The Upper Paleolithic and the Mesolithic around the Mediterranean: cultural framework

Janusz K. Kozlowski

Abstract

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:

The origin of the Upper Palaeolithic around the Mediterranean was the result of the local evolution, particularly in the Near East and in the Lower Nile basin, and of the migration from this zone to South-Eastern and Central Europe.

---

Thought Quotes:

Isolates in a corridor of migrations: a high-resolution analysis of Y-chromosome variation in Jordan.
J Hum Genet. 2005 Sep 2

Flores et al.

"The possibility that the Dead Sea and Cameroon are isolated remnants of a past broad human expansion deserves further studies."

Thought Quotes:

"Fossil Men" by Marcellin Boule and Henri Vallois,

"On the strength of evidence, we must recognise in all objectivity, that the first Homo Sapiens were "Negroid" and that the other races, white and yellow, appeared later..... the human remains found up to now in East Africa, do not differ from the present inhabitants of that country or neighboring countries."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:

During the Late Glacial the cultural separation between Europe and Africa was particularly marked.

---

Thought Writes:

This is a very important point for two reasons:

1) It supports the fact that the Nile Valley was essentially depopulated during the LGM and repeopled from Sub-Saharan Africa during the early Holocene (which started earlier in Africa than in Eurasia).

2) It supports the fact that East Africans are NOT "Caucasoid" because:

1. The "Caucasus" is a region NOT a "Race"
2. The so-called "Caucasoid" type and Black Africans such as Somalis were seperated during this period and hence cannot constitute one ethnicity

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

This is a very important point for two reasons:

1) It supports the fact that the Nile Valley was essentially depopulated during the LGM and repeopled from Sub-Saharan Africa during the early Holocene (which started earlier in Africa than in Eurasia).

2) It supports the fact that East Africans are NOT "Caucasoid" because:

1. The "Caucasus" is a region NOT a "Race"
2. The so-called "Caucasoid" type and Black Africans were seperated during this period and hence cannot constitute one ethnicity

---

Nice work Thought. Nilotic and other East African people were biologically African. Variation among Tropical Black African populations is due to adaptation to different enviroments not admixture from Eurasian foreigners, that admixture only came later and was not significant enough to influence the overall phenotype of East Africa.

I see no reason why you guys should run in circles with Evil Euro you should spend more time promoting the truth rather than arguing with racists who are never going to concede to the realities of history and anthropology. Euro loses all credibility when he believes he can interpret studies better than the people who wrote them and declines to email those anthropologists to see if his interpretations are correct. Even a lay man can see that this is is what is going on.

If the experts themselves support someone's interpretation of their own work who is anyone else to argue against it? You can't go back and use old studies that are debunked by newer peer reviewed studies and pretend they are the authority unless all you want to do is play make believe. Some people on this forum need to grow up and stop being so immature. This is bad sportsmanship and it's bad science.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:

This is a very important point for two reasons:

1) It supports the fact that the Nile Valley was essentially depopulated during the LGM and repeopled from Sub-Saharan Africa during the early Holocene (which started earlier in Africa than in Eurasia).

2) It supports the fact that East Africans are NOT "Caucasoid" because:

1. The "Caucasus" is a region NOT a "Race"
2. The so-called "Caucasoid" type and Black Africans such as Somalis were seperated during this period and hence cannot constitute one ethnicity

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

This is a very important point for two reasons:

1) It supports the fact that the Nile Valley was essentially depopulated during the LGM and repeopled from Sub-Saharan Africa during the early Holocene (which started earlier in Africa than in Eurasia).

[This message has been edited by Thought2 (edited 12 October 2005).]

---

Thought Posts:

COLIN P. GROVES AND ALAN THORNE 1999 The Terminal Pleistocene and
Early Holocene Populations of Northern Africa. Homo 50(3):249-262.
ISSN 0018-442X.
Abstract:

We studied three northern African samples of human cranial remains from the Pleistocene/Holocene boundary: Afalou-bou-Rhummel, Taforalt, and Sudanese Nubia (Jebel Sahaba and Tushka), and compared them to late Pleistocene Europeans and Africans. Despite their relatively late dates, all three of our own samples exhibit the robusticity typical of late Pleistocene Homo sapiens. As far as population affinities are concerned, Taforalt is Caucasoid and closely resembles late Pleistocene Europeans, Sudanese Nubia is Negroid, and Afalou exhibits an intermediate status. Evidently the Caucasoid/Negroid transition has fluctuated north and south over time, perhaps following the changes in the distribution of climatic zones.

Thought Quotes:

"The climate of Nubia in the Qadan period was less arid than today, corresponding to one of Butzer's short high-water substages of the Nile, and the fundementally Sub-Saharan affinities of the Sahaba/Tushka people may thus result from the northward extension of Afrotropical subarid vegetation belts."

Thought Posts:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/12/6769

Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes

M. F. Hammer et al.

"The second most frequent Jewish haplotype, YAP+ haplotype 4, was common in Middle Eastern and southern European populations and reached its highest frequency in North Africa. The discovery of its precursor (YAP+ haplotype 4L) in seven Ethiopian males supports the hypothesis that the YAP+ haplotype 4S originated on a YAP+ 4L chromosome in Ethiopia (20,000 years ago), where it likely increased in frequency before spreading down the Nile River toward Egypt and the Levant (32). This hypothesis is consistent with mtDNA evidence indicating south-to-north gene flow down the Nile (45)."

Thought Posts:

The Prehistory of Egypt
Beatrix Midant-Reynes

"....indicates the role in the Qadan economy played by the collection of wild Gramineae (a wheat-like grass) from 14,000 BP onwards."

"Given that the Nile Delta is located directly bewteen the Levant and North Africa, it must have played an ESSENTIAL role in the development of microlithic cultures..."

Thought Writes:

The term "Neolithic" is utilized as a Eurocentric device. Note that the prefix is "Neo" or New and the Suffix is "Lithic" or "Stone". In reality the "Stone" is really a reference to a new type of stone toolmaking technology known as microliths. Eurocentrics have altered this term to mean the management of animals and plants as in cultivation. However, this process is the OUTCOME of the introduction of NEW TECHNOLOGY from Sub-Saharan Africa to Eurasia in the form of microliths during the Mesolithic period.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
East Africans are NOT "Caucasoid"

---

Then I wonder why they're so genetically and craniofacially similar to Europeans:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Then I wonder why they're so genetically and craniofacially similar to Europeans:

---

Thought Writes:

1) The genetic chart from the Wilson study in no way demonstrates that East Africans have greater genetic affinity with Europeans than with other Africans in general. What Table 2 demonstrates is that his sample of Ethiopians has greatest affinity with the series of structure-defined subclusters defined as subcluster A in relation to the other populations and lineages sampled in this study only. We have no idea of what SPECIFIC lineages constitute subcluster A. In fact many of the lineages that constitute subcluster A could be African in origin! In addition, Table 2 does NOT evaluate the relationship of Ethiopians to Europeans and Sub-Saharan Africans in absolute terms. In fact the ONLY true European in the sample population is from Norway. If you are stating that Eurasians have a subset of genes that originate within East Africa, I agree. In fact, I would add that there is actually a GRADIENT of genetic relationships that exist FROM Sub-Saharan Africa into the Near East and Europe and this gradient is supported by the archaeological record. This makes the idea of absolute "Races" a spurious concept from conception.

Thought Posts:

The Upper Paleolithic and the Mesolithic around the Mediterranean: cultural framework

Janusz K. Kozlowski

Abstract

"The origin of the Upper Palaeolithic around the Mediterranean was the result of the local evolution, particularly in the Near East and in the Lower Nile basin, and of the migration from this zone to South-Eastern and Central Europe."

Thought Continues:

2) The craniofacial similarity in the chart from Brace is based upon happenstance/chance and/or the fact that neolithic Europeans cluster closer to East Africans due to the fact that E3b carrying Africans spread their genes and craniofacial forms into Eurasia within the last 10,000 years.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
thoughless can jump back 40,000 years like it was a walk in the park to make some vague point.

---

translation: you don't understand.

Just say you don't understand instead of trying to insult others.

Especially since you're not clever and frankly really aren't very good at insults.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

1) The genetic chart from the Wilson study in no way demonstrates that East Africans have greater genetic affinity with Europeans than with other Africans in general. What Table 2 demonstrates is that his sample of Ethiopians has greatest affinity with the series of structure-defined subclusters defined as subcluster A in relation to the other populations and lineages sampled in this study only. We have no idea of what SPECIFIC lineages constitute subcluster A. In fact many of the lineages that constitute subcluster A could be African in origin! In addition, Table 2 does NOT evaluate the relationship of Ethiopians to Europeans and Sub-Saharan Africans in absolute terms. In fact the ONLY true European in the sample population is from Norway. If you are stating that Eurasians have a subset of genes that originate within East Africa, I agree. In fact, I would add that there is actually a GRADIENT of genetic relationships that exist FROM Sub-Saharan Africa into the Near East and Europe and this gradient is supported by the archaeological record. This makes the idea of absolute "Races" a spurious concept from conception.

Thought Posts:

The Upper Paleolithic and the Mesolithic around the Mediterranean: cultural framework

Janusz K. Kozlowski

Abstract

"The origin of the Upper Palaeolithic around the Mediterranean was the result of the local evolution, particularly in the Near East and in the Lower Nile basin, and of the migration from this zone to South-Eastern and Central Europe."

Thought Continues:

2) The craniofacial similarity in the chart from Brace is based upon happenstance/chance and/or the fact that neolithic Europeans cluster closer to East Africans due to the fact that E3b carrying Africans spread their genes and craniofacial forms into Eurasia within the last 10,000 years. ][/b]

---

Correct, as usual Idiot Euro spams and adds his patented obtuse remarks without understanding ANY of the context of what he posts ->

Keita pointed out that Brace skull map shows Melanesio-African skull/nose shape affinity even though the two groups are desparate genetically.

Wilson points out that his study is not meant for examining questions of lineage or population origin and that Y chromosome study is better designed for that purpose.

Brace points out that the morphology of East African Blacks is native to Africa and has little if anything to do with admixtures.

All three agree that race typologies such as caucaZoid are anthropologically worthless....as are Erroneous Euro's comments on this, or anything else.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
I am not going to be lectured by some worn out old black radical political hack who travels around with a chip on his shoulder.
The points in that post were valid...the man is a half educated goofball.

---

This coming from the loon who agrees with everything Hawass says (even though it is out of his field), and has now gone into deeper insanity agreeing that Nubians are also cacuasoid!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Correct, as usual Idiot Euro spams and adds his patented obtuse remarks without understanding ANY of the context of what he posts ->

Keita pointed out that Brace skull map shows Melanesio-African skull/nose shape affinity even though the two groups are desparate genetically.

Wilson points out that his study is not meant for examining questions of lineage or population origin and that Y chromosome study is better designed for that purpose.

Brace points out that the morphology of East African Blacks is native to Africa and has little if anything to do with admixtures.

All three agree that race typologies such as caucaZoid are anthropologically worthless....as are Erroneous Euro's comments on this, or anything else.

---

I find it insane how a person like Stupid-Euro seems to have a hard time comprehending all of this!!!

How can anyone believe that East Africans are not black anyway?!!! ROTFL

My prophecy has come true! White/European supremacy has been reduced to a babbling idiotic lunatic!! Take Evil-Euro the par examplar who has been arguing for almost a year now that not only Egyptians but all East Africans are not black!!!

Will the insanity ever stop?!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
First of all nut, Dr Hawass could not hold that his position if he was respected by his peers at the highest level. At the very least he knows a damn site more about the subject than you do. This thread, with some exceptions, is a collection of crack pots.

---

Actually Hawass is often criticized immensely by some of his peers. Check this site out.

http://www.mummyspeaks.net/INDEX.HTML

The point of the other posters who you call nuts, still stands.

Hawass is not an anthropologist, he is a spokesmen for the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities. An archeologist.

Supercar, Thought and the others are quoting experts in their field who's works are peer reviewed and their interpretations of such work have been supported by those experts through email.

Who is an authority in the field of anthropology?

A bioanthropologist like Keita who has a PHD from Oxford Univerity and an MD from Howard Univeristy and is a professional medical expert?

Or Zahi Hawass? An archeologist. Granted a reputed archeologist but an expert in a different field nonetheless.

By your logic Wolf Blitzer, a journalist for CNN is more qualified to discuss subjects of political science than Condelleza Rice.

If you were really a Professor you'd concede this point or atleast cover your tracks and say that I am misinterpreting your words.

What you are contending is ludicrous. Anyone with half a brain knows that Hawass's opinion on subjects of anthropology do not mean **** when compared to professional anthropologists.

If Evil Euro were to at all be taken seriously at this point he would consult with the men who's work he is trying to interpret for "discussions" (More like flame wars) on this message board.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
The problem is Mansa that SC, thought and the guys you mentioned are not well enough trained to understand what they are reading. They bounce all over the place to spin a point. You are wasting your time mansa, nobody is ever, in a thousand years , going to buy this crap. you can quote and misquote the little group of people that are used here over and over but its never going to do any good. Why, because its politics , not history. No historian talks like these guys do, no historian deals with information the way they do...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
The problem is Mansa that SC, thought and the guys you mentioned are
not well enough trained to understand what they are reading. They bounce all over the place to spin a point.
You are wasting your time mansa, nobody is ever, in a thousand years , going to buy this crap. you can quote and misquote the little group of people that are used here over and over but its never going to do any good. Why, because its politics , not history. No historian talks like these guys do, no historian deals with information the way they do.
They, and you are on a crusade for a political point. Lets be honest about what this is all about.

[This message has been edited by Horemheb (edited 13 October 2000)

---

There are several faults in your argument:

1. You say they are not well enough trained in what they are talking about but clearly neither is Evil Euro, yet rather than choose to not dignify either arguement with a response YOU attempt to bolster Euro's arguement by citing someone not qualified this field (Zahi Hawass) as an authority. That makes you just as bad if not worse than the people you critisize for not having the rright credentials to carry on this discussion.

2. You say noone is going to "buy this crap" and that I am "wasting my time". I am not the one selling anything. I am only giving my opinions to the discussions at hand. When it comes to people discussing the racial makeup of the Egyptians I am merely one of the people trying to set the record straight not create distortions. Take my first thread EVER on such discussion on a message board.
http://www.mootstormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=556

Now if you read my first post carefully on that thread you will see that I am only attacking a distortion and that is the White Supremacist webpage "Nordic Desert Empire".

The page is in the appropiate forum (historical revisionism). The discussion is about why the White History page used "racial imagery" from Tut's tomb to prove their racial point of view but did not post an image of Tut. The conclusion is that it is because Tut does not look White. Then I guess images for examples of more deciet and a link to a reliable source on the subject. In any case the thread degenerated from a discussion on historical revisionism to the race of the Egyptians themselves with a diverse amount of opinions. None of the evidence was a seasoned as anything on here.

3. In any case this board turned into a racial sideshow long before I got here. I personally am more interested in the history of the Egyptians themselves rather than the racial makesup of the civilization. But I will respond to distorters. There is no crusade going on here. This board attracts people into the discussion of race which sadly overshadows other discussions on Egyptology.

I commend Ausar for his attempts to shift focus away from such redundant tripe.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
I...the man is a half educated goofball.

---

^^ as usual, self description.

Just admit that you don't understand and/or move on.

It's less frustrating for you than continually making a fool of yourself.

I don't know why you do it really.

You can't succeed in making other folks angry.

You are too obviously and ill-informed clown.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
First of all nut, Dr Hawass could not hold that his position if he was respected by his peers at the highest level. At the very least he knows a damn site more about the subject than you do. This thread, with some exceptions, is a collection of crack pots.

---

My, it looks like I hit a nerve professor! I have not even made any reference to Hawass in this thread, so why the heck do you bring him up??!! My last comment wasn't even direct to you but to Stupid-Euro! Besides, as I and everyone else has stated so many times, since when did Hawass have any expertise when it comes to physical anthropology?!

Professor, I think you need to get some rest or something...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mansa Musa:
Actually Hawass is often criticized immensely by some of his peers. Check this site out.

http://www.mummyspeaks.net/INDEX.HTML

---

You are absolutely right Mansa! Hawass really embarassed himself with the whole fiasco on Fletcher's Mummy. As far as the age and sex of the mummy, not only does he contradict what the examiners say but his story has changed so many times, even the media can't keep up!!!

Yet silly Hore hails Hawass at an expert at things beyond his field (like anthropology!)

"Notably, 62% of the Ethiopians fall in the first cluster, which encompasses the majority of the Jews, Norwegians and Armenians, indicating that placement of these individuals in a 'Black' cluster would be an inaccurate reflection of the genetic structure. Only 24% of the Ethiopians are placed in the cluster with the Bantu and most of the Afro-Caribbeans."

Brace says:

"When the nonadaptive aspects of craniofacial configuration are the basis for assessment, the Somalis cluster with Europeans before showing a tie with the people of West Africa or the Congo Basin."

Evil Euro says:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Mansa, You guys bounce around like a ping pong ball. Could be, might be, possibly is....these things are all faulty logic. Trained specialist have difficulty dealing with many of these issues muvh less the political spin doctors we have here.

---

So now physical anthropology is not at all a reliable science?

Hore, you and Euro have been singing the same sad song and dance for years. I don't know how many times I've seen those silly quotes from Euro and that little grave sign and then you, Horemheb, shut up for a little while when a reconstruction turns up Black then return beating your chest when it looks whiter. Its just one big side show.

Noone on here takes you seriously. From my perspective Euro proved his incompetence when he refused to email the scientists he keeps quoting to see if his interpretations of their work is accurate.

You Horemheb proved your incompetence just recently to me when you did not post details about those 15 books you boasted to have read. That proved right there you are not here for rational discussion or anything else you might claim to be here for.

A teacher gives information. If that was your real profession that is what you would have done. I highly doubt you are a professor. Maybe a nutty professor.

Everyone knows that in science you must state the problem, make observations, form a hypothesis, do the experiment and draw conclusions.

Brace's flaw is when he decided to use a certain group to determine the measuring stick for the Black race and did not do the same for the White race. He used a double standard that has existed before his time in anthropology for years.

It's the one drop rule vs. the "True Negro".

Keita on the other hand dismissed the racial classications himself and decided to focus more on craniofacial affinity in which the crania of the original Egyptians was closest to that of other Blacks in East Africa, who's features he determined are biologically African.

Your problem is that you take things at face value when it conveniences you. I hold the opinion of Ausar, Charlie Bass, Thought2 and the others in much high regard than I ever would you because though they are not pros and are not going to interpret work perfectly they atleast contacted the real professionals to get their opinions and see if their interpretations were correct.

That is something Evil Euro does not appear to do and that is why I will not give his word any credence until he does. His bantering doesn't impress me I've been talking to Neo-Nazis on Stormfront all year and seen people who are far more clever with their racist snipes.

You are much, much worse Hore because you quote people as authorities who are speaking about matters out of their field of interest.

You don't like the fact that I have shown you proof to the contrary that Dr. Hawass is not as highly regarded as you thought he was and that his colleagues often times question his judgement and object to his decisions? Well tough, it's still the truth.

You try to ridicule me with childish generalizations and buzz words like "spin doctor" but you forgot that on here you are still the nutty professor who never backs up what he says. I'm still waiting on those 15 books.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
mansa, Doesn't matter. You are not a historian or an anthropoligist. The point is that you lack the skills to be able to handle the complicated material you are dealing with. It is made even worse by the fact that you are not interested in history in the firat place, but rather black politics. If you restricted thias board to history you would be the first one gone quickly followed by most of the others. This board HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EGYPT, it has to do with radical black politics.

---

More asinine generalizations. I am very much interested in history, ALL history thank you very much. Don't talk to me like you know me. Where are your 15 books on Ancient Egypt? I asked for them in a legit thread and you did not provide you just initiated the same song and dance. A history professor simply would not do that, atleast not one who values education, they would not put petty flaming before providing information and that is exactly what you did.

There are no racial politics going on here, the majority of people discussing race are only interested in the truth about the matter. Your opposition only eggs such discussion on.

I came here from an anti-racist message board wanting to learn more about a similar subject from here that was discussed on that board. That doesn't mean I fit your silly 1 dimensional generalizations of a person only interested in advancing some ideological belief.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
all you are interested in is politics. By the way...try Peter Clayton's 'Chronicle of the Pharoah's.' Its a great overview of AE history. I NEVER hear you discus those topics....only race. Again, this board is not about AE history.....at all.

---

Actually I hate politics, it's all a bunch of mudslingling. I've posted links to Pharonic chronology. Rember when we were discussing the Exodus? What did that have to do with race? It was about a story that is a very popular part of our culture. A part of 3 of the most dominate religions in the world and we were discussing how it relates to Ancient Egypt.

Other than that simple mistake, EVERYTHING else I said still holds true.

quote:

---

Mansa said: You say they are not well enough trained in what they are talking about but clearly neither is Evil Euro, yet rather than choose to not dignify either arguement with a response YOU attempt to bolster Euro's arguement by citing someone not qualified this field (Zahi Hawass) as an authority. That makes you just as bad if not worse than the people you critisize for not having the rright credentials to carry on this discussion.

---

quote:

---

[b]So now physical anthropology is not at all a reliable science?

Hore, you and Euro have been singing the same sad song and dance for years. I don't know how many times I've seen those silly quotes from Euro and that little grave sign and then you, Horemheb, shut up for a little while when a reconstruction turns up Black then return beating your chest when it looks whiter. Its just one big side show.

Noone on here takes you seriously. From my perspective Euro proved his incompetence when he refused to email the scientists he keeps quoting to see if his interpretations of their work is accurate.

You Horemheb proved your incompetence just recently to me when you did not post details about those 15 books you boasted to have read. That proved right there you are not here for rational discussion or anything else you might claim to be here for.

A teacher gives information. If that was your real profession that is what you would have done. I highly doubt you are a professor. Maybe a nutty professor.

Everyone knows that in science you must state the problem, make observations, form a hypothesis, do the experiment and draw conclusions.

Brace's flaw is when he decided to use a certain group to determine the measuring stick for the Black race and did not do the same for the White race. He used a double standard that has existed before his time in anthropology for years.

It's the one drop rule vs. the "True Negro".

Keita on the other hand dismissed the racial classications himself and decided to focus more on craniofacial affinity in which the crania of the original Egyptians was closest to that of other Blacks in East Africa, who's features he determined are biologically African.

Your problem is that you take things at face value when it conveniences you. I hold the opinion of Ausar, Charlie Bass, Thought2 and the others in much high regard than I ever would you because though they are not pros and are not going to interpret work perfectly they atleast contacted the real professionals to get their opinions and see if their interpretations were correct.

That is something Evil Euro does not appear to do and that is why I will not give his word any credence until he does. His bantering doesn't impress me I've been talking to Neo-Nazis on Stormfront all year and seen people who are far more clever with their racist snipes.

You are much, much worse Hore because you quote people as authorities who are speaking about matters out of their field of interest.

You don't like the fact that I have shown you proof to the contrary that Dr. Hawass is not as highly regarded as you thought he was and that his colleagues often times question his judgement and object to his decisions? Well tough, it's still the truth.

You try to ridicule me with childish generalizations and buzz words like "spin doctor" but you forgot that on here you are still the nutty professor who never backs up what he says. I'm still waiting on those 15 books.

---

mate!

Hore, as I have said a thousand times, this has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with FACTS!!

The FACTS have been presented to you in large mounds over and over, yet you dismiss it all as part of some "afrocentric political agenda".

What gives professor?

quote:

---

Hore always sings: Every mainstream scholar opposes the Afrocentric position.

---

LOL To the contrary! Many mainstream scholars can do nothing but accept the big yet simple FACT, that Egyptians were indigenous black Aficans! You keep referring to scholars yet you never name any. So I will take the initiative and list just a sample of the many scholars that accept the so-called "Afrocentric" view.

anthropologists: Sonia Zakrzewski, Jean Hiernaux, G. Philip Rightmire, Colin P. Groves, Nina Jablonsky, Larry Angel, and last but not least Angel's protege Shomarka Keita.

Egyptologists: Frank Yurco, Ian Shaw, Michael Rice, Kent Weeks, Bruce Williams, Toby Wilkinson, and Barbara S. Lesko

Historians: Basil Davidson, Theodore Celenko, and even Mary Lefkowitz!

Even M.D.s who studied ancient Egyptian physical remains: James E. Harris and Michael Cricheton!

Here are just a few of the scholars who agree with the facts and ALL of them are mainstream!

quote:

---

Nubians were dark skinned and wooly haired, Egyptians were not.

Keita is hardly a good example to use to make the point. Dr Hawass might be a little more up to date, "Ancient Egyptians were north African caucasians."

Its a dead issue, go make some money.

---

Ancient Europeans and Near-Easterners described BOTH the Egyptians and Nubians as having dark-skin and wooly hair. The Greeks designated all lands south of the Mediterranian as being 'Aethiopia' including Egypt. Even the Greco-Roman historians like Herodotus makes specifics of that.

LOL Why do you dismiss Keita when he is an expert in his feild [physical anthropology] and more than up to date, yet you cite Hawass whose specialty is strictly in archeaology?!!

Hawass is less than reliable and this has been pointed out many times. For example, Hawass's story about the sex and age of Fletchers mummy has changed about a dozen times, showing that he definitely is no expert at identifying physical human traits. What's worse is his stories seem to contradict those of the real experts.

Hawass is a funny character. Although he seems to be a sort of 'expert' on ancient Egyptian culture and society, he never mentions anything about Egypt's location in Africa, let alone any connections Egypt had to the rest of the continent or its peoples! This is the equivalent of a Grecologist or 'Classicist' denying any ties the Greeks had with other Europeans or the European land at large!! The fact that Hawass himself is an Arab Egyptian might have something to do with it. Hawass was born and raised in the eastern delta city of Damietta which is about as Arab as you can get.

Sorry but you cannot even rule out Keita as an "Afrocentric" just because he is black, since his work is peer reviewed and is accepted in just about every anthropological journal and text. Heck, his work is revolutionizing the field and the guy is being praised by his peers!! And his mentor Larry Angel is white.

quote:

---

The list is esentially correct. Ancient Egypt was a north african caucasian society.
It will always be presented that way.

---

The only explanation you have given in the past which is probably the ONLY one you have given thus far is that "caucasians" from the Near-East migrated into the Nile Valley.

Such a belief is the Dynastic Race Theory, which was postulated by scholars in the 18th century. This belief has long ago been debunked, considering that all the evidence shows that the foundations of Egyptian civilization originated in the south in the valley area of Upper Egypt NOT in the north in the Delta area, which would be the central settlement of these people if they really came from the Near-East (actully, evidence shows just the opposite migration). Even your hero, Hawass gets tired of explaining to people that ancient Egyptians are not Near-Eastern but native and so is their culture, which creates a kind of paradox in his espousal of non-black Egyptians!

What's more is that Ausar as well as everyone else in this board has explained so many times that the term "caucasoid" had been applied to peoples from East Africa to the Pacific!! A belief to which only complete morons like Evil-Euro cling to! Which is why the very term "caucasoid," especially when applied to regions outside of Europe as diverse as Africa or Asia, is just an old farce left over from 18th century Eurocentic thought. Heck, even the prehistoric American remains of "Kennewick Man" has been misclassified as caucasian when is actually more related to aboriginal people of Japan! Some scholars are still suffering the fall out of this "caucazoid" debauchery.

Really professor, your whole argument on North African "caucasoids" is no less silly than that of Southern European "negroids"! Then again, that appears to be the argument people in this board are making (which seems to be supported by evidence). Yet you find such a notion so unlikely that it's absurd. Why, when you continuouly speak of caucasoids in Africa?! You practially reek of hypocrasy!

quote:

---

You can tell by looking at his face that he was caucasian. You have bought into a political movement that has nothing to do with scholarship. This movement has created its own mythology and body of pusedo scholarship complete with radical scholars...

---

You mean this face?!!:

You are really in deep denial, my poor deluded professor! This reconstruction looks just like my light-skinned black Puerto Rican friend (albeit an effeminate way)!! In fact this very reconstruction looks like a more 'mixed' version of this one:

quote:

---

Much of it sprang from the creation of Afro-American History departments at our universities in the 70's and 80's. It has become part of the radical black political movement , based mostly in America. Everyone knows it for what it is and simply wink.

---

Whatever the case may be with the 'Afrocentric' movemnet, it seems modern science is only proving them right!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
Professor Hore, in case you missed my post from before, here it is again:

Whatever the case may be with the 'Afrocentric' movemnet, it seems modern science is only proving them right!!

[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 14 October 2005).]

---

"Notably, 62% of the Ethiopians fall in the first cluster, which encompasses the majority of the Jews, Norwegians and Armenians, indicating that placement of these individuals in a 'Black' cluster would be an inaccurate reflection of the genetic structure. Only 24% of the Ethiopians are placed in the cluster with the Bantu and most of the Afro-Caribbeans."}

Thought Writes:

Of course Wilson says that, because he does not believe in the genetic basis for social constructs such as Black, White, Negroid, Caucasoid, etc. He is absolutely right. There are no genetic absolutes that seperate Africans from Eurasians. In fact, modern scientific analysis, constructed in a peer-reviewed fashion indicates that a gradient of gene flow exists FROM Sub-Saharan Africa into Europe. Furthermore, what we can say is that Northern Africans tend to have more Euasian specific lineages than Sub-Saharan Africans and Southern Europeans tend to have more Sub-Saharan specific lineages (such as E3b) than Northern Europeans.

Europeans are a subset of the original Sub-Saharan population that moved out of East Africa and initially into southern Asia and later northern Europe and northern Asia. The fact that the human prototype was similar to modern Sub-Saharan Africans and that East Africans have generally looked the same as they do today is supported in peer-review.

Thought Posts:

Russian Journal of Genetics Volume 41, Number 9

Phenetic Analysis in Paleoanthropology: Phenogeography of Peoples of the World

A. A. Movsessian

"Abstract Phenetic diversity of peoples of the world in a system of nonmetric, discrete variable traits has been studied. Sixty-two populations from North, Central, and Southeast Asia, Eastern and Western Europe, America, East Africa, Australia, and Melanesia have been examined. The estimates of phenetic diversity within regions (Fst) and the distances of the regions from the global means (d) proved to be comparable to the corresponding estimates inferred from genetic data. This means that differentiation of populations in discrete variable traits is related to the history of formation of their gene pools.

A classification tree of the world peoples constructed using bootstrap implemented in the PHYLIP program package (Felsenstein, 1993) showed that the Australo-Melanesian populations were close to the East African ones but separated from those of the Eurasian region. The results of phylogenetic analysis of the reconstructed phene pools of the regional ancestral populations support the assumptions on the early colonization of Australia and Melanesia and on the ***later time of divergence*** of the ancestors of modern Caucasoids and North Asian Mongoloids."

{Brace says:

"When the nonadaptive aspects of craniofacial configuration are the basis for assessment, the Somalis cluster with Europeans before showing a tie with the people of West Africa or the Congo Basin."}

Thought Writes:

Of course you left out the fact that:

1) Cranio-facial form is NOT the only aspect of phenotype

2) Brace acknowledged that his sample was incomplete due to the fact that it lacked elongated West Africans such as Tuareg and Fulani

3) Brace found a similarity between his pool of Neolithic and modern Europeans with East Africans due to the fact that the lineages of E3b carrying East Africans spread genes and phenotype into Southern Europe.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:

{Brace says:

"When the nonadaptive aspects of craniofacial configuration are the basis for assessment, the Somalis cluster with Europeans before showing a tie with the people of West Africa or the Congo Basin."}

Thought Writes:

Of course you left out the fact that:

1) Cranio-facial form is NOT the only aspect of phenotype

---

Undoubtedly. Even then, there are no absolute breaks...

"...the Somalis and the Egyptian Bronze Age sample from Naqada may also have a hint of a sub-Saharan African component."

And as I pointed out earlier in a related matter...

Given that we know where the Somalis live and what they look like, the fact that the line "a hint of a sub-Saharan African component" is used here, should be revealing. Somalis are sub-Saharan Africans, and like the indigenous ancient Egyptians, have tropical body plans.

Also consider this...

"The Niger-Congo speakers, Congo, Dahomey and Haya, cluster closely with each other and a bit less closely with the Nubian sample - both the recent and the Bronze Age Nubians - and more remotely with the Naqada Bronze Age sample of Egypt, the modern Somalis, and the Arabic-speaking Fellaheen (farmers) of Israel. When those samples are separated and run in a single analysis as in Fig. 1, there clearly is a tie between them that is diluted the farther one gets from sub-Saharan Africa."

quote:

---

Thought2:
2) Brace acknowledged that his sample was incomplete due to the fact that it lacked elongated West Africans such as Tuareg and Fulani

---

Quite right. Fact is that, the only pick from West Africa, was that of Dahomey. The "Niger-Congo" twig was much less represented, in terms of a more diversified pick of samples from more regions, considering the vast area encompassing "Niger-Congo" speaking populations. Nonetheless, ties have been brought to light, as mentioned in the above citation.

We should also keep in mind, that the following East African groups were put in their own twig for a reason, and not along with the "European" twigs...

"Naqada Bronze Age Egyptian, the Nubian, Nubia Bronze Age, Israeli Fellaheen (Arabic farmers) and Somali samples were lumped as “Prehistoric/Recent Northeast Africa.”"

...indicating that, craniofacially, they also differ from most Europeans. It goes without saying, that affinities here, are mentioned in relative terms, not absolute terms.

quote:

---

Thought2:
3) Brace found a similarity between his pool of Neolithic and modern Europeans with East Africans due to the fact that the lineages of E3b carrying East Africans spread genes and phenotype into Southern Europe.

---

We should also bear in mind this...

"...the failure of the Neolithic and Bronze Age samples in central and northern Europe to tie to the modern inhabitants supports the suggestion that,...

while a farming mode of subsistence was spread westward and also north to Crimea and east to Mongolia by actual movement of communities of farmers, the indigenous foragers in each of those areas ultimately absorbed both the agricultural subsistence strategy and also the people who had brought it." - Brace et al.

That's right, even the Neolithic European cranial samples appear to be distinct from "modern inhabitants" of the said European regions.

Here we have their own favorite source [other than Carelton Coon's corpse] providing a deadly rebuttal to Dienekes sole reason for living.

It's an unexpected twist and you have to love it.

Let the bitter bile from those bogus boneheads flow.

We can have fun with this for another year.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:

That's right, even the Neolithic European cranial samples appear to be distinct from "modern inhabitants" of the said European regions.

[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 15 October 2005).]

---

Thought Writes:

You are correct. This demonstrates that the concept of "Race" based upon cranio-facial form in isolate itself is spurious.

Thought Posts:

Am J Hum Genet. 2005 Oct;77(4):519-532. Epub 2005 Aug 29.

The Use of Racial, Ethnic, and Ancestral Categories in Human Genetics Research.

"Considerable speculation has surrounded the possible adaptive value of other physical features characteristic of groups, such as the constellation of facial features....However, any given physical characteristic generally is found in multiple groups (Lahr 1996)"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
what we can say is that...

---

...you're bullsh*tting desperately to avoid Wilson's conclusion that East Africans are a mixture of Western Eurasians and Sub-Saharan Africans, a fact which Coon figured out 70 years ago with his two eyes and a set of calipers, and which has been confirmed over and over again ever since.

quote:

---

1) Cranio-facial form is NOT the only aspect of phenotype

---

It's what anthropologists have been using to determine race since the field's beginnings up to the present day.

quote:

---

2) Brace acknowledged that his sample was incomplete due to the fact that it lacked elongated West Africans such as Tuareg and Fulani

---

Irrelevant. Whether those groups would fall into the Sub-Saharan cluster or join East Africans in the European/North African/Indian cluster wouldn't change the relationships delineated in the study as it is.

quote:

---

3) Brace found a similarity between his pool of Neolithic and modern Europeans with East Africans due to the fact that the lineages of E3b carrying East Africans spread genes and phenotype into Southern Europe.

---

Sorry, but E3b barely penetrated into the majority of European populations analyzed by Brace. You'll have to come up with a better made-up explanation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Babbling Ape:
Brace latest findings pertaining to Neolithic Europe could not be more devastating to Dienekes and co.

---

Will Brace's new research ever be published for peer-review? Does he explain anywhere why the results directly contradict his own previous findings? Did you selective-evidence junkies even bother to ask him? Are there parts of the study you're withholding because they don't fit in with your Afronut agenda? When these questions and others have been answered, we may proceed in debating the evidence. But until then...

Brace's peer-reviewed research shows that Neolithic Europeans are distinct from "Niger-Congo" Africans, and similar to modern Europeans, Middle Easterners and North Africans:

“...you're bullsh*tting desperately to avoid Wilson's conclusion that East Africans are a mixture of Western Eurasians and Sub-Saharan Africans, a fact which Coon figured out 70 years ago with his two eyes and a set of calipers, and which has been confirmed over and over again ever since.”

quote:

---

Rejected Euro whines: Will Brace's new research ever be published for peer-review?

---

Just listen to this pitiable sub-human.

He's terrified to confront Brace...so he asks "us" about Brace's plans. Racist trolls are such frightened little men.

I'm sure Brace will publish his findings, as they merely refinforce Angel, Garrod, Underhill, McGown and many others.

And when he does, no doubt you will run like h*ll. Because you're just a gutless ginny, living in fear of the truth, and hiding under the bed.

Get used to it, loser.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie_Bass:
While Ethiopian groups like the Amhara and other Semitic speaking Ethiopians[excluding the Harari] are significant mixed with West Eurasian ancestry[but not 62%], the Oromo and Somali are not.

---

One of the fallacies that has to stop in these genetic studies is lumping Ethiopians together as if they are an ethnic group.

It's like using the term Nigerian, and then representing them in genetic studies by only Taureg and Fulani.

It's just false.

The Amhara are usually over represented in these studies, although the Oromo are the largest ethnic group.

The distinction is critical, as not only do the Ahmara have significant recent West Asian J Y lineages compared to the Oromo who do not - but the Amhara also carry substantially less E3b lineage and much of what they do carry is NOT E3b1 - the lineage found in Europe.

The Amhara are sometimes USED to misrepresent genetics in East Africa.

In autosomal study, the Amhara show closest to the Tigray in terms of genetic distance, but up to 10 times further from the Somali-Oromo-Borana who are the source populations for the African Y lineages found in Southern Europe.

The point is: there is a tendency to try and'hide' African ancestry in Europe behind the Amhara. This is bogus.

Now, for those who have no idea of what a vast and diverse Black African Nation Ethiopia is, please peruse at your leisure:

A large and ACCURATE photo gallery of Ethiopians.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

you're bullsh*tting desperately to avoid Wilson's conclusion that East Africans are a mixture of Western Eurasians and Sub-Saharan Africans, a fact which Coon figured out 70 years ago with his two eyes and a set of calipers, and which has been confirmed over and over again ever since.

---

Thought Writes:

No where in this study does Wilson claim that East Africans are a mixture of West Eurasians and Sub-Saharan Africans. Here is the link, if you are telling the truth then I challenge you to pull a quote from the source supporting your contention. Your simply attempting to distort another study to suite your agenda. A sample of Ethiopians (not East Africans) cluster into Cluster A. That is ALL that the Wilson study states. It does NOT tell us which specific lineages constitute Cluster A, nor does it tell us where these lineages derive from.

Thought Posts:

http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/ng/journal/v29/n3/full/ng761.h tml&filetype=pdf

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

It's what anthropologists have been using to determine race since the field's beginnings up to the present day.

---

Thought Writes:

There are two things that statisticians look for when evaluating the effectiveness of a given instrument (test):

1) Reliability - A test that evaluates if a given instrument is functioning the way it was designed to function.

2) Validity - A test that evaluates if the APPROPRIATE test is being applied to the APPROPRIATE study group.

Just because anthropologists used one metric 100 years ago has no bearing on if that one gage is a valid indicator of biological affinity today. In fact the most recent peer-reviewed data indicates that it is NOT!

Thought Posts:

Am J Hum Genet. 2005 Oct;77(4):519-532. Epub 2005 Aug 29.

The Use of Racial, Ethnic, and Ancestral Categories in Human Genetics Research.

"Considerable speculation has surrounded the possible adaptive value of other physical features characteristic of groups, such as the constellation of facial features....However, any given physical characteristic generally is found in multiple groups (Lahr 1996)"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie_Bass:
Wilson et tal studied Ethiopians, not all East Africans. While Ethiopian groups like the Amhara and other Semitic speaking Ethiopians[excluding the Harari] are significant mixed with West Eurasian ancestry[but not 62%], the Oromo and Somali are not.

---

Wilson's Ethiopian sample included both Amharas and Oromos. And Somalis cluster with Ethiopians in Tishkoff et al. (2000). I would love to see the STRUCTURE program applied to them to confirm what I already suspect and what other research strongly suggests.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
A sample of Ethiopians...cluster into Cluster A.

---

Which is the cluster that encompasses 96% of Norwegians. Or maybe you don't consider Norwegians to be Western Eurasian.

quote:

---

Just because anthropologists used one metric 100 years ago has no bearing on if that one gage is a valid indicator of biological affinity today.

---

quote:

---

Thought Writes:

No where in this study does Wilson claim that East Africans are a mixture of West Eurasians and Sub-Saharan Africans. Here is the link, if you are telling the truth then I challenge you to pull a quote from the source supporting your contention.

---

What's taking so long?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

Wilson's Ethiopian sample included both Amharas and Oromos. And Somalis cluster with Ethiopians in Tishkoff et al. (2000).

---

Thought Writes:

Of course Somalis cluster together with Ethiopians such as the Oromo. In turn the Oromo cluster with groups such as the Turkana. The Turkana in turn cluster with groups such as the Alur. The Alur in turn cluster with groups such as the Fang. The Fang in turn cluster with groups such as the Yoruba. The Yoruba in turn cluster with groups such as the Songhai.

The lesson is that there are no strict boundaries that seperate Africans genetically nor are there any strict boundaries that seperate Africans and the people of the Middle East genetically. The people of the Middle East in turn connect with the people of Europe genetically.

The principle of "Race" is predicated on the idea of DISTINCT human populations. Human populations are NOT distinct and hence the principle of "Race" is invalid.

Thought Posts:

Ethiopia: between Sub-Saharan Africa and Western Eurasia

Lovell et al.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

Which is the cluster that encompasses 96% of Norwegians. Or maybe you don't consider Norwegians to be Western Eurasian.

---

Thought Writes:

Of course the Norwegians are Western Europeans. The issue is that Cluster A does NOT represent Western Europeans, it represents the populations sampled and labeled Cluster A.