because of my knowledge of the physical anthropology of the Indian peninsula including my knowledge of the fact that some very tropical people mixed with Iranic peoples for thousands of years Doug, I will not be able to accept your premise, that some Dravidians are straight haired due to their ancient black tropical ancestors.
Most pure Dravidic peoples DO NOT have straight hair, Doug, and that's about the 10th time I have said it on this forum.
Ancient Egyptians and black Mediterraneans did not have lank hair either. I'm sorry that you apparently feel the need to prove some black straight haired Mediterranean race existed that brought straight hair to North Africa 5000 years ago.
The skeletal evidence shows that diverse populations have occupied India and southwest Asia at various periods since the palaeloithic including several black types osteologically and culturally comprable to populations occupying Arabia, Mesopotamia and northern Africa.
because of my knowledge of the physical anthropology of the Indian peninsula including my knowledge of the fact that some very tropical people mixed with Iranic peoples for thousands of years Doug, I will not be able to accept your premise, that some Dravidians are straight haired due to their ancient black tropical ancestors.
Most pure Dravidic peoples DO NOT have straight hair, Doug, and that's about the 10th time I have said it on this forum.
Ancient Egyptians and black Mediterraneans did not have lank hair either. I'm sorry that you apparently feel the need to prove some black straight haired Mediterranean race existed that brought straight hair to North Africa 5000 years ago.
The skeletal evidence shows that diverse populations have occupied India and southwest Asia at various periods since the palaeloithic including several black types osteologically and culturally comprable to populations occupying Arabia, Mesopotamia and northern Africa.
The Archological Survey of Nubia: Report For 1907-1908 -G. Elliot Smith,F. Wood Jones
Crania Ægyptiaca, or, Observations on Egyptian ethnography -Samuel George Morton
here we go
Did you forgot my question LYING _SS? What makes you think the great lakes African originated peoples known as the ANCIENT EGYPTIANS had mostly straight or lank hair - especially given what we know FOR A FACT happened to the "preserved" chemically treated hair of these African nilotes.
Maybe you need to stay off Mathilda 101 and visit your nearest black hair salon.
I know you partial Swedish people probable don't use it though, like even some modern Egyptians do.
A'ahhotep
Wow I knew I had seen this little Obama's face before.
Two great lakes princesses as beautiful as ever.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: What is your evidence that ancient old and intermediate kingdom Egyptians who were apparently of GREAT LAKES AFRICAN ANCESTRY had straight hair, LYING _SS?lol.
I'll let some other posters handle you, be patient
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: sorry dana here's your other question:
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: What is your evidence that ancient old and intermediate kingdom Egyptians who were apparently of GREAT LAKES AFRICAN ANCESTRY had straight hair, LYING _SS?lol.
I'll let some other posters handle you, be patient
LOL!
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Dana, the key is to IGNORE snakey. This thread is but one of many bait threads she has. Don't bite and don't play her dumbass game.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^ this is not a true lioness thread. It's written by dana and Swenet. I'm just the messanger, so please step aside if you can't address dana's claims. I can't claim authorship except for writing "here we go". It's too late for dana, she already commented, Egyptians are from the Great Lakes and people from the Great Lakes don't have straight hair, she says she's in too deep now and need rescue Don't worry Kokakola, Doug or Troll Patty will handle it and you can figure out your position from there
posted
I wonder if this recent Brada posts relates to the issue
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi:
THE book is a chequered and prismatic compilation of illustrated writings by specialists in history, numismatics, architecture and art history of South Asia. In a country given to varying shades from light to dark skin tones, identifying an African is no simple a task. With dominant cross-cultural influences, identification of an African Muslim from that of an Indian Muslim is equally challenging. The presence of Sub-Saharan Africans in India is unique, for nowhere in the world a handful of Sub - Saharan Africans ruled over non-African population for so long. References to African elites are available as early as 14th century as reported by the Arab traveller Ibn Battuta. Read more:
^^^ considering this book about how Africans came into India with a large incoming slave trade in the 8th century and later some becoming members of the elite. He calls India the only place in the world were Africans ruled over non-Africans. It is interesting to consider their descendants in terms of who is a Dravidian and who is not a Dravidian. Unless we consider that it is just a language. The editor here also points out dark Indians who were not Africans. It's a complex picture
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: ^^ considering this book about how Africans came into India with a large incoming slave trade in the 8th century and later some becoming members of the elite. He calls India the only place in the world were Africans ruled over non-Africans. It is interesting to consider their descendants in terms of who is a Dravidian and who is not a Dravidian. Unless we consider that it is just a language. The editor here also points out dark Indians who were not Africans. It's a complex picture
This is not a complex issue in relation to Dravidian speaking people since these African Muslims did not live in Dravidian speaking areas.
LOL. The statement that India was the only place Africans ruled non Africans is a stupid statement. African Muslims ruled Europeans in Germany, Iberia etc.
quote:The statement that India was the only place Africans ruled non Africans is a stupid statement. African Muslims ruled Europeans in Germany, Iberia etc.
I agree but if you view the lecture what Lioness leave out was the fact the he also mentioned the Axumite commercial presence, with Axumite coins found in the area,he also stated that not all came as Slaves but as merchants and religious figures as well as military adventurers,just like any other ethnic group. http://egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=hist&action=display&thread=1138Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Clyde Winters
quote:The statement that India was the only place Africans ruled non Africans is a stupid statement. African Muslims ruled Europeans in Germany, Iberia etc.
I agree but if you view the lecture what Lioness leave out was the fact the he also mentioned the Axumite commercial presence, with Axumite coins found in the area,he also stated that not all came as Slaves but as merchants and religious figures as well as military adventurers,just like any other ethnic group. http://egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=hist&action=display&thread=1138
Correct. They like to make it appear Africans in the diaspora came mainly as slaves. It is interesting to note that Sidi, means lords, this makes it clear that people with this name were recognized as elites.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: African Muslims ruled Europeans in Germany, Iberia etc.
Please give some written detail on African Muslims ruling Europeans in Germany, thanks
also what is your opinion on dana's claim that pure Dravidian people do not have straight hair?
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clyde the above is a allegorical tapestry involving Moors and giants. You cannot say that Moors ruled in Germany based on this tapestry. Also the larger figure with the bow has straight hair and dana teaches that pure Dravidic people don't have straight hair. Because this tapestry has Strasbourg family heraldry in it's lower border does not mean the Strasbourgs were Muslim.
Clyde you're a scholar you should be able to present better evidence for African Muslim rule in Germany in the 14th century than this one mythological tapestry involving giants.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: Clyde the above is a allegorical tapestry involving Moors and giants. You cannot say that Moors ruled in Germany based on this tapestry. Also the larger figure with the bow has straight hair and dana teaches that pure Dravidic people don't have straight hair. Because this tapestry has Strasbourg family heraldry in it's lower border does not mean the Strasbourgs were Muslim.
Clyde you're a scholar you should be able to present better evidence for African Muslim rule in Germany in the 14th century than this one mythological tapestry involving giants.
quote:Clyde you're a scholar you should be able to present better evidence for African Muslim rule in Germany in the 14th century than this one mythological tapestry involving giants.
Duncey
Moor means a black person. It does not mean a "Muslim".
Geeez!
Lion!
Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Clyde you're a scholar you should be able to present better evidence for African Muslim rule in Germany in the 14th century than this one mythological tapestry involving giants.
Duncey
Moor means a black person. It does not mean a "Muslim".
Geeez!
Lion!
Dummy, follow the thread, the comment on Muslims came from Clyde.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: African Muslims ruled Europeans in Germany, Iberia etc.
Most importantly there is a growing group of Western scholars that in fact feel Dravidian speakers were originally Africans who've settled in Asia since the neolithic which is supported by certain OTHER genetic studies already posted on this forum more than once and because of the incontrovertible linguistic and cultural evidence.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
OK fine. So who first settled south India and what is their relationship to folks like the Aborigines of Australia and the pacific. What I posted in my thread was the clear relationship between the two groups. Now if you can find something that somehow shows how this is not the case then I am all for it. But I doubt you will. India was populated 60,000 years ago by the first wave of humans going into Asia via the Southern route. It has been populated continuously since that time. There have been various other smaller migrations from various places since then but the base population never left. Therefore, no later population came in and wiped out the aboriginal stock and replaced them, either with new black African folks or new white Eurasian folks. And how does the arrival of Africans since the Neolithic explain the fact that the majority of Indians, which is almost a billion folks, have straight hair? Either this trait came with the aborigines or it arrived later. My argument is that it came with the aborigines. [/qb]
posted
The Indians were told that they are Caucasians, and they are pure of blood. So no need for any Afrocentrist to go and waste their and our time with them. Perhaps only to find out how their white fellow Caucasian brethren treat them, when they visit them in Europe. If they still feel that much Caucasian. No damn use to implicate folks who do not self-identify as Blacks. It's the identity that makes people recognizable as Black, not their soothy faces, or frizzled hair, or garage size noses, nor their Ubangi lips.
She identifies with the little Moor as nobility, blue blood and thus Black. How black she appeared in real life, is another matter. But thinkinly was brown or black of complexion. Any painter could whip up a little Moor, he need not have one in front of him to paint a symbolic Moor. The body type and dress came with the painting, also need not have shown the persons true shape. Pearls meant pure noble blood, could also be added by the painter. The whole thing is highly symbolic, artistic and fake; to serve a purpose: bragging about the status.
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
"OK fine. So who first settled south India and what is their relationship to folks like the Aborigines of Australia and the pacific. What I posted in my thread was the clear relationship between the two groups. Now if you can find something that somehow shows how this is not the case then I am all for it. But I doubt you will. India was populated 60,000 years ago by the first wave of humans going into Asia via the Southern route. It has been populated continuously since that time. There have been various other smaller migrations from various places since then but the base population never left. Therefore, no later population came in and wiped out the aboriginal stock and replaced them, either with new black African folks or new white Eurasian folks. And how does the arrival of Africans since the Neolithic explain the fact that the majority of Indians, which is almost a billion folks, have straight hair? Either this trait came with the aborigines or it arrived later. My argument is that it came with the aborigines. [/qb]"
Which aborigines Doug, the Andamans? I'm not saying there could not have been early populations of blacks in India with straight hair obviously pre-dating or coming after the Andaman groups. But if you are saying all the physical types in India i.e. southwest Asia are derived from a single migration out of Africa based on your interpretation of a genetic study I say that is your interpretation and opinion.
Four concepts for all to remember - genetic drift, population amalgamation, linguistic adoption and forensics. All four could explain why Dravidian-SPEAKERS and Munda- SPEAKERS are not the pure representatives of the original inhabitants. The rest is logic.
Now I am done with this conversation as I said because an argument requires a little thing called logic. I will never be convinced that Berber speakers are ALL purely representative of ancient Berber-SPEAKERS of yesterday or even 500 years ago even though modern Berber-speakers show some genetic relationship. I will never be convince and FOR THE SAME REASONS.
I would also suggest everyone read up on the physical populations of neolithic and paleolithic southwest Asia to avoid unnecessary assumptions BASED PURELY ON GENETIC INFO in the future.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |