posted
Why do the Eurocentric still insist on that pure "Caucasoid" nonsense?
In terms of such skull types and such average measurements are shown in Tables 1 and 11-13, Mesolithic Franchthi Cave in Argolis contained a heavy-jawed Basic White, type A2-4, of almost Upper Paleolithic head size and shape, but of extreme short stature(Angel 1969c)and Early Neolithic Macedonia centered on a Dinaric-Mediterranean type F) average but with extremely broad nose, more prognathism, and a little more mouth tilt than expected(all perhaps from negroid development of the incisor region); besides the modal trend/quite comparable to later Lower Egypt Egyptians)...........Egypt includes an almost Mouillian-negroid(beyond A2) early population (cf. Ferembach, 1962, Briggs, 1955), linear but with extraordinarily broad nose and heavy and deep mouth region(A2ß) (Ewing, 1966; Anderson, 1968), as well as the negroid small-faced and prognathous and broad-nosed trend(B2ß) in the gracile Badarians(Morant and Stoessiger quoted in Angel, 1951).
The People of Lerna J. Lawrence Angel p.100, 101-102 Publisher ASCSA, 1971
Thought/Evergreen has already pointed this out to Dienekes many of times, one has to wonder what a "Basic-White" type is.
Posts: 2596 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Basic-White" seems to be Angel's way of saying the human prototypes or forebearers of contemporary "whites". Terms like "negroid" are next to worthless scientifically speaking, but one gets the idea of what Angel is trying to get across, and perhaps he may be forgiven, given the time of publication.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: "Basic-White" seems to be Angel's way of saying the human prototypes or forebearers of contemporary "whites". Terms like "negroid" are next to worthless scientifically speaking, but one gets the idea of what Angel is trying to get across, and perhaps he may be forgiven, given the time of publication.
True indeed, but this citation bolsters the case against racial categories, so called "pure" Caucasoids never existed and the fact that such traits are noted in Sub-Saharans, Northeast Africans and then in Macedonia supports the hypothesis of a northward migration of Africans perhaps the spread of E3b.
Posts: 2596 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Undoubtedly.
This is something we've been discussing on ES since like 2003, yet academia hasn't taken this into serious consideration, they're too busy trying to prove that E3b magically morphed into a non-African lineage the minute Northeast Africans migrated with this lineages took one step outside of Africa.
Posts: 2596 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Undoubtedly.
This is something we've been discussing on ES since like 2003, yet academia hasn't taken this into serious consideration, they're too busy trying to prove that E3b magically morphed into a non-African lineage the minute Northeast Africans migrated with this lineages took one step outside of Africa.
In order to justify his fruitless attempts at acceptance into the white mainstream the negro pretends not to know why academia constantly ignores him. Thus giving his existence some meaning relative to his white master he fights on in hope. Keep hope live Charlie Brown, the audacity of it.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
This is something we've been discussing on ES since like 2003, yet academia hasn't taken this into serious consideration, they're too busy trying to prove that E3b magically morphed into a non-African lineage the minute Northeast Africans migrated with this lineages took one step outside of Africa.
Well, unfortunately people conduct studies, and as people, they will not be entirely devoid of subjective consciousness that will crop up in their work. It is up to external observers to keep them on their toes, and from what I can tell, players in academia take note; I see examples in for instance, Cruciani's efforts in restructuring E-M78 network, and more recently, the R1*-M173 in western-central Sahel. I have a feeling these have something, however little or what not, to do with the sort of discussions that take place on social sites like ES. I tend to worry less about convincing others, as opposed to challenging them on their viewpoints and disproving those viewpoints where necessary.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I agree. The futile attempt to de-Africanize genetic lineages is just a continuation in anthropology to de-Africanize human remains as pointed out by Charlie in this thread. Speaking of which, Angels findings on Lerna were discussed several times before. And the African craniofacial features do correlated with the E lineage.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Brace and others have been able to set matters straight thankfully with regards to the relationship of most mesolithic and numerous Paleolithic types to modern Europeans.
The connection between them and neolithic Africans is obvious, while modern Europeans DO NOT show strong genetic linkages to most ancient Europeans, who should have been called the bASIC BLACK tYPE i.e dolichocephalic, proto-"Mediterranean race".
The ancestor of ancient white types were already defined and apparently not a very numerous group in the European mesolithic or neolithic for that matter..
-------------------- D. Reynolds-Marniche Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course it should be painfully obvious by now that European scientists have a desperate desire to flip the tables of biology and put Europe first as opposed to being last like it actually is.
Of course these are all from the same woman who did the "famous" reconstruction of King Tut and you can obviously see a pattern of white bias for early humans, even in Africa.
This image of human evolution is THE MODEL of evolution that white folks believe in and perpetuate world wide. But this model is simply and totally bull shyt and even they know it. It is pure unadulterated racist garbage designed and built to reinforce and support a white racist world view, economic and political order.
Any view of human evolution that does not start in Africa and does not feature blacks as 80% of the human family tree is simply historical revision and racist fairy tales. Modern homo sapiens world wide were primarily black for most of their 200,000 year existence. Putting whites as a direct evolutionary evolution from primates is simply nonsense.
Of course what they will do is to pretend that this picture of hominids is simply about the evolution of neanderthals, but modern humans do not descend from neanderthals. And the first members of the genus homo to emerge from Africa were not white either.
To quote Nina Jablonski:
quote:This particular morphology, functionally hairless skin that is darkly pigmented is the ancestral morphology for our homo lineage, more or less for the last 2 million years. And all of the derivations that we see of moderately to lightly pigmented skin started out really from this phenotype.
See the following video presentation by Miss Jablonski from September 2009. The quote starts at about the 19 minute mark.
However, I don't agree with her idea of the people in Southern India being the result of northern whites becoming darker by moving south. That makes no sense as dark people have ALWAYS been in Southern India and therefore if any lighter skinned populations became dark it was due to mixing with the local dark skin population. The only way to prove such an evolution of dark skin would be to find an area where there WERE NO HUMANS into which lightly skinned people moved into and are now dark. Unfortunately there are none. SOuthern Indians are black and they are aboriginal with features like Australian Aborigines and Africans, which goes back to the first populations out of Africa. Northern whites did not bring this type of phenotype to southern India.
And as for the Northern Inuit they aren't just tanned, they simply maintained their dark skin from their aboriginal forebears as opposed to losing it completely. It isn't that they turned white or then turned dark or tanned.
The other problem with environmental selection and skin color is that it does not help explain all cases of human skin color. The movement of people with different phenotypes into various parts of the globe is a very important aspect of modern skin color distribution, along with modern medicine which allows people to survive outside of their "environmental UV zone". And in reality because of the flexibility and mobility of human populations it has never been true that there was a 1:1 relationship between skin color and UV zone. Dark skin persisted even in the north for quite a while after the migration of humans there from Africa. Likewise, modern distribution of phenotypes and skin colors don't always have anything to do with local adaptation as she even says herself. Places like the mediterranean are crossroads where people from DIFFERENT UV environments have been present and interacting at points in time. Nobody lives IN the Mediterranean and the Mediterranean zone is too small to impact the larger populations of Europe and Africa who are largely living under different UV environments. People migrating there from tropical environments would maintain their tropical features as there isn't enough of a difference to force a change to their features. The same for people from Northern or more intermediate locales.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not sure how that 22k years ago age has been figured for the Mechta-Afalou, but recent studies that I'm familiar with, all place their ages in the EpiPaleolithic era and onwards. The proposed ages attributed to the Mechta-el-Arbi specimens is c. 8500 BP, and that of the Afalou-bou-Rhummel, are proclaimed to be "*somewhat* later in date" vis-a-vis the Taforalt specimens, which date c. 10,800 +/- 241 years BP to 12,070 +/- 400 years BP.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
The other problem with environmental selection and skin color is that it does not help explain all cases of human skin color.
.... Nobody lives IN the Mediterranean{SOUTHERN EUROPE}and the Mediterranean zone is too small to impact the larger populations of Europe and Africa who are largely living under different UV environments. People migrating there from tropical environments would maintain their tropical features as there isn't enough of a difference to force a change to their features. The same for people from Northern or more intermediate locales.
Here s another question. Maybe KIK can shed some light on this.
According to Joblonsky(sp?) above 45deg N is where the UV pressure is the highest. What about 445deg S. Is there the same effect? Lets go even go further south, 50deg S. Don't have the map of the world front of me but I believe there in southern Africa. I assume these people did not have "agriculture" so. . . .
Here is a clue. There were NO glacier/caves in southern Africa and Southern Europe.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Huh? Do you mean phenotypically
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: . ..... while modern Europeans DO NOT show strong genetic linkages to most ancient Europeans,......
......
I think he may referring to the pastoral and following agrarian migrants from Africa/ West Asia? It would be logical to assume that populations would be larger at that time. These technologies have made rapid population growth possible.
In addition, light skin expanded throughout Europe due to expansion. It didn't just suddenly arise throughout the continent. It begun in Northern Europe. That expansion virtually masked the presence of the initial technocratic Afro-Asiatic migrants.
Keep in mind that, the term "modern European" is essentially restricted to Northern Europeans. The link between Afro-Asiatic migrants and Southern European are quite high. That population resembles those across Asia and coastal regions of Northern Africa.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good video to keep on file. Buy part of her premise is BS. Africans in Equitorial Africa suffering from rickets because of lack of vit D. ie NOT being out in the sun enough. She fvcking kidding me!! Improper nutrition makes sense.
Sounds like she put it out there that the AE lower class were black because they were out in the sun more.
Also anyone picked she called the homos "human" whne they left Africa 1 million ya.
==== by Miss Jablonski from September 2009. The quote starts at about the 19 minute mark.
posted
Actually she tries to claim that the thin narrow strip of shoreline around the mediterranean was a decisive factor of the color of Africans in North Africa when that isn't the case. Most populations around the Mediterranean DO NOT live in that narrow strip and originated elsewhere like the far North or deeper in the South. THAT is the basis of the colors of the populations there and as these populations migrated and mixed you got the variation you see there today. Hence, the original people of North Africa and Egypt were aboriginal populations from the once wet Sahara which definitely WOULD NOT have selection pressure for light skin. These people moved north to the Mediterranean and across it into Europe. There in Europe they found lighter skinned populations derived from cold northern Environments, not Mediterranean environments. In fact some of these early North Africans would look more similar to your smooth straight to curly haired Aboriginal type Indians in India with more aquiline features like East Africans. The first major movements were from Africa to the North (and East) of the Mediterranean but over time the movements were from the North of the Mediterranean into Northern Africa, which is the reason for the phenotypes you see today.
By claiming that Egypt is in a cline for light skin she can simply overlook the facts that ancient Egyptians were from THE SOUTH and NOT light skinned as most anthropologists are amply noting today. There is nothing about the environment of Egypt that would turn dark skin white. The primary reason for it is population migrations from the north in relatively recent times.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
2/3 Asian 1/3 african?? Keep in mind most Asian looked... ahem... "negroid" back then
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic