are?
You are trying to make it look as if these people can go from one extreme to another without having any influence from outside.lol....I don't have to show you any DNA evidence because you'll just distort and twist the facts to suit your own agenda.
Obviously you are totally ignorant about genetics and bio-anthropology. Because humankind originated in Africa, African populations as the oldest populations possess the greatest amount of genetic and therefore phenotypic diversity! We have already cited many studies showing this. That you find it hard to believe or comprehend is not our problem but YOURS.
quote:Show me at least 10 extremely dark couples from any of the regions that I have mentioned that have children that vary from one extreme to the other, and I might start to believe you. Show me at least 1 couple anyways. Show me at least one extremely dark couple that has children that look like they do, and children that look like someone from say Northern Europe.
Show me an extremely dark couple that have children that are not albino with red hair and blue eyes and fair skin. I'll bet that you can't unless they have adopted them.And everyone knows that black people could care less about adopting white children...lol
Stupidass strawman argument. Just because African people possess the greatest phenotypic diversity does NOT mean they have all people of COLD ADAPTED European phenotype among them, dumbass! LOL
Is this all that you have Thimble Head? lol....You are telling me and the rest of these truly intelligent readers that your evidence is based upon mere opinions reaped from the practices of modern day Africans? What a joke to be sure. Show us some actual archaeological evidence and quit the nonsense.
Posts: 527 | From: usa | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Seriously??! These claims from actual scholars are not only based on cultural traditions or even linguistics, but did you NOT SEE the archaeology they cited??!! Either you skipped over a bunch of sentences in your reading or you are completely illiterate!
Go read these again, peabrains!
The period when sub-Saharan Africa was most influential in Egypt was a time when neither Egypt, as we understand it culturally, nor the Sahara, as we understand it geographically, existed. Populations and cultures now found south of the desert roamed far to the north. The culture of Upper Egypt, which became dynastic Egyptian civilization, could fairly be called a Sudanese transplant. Egypt rapidly found a method of disciplining the river, the land, and the people to transform the country into a titanic garden. Egypt rapidly developed detailed cultural forms that dwarfed its forebears in urbanity and elaboration. Thus, when new details arrived, they were rapidly adapted to the vast cultural superstructure already present. On the other hand, pharaonic culture was so bound to its place near the Nile that its huge, interlocked religious, administrative, and formal structures could not be readily transferred to relatively mobile cultures of the desert, savanna, and forest. The influence of the mature pharaonic civilizations of Egypt and Kush was almost confined to their sophisticated trade goods and some significant elements of technology. Nevertheless, the religious substratum of Egypt and Kush was so similar to that of many cultures in southern Sudan today that it remains possible that fundamental elements derived from the two high cultures to the north live on.--Joseph O. Vogel (1997)
The evidence also points to linkages to other northeast African peoples, not coincidentally approximating the modern range of languages closely related to Egyptian in the Afro-Asiatic group(formerly called Hamito-Semetic).These linguistic similarities place ancient Egyptian in a close relationship with languages spoken today as far west as Chad, and as far south as Somalia. Archaeological evidence also strongly supports an African origin. A widespread northeastern African cultural assemblage, including distinctive multiple barbed harpoons and pottery decorated with dotted wavy line patterns, appears during the early Neolithic (also known as the Aqualithic, a reference to the mild climate of the Sahara at this time. Saharan and Sudanese rock art from this time resembles early Egyptian iconography. Strong connections between Nubian (Sudanese) and Egyptian material culture continue in later Neolithic Badarian culture of Upper Egypt. Similarities include black-topped wares, vessels with characteristic ripple-burnished surfaces, a special tulip-shaped vessel with incised and white-filled decoration, palettes, and harpoons... Other ancient Egyptian practices show strong similarities to modern African cultures including divine kingship, the use of headrests, body art, circumcision, and male coming-of-age rituals, all suggesting an African substratum or foundation for Egyptian civilization.-- Donald Redford (2001)
Even a 1st grader can comprehend what is being said and knows that no other evidence except archaeology is the basis of these claims including what is known from the Egyptians' own writings!
That YOUR thimblehead does not accept this is based on YOUR mental incompetence and/or deficiencies. Now go and find me a scholar ANY scholar whose writings tie the development of Egyptian civilization and culture to those of Neolithic Europe, twit. Posts: 26240 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
By anyones logic it means that either one of those two white people had a recent black ancestor or she received a good ol fashioned Bantu dick down leaving her child lite brown for her hubby was a clown. And really?? you read Essence?? My aren't you the enlighten racist troll,OR JUST KEEPING UP ON SECRETS ON HOW TO GET A BLACKMAN.
Brada.... Mi cyaaaaaaaa manage... Posts: 3446 | From: U.S. by way of JA by way of Africa | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Seriously??! These claims from actual scholars are not only based on cultural traditions or even linguistics, but did you NOT SEE the archaeology they cited??!! Either you skipped over a bunch of sentences in your reading or you are completely illiterate!
Go read these again, peabrains!
The period when sub-Saharan Africa was most influential in Egypt was a time when neither Egypt, as we understand it culturally, nor the Sahara, as we understand it geographically, existed. Populations and cultures now found south of the desert roamed far to the north. The culture of Upper Egypt, which became dynastic Egyptian civilization, could fairly be called a Sudanese transplant. Egypt rapidly found a method of disciplining the river, the land, and the people to transform the country into a titanic garden. Egypt rapidly developed detailed cultural forms that dwarfed its forebears in urbanity and elaboration. Thus, when new details arrived, they were rapidly adapted to the vast cultural superstructure already present. On the other hand, pharaonic culture was so bound to its place near the Nile that its huge, interlocked religious, administrative, and formal structures could not be readily transferred to relatively mobile cultures of the desert, savanna, and forest. The influence of the mature pharaonic civilizations of Egypt and Kush was almost confined to their sophisticated trade goods and some significant elements of technology. Nevertheless, the religious substratum of Egypt and Kush was so similar to that of many cultures in southern Sudan today that it remains possible that fundamental elements derived from the two high cultures to the north live on.--Joseph O. Vogel (1997)
Do you even understand what this guy is saying Thimble Head, or are you just brain dead? I'll opt for the second choice.lol
Posts: 527 | From: usa | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:The evidence also points to linkages to other northeast African peoples, not coincidentally approximating the modern range of languages closely related to Egyptian in the Afro-Asiatic group(formerly called Hamito-Semetic).These linguistic similarities place ancient Egyptian in a close relationship with languages spoken today as far west as Chad, and as far south as Somalia. Archaeological evidence also strongly supports an African origin.
What do we have here Thimble Head? Are you trying to imply that these modern day cultures had a direct influence upon ancient Egypt?lol.... I mean come on. If anything wouldn't it be the other way around? Posts: 527 | From: usa | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
The situation we have here Thimble Head is, that you are just plain stupid. You can't even comprehend on a basic level that what you cite as sources in your favor, are actually saying.
Posts: 527 | From: usa | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ No. The situation is that YOU are too damn stupid and/or psychotic to properly comprehend the sources I just cited! They all basically say ancient Egyptians were Africans closely related to other Africans in sub-Sahara and this stems from a time when the Sahara didn't even exist as the large desert it is today. Nowhere did it say anything about an influence let alone one from outside of Africa that led to the development of their civilization, dumbass!!
quote:Originally posted by Simpleton B|tch: Do you even understand what this guy is saying Thimble Head, or are you just brain dead? I'll opt for the second choice.lol
Of course I know what the guy is saying! The question is do YOU, b|tch?!! LMAO
Please do give me YOUR take on what Vogel is stating!!
quote:What do we have here Thimble Head? Are you trying to imply that these modern day cultures had a direct influence upon ancient Egypt?lol.... I mean come on. If anything wouldn't it be the other way around?
LOL B|tch apparently you don't understand but in the passage you just cited Redford didn't say a damn thing about "influence"! He merely states that Egyptian IS African and closely related to groups in West Africa (Chadic) and those farther south (Somali). Where the f*ck did you get the idea of an "influence" let alone that Egyptians influenced these groups! It's clear the man says Egyptian is but ONE of many AFRICAN groups who speak Afroasiatic languages dumbass! My God, you calling me "thimblehead" is like an albino rat calling a crow white! GTFOH stupid b|tch!
Oh and don't forget to cite a scholar showing Egyptian civilization to be the product of outside influence let alone a European neolithic one! And it has to be an up to date valid scholar from a valid source. Of course I don't expect anything like this but please try, my peabrain twit! Posts: 26240 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The period when sub-Saharan Africa was most influential in Egypt was a time when neither Egypt, as we understand it culturally, nor the Sahara, as we understand it geographically, existed.
Do you even understand what this means Thimble Head?
Posts: 527 | From: usa | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ *sigh* Again OF COURSE *I* understand it! I was the one who cited it b|tch! The question is do YOU understand it?!! Again, how about explaining to me what you think that sentence means!!
After you do, then explain to me what the rest of this means...
..Populations and cultures now found south of the desert roamed far to the north. The culture of Upper Egypt, which became dynastic Egyptian civilization, could fairly be called a Sudanese transplant...
Go ahead peabrains! Explain yourself!
Posts: 26240 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems that Thimble Head thinks of his scholars as the only true scholars.lol....Cass has already provided you with one scholar and yet you ignore even that.
Posts: 527 | From: usa | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lol cASS and simple, simple as cASS, simpletons...enough said.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
You pseudo-intellectuals do crack me up.lol....There's way more than enough scholarly material to back my position up, but it's just plain fun to hold back and watch you gnat brains build up your confidence just to have someone like me to erode it down.lol
quote: Efforts at harmonizing Egyptian and Mesopotamian chronologies have been hampered by the lack of radiocarbon dates from both areas, difficulties in coordinating Egyptian historical chronologies with radiocarbon dates, and, more recently, the impression of a single Uruk "expansion" episode toward the middle of the 4th millennium (Hassan and Robinson 1987; Boehmer 1991; Boehmer, Dreyer, and Kromer 1993. cf. Algaze 1993a:56-57). Efforts to discuss the phases of Egyp-to-Mesopotamian contact have been hampered by cumbersome terminology (Kantor 1992) and poor understanding of chronology and the impact of contacts in Egypt (Mark 1998).
quote: Of course I know what the guy is saying! The question is do YOU, b|tch?!! LMAO
Please do give me YOUR take on what Vogel is stating!!
You don't even realize that this guy has just talked his way around the whole ancient Egyptian civilization. The Egypt before, and the Egypt after.lol.... Shall I consult my box of rocks for a better source of something to argue with Thimble Head?lol
Posts: 527 | From: usa | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Simple Girl: Do you really believe the modern negro is a carbon copy of the first Europeans? If you can prove that to me then I might be convinced. Other than that you don't have an argument. And even if they were, that only means that the ancestors of the modern Europeans have already been where your people have yet to go. In other words you are the new ones and we are the old ones.lol
LMBO! Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: Map of hypothetical "Wandering Caucasoids" Eurocentrists use to explain the founding of ancient civilizations outside of Europe
An earlier generation of anthropologists tried to explain face form in the Horn of Africa as the result of admixture from hypothetical “wandering Caucasoids,” (Adams, 1967, 1979; MacGaffey, 1966; Seligman, 1913, 1915, 1934), but that explanation founders on the paradox of why that supposedly potent “Caucasoid” people contributed a dominant quantity of genes for nose and face form but none for skin color or limb proportions. It makes far better sense to regard the adaptively significant features seen in the Horn of Africa as solely an in situ response on the part of separate adaptive traits to the selective forces present in the hot dry tropics of eastern Africa. From the observation that 12,000 years was not a long enough period of time to produce any noticeable variation in pigment by latitude in the New World and that 50,000 years has been barely long enough to produce the beginnings of a gradation in Australia (Brace, 1993a), one would have to argue that the inhabitants of the Upper Nile and the East Horn of Africa have been equatorial for many tens of thousands of years. - Brace (1993)
I'd like to directly address this theory about "wandering Caucasoids" flooding into Africa, contributing to the craniofacial form of tropical Northeast Africans and becoming the indigenious people of North Africa as Eurocentrists love to claim. Now make no mistake we do acknowledge that Supra-Saharan Africans have significant Eurasian admixture but we disagree with Eurocentrists about when that major genetic impact occurred. We believe it occurred during the historical era, specifically the Greco-Roman and Islamic periods while Eurocentrists claim a pre-historic migration into Africa.
As you can see below Guy White among other things contends that there is archeological evidence of a FLOODING of wandering Caucasians into Africa as early as 30,000 years ago.
quote: Originally posts by Guy White:
They are belligerently irrational about this. They are not interested in craniometric studies or DNA evidence. They don’t care that most Ancient Egyptians’ depictions of themselves showing light skin. They deny the clear archeological record that Caucasians FLOODED into Africa 30,000 years ago. They are not the least concerned by the fact that Egyptian civilization spread south along the Nile starting at the interface with Eurasia.
But where is his source? It's not enough to make such claims you need to back them up with sources. Incidentally there are several sources inconsistent with his contentions:
Scientists have been studying remains from the Egyptian Nile Valley for years. Analysis of crania is the traditional approach to assessing ancient population origins, relationships, and diversity. In studies based on anatomical traits and measurements of crania, similarities have been found between Nile Valley crania from 30,000, 20,000 and 12,000 years ago and various African remains from more recent times (see Thoma 1984; Brauer and Rimbach 1990; Angel and Kelley 1986; Keita 1993). Studies of crania from southern predynastic Egypt, from the formative period (4000-3100 B.C.), show them usually to be more similar to the crania of ancient Nubians, Kushites, Saharans, or modern groups from the Horn of Africa than to those of dynastic northern Egyptians or ancient or modern southern Europeans.- Keita & Boyce (Egypt in Africa)
Now the common tactic of Eurocentrists is to cite genetic studies that claim tropical Northeast Africans are more similar to Eurasians or intermediate between Eurasians and other Sub-Saharan Africans. The biased sampling and flawed methodology of these studies have been refuted several times and counter sources have been provided against their contentions.
What I want to do is give the Eurocentrists the oppurtunity to answer these questions in support of their Wandering Caucasoid theory (aka The Hamitic Hypothesis).....
1. What is the scientific basis for Negroid and Wandering Caucasoid racial categories?
2. Where is the archeological evidence for these Wandering Caucasoids?
3. What are the genetic markers of these Wandering Caucasoids?
4. How do you explain the dark skin and tropical limb proportions of Northeast Africans if they are admixed with light-skinned, cold-adapted Wandering Caucasoids?
5. If tropical Northeast Africans are Negroid-Wandering Caucasoid hybrids why don't the populations look like "biracial" people (i.e. Why do they look like Iman rather than Barack Obama)?
And most of them don't even look like Iman.lol!
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:I find it funny how Cacasoids are diverse yet Negroids are not since the latter has a much larger range of habitation in Sub-Saharan Africa. Why are Cacasoids divided into say 'Nordic', 'Alpine', and 'Mediterranean' but Negroids are not??
There are Negroid subraces. I've posted them before. Secondly the reason Caucasoid subraces are more well known is because some Caucasoids depigmentated. The Nordic subrace is thus a depigmentated Mediterraneanoid.
Nordic and Med crania are virtually identical. Morphologically all Caucasoids are very similar, the key difference is the depigmentation (skin & hair colour etc). In other races this never occured which is why white people are the most physically diverse (we have all hair and eye colours). No afronut however can accept this simple fact out of envy and self-hate.
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
^^Bogus. Tropical African peoples have thin noses, wavy hair and can be orthnognathic.
------------------------------------- recap of your bogus claims
You claimed Sergi supported you- false
quote: Obviously not false since i;ve given you page 250 of his work which directly states eurafricans are non-negroid. The EurAfrican has no link to the NEgroid.
quote:
^^ Again false. On page 250 Sergi is talking in the text about a Mediterranean race not EurAfrican species.
You are tying to shift the category by sleight of hand, now that you have been caught out in ANOTHER LIE. Sergi speaks of a Medit race, as a variant of the broader EUrAfrican species.
He says: QUOTE: "This human species, with cranial and facial characters thus well determined, I call Eurafrican; and this because, having had its origin in Africa, where it is still represented by many peoples, it has been diffused from prehistoric times in Europe, and has formed the basis of the most primitive population. This Eurafrican species is not Brinton's race, nor Keane's Caucasian race, for it contains none of the racial elements with cephalic forms, by some termed brachycephalic, which, according to my classification, are cuneiform, spheroidal, and platycephalic; these, I consider, belong to another human species. My Eurafrican species has absolute uniformity of cephalic and facial forms throughout its geographical distribution, which is very wide, and beneath whatever colour of skin and hair.
Practically, we may consider the cranial type single, for the four variations are always found together, and we may divide the whole Eurafrican species into races according to the colour of the skin. As I have already pointed out, we have to admit that the variations in pigmentation have taken place in the long course of ages through the influence of environmental conditions; thus, independently of bony variations, races have naturally been formed. The Eurafrican species thus falls into three races: the African, with red-brown and black pigmentation; the Mediterranean, of brunet complexion, inhabiting the great basin including part of northern Africa, formerly occupying Asia Minor, the three great peninsulas of Europe, the Mediterranean islands, and the Canaries, as well as a portion of western, central, and eastern Europe, now difficult to determine; finally, a Nordic race, of blond skin and hair, blue or grey eyes, most numerously represented in Scandinavia, north Germany and England.
Thus the Mediterranean stock is a race or variety of the Eurafrican species." --G. Sergi
This contradicts the claim you made earlier:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by cassiterides: ^ Eurafrican is Caucasoid.
^^You are once again exposed. You said EurAfrican is Caucasoid, and cited Serti in support. But using your own citation any reader can see that Sergi considers EurAfricans to be an amalgamation or mixture of many types, directly contradicting your claim. He even considers negroes to be part of the EurAfrican species. You have again failed and are once again exposed.
[/QB]
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^And what does all this stuff you've posted above supposed to mean you dork?lol....If the people that left Africa were exactly similar to the average Sub-Saharan, then why all the diversity in places like Sudan, Ethiopia and other areas in eastern Africa? Do you even get my drift on this one dufus in the membranus?lol
Posts: 527 | From: usa | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are obviously suffering from Clue Deficit Disorder.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ It must be nice living in delusion and fantasy isn't it?
quote:Simpleton: It seems that Thimble Head thinks of his scholars as the only true scholars.lol....Cass has already provided you with one scholar and yet you ignore even that.
And what scholar is that? David Rohl?? Last time I checked, his claims of a dynastic race were refuted by more recent archaeological evidence showing indigenous development. "My" scholars as you put it are not only more up-to-date but they are not the only scholars who say this peabrains! Virtually all Egyptologists agree that Egypt is the result of native Africans!
How about you cite a scholar saying the opposite or better yet one that says Egyptian civilization descend from the European neolithic! I'm still waiting on that.
quote:You pseudo-intellectuals do crack me up.lol....There's way more than enough scholarly material to back my position up, but it's just plain fun to hold back and watch you gnat brains build up your confidence just to have someone like me to erode it down. lol
We are true intellectuals in that we actually cite scholarly material to back up our claims not brag about nonexistent ones the way you do or spin and distort sources. Which is why YOU crack us up!
quote:Efforts at harmonizing Egyptian and Mesopotamian chronologies have been hampered by the lack of radiocarbon dates from both areas, difficulties in coordinating Egyptian historical chronologies with radiocarbon dates, and, more recently, the impression of a single Uruk "expansion" episode toward the middle of the 4th millennium (Hassan and Robinson 1987; Boehmer 1991; Boehmer, Dreyer, and Kromer 1993. cf. Algaze 1993a:56-57). Efforts to discuss the phases of Egypt-to-Mesopotamian contact have been hampered by cumbersome terminology (Kantor 1992) and poor understanding of chronology and the impact of contacts in Egypt (Mark 1998).
The source you cited merely speaks of Egyptian contact with Mesopotamia as well as difficulties in harmonizing the timelines between them. How the hell does this prove YOUR claims?! LOL
quote:You don't even realize that this guy has just talked his way around the whole ancient Egyptian civilization. The Egypt before, and the Egypt after. lol.... Shall I consult my box of rocks for a better source of something to argue with Thimble Head?lol
WTF??! This guy, Dr. Joseph Vogel, an archaeologist who specializes in the development of ancient cultures specifically stated in that small paragraph that ancient Egyptian civilization was developed by peoples with ties to Sub-Sahara since its development took place before the Sahara existed and was based on domesticating the Nile Valley! I think you've been consulting your box of rocks and then SMOKING those rocks for far too long, peabrain!! LOL
quote: I sometimes feel like i'm arguing with a bunch of children.lol
Yes I'm sure you sometimes feel deliriously happy for no apparent reason. In the meantime back in REALITY, *we* know we are arguing with a Simpleton in denial of the facts-- YOU. I suggest you change your prescription and stay off any drugs not prescribed by your doctor! LOLPosts: 26240 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: ^^Bogus. Tropical African peoples have thin noses, wavy hair and can be orthnognathic.
Nope they don't.
You are just a self-hating negro who craves those Caucasoid features.
Where are black people with thin noses, straight hair, no prognathism and blue or green eyes?
Can you show a photo of a single 'tropical african' with all those features?
You know in your head they don't exist. You just troll the internet claiming they do to wind people up.
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
By Zaharan definition of 'tropical african' which includes white skin, blonde & red hair, thin noses etc - then white people are tropical african.
Zaharan is a fucking idiot troll who contradicts himself. I highly doubt in real life he is even african/black, he's probably just a parody account. Why else would he be claiming white people or white features such as pale skin and straight-wavy blonde hair are tropical african phenotypic traits?
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
[Zaharan since you claimed having white skin, thin nose, straight-wavy blonde hair and light eyes are 'tropical african'...
Is Owen Wilson a tropical african?
^^Sorry loser. You are a bottom-feeder loser who feeds off the scraps that the roaches won't even touch. I said such features do occur in tropical Africa, as all can see below. All your bluster can't save you. You have been exposed multiple times as a liar. You claimed that NO TROPICAL AFRICANS WHATSOEVER had light hair, skin or eyes, and were comprehensively debunked, as shown below.
WHen you prove tha your multiple bogus claims are true below, then tell me something. Until then, you are dismissed, and will continue to be dismissed. But don't think your list of failures will stay hidden. Still waiting for you to prove your bogus claims below.
Let's recap - don;t think you will escape. The list grows every time you post.
THE FAKER EXPOSED- PART 10
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: ^ Eurafrican is Caucasoid.
^^You are once again exposed. You said EurAfrican is Caucasoid, and cited Serti in support. But using your own citation any reader can see that Sergi considers EurAfricans to be an amalgamation or mixture of many types, directly contradicting your claim.
SErgi says: QUOTE: "This human species, with cranial and facial characters thus well determined, I call Eurafrican; and this because, having had its origin in Africa, where it is still represented by many peoples, it has been diffused from prehistoric times in Europe... The Eurafrican species thus falls into three races: the African, with red-brown and black pigmentation.. Thus the Mediterranean stock is a race or variety of the Eurafrican species." --G. Sergi
You have again failed and are once again exposed. ------------------------------------------------------------
THE FAKER EXPOSED PART 9- HE CLAIMS ALL THESE HIGGINS "DISTORTIONS" BUT WHEN ASKED TO NAME THE SPECIFIC WEBSITES OF THIS ALLEGED "AFROCENTRIC' HORROR, HE RUNS AWAY. WHY IS THAT FAKER?
In fact, Godfrey Higgins ALSO says this about "negroes"
"I believe all the Blavk bambinos of Italy are negroes- not merely blacks; this admitted, it would prove they very early date of their entrance into Italy." pg 286 pg 434 "the ancient Eturians had the countenances of Negroes, the same as the images of Buddah in INdia." pg 166 pg 474- "They aere in fact, all one nation, with one religion, that of Buddah, and they were originally NEgroes" pg 59: "nor can it be reasonably doubted, that a race of Negroes formerly had power and pre-eminence in India" pg 59- AS TO ETHIOPIA: And it is probable that an Ethiopian, a negro, correctly speaking, may have been meant, not merely a black person; and it seems probable that the following may have ben the real fact, viz, that a race of NEgroes or Blacks, but probably of the former, came to India to the west."
cASSIRETEDES own source debunks him. Note the footnote by his own author- QUOTE: ['i]"may not have been Negroes, though Blacks, though it is probably they were so."[/i]
His own source says they may not have been Negroes then adds: THOUGH IT IS PROBABLY THEY WERE SO."
^The Faker once again, debunks himself. And he seems not to realize that Ethiopia is in "sub-Saharan" Africa.. lol.. pathetic incompetent..
And he never shows these massive number of websites "all over the internet". Like what? How many? If they are "all over" then he should at least be able to give direct links to 6 showing pages where the "Afrocentrics: are "distorting" Higgins work. LEt's say what the faker has besides hot air. Post DIRECT LINKS to 6 of the huge number of alleged "Afrocentric" websites where the Afrocentrics are "distorting" Higgins. SHow how they are distorting Higgins with specific quotes and specific context.
Watch the Faker duck and run when he is again called on a claim, or make up yet another lie to cover his exposure... -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE FAKER EXPOSED- part 8:
quote:
Originally posted by Cassiredes: "Fair hair and light eyes colours are only found among Caucasoids, esp of Europe."
But then, in your own thread, by your own hand, you present a picture of an African albino that has pale skin, light brown or hazel eyes and fair hair. You said it was impossible, but then debunk yourself with your own posted picture.. This is like the 8-9th time you keep tripping over yourself with lies, contradictions, and bogus claims.
RECAP The Faker exposed- part 7 Originally posted by Cassiredes: "Fair hair and light eyes colours are only found among Caucasoids, esp of Europe."
^^Your claim is is completely bogus. Native diversity or albinism causes some tropical Africans to have light eyes and light hair. You fail againn..
================================================
THE FAKER EXPOSED: PART 6 1-- ^^Faker! In your initial posts you claimed that it was Cavalli-Sforza talking 'bout negroes "mutating" from Pygmies. Now in your "corrected" post, YOU STILL APPEAR A FAKE. You now remove Cavalli- Sforza's name on the "mutant" claim, admitting that you were lying all along! Bwa ha aha a hah a ha ahahaha aha ahah..
2-- Second point- Peter Frost is debunked by Cavalli-Sforza who says as to his so-called "mutation" theory: QUOTE:
"It remains difficult to pinpoint an ancient place of origin for the Negroid type which includes all West, Central and South Africans. Contrary to many earlier opinions, modern Pygmies and Khosians are not good candidates for a proto-African population."
--Cavalli Sforza et al, 1994. The history and geography of human genes. 194
Frost mentions Cavalli-Sforza in connection with sexual selection, and movement of some groups from Nigeria-Cameroon to other parts of Africa. He never says Cavalli Sforza talks bout any "negro mutation" and in fact any mutation claim is directly contradicted by Sforza. Sucka, you not only lied bout Cavalli-Sforza, you lied about your own white writer- Peter Frost, and misrepresented him.
THE FAKER EXPOSED: PART 6 CassiREDES says: ''There are then no Australoids with blonde hair past the age of about twenty''
^^LMAO! Totally fake! Credible up to date sources note that blondism is prevalent in early life BUT, contrary to your claim that: "There are then no Australoids with blonde hair past the age of about twenty", the shade of color varies. In maturity the hair usually turns a darker brown color, but sometimes remains blond. See: "Gene Expression: Blonde Australian Aboriginals". Gnxp.com. http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2005/08/blonde-australian-aboriginals.php.
^^Here is one of your Australians over 20 years old who does have blonde hair. YOu are caught out spinning bogus claims AGAIN!. Bwa ha aha a hah a ha ahahaha aha ahah.. -
THE FAKER EXPOSED: PART 5a [b]So where are these tropical african peoples with pale white or fair skin? blonde red hair?
^^You fail again. African populations can readily produce blond or reddish blond hair as noted by hair study author Hrdy 1978 himself, and he references Nubia as an example. Albinism is another source of red or blond hair in Africa, and albinism is much more prevalent in African populations than among Europeans. Even African Americans produce more albinos than white Americans. (The pigmentary system: physiology and pathophysiology- By James J. Nordlund 2006: 603) (E. Roach and V. Miller 2004. Neurocutaneous disorders.) QUOTE: "In general, the prevalence of albinism in Africa is much higher, in the range of 1 in 1 100 to 1 in 3900."
So Africa can and does routinely produce red and blond hair. All non-Africans are MORE LIMITED subsets of ORIGINAL African diversity. THe originals have more built-in diversity than the limited sub-set populations. This is straight science as noted by the quote from TIshkoff 2000.
Nor are Africans the only tropical peoples who can produce reddish hair or blond hair. Among Australian Aborigines, some tropical groups produce 100% of individuals with blond hair. Melanesians can also produce blond or reddish hair, and do so routinely.
White people have no monopoly at all on that hair color. They merely show more of it, but even among whites, red hair for example is minor- occurring in less than 5% of the overall European populations, mostly in northern Europe.
So the claim that there are no tropical Africans with such variation is once again, proved fake. You made the claim.
THE FAKER EXPOSED: PART 4 ime and time again, you stand debunked and exposed for falsifying claims and references. Let's recap:
Originally posted by CASSIFAKedes::
quote: The source is Cavalli-Sforza's book on the Pygmies entitled 'African pygmies' (Academic Press, 1986).
This work shows that Negroids mutated from an ancestral pygmy population around 9,000 BC in West Africa. So the 'true' Black African today is a recent mutation. Caucasoids and Mongoloids predate them. [Wink] Negroids only migrated into other parts of Africa during the Bantu expansion or slightly earlier. Prior to them, Caucasoids inhabited North Africa and Bushmen (Capoids) to the south who were displaced by the Caucasoids from the Mediterranean around 12,000 BC.
^^A bogus reference. Why should anyone take your word for it given past bogus references? Quote where Cavalli-Sforza says these so-called "negroids" "mutated" from Pygmies. The burden of proof is on you, since you made the claim.
While you scurry to cover your tracks with yet more bogus claims, Cavali Sforza, in his well known The History and Geography of Human Genes, 1994 Cavalli-Sforza summarizes his 1986 work on Pygmies and specifically debunks the "Pygmy as ancestor" theory held by other older writings. QUOTE:
"It remains difficult to pinpoint an ancient place of origin for the Negroid type which includes all West, Central and South Africans. Contrary to many earlier opinions, modern Pygmies and Khosians are not good candidates for a proto-African population."
--Cavalli Sforza et al, 1994. The history and geography of human genes. 194
SO much for your lying claims of "mutations" from "Pygymy" ancestors. In short, you lied about Cavalli-Sforza, creating a falsified claim and a bogus "supporting" reference to a claim that is nowhere supported in his work. You are once again exposed as yet another racist faker You are not fooling anyone.
------------------------
THE FAKER EXPOSED-PART 3- YOu then tried to cover up your lie with even more bogus nformation and STILL fail
You "modified" your Cavalli Sforza claim by including page numbers, and then changing some wording to "adaptive radiation" hoping to divert attention from your exposure.. lmao..
However pages 361-362 of Cavalli Sforza's 1986 book says absolutely nothing about any Negroes "mutating" from pygmies, nor any "adaptive radiation." It merely discusses Pygmy history and geography. You picked out a page at random, not knowing it can be verified via Google Books. You were asked to provide a direct quote but are still running. Now why is that?
""It remains difficult to pinpoint an ancient place of origin for the Negroid type which includes all West, Central and South Africans. Contrary to many earlier opinions, modern Pygmies and Khosians are not good candidates for a proto-African population."
--Cavalli Sforza et al, 1994. The history and geography of human genes. 194
--------------------------------------
THE FAKER EXPOSED- PART 2 And Your pathetic "modification" STILL turned out to be bogus. You then said:
"True" Black Africans appear as a recent adaptive radiation apparently branching off from an ancestral Pygmy population — a line of ancestry also indicated by osteological data (Coon 1962:651-656; Watson et al. 1996).
^^But in fact, Watson 1996 has nothing to do with osteological data and does not even mention it. It has to do with mtDNA.
----------------------------------------
THE FAKER EXPOSED- PART 1C YOU THEN PROFFERED ANOTHER FAKE CLAIM BELOW: He says:
quote: "Note that in the Old Testament the Danites are the only Hebrew people described as being maritime and associated with ships.."
^^Complete Nonsense. In the Old Testament, the tribe of Zebulun is mentioned as specifically associated with ships and maritime elements. QUOTE:
Genesis 49:13 "Zebulun will dwell at the shore of the seas; Yea, he will be at the shore of the ships, And his side toucheth upon Sidon. "
Cassi-Fakdes: MULTIPLE TIMES AT BAT, MULTIPLE EXPOSURES AS A FAKE...
--fake claim that no Australian Abo over 20 is blonde
-- fake claim that NO tropical Africans have any diversity in hair, skin or eye color
-- fake Cavalli-Sforza citation
-- 2nd fake Cavalli-Sforza reference
-- Faked Watson reference
-- Faked Biblical reference
-- FAke representation of Peter Frost's work
-- Fake claim that "studies" say "egyptians were dark are not like 'light-skinned Europeans". COnveniently, the alleged study is missing..
--Fake Higgins claims
--Fake claim that Guiseppe Sergi's EurAfrican race concept is negro-free
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thimble Head why do even persist? It's just like you've been kicked in the nuts and yet you still come back to have your nose rubbed in s#it. I mean come on.lol....You haven't refuted anything. That is just all part of your jungle booty fantasy.I owned your ass the other day, and I owned your buddy last night. And just like i'm going to own you again right now.lol...
quote: Further, there is a "minimalist-maximalist" divide between scholars inclined to see more local development (e.g., Hendrickx and Bavay n.d.) or more foreign contact. Egyptian chronology has improved somewhat because of improved radiocarbon dates, supported by synchronisms with the Southern Levant, and artifact seriations (e.g., Kaiser 1990, Bard 1994a, Hendrickx 1996, Wilkinson 1996).
Do you even know what this means Thimble Head? lol
Posts: 527 | From: usa | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're nothing but a joke hanging on to a fantasy Thimble Head. Do you actually know why there were so many fantastic theories made about Egypt and Mesopotamia having connections with alien civilizations? It's because nobody knew where they came from. In other words there wasn't enough pre-local development Thimble Head to suggest any kind of indigenous beginnings. They came from elsewhere. Hello, is there anybody in there?lol
Posts: 527 | From: usa | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Simple Girl: Here is something for you and Thimble Head. This grave in Europe shows the earliest manufactured use of gold known in the world. The necrolpolis in which it is situated shows a definite disparity between individualized burials proving that there was a separation between the elite and the common people. The placement of the left arm over the chest is very much the same practice used by the Egyptians over a thousand years later to designate the person was of royalty as this grave seems to also indicate.
Now show me a grave in Africa that shows a burial of this kind that precedes Dynastic Egypt by at least a thousand years. I'll bet that you can't.
Senile girl. We have gone through this before. Remember senile girl. lol
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:I find it funny how Cacasoids are diverse yet Negroids are not since the latter has a much larger range of habitation in Sub-Saharan Africa. Why are Cacasoids divided into say 'Nordic', 'Alpine', and 'Mediterranean' but Negroids are not??
There are Negroid subraces. I've posted them before. Secondly the reason Caucasoid subraces are more well known is because some Caucasoids depigmentated. The Nordic subrace is thus a depigmentated Mediterraneanoid.
Nordic and Med crania are virtually identical. Morphologically all Caucasoids are very similar, the key difference is the depigmentation (skin & hair colour etc). In other races this never occured which is why white people are the most physically diverse (we have all hair and eye colours). No afronut however can accept this simple fact out of envy and self-hate.
You fail time and time again. Since the African in most diverse in phenotype and most intermediate.
I know your comprehension skill is low. But you keep surprising me.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Its easy to spot what they are doing. They all do it out of self-hate of the Negroid phenotype, so instead they will cluster themselves with other races to claim other phenotypes such as the australoid wavy hair etc.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Since when??!! I have cited actual Egyptologists stating Egypt's cultural origins in Africa. YOU on the other hand have cited NONE! I have cited close cultural parallels and apparel YOU on the other hand cite off hand similarities that have NO common origins!![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
So true! The white loser is so desperate he will read anything from Ebony to Jet if he thinks it will support his absurd and twisted point! As for that couple having a child like that. The moron thinks that whites or 'caca-soids' are so genetically diverse they can have a child like that. As you say, it is more likely one or the other parent has black ancestry. The moron desperately tries to escape from the FACT that Africans are the source of all genetic diversity NOT Europe!
Mi cyaaaaaaaa manage... 
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
[/QB]
Printer-friendly view of this topic