quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Note this key repeated Afrocentric fallacy:
"White" people = pale white only.
Then the Afrocentrics say: where are pale white people in the tombs, or if they existed wouldn't they burn in the sun to death?
Just one of them "knock em downs"...
"Whites" [Caucasoids] were never all "pale white" to begin with, as any anthropologist will confirm:
"The term 'White' is something of a misnomer, because the range of skin color in this race extends from light brown to ruddy, and there can be no doubt that the vast majority of 'White' individuals have brunet skins". (Hooton, 1946)
"Caucasian" by Bernard J. Freedman British Medical Journal Vol. 288, No. 6418, Mar. 1984, pp. 696-698 -
quote:"Let us now look [...] at some terms in current use in the light of these criteria:
Caucasian - geographically wrong. European geographical race - explicit but unwieldy. European - excludes those living in other continents. Caucasoid - It retains the fallacious Caucasian implication. White - There are varying degrees of skin pigmentation in Caucasians. Europid - (en suite with negrid, mongolid, australid, etc) adopted by Baker (1974) after its introduction by Peters. The suffix -id is stated to be a truncation of the Greek -ides, of the family of. "Europid," which will be unfamiliar to most readers, does fulfil the above mentioned criteria. Its use in a medical journal might initially evoke more letters of complaint than the use of Caucasian does now. I believe that, with repeated usage under authoritative aegis, familiarity would achieve acceptance."
Rameses II Tutankhamun
Siptah
But given the range of Caucasoidian skin tones aren't the above out of the range by being too dark to be Cauc-asian?
If these people were walking down the street would would say they were white?
Posts: 43016 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: QUOTE]YOU don't know what typology is, as evinced by your posting a pitch black Nilote man that you labelled ''Negroid'', but who wouldn't fall into either of Wiercinsky's Sub Saharan African (whether Bushman or Negroid proper or Pygmy) categories, nor fit the descriptions of the Negroid typology that you've listed many times here on Egyptsearch.
Nilotids are Negroid in their metrics/non-metrics. What exactly is non-Negroid about them? When I asked that last time, you ran away. Nilotids have been classified as Negroids by typologists since the early 20th century.
You claimed the Nilotid posted was mesorrhine, when his nasal index is platyrrhine. The plate XIII is from Dixon (1923) with metric data. Dixon's description: "The Nilotic Negro [Nilotid] may therefore be characterized as a very tall, very black people, with typical Negro hair and marked prognathism".
quote: Exactly, so how can you be so adamant that Wiercinski was right that her clusters represents the presence of actual Nordics, Cromagnonoids, Horners, Negroids etc, in the proportions that she says they were present? What credibility does this table have, if, as you say, there is no clear cut link between ancestry and type --Swenet
It shows what trait complexes/racial types existed in the pre-dynastic egyptian population (5500 - 3000 BC). And that study merely confirmed all the others (Michalski, 1958; Wiercinski, 1973). The typological/individualist cranial analyses utilising the Polish method have always been consistent in estimation:
All the other types in single figures. Yea, no one ever claimed there were large amounts of Nordics [that's a straw man Afrocentrics love to set up] in predynastic egypt. Even my old essay "Nordic Egypt" estimated Nordics at a single figure prior to 3000 BC, alongside Armenoids, and Negroid types.
quote:Its one thing to say the Egyptian skulls cluster with Eurasians, Horners and West Africans in that analysis, and a totally different thing to say that those Ancient Egyptian individuals originate from the nations they were allocated to by Wiercinsky.
No they don't originate there via lineage. The traits however did in the past as a center of crystallization. That's what makes the types non-arbitrary.
quote:You're dumber than a phucking rock. You're a phuckin buffoon. You don't even realize that this statements undermines typology--which is basically everything your confused dysfunctional azz stands for.
"The concept of individual races (individual typology) which utilises the notion of the racial type to denote a group of human individuals irrespective their populational descent and resembling each other in a set of racial traits." (Wiercinski, 1975)
Typology is polydimensional clustering, nothing more. The same way you can group together any object, based on their physical similarities.
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
The sensible approach is place the greatest reliability on what the AEs themselves did in terms of self-presentation.
Given how the Eurocentric mind is often unable to represent the phenotypical reality of the AEs as this thread clearly demonstrates one should be cautious when important AE personalites are detombed and presented as mummies of what the AEs themselves portrayed.
Quite often there is big variance in what the tomb excavators present and how the AEs portrayed such personalities.
OK, a tomb of a Pharaoh is opened up and the embalmed mummy removed. The embalmed looks quite different from the way the AEs sculpted this pharaoh. So what is one to say?
The hieroglyphs clearly say who the scultpted personage is but the contents of the sarcophagus are less secure in their certainty as to who that individual was.
And it would seem that for embalming purposes the head would be shaved and the hair--if any--collected and stored alongside the body. Hair would tend to get in the way of the procedures done.
But in any case the curly hair may well belong to personage in question since in the Sudanic area of Africa curly hair is often observed.
But again, what the AEs did should always be treated with greater credibility than what Eurocentric excavators present to their European audiences. I mean if they can so blatantly misrepresent the phenotypes of the AEs even when they are supposedly just copying from the murals then they are capable of any fraud when they are handling mummies.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: What exactly is non-Negroid about them? When I asked that last time, you ran away.
This is exactly what I mean. You accuse others of not knowing what typology is, and then you go on to confound my comments regarding that Nilote man you posted with the Nilote meta population in general.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: You claimed the Nilotid posted was mesorrhine, when his nasal index is platyrrhine.
Prove it
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: And that study merely confirmed all the others (Michalski, 1958; Wiercinski, 1973).
Even when I'm in your face telling you I don't necessary disagree with their allocation of predynastic skulls to those types (only that these types necessarily represent actual foreigners), you still insist that the allocation of types is correct and reproducible, as if I denied that. SMH.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: No they don't originate there via lineage. The traits however did in the past as a center of crystallization.
So, once the traits emerge and hitch-hike along with populations who migrate, the presence of those traits in other populations who inherit them, isn't necessarily complemented by actual genetic lineages of the populations who originally carried those traits?
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Typology is polydimensional clustering, nothing more.
LMAO. This is getting more interesting by the minute. Wiercinsky is more in agreement with me than your dumbass. Judging by that quote, Wiercinsky obviously knew its theoretically possible that all those predynastic Egyptians had 100% West African ancestry--which is something you staunchly disagree with. And guess what..when I ask you why you disagree with it, you'll argue in circles like a brain dead psycho and tell me about the presence of Caucasoid ''types'' in predynastic burials, even though you've just admitted that those types are ''irrespective their populational descent''. SMH.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Typology is polydimensional clustering, nothing more. The same way you can group together any object, based on their physical similarities.
You're lying your ass off. Typology is about (sub)races, and the idea that a given set of traits can always be traced back to single (sub)race, so that it becomes possible to slice populations up and determine their underlying racial substructure (e.g., 5% European,, 10% East Asian, etc).
Typological types/(sub)races aren't superficial outer shells that are only skin deep; they imply thousands of years of isolation. Typology doesn't acknowledge parallel evolution and phenotypical plasticity, as that would mean its acute death. In fact, scientific discoveries that demonstrated cranio-facial plasticity HAVE discredited typology in academic circles.
That you're sitting here, telling me that cranio-facial plasticity and typology are logically consistent is clearly a consequence of me giving you the ass-whooping of your life twice on the topic of adaptation, since you were singing the tune of ''traits are geographically circumscribed'', and ''people of Negroid ancestry cannot have Caucasian features'' prior to these astronomical ass whoopings.
Posts: 8791 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:what is your opinion on these hair types were the afros that were straightened out or did they have this type of hair?
Given the Eurocentric penchant for blatant misrepresentation as is evidenced in the comparative analyses in this thread, the prudent approach should be to afford the most credibility to what the AEs themselves did.
The Eurocentric penchant for fraudulent behaviour should always be recognised when matters just don't seem right.
The names of noted Pharaonic personages are always attached to their sculptures of wall murals. No way the Eurocentrics can lie about that and get away with it once objective eyes observe what's being portrayed.
But when it comes to examining the embalmed remains of some sarcophagus the evidence is not as secure. I am not denying that curly hair is sometimes found on the indigenous people of the Sudanic area of Africa, all I am saying is that when,say, for example, the AE constructed bust of Queen Tiye with her hair somewhat short and non-curly is compared with that of her mummy, questions arise. The queen is prognathous while the mummy is not.
It would seem too that in the embalming process the head would be shaved to facilitate matters. The shaved hair would be put in some container and kept in the sarcophagus separately. Point is that we just don't know whether the claimed contents of a sarcophagus really belong to the personage in question. Better to put more credence in how the AEs presented themselves.
Recall the Piltdown hoax and other such and the redoing of broken AE sculptures according Eurocentric norms. And even in the sculptures fakes have often been discovered. The so-called "famous" Nefertiti bust has been seriously questioned.
So the rule should be that the most credence should be afforded to the incontrovertible evidence as presented by the AEs themselves.
In legal matters there is a phenomenon known as "planting evidence". We should not assume that Eurocentric excavators playing to their Western galleries would not stoop to "plant evidence".
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:what is your opinion on these hair types were the afros that were straightened out or did they have this type of hair?
Given the Eurocentric penchant for blatant misrepresentation as is evidenced in the comparative analyses in this thread, the prudent approach should be to afford the most credibility to what the AEs themselves did.
The Eurocentric penchant for fraudulent behaviour should always be recognised when matters just don't seem right.
The names of noted Pharaonic personages are always attached to their sculptures of wall murals. No way the Eurocentrics can lie about that and get away with it once objective eyes observe what's being portrayed.
But when it comes to examining the embalmed remains of some sarcophagus the evidence is not as secure. I am not denying that curly hair is sometimes found on the indigenous people of the Sudanic area of Africa, all I am saying is that when,say, for example, the AE constructed bust of Queen Tiye with her hair somewhat short and non-curly is compared with that of her mummy, questions arise. The queen is prognathous while the mummy is not.
It would seem too that in the embalming process the head would be shaved to facilitate matters. The shaved hair would be put in some container and kept in the sarcophagus separately. Point is that we just don't know whether the claimed contents of a sarcophagus really belong to the personage in question. Better to put more credence in how the AEs presented themselves.
Recall the Piltdown hoax and other such and the redoing of broken AE sculptures according Eurocentric norms. And even in the sculptures fakes have often been discovered. The so-called "famous" Nefertiti bust has been seriously questioned.
So the rule should be that the most credence should be afforded to the incontrovertible evidence as presented by the AEs themselves.
In legal matters there is a phenomenon known as "planting evidence". We should not assume that Eurocentric excavators playing to their Western galleries would not stoop to "plant evidence". [/qb]
^You've lost all credibility with that post, as far as this topic is concerned. You obviously have an axe to grind--one that I'm all too familiar with. Even though you've warned others about it, its obvious from this post and others you've made on this topic that the True Negro approach is something you subscribe to as well. If its not curly, the only alternative is Euronuts pulling out tightly coiled hairs out of preserved mummified remains, and stitching wavy hairs back in their scalps, right? Where the bob hairstyles on these Nubians manipulated as well?
posted
Why so overly sensitive on this matter? I have no axe and if I did I don't see why I should grind it.
I live in Africa so on what basis should I subscribe to some "true negro" fantasy? I leave that for people like you meekly learning your trade from your academic overseers. I see Africans all the time starting with my family.
Looks like you put too much faith in the European "scholarship" on matters you--along with others consider sensitive. LOL.
I am just being prudent and cautious given their track record. All I am saying is that there is an evident phenotypical gap between the actual Queen Tye bust which she did live while the sculpter was gazing intently at her. The bust is prognathous and the mummy is not. The nose is less prominent and convex. The mummy's nose is concave. Just noticing things.
Are you saying that it is beyond European researchers on matters they consider sensitive that they don't distort or plant evidence? The NG piece is direct proof that they do.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What you're noting about Queen Tiye's prognathism is apparent on depictions of almost all AE royals, i.e., they all vary in terms of prognathism, lip size, etc. I'm not going to debate you on the subject as there is nothing to debate. You choose manipulation as an explanation even though the dynamics of the situation simply don't allow it. Many of these mummies were described by Europeans as they were lifted fresh out of their tombs by native Egyptians (typically), and the same descriptions are ubiquitous across many excavators along the entire Nile, including the Nubian Nile. Then there is the fact that you are patently wrong about their artwork; I've told you earlier that what you perceive to be afros aren't afros.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: This is exactly what I mean. You accuse others of not knowing what typology is, and then you go on to confound my comments regarding that Nilote man you posted with the Nilote meta population in general.
You're not answering still. Nilotids are platyrrhine, prognathic, and ulotrichous. They are tall and linear in body and face - these traits emerged as adaptations to dry heat, but as shown in the other thread, thinner noses [but not as low NI as cold] are adaptations to the same arid-climatic conditions. Nilotids however are platyrrhine, so the Nilotid phenotype is not true dry heat adapted at all. And I explained why the Nilotids are platyrrhine in the other thread as well - its because of their large inter-canine breadth and megadont teeth.
quote:Prove it
What? I gave you the reference.
quote:So, once the traits emerge and hitch-hike along with populations who migrate, the presence of those traits in other populations who inherit them, isn't necessarily complemented by actual genetic lineages of the populations who originally carried those traits?
LMAO. This is getting more interesting by the minute. Wiercinsky is more in agreement with me than your dumbass. Judging by that quote, Wiercinsky obviously knew its theoretically possible that all those predynastic Egyptians had 100% West African ancestry--which is something you staunchly disagree with. And guess what..when I ask you why you disagree with it, you'll argue in circles like a brain dead psycho and tell me about the presence of Caucasoid ''types'' in predynastic burials, even though you've just admitted that those types are ''irrespective their populational descent''. SMH.
All populations by that time period were not genetically homogenous, but mixed. So types are not cladistic, lineal or genetic. I've opposed genetic definitions of race from the start for this reason. The Afrocentric user "Beyoku" has got hold of my posts and is now on forums, adopting my stance :
"Europeans can look the same even though they undergo admixture, drift, and population replacement" - Beyoku
He's now claiming genetic and phenotypic continuity are two different things - a central tenet of Multiregionalism he stole off me.
quote:You're lying your ass off. Typology is about (sub)races, and the idea that a given set of traits can always be traced back to single (sub)race, so that it becomes possible to slice populations up and determine their underlying racial substructure (e.g., 5% European,, 10% East Asian, etc).
This is precisely what I stated. The traits formerly had centers of crystallization or were geographically circumscribed [= subspecies/races and subraces].
quote:That you're sitting here, telling me that cranio-facial plasticity and typology are logically consistent is clearly a consequence of me giving you the ass-whooping of your life twice on the topic of adaptation, since you were singing the tune of ''traits are geographically circumscribed'', and ''people of Negroid ancestry cannot have Caucasian features'' prior to these astronomical ass whoopings.
They are consistent: When the races were circumscribed geographically, they obviously adapated/changed. Types are static now though, because of migration and mixing. No population is homogenous, so only the individual represents a whole set of traits.
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: Why so overly sensitive on this matter? I have no axe and if I did I don't see why I should grind it.
I live in Africa so on what basis should I subscribe to some "true negro" fantasy? I leave that for people like you meekly learning your trade from your academic overseers. I see Africans all the time starting with my family.
Looks like you put too much faith in the European "scholarship" on matters you--along with others consider sensitive. LOL.
I am just being prudent and cautious given their track record. All I am saying is that there is an evident phenotypical gap between the actual Queen Tye bust which she did live while the sculpter was gazing intently at her. The bust is prognathous and the mummy is not. The nose is less prominent and convex. The mummy's nose is concave. Just noticing things.
Are you saying that it is beyond European researchers on matters they consider sensitive that they don't distort or plant evidence? The NG piece is direct proof that they do.
^^^ lamin you are dead wrong, this mummy is prognathous. Additionally nose bone may get broken when they extract the brain through the nasal passge for mummification (same possibility with Rameses below) The hair on the sculpture a wig
However in the case of Rameses II many (not all) artworks reflect the lack of prognathous observed in his mummy
Rameses II
Ramesses II-Colored Relief, Brooklyn Museum
. Rameses II statue Museo Egizio, in Turin, .
Rameses II statue saqqara_
.
Rameses II Rameses II
However Troll disagrees. of the above Rameses he said:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: ^All show, maxillary (upper nasal) prognathism and platyrrhine.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Yep. White people shirtless in the Sahara desert of Africa toiling in the sun pulling huge stoane and building stone structures. "And they lived happily ever after...."
Funny how they use artistic reproductions when the originals are some of the best preserved ancient art anywhere on the planet:
lol, funny but entirely predictable from NatGeo, with its bullshiit distortions.
Per the article- notice the pablum they spin:
"One of the biggest questions surrounding ancient Egypt then is “where did it come from?” Last week at the Dialogue of Civilizations in Guatemala, National Geographic grantee Renée Friedman of the British Museum, and Ram.adan Hussein, recent recipient of a Humboldt Research Fellowship at the University of Tuebingen, set out to answer the question"
They then go on to ramble all over the place while avoiding the obvious answer- they came from south of the Sahara- as even "Afrocentric" critic Mary Lefkowitz notes. They already know this, but their method of obfuscating the data- is to pose childish "questions", so they can then continue the bogus diversion, and lead people away from the hard data. They mention Renee Friedman as part of the "investigation" but over a decade ago, excavations at Hierakonpolis by archaeologist Friedman (1998) also demonstrates ritual masks similar to those used further south of Egypt, and significant amounts of obsidian, also traced to Ethiopian quarry sites.[168]. Nat Geo full of shiit.. There is no "Mystery" as to indigenous tropical Africans peopling the Nile Valley, except in the bogus "spin" no Nat Geog. The bogus "spin" merchants cannot even mention Nabata Playa- a key player in the formative period.
WHo the hell cares about what "Young Egyptian egyptologist Ramadan Hussein" thinks? The hard data is already on the floor, and has been for years. Their facile diversionary tactics are designed to lull the hearts of the gullible, and continue to deAfricanize Egypt under another guise- hence their bullshiit "paleface" "Egyptian" artistic "reproductions." Most of the people here can already see through their bullshiit. WHat they want to do though is bury the hard data under a misleading cloud of "soft" propaganda.
^After decades of data, National Geog still can't figute out where "they came from.." Can you say bullshiit? I knew you could... Posts: 5934 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, the Ramses nose sculptured live is not as humped as the one the European researchers come up with.
All I am saying is that the Euros love to front these mummies[plus that Nofret piece] as if they have some motive--we know what it is--in mind.
The AEs did their sculptures and murals live. They were from the people themselves so they knew what they looked like. Then come some grave robbers aka "Egyptologists" and they are supposed to be the experts on the AEs and the way they looked.
They lied through their yellow teeth consistently on the pages of NG. They lied when they concocted a phony representation of King Tut--when they are hundreds of depictions of him. Many claim that they lied about the Nefertiti bust too. And they think that people are not onto their tricks when they front Roman era mummies as "Egyptian".
Mind you I am not saying that all of them distort and lie. I am saying that the lies and distortions are mainstreamed and become the official statement on the topic--even when more objective findings are available. So one has to be very circumspect and cautious with what orthodox Eurocentric Egyptology and anthropology put out.
Again, the most important thing here is that research on the anthropology of Africa from prehistoric times to the present is controlled by European research centres. Africans are onlookers in this activity. That fact obviously compromises things.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ lamin does have a point about the 'type' of mummies that are shown. It's apparent by the modern Egyptian population that the majority of Egyptians today have very curly to kinky hair. Why would this not be the case with ancient Egyptians which is obviously shown in the majority of ancient artwork. That there are Egyptians with wavy type hair is not the issue, as that issue is already covered. I just agree with lamin that Egyptology is very keen in displaying only a handful of mummies with certain features while hiding a multitude of mummies in their basements.
Posts: 26381 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do the majority of Egyptian women today have very curly / kinky hair?
.
LOL. Many of them do but they hide it. Of course, there are descendants of settlers in places like Alexandria and Cairo--Greek, French, Persian, Iraq, Italian, Turkish, etc. but kinks are still there--under wraps so to speak.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ lamin does have a point about the 'type' of mummies that are shown. It's apparent by the modern Egyptian population that the majority of Egyptians today have very curly to kinky hair. Why would this not be the case with ancient Egyptians which is obviously shown in the majority of ancient artwork. That there are Egyptians with wavy type hair is not the issue, as that issue is already covered. I just agree with lamin that Egyptology is very keen in displaying only a handful of mummies with certain features while hiding a multitude of mummies in their basements.
This is not at all what Lamin said. What he's suggesting is that European Egyptologists, Nubiologists and excavators collectively conspired to go to work with patches of wavy hair in their backpockets, ready to glue it onto any mummified head in sight.
Please lay out the specific of the majority of Egyptians having kinky afro type hair. Amsterdam and many other Dutch cities have a sizeable Northern African population. Anyone familiar with these people will tell you that what you're saying, in terms of the majority, is untrue.
Posts: 8791 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is not at all what Lamin said. What he's suggesting is that European Egyptologists, Nubiologists and excavators collectively conspired to go to work with patches of wavy hair in their backpockets, ready to glue it onto any mummified head in sight.
.
Surely you can do better than that. LOL. I would like to see that quote.
My point is that there are evident mismatches between the excavated tom remains of embalmed pharaohs and other royalty and how the the AE artists and sculpters represented them alive and after gazing on their features and traits for hours and hours.
If they can so blatantly misrepresent the AEs as they consistently do in media such as NG and with "reconstructions" of King Tut why shouldn't one be cautious when these grave robbers come up with finds that are at variance with what the AE artists themselves did--on live subjects.
And what makes you think that other people don't come in constant contact with North Africans? LOL.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is not at all what Lamin said. What he's suggesting is that European Egyptologists, Nubiologists and excavators collectively conspired to go to work with patches of wavy hair in their backpockets, ready to glue it onto any mummified head in sight.
You can do better than that. LOL. Just cite where I write what you cite.
The point is that the AE pharaohs and royalty all had artists and sculptors gazing at their features for hours on end so the assumption is that must have accurately portrayed them. So when the murals and sculptures of certain figures are at variance with what the grave robbers come up with, one must be circumspect in analysis.
After all, there is proof of the dubious methods of mainstream Western media organs like NG which has consistently and brazenly misrepresented the AEs. Then there was that ridiculous attempt to re-portray Tut even when the "boy-King" is known by his several hundred representations. There are many other cases involving the sneaky reconstruction of the facial features of broken or damaged AE sculptures.
The same is done even more sneakily in their relentless efforts to reintroduce Seligman's "Hamitic hypothesis" by way of arcane not-easily-checked genetic analysis.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Of course those weren't your exact words; you were very careful to couch your rather bizarre allegation in all sorts of irrelevant anecdotal 'evidence' and suggestive language. However, it is exactly what you were hinting at. Furthermore, those who were around when this paper was discussed, know that the suggestions about the majority of Northern Africans having afro hair is false.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: You're not answering still.
I already have. I told you that Nilotes don't originate in hot-dry regions, they simply expanded after than proto-community dispersed. Remains that have been identified as Nilo-Saharan speakers have been relatively tall since before the Holocene (e.g., Jebel Sahaba, Wadi Halfa), showing they were always tall and that they didn't migrate to hot-dry Africa and turn tall all of a sudden. You've totally made the link between hot-dry climate and stature up, being the pathetic fraud that you are. Nilo-Saharan speakers originate in equatorial Africa, as per the prehistoric cultures that have been linked to them and by Linguistic indications.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: What? I gave you the reference.
Still ducking and diving, I see? Where is the direct citation saying that man is platyrrhine? Its obvious just by eye-balling that that man's NB is not 85% of his NL.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: All populations by that time period were not genetically homogenous, but mixed.
Irrelevant what their ethnic composition was of the original trait bearers. The presence of their traits in other populations necessitates the inheritance of actual lineages, airhead. Since this is the case, typology can, and is, easily falsified by the existence of populations who share important morphological traits but who are worlds apart in ancestry.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: He's now claiming genetic and phenotypic continuity are two different things - a central tenet of Multiregionalism he stole off me.
You're crazy. Incursions need not significantly alter aboriginal populations if those immigrant populations already looked broadly similar to those aboriginal population in the first place. This is not a thought that you originated; its common sense--which you obvious lack. The Upper Palaeolithic Southern African hofmyer skull, for instance, would get lost in Upper European AMH series, but its ancestry is obviously worlds apart.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: This is precisely what I stated. The traits formerly had centers of crystallization or were geographically circumscribed [= subspecies/races and subraces].
This is not what you stated. You said that types are merely trivial (skin deep) outer appearances that populations all over the world can exhibit, via your Wiercinski quote:
which utilises the notion of the racial type to denote a group of human individuals irrespective their populational descent and resembling each other in a set of racial traits." (Wiercinski, 1975) --Fareemdunkers
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: They are consistent: When the races were circumscribed geographically, they obviously adapated/changed.
They're not consistent; they allow for parallel evolution while orthodox typology doesn't. You try to quote Wiencinsky in your confused attempt to unify basic and established biological concepts with typology, but he wasn't even a typologist, as per the excerpt you've posted (he was simply classifying the skulls according to a set of variables, while leaving it open what their ancestry was). This is consistent with what Djehuti, me and others have smacked you across the head with ever since your dumbass registered on this website, i.e., that Europeans don't have a monopoly on the features they just happen to have.
Then, to add insult to injury, you undermine yourself again by flip flopping and falling back on ''traits are geographically circumscribed'', which your own Wiercinsky excerpt has rejected by suggesting the types cannot be traced to any specific region, and should be taken to mean sharing ''mere resemblance'' with similar looking individuals elsewhere in the world.
Posts: 8791 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is not at all what Lamin said. What he's suggesting is that European Egyptologists, Nubiologists and excavators collectively conspired to go to work with patches of wavy hair in their backpockets, ready to glue it onto any mummified head in sight.
You can do better than that. LOL. Just cite where I write what you cite.
The point is that the AE pharaohs and royalty all had artists and sculptors gazing at their features for hours on end so the assumption is that must have accurately portrayed them. So when the murals and sculptures of certain figures are at variance with what the grave robbers come up with, one must be circumspect in analysis.
After all, there is proof of the dubious methods of mainstream Western media organs like NG which has consistently and brazenly misrepresented the AEs. Then there was that ridiculous attempt to re-portray Tut even when the "boy-King" is known by his several hundred representations. There are many other cases involving the sneaky reconstruction of the facial features of broken or damaged AE sculptures.
The same is done even more sneakily in their relentless efforts to reintroduce Seligman's "Hamitic hypothesis" by way of arcane not-easily-checked genetic analysis.
lamin doesn't understand the differences between a mummy with shrunken dehydrated skin is not going to look exactly like the form of the living person. This is particularly on the fleshier parts, the lips and nose tip As we can these the mummy is indeed prognothic. The nose's bone structure as I had mentioned could be disrupted by the mummification process when the brain is extracted through the nose by pulling it out with narrow tools through the nasal passage in pieces. That could account for the bend. -also the bend on Rameses II mummy
,
^^^^^ note the nose bridge is not that flat either. If you look at the whole bulge for the eye each eye looks like it would be the size of a tennis ball, too large to be natural
^^^^ For anybody who thinks this is a fake version of the sculpture's actual color I provide the following:
^^^ Here, Indstead of daylight conditions the same sculpture photgraphed in a dark gallery with a light on it ( you can see the sharper shines of light) The photo was then edited on to a new white background. Dejeshootme considers this more accurate in color so if you prefer you can refer to this one for color. >Also notice the ear notch provided in the wig on the sculpture
^^^ this wooden head is several inches in tall (other photos include the very tall feather on top of the head) is this sculpture definative on how she actually looked? I don't know . The eyes seem unaturally large
Other Tiye sculptures
Relief head of Queen Tiye, wife of Amenhotep III, 18th dynasty, 1386-1340 QUEEN TIYE Present location EGYPTIAN MUSEUM [01/001] CAIRO EM Inventory number JE 38257 Dating AMENHOTEP III/AMENOPHIS III/NEBMAATRE Archaeological Site SARABIT EL-KHADIM
Posts: 43016 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tye's wooden sculpture seems to be an individualist piece with the sculpture attempting to capture the individual rather than do something stylised and formuulaic. Thus every feature is that of the queen.
The sculpter seems to capture the eyes right. Lots of females have that kind of eyes in Africa. As I wrote, the nose shape is convex while the mummy has it concave with a bump. The hair represented in the sculpture: is it Tiye's natural African hair or is it a wig?
Same kind of question with the Ramses mummy. The nose of Ramses's mummy is hooked and the hair is wispy. His sculptures and murals are at variance with the traits of the mummy.
After almost 3,000 years after the end of KMT(the indigenous name) how do we know who is who? The grave robbers would not tend to differ in ideological outlook from the NG folks. They all have vested interests.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
You're right on that: very solid as brick after 3000 years. Just great sculpting. Arguably, one of the sculptures for all time.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ LOL YOU, of all people can't be talking!!
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass,:
lamin doesn't understand the differences between a mummy with shrunken dehydrated skin is not going to look exactly like the form of the living person. This is particularly on the fleshier parts, the lips and nose tip As we can these the mummy is indeed prognothic...
LMAOH
Your hypocrisy knows no bounds. Despite the lecture you give to lamin aren't YOU the one who posts pictures of Libyan mummies, Gebelein Man a.k.a. "Ginger", and even the Younger Lady using the complexions of the mummies' skins as somehow proof of their original complexions when alive??! You are a joke!
quote:The nose's bone structure as I had mentioned could be disrupted by the mummification process when the brain is extracted through the nose by pulling it out with narrow tools through the nasal passage in pieces. That could account for the bend. -also the bend on Rameses II mummy
Yes that is correct. Ramses nose was not only broken but stuffed. Thus the famous 'hook' shape is not that accurate though his nose may have had a slight bend if not completely straight.
Posts: 26381 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: lol, funny but entirely predictable from NatGeo, with its bullshiit distortions.
Per the article- notice the pablum they spin:
"One of the biggest questions surrounding ancient Egypt then is “where did it come from?” Last week at the Dialogue of Civilizations in Guatemala, National Geographic grantee Renée Friedman of the British Museum, and Ram.adan Hussein, recent recipient of a Humboldt Research Fellowship at the University of Tuebingen, set out to answer the question"
They then go on to ramble all over the place while avoiding the obvious answer- they came from south of the Sahara- as even "Afrocentric" critic Mary Lefkowitz notes. They already know this, but their method of obfuscating the data- is to pose childish "questions", so they can then continue the bogus diversion, and lead people away from the hard data. They mention Renee Friedman as part of the "investigation" but over a decade ago, excavations at Hierakonpolis by archaeologist Friedman (1998) also demonstrates ritual masks similar to those used further south of Egypt, and significant amounts of obsidian, also traced to Ethiopian quarry sites.[168]. Nat Geo full of shiit.. There is no "Mystery" as to indigenous tropical Africans peopling the Nile Valley, except in the bogus "spin" no Nat Geog. The bogus "spin" merchants cannot even mention Nabata Playa- a key player in the formative period.
WHo the hell cares about what "Young Egyptian egyptologist Ramadan Hussein" thinks? The hard data is already on the floor, and has been for years. Their facile diversionary tactics are designed to lull the hearts of the gullible, and continue to deAfricanize Egypt under another guise- hence their bullshiit "paleface" "Egyptian" artistic "reproductions." Most of the people here can already see through their bullshiit. What they want to do though is bury the hard data under a misleading cloud of "soft" propaganda.
^After decades of data, National Geog still can't figure out where "they came from.." Can you say bullshiit? I knew you could...
I couldn't agree more. I don't know if you know but the National Geographic Society was founded in 1888 by Gardiner Greene Hubbard who was a white Westerner of his day, if you know what I mean. The purpose of the society was to understand the world especially those regions colonized by the white man and the cultures and past histories of those regions. It was nothing more than a club for the white elite to play the adventurous 'explorer' and archaeologist. Their portrayal of ancient Egypt was typical for the Eurolunacy of their day-- the advanced civilization that it was, was naturally assumed to be created by 'Caucasian' peoples and Nat Geo long clung to the debunked notions of the 'Dynastic Race' theory. Although Nat Geo seems up to par with current Egyptology in everything else, they are still stuck in the 19th century when it comes to them admitting that ancient Egypt was African and that its creators were black.
By the way, do you have a link or other to Friedman's findings of ritual masks in predynastic Nekhen similar to Sub-Saharans? Were these animal masks?? I know that African shamans use masks in certain rituals even animal shaped ones and that part of the mummification ritual involved a priest wearing a jackal mask to symbolize Anupu (Anubis).
Posts: 26381 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I meant your relatively more recent thickness of mind
.
I am talking about Tiye's sculpture. A very impressive piece of realistic artistry. I mean the eyes are so well done one gets the impression that they are actually looking at you. And the quasi-sneer on the mouth makes one think that Tiye was of imperious personality. A sculpture that looks so modern--as if it were done in very recent times.
The point of artistry is "realism"--i.e. how well did the artist or sculpter capture the essence of the subject. In this regard, Tiye is much more worthy of praise than the European Mona Lisa or any of the Greek artworks.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is not was simply as that...looking for himself in a black man. It is also about feeding the beast(s). Selling books to white people and feeding their delusion of grandeur.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Of course this therad is being reduced to another mindless picture spam war. Yet it still does not change the relevant point I made:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: ..I mean really how can one look at the tomb painting and not conclude it was depicting black people?? How? I wonder what was going on in their heads as they blatantly lied to the world??
The psychology of white-wash was explained various times before, but I think it was best explained by Philip Emeagwali, the computer science genius from Nigeria. Emeagwali was one of the forefathers of high-speed internet processing.
In an autobiography Emeagwali wrote:
"Twelve years ago, a magazine hired a white man to prepare an illustration of a supercomputer wizard riding an ox. I was supposed to be the supercomputer wizard. But the white illustrator, who knew that I am black, portrayed me as a white person in his published illustration."
The first draft of a portrait that depicted Emeagwali as a supercomputer wizard driving a carriage powered by thousands of chickens (a metaphor for his 65,000 weak processors that performed the world's fastest computation). The "Negro Emeagwali" (shown in this illustration) was rejected and replaced with a "Caucasian Emeagwali" (shown below).
A "whitened" Caucasian portrait of Emeagwali was acceptable and widely published. One illustrator argued that Emeagwali has a trace of Caucasian blood and said that he could see the "Caucasian look" in his face!! [sic]
Emeagwali himself
Emeagwali wrote of the white illustrator: "I learned that the white illustrator was searching for himself in me."
And there you have it in a nutshell-- so many whites are desperate to see themselves in the peoples of great civilizations of the world. This is why back in the 19th century Euro-colonialists were proclaiming peoples from the Aztecs to the early Chinese has having "Caucasoid" ancestry. The 'Middle East' including Egypt was a hotbed of this nonsense and especially Egypt. Today while the Americas and much of Asia is purged from this nonsense unfortunately Southwest Asia and indeed Egypt and greater north Africa are not. Even Sub-Sahara is not safe and even the indigenous cultures of southern Africa are not safe from the psychotic white-wash!!
So why this need of whites like Anglo-idiot to "see themselves" in other people who are not white??
I'm no psychologist but it doesn't take an expert to know what the problem is. and I leave the answer below to Anglo-idiot and his ilk:
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: It is not was simply as that...looking for himself in a black man. It is also about feeding the beast(s). Selling books to white people and feeding their delusion of grandeur.
But that is my point exactly! Emeagwali is a computer genius who revolutionized the cyber world, yet these white illustrators were deep down disturbed that such a genius is black and not like white like them. They felt this compulsion to make him white for the sake of his ingenuity. The psychosis becomes apparent when one of the illustrators claims to see a "trace of caucasian ancestry" in Emeagwali even though he is 100% African from Nigeria! If this happened with ONE black man, what do you think happened with an entire civilization in Africa such as Egypt. Recall what happened to Great Zimbabwe and how that culture was portrayed by the Dutch Boers. Posts: 26381 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I already have. I told you that Nilotes don't originate in hot-dry regions, they simply expanded after than proto-community dispersed. Remains that have been identified as Nilo-Saharan speakers have been relatively tall since before the Holocene (e.g., Jebel Sahaba, Wadi Halfa), showing they were always tall and that they didn't migrate to hot-dry Africa and turn tall all of a sudden. You've totally made the link between hot-dry climate and stature up, being the pathetic fraud that you are. Nilo-Saharan speakers originate in equatorial Africa, as per the prehistoric cultures that have been linked to them and by Linguistic indications.
Nilotes and Nilotids are different. The latter is a racial type, or a trait complex. Nilotes in contrast are a meta-ethnic group. Although many Nilotes may be Nilotid (Dixon estimates up to 85% are), there are other racial types in the Nilotes as a population.
quote:Still ducking and diving, I see? Where is the direct citation saying that man is platyrrhine? Its obvious just by eye-balling that that man's NB is not 85% of his NL.
What? If he wasn't platyrrhine he wouldn't be classified as a Nilotid (Negroid > Nilotid) in the first place. All Negroids are platyrrhine. Nilotids also have the most recognisable Negroid traits: alveolar prognathism, lip eversion, large teeth, dark skin. Buy Dixon's book if you are so interested. The plate and description of platyrrhine nasal index is on page 228.
quote:This is not what you stated. You said that types are merely trivial (skin deep) outer appearances that populations all over the world can exhibit, via your Wiercinski quote:
which utilises the notion of the racial type to denote a group of human individuals irrespective their populational descent and resembling each other in a set of racial traits." (Wiercinski, 1975) --Fareemdunkers
They are statistical abstractions, but the fact the trait complexes, as types, were once confined to geographical areas makes them non-arbitrary - hence they have taxonomic value.
If you want typology that just randomly chooses types in a population, look at Lawrence Angel (who taught Keita). His types were just labelled A, B, C, D etc.
quote:You try to quote Wiencinsky in your confused attempt to unify basic and established biological concepts with typology, but he wasn't even a typologist, as per the excerpt you've posted (he was simply classifying the skulls according to a set of variables, while leaving it open what their ancestry was).
This is consistent with what Djehuti, me and others have smacked you across the head with ever since your dumbass registered on this website, i.e., that Europeans don't have a monopoly on the features they just happen to have.
Only Caucasoids have certain traits, while Negroids others. Wiercinski utilised palaeo-anthropology, as I do, to see where the trait complexes were once circumscribed. I've already shown you that Negroids don't have low NI's, small teeth, orthognathism etc. None of those traits appear in the early African fossil record.
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doesn't this guy get tired with the oids, ids, metid, zoids, rheumotoids? Is this what they teach in modern anthropology or is he a relic? Left over from the 18th century.
Where is the genetic, archeological, cultural, religious proof Europeans migrated to Africa?
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
IQ of what ...about 66? That is exactly the point.
There is no race. There are black Africans, White Europeans, White East Asians, Dark Asians, White Americans(Native), Black Americans(Native). All are "populations". Population will first cluster genetically to groups geographically closest to them. Then, 2ndly the phenotype(visual), they are best adapted to their environment.
eg Tropical, and sub tropical peoples/populations are black skin - Most Africans including AEians, anderman Islands, South Asians(Indians), indigenous Taiwan etc, plus central Americans, Peruvians.
That is how nature works. I can go on and on....
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: If "Black" = dark skin, then these people are "white":
Ancient China:
Ancient Japan:
Suddenly though when it comes to defining who is "white", the Afrocentrics bring bone structure into account, but not for "Blacks" [suddenly they are race realists like Carleton Coon, only for "white people" LMAO ]
Afronut logic -
"Black" = anyone with dark skin regardless of hair texture or facial features
"white" = white skin but with specific facial features only.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do the majority of Egyptian women today have very curly / kinky hair?
.
LOL. Many of them do but they hide it. Of course, there are descendants of settlers in places like Alexandria and Cairo--Greek, French, Persian, Iraq, Italian, Turkish, etc. but kinks are still there--under wraps so to speak.
quote:Originally posted by lamin: Why so overly sensitive on this matter? I have no axe and if I did I don't see why I should grind it.
I live in Africa so on what basis should I subscribe to some "true negro" fantasy? I leave that for people like you meekly learning your trade from your academic overseers. I see Africans all the time starting with my family.
Looks like you put too much faith in the European "scholarship" on matters you--along with others consider sensitive. LOL.
I am just being prudent and cautious given their track record. All I am saying is that there is an evident phenotypical gap between the actual Queen Tye bust which she did live while the sculpter was gazing intently at her. The bust is prognathous and the mummy is not. The nose is less prominent and convex. The mummy's nose is concave. Just noticing things.
Are you saying that it is beyond European researchers on matters they consider sensitive that they don't distort or plant evidence? The NG piece is direct proof that they do.
^^^ lamin you are dead wrong, this mummy is prognathous. Additionally nose bone may get broken when they extract the brain through the nasal passge for mummification (same possibility with Rameses below) The hair on the sculpture a wig
However in the case of Rameses II many (not all) artworks reflect the lack of prognathous observed in his mummy
Rameses II
Ramesses II-Colored Relief, Brooklyn Museum
.
Rameses II statue saqqara_
Rameses II Rameses II
However Troll disagrees. of the above Rameses he said:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: ^All show, maxillary (upper nasal) prognathism and platyrrhine.
It's not a matter of "agreeing or disagreeing. It's a matter of observance. What I have noticed. Even when I saw them in person. Thousands of them.
And these traits are African, which can be found in Africans no matter where they are from.
Even the obscure reserve heads show these traits.lol
Posts: 22248 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I already have. I told you that Nilotes don't originate in hot-dry regions, they simply expanded after than proto-community dispersed. Remains that have been identified as Nilo-Saharan speakers have been relatively tall since before the Holocene (e.g., Jebel Sahaba, Wadi Halfa), showing they were always tall and that they didn't migrate to hot-dry Africa and turn tall all of a sudden. You've totally made the link between hot-dry climate and stature up, being the pathetic fraud that you are. Nilo-Saharan speakers originate in equatorial Africa, as per the prehistoric cultures that have been linked to them and by Linguistic indications.
Nilotes and Nilotids are different. The latter is a racial type, or a trait complex. Nilotes in contrast are a meta-ethnic group. Although many Nilotes may be Nilotid (Dixon estimates up to 85% are), there are other racial types in the Nilotes as a population.
quote:Still ducking and diving, I see? Where is the direct citation saying that man is platyrrhine? Its obvious just by eye-balling that that man's NB is not 85% of his NL.
What? If he wasn't platyrrhine he wouldn't be classified as a Nilotid (Negroid > Nilotid) in the first place. All Negroids are platyrrhine. Nilotids also have the most recognisable Negroid traits: alveolar prognathism, lip eversion, large teeth, dark skin. Buy Dixon's book if you are so interested. The plate and description of platyrrhine nasal index is on page 228.
quote:This is not what you stated. You said that types are merely trivial (skin deep) outer appearances that populations all over the world can exhibit, via your Wiercinski quote:
which utilises the notion of the racial type to denote a group of human individuals irrespective their populational descent and resembling each other in a set of racial traits." (Wiercinski, 1975) --Fareemdunkers
They are statistical abstractions, but the fact the trait complexes, as types, were once confined to geographical areas makes them non-arbitrary - hence they have taxonomic value.
If you want typology that just randomly chooses types in a population, look at Lawrence Angel (who taught Keita). His types were just labelled A, B, C, D etc.
quote:You try to quote Wiencinsky in your confused attempt to unify basic and established biological concepts with typology, but he wasn't even a typologist, as per the excerpt you've posted (he was simply classifying the skulls according to a set of variables, while leaving it open what their ancestry was).
This is consistent with what Djehuti, me and others have smacked you across the head with ever since your dumbass registered on this website, i.e., that Europeans don't have a monopoly on the features they just happen to have.
Only Caucasoids have certain traits, while Negroids others. Wiercinski utilised palaeo-anthropology, as I do, to see where the trait complexes were once circumscribed. I've already shown you that Negroids don't have low NI's, small teeth, orthognathism etc. None of those traits appear in the early African fossil record.
You're a lying hog.
The average Moroccan female has these traits.
Posts: 22248 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: [QB] Like I said these people are delusional. Please show me anywhere anything resembling a European/Eurasian in Ramose's Tomb?
I mean I hate Mike's and other Afrocentric radicals who claim whites are covering up some massive global black Empire, but stuff like this just adds fuel to their fire. In all honesty I think Eurocentrics are delusional. For example the loser who tried to claim Ramose's tomb as depictions of white people.
I agree
but this hair thing I haven't figured out.^^^^ I don't know what's going on here
He is working with oats and grains.
Yes, it's really that simple.
Posts: 22248 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:I mean really how can one look at the tomb painting and not conclude it was depicting black people??
Because "Black" = skin colour only?
Yea, you're retarded as ever.
So by your logic, these people are "white":
Do you ever think before you post? The saddest part is that you've been here years.
By "your" logic they are white. By our logic they are Asians from Asia. Your rhetoric was a failure to begin with. Next time, think before you post.
And by science:
Determination of optimal rehydration, fixation and staining methods for histological and immunohistochemical analysis of mummified soft tissues
A-M Mekota1, M Vermehren Department of Biology I, Biodiversity Research/Anthropology1and Department of Veterinary Anatomy II2,
Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, Germany Submitted January 8, 2002; revised May 4, 2004; accepted August 12, 2004
Abstract
During an excavation headed by the German Institute for Archaeology, Cairo, at the tombs of the nobles in Thebes-West, Upper Egypt, three types of tissues from different mummies were sampled to compare 13 well known rehydration methods for mummified tissue with three newly developed methods. Furthermore, three fixatives were tested with each of the rehydration fluids.
Meniscus (fibrocartilage), skin, and a placenta were used for this study. The rehydration and fixation procedures were uniform for all methods.
Materials and methods
In 1997, the German Institute for Archaeology headed an excavation of the tombs of the nobles in Thebes-West, Upper Egypt. At this time, three types of tissues were sampled from different mummies: meniscus (fibrocartilage), skin, and placenta. Archaeological findings suggest that the mummies dated from the New Kingdom (approxi- mately 1550-1080 BC).
Skin Skin sections showed particularly good tissue preservation, although cellular outlines were never distinct. Although much of the epidermis had already separated from the dermis, the remaining epidermis often was preserved well (Fig. 1).
The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin.
In the dermis, the hair follicles, hair, and sebaceous and sweat glands were readily apparent (Fig. 2). Blood vessels, but no red blood cells, and small peripheral nerves were identified unambiguously (Fig. 3). The subcutaneous layer showed loose connective tissue fibers attached to the dermis, and fat cell remnants were observed.
To evaluate the influence of postmortum tissue decay by micro-organisms, the samples were tested for the presence of fungi using silver staining.
--Biotechnic & Histochemistry 2005, 80(1): 7Á/13
Posts: 22248 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: For those puzzled by the hair of the generic AE male consider the following East African hairstyles.
Rameses II
Queen Tiye.
Hatshepsut Yuya
what is your opinion on these hair types were the afros that were straightened out or did they have this type of hair?
It's because that hair texture in that region isn't as odd as you make it out to be.
Your brain can't process nor comprehend what I have been explaining on African hair textures.
And you still haven't explained why all Africans need to have the same hair texture, despite of living in different regions. Some times for many thousands of years.
Fragment of a relief representing queen Tiye
From Western Thebes, from the mortuary temple of Amenhotep III. New Kingdom, 18th dynasty, 1375 BC. Quartz. Neues Museum, Berlin AM23270
Posts: 22248 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Note this key repeated Afrocentric fallacy:
"White" people = pale white only.
Then the Afrocentrics say: where are pale white people in the tombs, or if they existed wouldn't they burn in the sun to death?
Just one of them "knock em downs"...
"Whites" [Caucasoids] were never all "pale white" to begin with, as any anthropologist will confirm:
"The term 'White' is something of a misnomer, because the range of skin color in this race extends from light brown to ruddy, and there can be no doubt that the vast majority of 'White' individuals have brunet skins". (Hooton, 1946)
"Caucasian" by Bernard J. Freedman British Medical Journal Vol. 288, No. 6418, Mar. 1984, pp. 696-698 -
quote:"Let us now look [...] at some terms in current use in the light of these criteria:
Caucasian - geographically wrong. European geographical race - explicit but unwieldy. European - excludes those living in other continents. Caucasoid - It retains the fallacious Caucasian implication. White - There are varying degrees of skin pigmentation in Caucasians. Europid - (en suite with negrid, mongolid, australid, etc) adopted by Baker (1974) after its introduction by Peters. The suffix -id is stated to be a truncation of the Greek -ides, of the family of. "Europid," which will be unfamiliar to most readers, does fulfil the above mentioned criteria. Its use in a medical journal might initially evoke more letters of complaint than the use of Caucasian does now. I believe that, with repeated usage under authoritative aegis, familiarity would achieve acceptance."
Posts: 22248 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: The average Moroccan female has these traits.
[/QB]
er what? Are you saying that women is "Black"?
Like I said, your definition of "Black" is just anything you want it to be. You actually dump on your own Afrocentric theory.
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ The woman above is obviously of mixed black ancestry. This is the case with the vast majority of Moroccans and other North Africans, yet in your twisted Euronut mind they are all "Caucasians"!
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass twit: Do the majority of Egyptian women today have very curly / kinky hair?
Don't listen to Djehootie he only pretends to know
No. Pretending to know something is YOUR hobby, as I've proven here. Posts: 26381 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: The average Moroccan female has these traits.
er what? Are you saying that women is "Black"?
Like I said, your definition of "Black" is just anything you want it to be. You actually dump on your own Afrocentric theory. [/QB]
They would rather cluster with black. This is a social fact.
Second, I show you this so you can have some basic understanding on the facial traits they have. These are generic and cluster with other African ethnic groups.
Suddenly you turned a blind eye. lol
The dumb is in your face, but you are too stupid to realize this. This is why you role your eyes like a bytch.
It's you who speaks in box-terms. I speak of Africans. Your cacasoid fallacy is a joke and will be laught at.
Posts: 22248 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ It is typical Euronut double-think and hypocrisy. You see, that light-skinned 'mulatta' type Moroccan woman is traditionally classified as "Mediterranean" in the textbooks of Coon and other Euronuts. Yet in America such types would be considered partial-negroid or mixed "Coloured" types. Viola-- Eurolunacy.
Here are some more "Mediterranean Caucasoids" of Morocco:
LOLPosts: 26381 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
:
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
YOU, of all people can't be talking!!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
You are a joke!
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
The saddest part is that you've been here years. 
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic