"The mummy was recovered from China's Tarim Basin, in Xinjiang province. But her Caucasian features raised the prospect that the region's inhabitants were European settlers. "
Dr. Clyde, is there not ONE mummy to substantiate your Negro precense in historical China claim?
It still hasn't seeped through your heads that phenotypes aren't inherent, but simply adaptive.
That means that the explanation of her phenotype and that of others who look like her, should first be sought in indigenous variation, rather than far fetched European migration.
Ever heard of Ockhams Razor?
East Asia is more than capable of producing such types.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^That is nice to hear, but I'm still waiting for Mr. Clyde Winters to produce evidence of a Negro presence in historical China.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Yea, perhaps Kalonji can educate himself to the fact, these mummies are genetically linked to white people. Goto the wikipedia link, Kalonji, and learn something.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
By your use of ''white people'' I know that you still don't understand what I was saying in my first post. With their Y chromosome haplogroup, they link with certain pitch black Cameroonians, now what?
What marker in the wiki link suggest a link to European peoples, more specifically, one that can be pointed at to support what you were confident enough to put in bold letters:
But her Caucasian features raised the prospect that the region's inhabitants were European settlers. "
You still don't get that the wiki link only reaffirms my first post about indiginousness of East asian variation, don't you?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Afrocentric Liars Exposed - or more correctly, fool exposed. My first thought was, oh,oh, here comes another Albino boy, who don't know sh1t, but looking to start a fight.
fool exposed, what is your point: That Albinos WERE in North Asia, or that Blacks weren't?
Well of course Albinos WERE in North Asia, it is the ONLY place on planet Earth, were Albinos are known to be indigenous (the original people).
BTW - Did you know that those Tarim mummies are the ONLY ancient artifacts of White people - there are no others, everything else is of Black people.
So when you ask for proof of Blacks anywhere, you seem to me suggesting that the people MUST have been White by default, that is typical White-boy fantasy. Whites are natural ONLY to central Asia.
BTW again; The mummy that you White folks are making a fuss about, looks like one of the many mixed Albino/Mongol mummies to me.
The Saisiyat tribe of Hsinchu and Miaoli will perform a solemn rite this weekend to commemorate a race of people that they exterminated
By Jules Quartly STAFF REPORTER Saturday, Nov 27, 2004,Page 16
Xiangtian Lake is one of two places to see the ritual. Drinking, singing and dancing are expected to take place deep in the mountains of Miaoli and Hsinchu when the “Ritual of the Little Black People” is performed by the Saisiyat tribe once again this weekend.
For the past 100 years or so, the Saisiyat tribe has performed the songs and rites of the festival to bring good harvests, ward off bad luck and keep alive the spirit of a race of people who are said to have preceded all others in Taiwan.
In fact, the short, black men the festival celebrates are one of the most ancient types of modern humans on this planet and their kin still survive in Asia today. They are said to be diminutive Africoids and are variously called Pygmies, Negritos and Aeta. They are found in the Philippines, northern Malaysia, Thailand, Sumatra in Indonesia and other places.
Chinese historians called them “black dwarfs” in the Three Kingdoms period (AD 220 to AD 280) and they were still to be found in China during the Qing dynasty (1644 to 1911). In Taiwan they were called the “Little Black People” and, apart from being diminutive, they were also said to be broad-nosed and dark-skinned with curly hair. After the Little Black People — and well before waves of Han migrations after 1600 — came the Aboriginal tribes, who are part of the Austronesian race.
They are thought to have come from the Malay Archipelago 6,000 years ago at the earliest and around 1,000 years ago at the latest, though theories on Aborigine migration to Taiwan are still hotly debated.
Gradually the Little Black People became scarcer, until a point about 100 years ago, when there was just a small group living near the Saisiyat tribe. The story goes that the Little Black People taught the Saisiyat to farm by providing seeds and they used to party together..........
posted
For the last time!!! Black Africans have the most diversity phenotypically!! Whites didn't even exist way back then. They evolved some 5500 years ago.So obviously this mummy could have been a "negro".
Posts: 33 | From: U.S. | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tiye57: For the last time!!! Black Africans have the most diversity phenotypically!! Whites didn't even exist way back then. They evolved some 5500 years ago.So obviously this mummy could have been a "negro".
The first part of your statement is undoubtedly true. The second part might need a little clarification. What ya got?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^RFLOL!!! Tiye57. Black Africans are not the most diverse, phoenotypically. Africans are the most diverse phoenotypically. Black is just one phoenotype (race if you subscribe to it) in Africa. Nice try though.
Posts: 2025 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gigantic: ^^RFLOL!!! Tiye57. Black Africans are not the most diverse, phoenotypically. Africans are the most diverse phoenotypically. Black is just one phoenotype (race if you subscribe to it) in Africa. Nice try though.
Damn Boy you are stupid.
Africans are the ORIGINAL Humans.
The ORIGINAL Humans were ALL Black except for their melanin defective Albinos.
If you have EVIDENCE of another type of Human please post it.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: You Europeans just don't learn do you?
It still hasn't seeped through your heads that phenotypes aren't inherent, but simply adaptive.
That means that the explanation of her phenotype and that of others who look like her, should first be sought in indigenous variation, rather than far fetched European migration.
Ever heard of Ockhams Razor?
East Asia is more than capable of producing such types.
This is true; however in the case of the Tarim Basin mummies, they may very well be of recent European descent. I suggest you look up the Tocharians and a people the Chinese called Yue-chi. They definitely weren't aboriginal to the region though as they've only entered there in the beginning of the 1st millennium B.C. and represent the farthest east Indo-European speakers have traveled.
Posts: 26267 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why people act as if the world will end if the remains of ancient men from any part of the globe ended up in another even remote part comparatively speaking is beyond me, For it is one thing to say that Europeans migrated to Western China in this case and claiming that these migrants created Chinese civilization or influenced it significantly. Now the point is they were/are blk people phoenotypically speaking that lives on the main-land and on the Islands,as a matter of fact they had to pass through the main-land to get to the Islands now just when did the first non OAAs from Africa reached China is still debated for an over view of Blks in Asia go here. Diverse Genes
Jan. 23, 2008 -- An extensive new study on Pacific Islanders has determined that Polynesians and Micronesians bear little genetic relationship to Melanesians, who turn out to be among the most genetically diverse people on the planet.
In addition to revealing how these people are, or aren't, related to each other, the new study, published in the current PLoS Genetics, indicates the origins of the native island inhabitants and how the regions were initially settled. Polynesia includes Hawaii, Easter Island, New Zealand and certain other south central and eastern Pacific islands, while Micronesia refers to small islands, such as Guam, that are in the central Pacific north of the equator. Melanesia includes Fiji, New Guinea, and other islands in the chain north and east of Australia. "The first people to enter the Pacific came from Southeast Asia, along the stepping-stone island chain -- now Indonesia -- to ancient Australia and New Guinea, and to the nearby islands just to the east and southeast, the Bismarcks and the Solomons," lead author Jonathan Friedlaender told Discovery News. "They got there between 50,000 and 30,000 years ago, when Neanderthals were still roaming Europe -- very, very early in modern human prehistory," added Friedlaender, who is professor emeritus of anthropology at Temple University. Melanesia was also settled around this time, probably by individuals from East Asia. Although Melanesians today resemble certain African groups, they turn out to be genetically far removed from Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Afrocentric Liars Exposed: Black mummy please.
I don't blame you for trying to latch onto the White mummies as proof of White existence, after all, they are the only ancient White artifacts. But by your logic, the Chinese were not there, I have seen no pure-Mongol mummies.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For Fucks sake Siberia ain't Europe, Northern Japan gets a shitload of snow sometimes, and South Asia gets pretty dark in terms of skin color.
Sometimes the genetic record shows people similarly adapted to similar environments are not related. Sometimes it plain shows that the genes responsible for whatever phenotype they share have geneses completely unique to each other -- this is the case for light skin in East Asia in fact; there are several genes that work together to produce skin complexion and texture and a different mutation is responsible for light and white skin in East Asia than is responsible for that in Europe and West Asia. Go figure.
Siberia
Vague subjective racial claims and terminology should be taken with a grain o' salt. Period.
In places like Eastern India and beyond (further East) the people have hair straighter than Europeans in general do, same thing for the Native Americans survived long enough that were analyzed.
And Marc with the wide noses,
Don't forget there are many light skinned ppl in East Asia alive today with the same and you're laying the path open for the likes of Gigantic to come through with a find of a narrow nose in the same region on a statue, mummy or whatever and say "look, white".
What you're doing is really two sides of the same coin.
I'm posting these just to post them:
Sunita
Kokoya
At the end of the day what was first approached as being the result of some number of races and various levels of racial admixture just turns out to be human population, each with certain levels of diversity.
My 2 cents is if i were white i'd be offended at ppl being desperate to compare my features to a deteriorated Chinese mummy's and seeing that as a positive.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Very interesting topic indeed. Essentially Chinese Aryans and does remind me of Ginger. They don't appear to be intentionally mummified like the Black Mummy of Libya.
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Like many mummies outside of Africa, mummification happened as an accident of the environment.
My point to box was that in few places, really only India and Africa, does the current population give any indication of who the ancient populations were. It's surprising that after so many years of discussions, this basic truth is not understood.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^Like many mummies outside of Africa, mummification happened as an accident of the environment.
My point to box was that in few places, really only India and Africa, does the current population give any indication of who the ancient populations were. It's surprising that after so many years of discussions, this basic truth is not understood.
Over 6-12,000 years, one phenotype that had migrated from somewhere else and had settled into a new area may transform into a different phenotype if that new area has different environmental conditions. This has been thoroughly demonstrated with many animal species although creationists don't believe it.
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^Like many mummies outside of Africa, mummification happened as an accident of the environment.
My point to box was that in few places, really only India and Africa, does the current population give any indication of who the ancient populations were. It's surprising that after so many years of discussions, this basic truth is not understood.
Over 6-12,000 years, one phenotype that had migrated from somewhere else and had settled into a new area may transform into a different phenotype if that new area has different environmental conditions. This has been thoroughly demonstrated with many animal species although creationists don't believe it.
If you're referring to the European mutation for light skin, Europeans did not enter Europe 6 to 12k years ago.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: You Europeans just don't learn do you?
It still hasn't seeped through your heads that phenotypes aren't inherent, but simply adaptive.
That means that the explanation of her phenotype and that of others who look like her, should first be sought in indigenous variation, rather than far fetched European migration.
Ever heard of Ockhams Razor?
East Asia is more than capable of producing such types.
This is true; however in the case of the Tarim Basin mummies, they may very well be of recent European descent. I suggest you look up the Tocharians and a people the Chinese called Yue-chi. They definitely weren't aboriginal to the region though as they've only entered there in the beginning of the 1st millennium B.C. and represent the farthest east Indo-European speakers have traveled.
I don't have beef with potential Europeans in China, what I have beef with is that people insist that a given phenotype is the result of something inherent and deep seated in a given population, and all the mess one might get as a result, eg invoking external geneflow when seemingly odd finds are made, without first looking for indigenous examples from that region.
They already did it in Africa, now they're doing it (again) in Asia?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^Like many mummies outside of Africa, mummification happened as an accident of the environment.
My point to box was that in few places, really only India and Africa, does the current population give any indication of who the ancient populations were. It's surprising that after so many years of discussions, this basic truth is not understood.
Over 6-12,000 years, one phenotype that had migrated from somewhere else and had settled into a new area may transform into a different phenotype if that new area has different environmental conditions. This has been thoroughly demonstrated with many animal species although creationists don't believe it.
If you're referring to the European mutation for light skin, Europeans did not enter Europe 6 to 12k years ago.
I was replying to Mike's remark which was a general statement not applied to Europe.
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: I don't have beef with potential Europeans in China, what I have beef with is that people insist that a given phenotype is the result of something inherent and deep seated in a given population, and all the mess one might get as a result, eg invoking external geneflow when seemingly odd finds are made, without first looking for indigenous examples from that region.
They already did it in Africa, now they're doing it (again) in Asia? [/QB]
How would you apply that to the R1a1a found in the mummies?
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Quote: Over 6-12,000 years, one phenotype that had migrated from somewhere else and had settled into a new area may transform into a different phenotype if that new area has different environmental conditions. This has been thoroughly demonstrated with many animal species although creationists don't believe it.
Humans are animals, show me where it happened!
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm foggy as he'll on this. Is the 6,000 - 5,500 years ago date the time by which it had originated in anyone at all or the date by which it had spread throughout the entire population?
If the former, it doesn't matter as much when Euros entered Europe.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^He,he, So box, we all came from the cabbage patch as is?
Wth does this mean?
We all came from the same cabbage patch and adapt to environment is what i'm sayin.
This isn't disputed though, this is well known fact.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: I don't have beef with potential Europeans in China, what I have beef with is that people insist that a given phenotype is the result of something inherent and deep seated in a given population, and all the mess one might get as a result, eg invoking external geneflow when seemingly odd finds are made, without first looking for indigenous examples from that region.
They already did it in Africa, now they're doing it (again) in Asia?
How would you apply that to the R1a1a found in the mummies? [/QB]
I can ask you the exact same question, why would you invoke European immigration when the marker you mention not only didn't originate in Europe, it's common in Asia as well (yellow).
I'm foggy as he'll on this. Is the 6,000 - 5,500 years ago date the time by which it had originated in anyone at all or the date by which it had spread throughout the entire population?
If the former, it doesn't matter as much when Euros entered Europe.
It is postulated that the mutation itself originated between the dates she mentioned.
It WOULD matter, because if Lioness was referring to this mutation, she would be wrong in her assignment of European arrival between those dates, as the arrival of proto Europeans didn't occur in the time frame she mentions, the mutation did.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Africans, so-called Negroes, can have the same type of facial features that so-called Caucasians have. Remember, Africa has the alot of diversity with regards to phenotypes!! There's not just one type of African facial feature.
Posts: 33 | From: U.S. | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kalonji - You and whatbox keep talking in terms of mutation and adaption, but you both fail to say WHAT and to WHOM. Do the two of you know something that no one else does, or is it just that you cannot learn something contrary to what you had originally thought?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Why do you need some dried up corpse are you saying these people do not live on the main-land? Or this scroll depiction of dark and lite-skinned Mongolian attackers killing the lite-skinned Japanese defenders as shown at the Fukuoka museum only 15min brisk walk from my home the site of the invasion?
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
Yuehai Ke and Li Jin, et. al., African Origin of Modern Humans in East Asia: A Tale of 12,000 Y Chromosomes, Science, 292:5519, pp. 1151-1153, Issue of 11 May 2001.
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
Which, ancient Egyptian, and what does he prove to us. i.e. What a Greek mummy looks like, or What a Roman mummy looks like?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: I don't have beef with potential Europeans in China, what I have beef with is that people insist that a given phenotype is the result of something inherent and deep seated in a given population, and all the mess one might get as a result, eg invoking external geneflow when seemingly odd finds are made, without first looking for indigenous examples from that region.
They already did it in Africa, now they're doing it (again) in Asia?
I understand what you're saying, but we have all the evidence available pointing to their European origins from archaeology.
But definitely these people did NOT start Chinese civilization! LOL These people were living in a remote area outside of (original) Chinese territory anyway.
Posts: 26267 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
X-ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies James Harris and Edward Wente (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1980).
The XVIV Dynasty is higher in ANB and SN-M Plane than the XX Dynasty. Ramesses IV is the only one in these two dynasties with strong alveolar prognathism, at least, as indicated by SNA. However, dental alveolar prognathism is quite common in both dynasties. Also, both have ANB and SN- M Plane at mean angles higher than even African Americans.
In terms of head shape, the XVIV and XX dynasties look more like the early Nubian skulls from the mesolithic with low vaults and sloping, curved foreheads. The XVII and XVIII dynasty skulls are shaped more like modern Nubians with globular skulls and high vaults. Merenptah, Siptah and Ramesses V all have pronounced glabellae. Ramesses IV has a bulging occiput similar to the "Elder Lady." Ramesses II and his son, Merenptah, both have rather weakly inclined mandibles with long ramus. Ramesses II's father, Seti I, does not possess this feature, though, suggesting that this was inherited from Ramesses II's mother, Queen Mut-Tuy. The gonial angle of Seti I is 116.3 compared to 107.9 and 109 for Ramesses II and Merenptah respectively.
The XVIV and XX dynasty heads do not have steep foreheads, receding zygomatic arches or prominent chins. Generally, both glabella and occiput are rounded and projecting to varying degrees. The sagittal contour is usually flattened, at least to some degree, although this sometimes begins before the bregma rather than in post-bregmatic position. The whole mandible is rarely squarish, although the body sometimes has a wavy edge. The latter feature, though, is very common in both ancient and modern Nubians. According to Gill (1986), an undulating mandible is a characteristic of Negroids.
Posts: 26267 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I understand what you're saying, but we have all the evidence available pointing to their European origins from archaeology.
But definitely these people did NOT start Chinese civilization! LOL These people were living in a remote area outside of (original) Chinese territory anyway.
OH REALLY!
Asian Whites originally from Europe.
Bullsh1t!
No such thing happened.
Whites CAME from Asia.
They didn't GO TO Asia.
And there is ABSOLUTELY no evidence of your nonsense.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Those quotes can not be found in the book, but by an analysis by another scholar.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by the lyingass:
X-ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies James Harris and Edward Wente (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1980).
The XVIV Dynasty is higher in ANB and SN-M Plane than the XX Dynasty. Ramesses IV is the only one in these two dynasties with strong alveolar prognathism, at least, as indicated by SNA. However, dental alveolar prognathism is quite common in both dynasties. Also, both have ANB and SN- M Plane at mean angles higher than even African Americans.
In terms of head shape, the XVIV and XX dynasties look more like the early Nubian skulls from the mesolithic with low vaults and sloping, curved foreheads. The XVII and XVIII dynasty skulls are shaped more like modern Nubians with globular skulls and high vaults. Merenptah, Siptah and Ramesses V all have pronounced glabellae. Ramesses IV has a bulging occiput similar to the "Elder Lady." Ramesses II and his son, Merenptah, both have rather weakly inclined mandibles with long ramus. Ramesses II's father, Seti I, does not possess this feature, though, suggesting that this was inherited from Ramesses II's mother, Queen Mut-Tuy. The gonial angle of Seti I is 116.3 compared to 107.9 and 109 for Ramesses II and Merenptah respectively.
The XVIV and XX dynasty heads do not have steep foreheads, receding zygomatic arches or prominent chins. Generally, both glabella and occiput are rounded and projecting to varying degrees. The sagittal contour is usually flattened, at least to some degree, although this sometimes begins before the bregma rather than in post-bregmatic position. The whole mandible is rarely squarish, although the body sometimes has a wavy edge. The latter feature, though, is very common in both ancient and modern Nubians. According to Gill (1986), an undulating mandible is a characteristic of Negroids.
Posts: 46 | From: Los Angeles | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is pathitc especally how Africentric people are posting South African Blacks to prove their point by how the Mummy looks Black.
The Mummy was found in Xinjiang province of CHINA and people in this region look Eurasian.
& NO these people are not Aryans they dont carry R1a Halpogroup like the original Indo Europeans did they are closer to Turkic and Han population than they are to European.
Posts: 39 | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic