posted
The below was posted by Zarahan and brings up the question of whether as mentioned by earlier observers this sculptures of broadheaded or brachycephalic non-Mediterraneans or non-Africans actually date from a much later era than the Sumerian or Sumero-Akkadian periods.
{Geometric morphometric study of temporal variations in human crania excavated from the Himrin Basin and neighboring areas, northern Iraq by Naomichi Ogihara, Haruyuki Makishima, Hidemi Ishida, Anthropological Science (2009) Volume: 117, Issue: 1, Pages: 9-17
"this study suggests that the Himrin population was relatively dolichocranic and generally unaltered until the Parthian period AS IN SOUTHERN MESOPOTAMIA (Keith, 1927; Ehrich, 1939; Swindler, 1956), but sometime in or after the Parthian period a more brachycranic population came into this northern Mesopotamian area and craniofacial characteristics within the inhabitants in this area probably became more diverse, as preliminarily suggested by Ishida and Wada (1981) and Wada (1986). It has been suggested based on archeological data that the population of Mesopotamia began to be influenced by Persians after the Achaemenean domination, and more foreigners were settled and mixed with the native population in the Parthian period (Roux, 1992). The present results do not contradict this view. Furthermore, this study depicts the dolichocranic population as tending to have a relatively lower orbit and broader (lower) nose, and vice versa in the brachycranic population." }
Earlier specialists used to remark on the obvious differences between the sculptures said to represent Sumerians and the skeletal evidence which showed different evident long-narrow headed or dolichocephalic African types and mainly the so-called "brown race" of East Africa.
An Ephraim Speiser wrote “Anthropolometrically the evidence is ambiguous and confused… The consensus would seem to be with all reservations that the basic population of the whole region consisted of Mediterranean longheads who were joined in the course of time and relatively late by several groups of Alpine roundheads… In this connection it should be stressed that there is a marked discrepancy between the evidence of the cemetaries uncovered in Sumer and the appearance of the historic Sumerians depicted on the monuments. For it has been repeatedly observed that the monumental representations of the Sumerians point for the most part to pronounced roundheads.” Oriental and Biblical Studies collected writings of E.A. Sspeiser 1967.Ephraim Speiser p. 217
In 1972 Historian William Langer - “The population of both Upper and Lower Mesopotamia in prehistoric times belonged to the brown or Mediterranean race. While this basic stock persisted in historical, times especially in the south, it became increasingly, mixed especially with broad-headed Armenoid peoples from the northeastern mountains owing to the recurrent incursions of mountain tribes into the plain.” In William L. Langer – An Encyclopedia of World History, Houghton Mifflin Company Boston 1972
Now I'm wondering if scientists like Ogihara and Makishima are actually saying the "Armenoid" or brachycranic type in Mesopotamia dates from a period chronologically subsequent to the Sumerians and Akkadians. If so the whole Aryanist view of Near Eastern history collapses. The Parthian period is, of course, very late in Mesopotamian history.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting. The dolich types of course dubbed "Mediterranean" would just as well be classified as a tropical African variant. Even Carleton Coon said some of his "Mediterraneans" had a "negroid tendency."
I would be the first to admit the evidence shows a range of types- there is no hard and fast "race" to be identified, and any such attempts are doomed to failure I think. But the info I posted just seeks to balance the scales so the African side, or possibilities are not overlooked.
In 1972 Historian William Langer - “The population of both Upper and Lower Mesopotamia in prehistoric times belonged to the brown or Mediterranean race. While this basic stock persisted in historical, times especially in the south, it became increasingly, mixed especially with broad-headed Armenoid peoples from the northeastern mountains owing to the recurrent incursions of mountain tribes into the plain.” In William L. Langer – An Encyclopedia of World History, Houghton Mifflin Company Boston 1972
Now I'm wondering if scientists like Ogihara and Makishima are actually saying the "Armenoid" or brachycranic type in Mesopotamia dates from a period chronologically subsequent to the Sumerians and Akkadians. If so the whole Aryanist view of Near Eastern history collapses. The Parthian period is, of course, very late in Mesopotamian history.
^^Well if he is saying that the "long-headed" dolich, types predominated at first- as Mesopotamian civ developed, and then much later the brach-broad-heads came around, then yeah, the "Aryans" would be late-comers, people who were not pioneers in things like agriculture, domestication, metallurgy, architecture etc.. The Aryanist model puts them first -first developers and pioneers in everything. But the info above says, not really.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^There yu go, it is within the realm of that diversity.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
If you actually bother to read the original report by Neave (1973) you would realise that Khnum is described as a Caucasoid-Negroid hybrid or mixed race, only 'somewhat' Negroid (David 1979: 154). While Nekht is described as being predominantly Caucasoid, ''the skull is of the orthognathous or non-negroid type'' (David 1979: 1) but shows minor race admixture.
Both brothers were racially admixed. Prag (1999) in his British Museum study, describes Nekht as the ''the son of a negro father, was taller with a long, dolichocephalic skull which showed marked prognathism of both upper and lower jaws, pushing his teeth forward'' (p. 45). Khnum in contrast is noted in skull to be predominantly Caucasoid, but has some minor admixture traits. More recently David (2007) has a discussion in his book ''Two Brothers'' discusses this on page 130. Both brothers were mixed race, while Nekht, a half-caste, Khnum a Quadroon.
LMAO. half-castes and quadroons are now ''african tropical diversity''... only in the mind of delusional afronuts.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Once again, do not quote studies you have never read. It makes you look stupid.
Go and read Neave (1973) and David (1979) before making more of a prat of yourself.
No forensic expert who has examined those remains has claimed they are some crackpot ''tropical diversity''. LOL. All scientific reports have verified that they are Caucasoid-Negroid hybrids.
You must be the only whackjob on the net who clings to this ''everything is tropical african'' claim. Its retarded, and boring. No scientist in their lab even knows anything about it. Its equivilant to saying everyone on earth is an eskimo...
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Of course not everything is tropical African except indigenous African populations such as the Egyptians, fool!
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_PrimeIdiot: More epic fail...
The Two Brothers Khnum-Nakht and Nekht-Ankh...
Would definitely NOT be called "Caucasians" if they were alive today! LOL Sorry but give up the white-wash rubbish already!
quote:If you actually bother to read the original report by Neave (1973) you would realise that Khnum is described as a Caucasoid-Negroid hybrid or mixed race, only 'somewhat' Negroid (David 1979: 154). While Nekht is described as being predominantly Caucasoid, ''the skull is of the orthognathous or non-negroid type'' (David 1979: 1) but shows minor race admixture.
Both brothers were racially admixed. Prag (1999) in his British Museum study, describes Nekht as the ''the son of a negro father, was taller with a long, dolichocephalic skull which showed marked prognathism of both upper and lower jaws, pushing his teeth forward'' (p. 45). Khnum in contrast is noted in skull to be predominantly Caucasoid, but has some minor admixture traits. More recently David (2007) has a discussion in his book ''Two Brothers'' discusses this on page 130. Both brothers were mixed race, while Nekht, a half-caste, Khnum a Quadroon.
LMAO. half-castes and quadroons are now ''african tropical diversity''... only in the mind of delusional afronuts.
Again if you knew anything about native African diversity you would know that these very same features that appear "mixed-race" or "partially Caucasoid" are found throughout Sub-Sahara. Are you aware that there are prehistoric skulls in Tanzania that were once classified as "Caucasian" as well?! As Diop has stated long ago, if all these people ascribed as "Mediterranean with slight negro tendencies" were alive today in America, they would be living in Harlem (or Atlanta)! LOL
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass: dana you have to understand any morphological trait other than short limb ratios is within the realm of African diversity
brachycephalic, broad head
essentially everybody's an African except for their arms and legs
LOL
Actually "brachycephaly" or broad headedness is in reference to **length** of the head from front to back NOT width!! The vast majority of Africans have dolichocephaly or long heads, while some are mesocephalic or medium length heads. I don't know about brachycephaly occurring in Africans though has anyone else?
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: In 1972 Historian William Langer - “The population of both Upper and Lower Mesopotamia in prehistoric times belonged to the brown or Mediterranean race. While this basic stock persisted in historical, times especially in the south, it became increasingly, mixed especially with broad-headed Armenoid peoples from the northeastern mountains owing to the recurrent incursions of mountain tribes into the plain.” In William L. Langer – An Encyclopedia of World History, Houghton Mifflin Company Boston 1972
Now I'm wondering if scientists like Ogihara and Makishima are actually saying the "Armenoid" or brachycranic type in Mesopotamia dates from a period chronologically subsequent to the Sumerians and Akkadians. If so the whole Aryanist view of Near Eastern history collapses. The Parthian period is, of course, very late in Mesopotamian history.
What about the Hurrians? I have read in several sources that the Hurrians represented a northern peoples with brachycephalic features who had significant cultural and perhaps genetic influence on Sumerians as well.
I find it hard to believe this northern 'brachycranial' element only appeared as late as the Parthians when so many Sumerian portraits suggest otherwise.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
''They (the Sumerians) certainly belong to the same racial division of mankind as the nations of Europe, they are scions of the Caucasian stock'' (Keith, 1927)
''They were the longish-headed, broad-browed and large-brained Nordic type; and they were obviously fair in complexion as attested by the blue eyes and white shell inlaid with lapis lazuli stone inset in some of their statues and also by the darkish colour of much of their jewelry; and of fair hair, and their general term for their subject people was 'the black-headed (haired) people'' (Waddell, 1929)
Sumerians were also blue eyed.
''In early Sumerian sanctuaries votive eyes have been found, made of gray marble, and also of lapis-lazuli.'' (Myres, 1967)
Ebih-Il, a Sumerian chief inspector. Early Dynastic IIIb, c. 2400 BC.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
It is impossible to determine if this couple is Tropical African until you measure their limbs
(left: possible light skinned Tropical African female right: dark skinned "black" possible Tropical African male)
Africans can produce all of the above features, hair, eye color skin type if they want to
The only thing that Africans can't do with their bodies is produce short limbs relative to their bodies. Once they do this they become cold-adapted Africans (aka "white" ) and have lost their Tropical status
However, depite the vastly overwhelmingly huge economy sized diversity that Africans have there is one craniofacial feature that Tropical Africans have not been able to reproduce >>> the concave facial profile:
quote:Originally posted by the Swenet:
concave facial profile
^^^^ "the mark of the Caucasian"
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anglo-buffoon said: Both brothers were racially admixed. Prag (1999) in his British Museum study, describes Nekht as the ''the son of a negro father, was taller with a long, dolichocephalic skull which showed marked prognathism of both upper and lower jaws, pushing his teeth forward'' (p. 45). Khnum in contrast is noted in skull to be predominantly Caucasoid, but has some minor admixture traits. More recently David (2007) has a discussion in his book ''Two Brothers'' discusses this on page 130. Both brothers were mixed race, while Nekht, a half-caste, Khnum a Quadroon.11
^^You fail again. The diagram above concerns the PRESENCE of Africans in ancient Egypt and how that fact undercuts those who deny it. QUOTE: "contradicting claims that sub-Saharan *ranges* foreign to Egypt." {ENDQUOTE} How they got there - whether via a blend of different groups or whether by indigenous diversity makes little difference. The point is that they were there, as so cited in the graphic. Your little "rebuttal" falls wanker-like limp. But that is nothing surprising for you.
And you have just contradicted yourself. In earlier threads you claimed that there were no "negroes" in Egypt. Now up above you admit that there is racial admixture. How could there be racial admixture if there were no negroes? You just shot yourself in the foot once again. lmao!
----------------------------------------------------------------- Djehuti said: Actually "brachycephaly" or broad headedness is in reference to **length** of the head from front to back NOT width!! The vast majority of Africans have dolichocephaly or long heads, while some are mesocephalic or medium length heads. I don't know about brachycephaly occurring in Africans though has anyone else?
There are areas of ancient brachyephalic peoples - in certain parts of Southern Africa for example and Kenya. Other writers maintian that it brachcephaly shows up in Pygmy populations. So brachycepahly, while a minority pattern, is not alien to indigenous Africa at all.
"At any rate during the later phases of the local Later Stone Age contrasting brachycephalic folk were also present in the region." -JD Fage. The Later Stone Age in Africa -- JD Fage. The Later Stone Age in Africa
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: ^^There yu go, it is within the realm of that diversity.
Anthropologists classify dolichocephalic crania not from a face looks from the outside to an observer. The questino is not if black types are diverse. They were but the predominant head form of the blacks in ancient Egypt as in east Africa Sahara Sahel etc is dolichocephalic. This of course changes in other parts of Africa.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Getting back to the topic...
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: In 1972 Historian William Langer - “The population of both Upper and Lower Mesopotamia in prehistoric times belonged to the brown or Mediterranean race. While this basic stock persisted in historical, times especially in the south, it became increasingly, mixed especially with broad-headed Armenoid peoples from the northeastern mountains owing to the recurrent incursions of mountain tribes into the plain.” In William L. Langer – An Encyclopedia of World History, Houghton Mifflin Company Boston 1972
Now I'm wondering if scientists like Ogihara and Makishima are actually saying the "Armenoid" or brachycranic type in Mesopotamia dates from a period chronologically subsequent to the Sumerians and Akkadians. If so the whole Aryanist view of Near Eastern history collapses. The Parthian period is, of course, very late in Mesopotamian history.
What about the Hurrians? I have read in several sources that the Hurrians represented a northern peoples with brachycephalic features who had significant cultural and perhaps genetic influence on Sumerians as well.
I find it hard to believe this northern 'brachycranial' element only appeared as late as the Parthians when so many Sumerian portraits suggest otherwise.
This is why I am asking when these northern "brachcranic" or white people came into Mesopotamia. Were earlier anthropologists just going by find of sculpture and bas reliefs and basing their conclusions of what Hurrians and others looked like on that? This becomes a real intriguing question now if the scientists are claiming broad -heads i.e. whites entered Mesopotamia only in the Parthian period. I am not sure that is what they are claiming, though.
However it has long been said that the brown "Mediterranean" race i.e. hamitic populations of uruk Jemdet Nasr, and the more Negroid populations of Eridu and the Ubaid centers long predate the entry of the prominent nosed, brachycranic whites i.e. so called "Armenoids" or "Alpines" of early anthropologists.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Interesting. The dolich types of course dubbed "Mediterranean" would just as well be classified as a tropical African variant. Even Carleton Coon said some of his "Mediterraneans" had a "negroid tendency."
I would be the first to admit the evidence shows a range of types- there is no hard and fast "race" to be identified, and any such attempts are doomed to failure I think. But the info I posted just seeks to balance the scales so the African side, or possibilities are not overlooked.
In 1972 Historian William Langer - “The population of both Upper and Lower Mesopotamia in prehistoric times belonged to the brown or Mediterranean race. While this basic stock persisted in historical, times especially in the south, it became increasingly, mixed especially with broad-headed Armenoid peoples from the northeastern mountains owing to the recurrent incursions of mountain tribes into the plain.” In William L. Langer – An Encyclopedia of World History, Houghton Mifflin Company Boston 1972
Now I'm wondering if scientists like Ogihara and Makishima are actually saying the "Armenoid" or brachycranic type in Mesopotamia dates from a period chronologically subsequent to the Sumerians and Akkadians. If so the whole Aryanist view of Near Eastern history collapses. The Parthian period is, of course, very late in Mesopotamian history.
^^Well if he is saying that the "long-headed" dolich, types predominated at first- as Mesopotamian civ developed, and then much later the brach-broad-heads came around, then yeah, the "Aryans" would be late-comers, people who were not pioneers in things like agriculture, domestication, metallurgy, architecture etc.. The Aryanist model puts them first -first developers and pioneers in everything. But the info above says, not really.
Zarahan - the dolichocephalic Mediterraneans are dubbed "brown race" by Elliot Smith which of course refers only to the East African black populations and the peoples of the Horn in particular. Thus yes the dolichocephalic black people of Mesopotamia like Arabia were unquestionably African affiliated people. This is the group that early anthropologists chose to misnomer "Mediterranean race" or "Eurafrican" not only in Mesopotamia but in Arabia, Egypt and North AFrica. It was very rarely used for the brachycephalic whites or Nordics who had absorbed pre-Neolithic dolichocephalic peoples. Dolichocephaly as Coon stated is "no where found on a regional basis" in Europe regardless of what Anglophile and his likes would wish.
My question is not if black people were the dominant group in early Mesopoatamia/Arabia etc. Itt is when did this non-black group that is shown so often in history books in sculptures become a dominant presence in Mesopotamia.
It is only in the late Bronze Age when they become half the population of Anatolia. But the question is when do they move into Mesopotamia. The posts you posted suggest that the Bronze Age in some places may have started a lot later than was originally thought or in fact in some places this group may not have become very numerous until the Scythian period.
This may better explain why the populations in northern Arabia were still described as blacks even in historical times.
It would of course change everything.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
''They (the Sumerians) certainly belong to the same racial division of mankind as the nations of Europe, they are scions of the Caucasian stock'' (Keith, 1927)
A representation of Ebih-Il, a Sumerian chief inspector. Early Dynastic IIIb, c. 2400 BC.
This is the perfect representation of a brachycranic white man, and therefore like the painting of Tarik bin Ziyad the nafusa Moor very possibly not a likeness of a real Sumerian. These types have been shown in books as Eblaite, Hurrian, Akkadian and Sumerian and yet the skeletons of the period suggest they were not representative of the majority of the peoples of Mesopotamia during the Sumerian period.
The representations of "Sumerians" are "PRONOUNCED ROUNDHEADS" having nothing to do with long-heads of the Mediterranean Eurafrican i.e. HAMITES that were predominant in East AFrica and found in ancient Mesopotamian cemetaries.
This is part of what was called the "Sumerian problem". It is highly unlikely they are the earliest Akkadians either. Do these representations even belong to the right era.!? Winters seems to believe they are Guti.
"...it should be stressed that there is a marked discrepancy between the evidence of the cemetaries uncovered in Sumer and the appearance of the historic Sumerians depicted on the monuments. For it has been repeatedly observed that the monumental representations of the Sumerians point for the most part to pronounced roundheads.” Ephraim Speiser.
D.T. Potts states the same thing.
BTW - the "Caucasian" stock Keith refers to is the HAMITE that once predominated in Europe like Grafton Elliot Smith said - today not considered related to Europeans by any scholar. William Ripley of course being American simply calls them Negroes.
And Waddell the Aryanist has as much credibility in anthropology and history as Coon - about zilch.
You are definitely not in any college for anthropology. keep hope alive though.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by the lioness: [QB] .
Neandergirl said - "It is impossible to determine if this couple is Tropical African until you measure their limbs"
Incorrect Neandergirl - it would be very possible to identify these people like their Basque-related non-African ancestors as non-Africans tropical or otherwise based on genetically determined traits of crania ALONE! PERIOD!
You have your own origin. BE proud of it. Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: [QUOTE]Originally posted by the lioness: [QB] .
"It is impossible to determine if this couple is Tropical African until you measure their limbs"
Incorrect - it would be very possible to identify these people like their Basque-related non-African ancestors as non-Africans tropical or otherwise based on genetically determined traits of crania ALONE! PERIOD!
zarahan do you agree with this? Dana claims a non-African can be determined by measuring parts of the crania. She adds that those craniological traits are genetically determined (obviously)
to put it simply:
can a person's Africaness or non-Africaness be determined by examining a bare skull ?
please help dana on this one, she seems to be caught up in the old racial taxonomy stuff
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:And you have just contradicted yourself. In earlier threads you claimed that there were no "negroes" in Egypt. Now up above you admit that there is racial admixture. How could there be racial admixture if there were no negroes? You just shot yourself in the foot once again. lmao!
Zaharan once again exposed as a liar...
What my post ACTUALLY said regarding Negroids in Egypt -
quote:Negroids only appeared in Egypt as late as c. 2000 BC (Junker, ''The First Appearance of Negroes in History'', Journ. Egypt. Arch. 1921, pp. 121-132).
And aint it just a tad coincidence that the ''two brothers'' date to c. 1900 BC...
You won't find Negroids or Negroid admixture in Egypt prior to 2000 BC. Read Junkers article.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: This is the perfect representation of a brachycranic white man, and therefore like the painting of Tarik bin Ziyad the nafusa Moor very possibly not a likeness of a real Sumerian.
What a clown.
His skull is clearly dolichocephalic.
You retards don't even know what brachycephalism or dolichocephalism is. LMAO. You probably just think if you use a big word it makes you look smart. Lioness is so retarded she thought brachycephalism is linked to the jaw shape...
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: This is the perfect representation of a brachycranic white man, and therefore like the painting of Tarik bin Ziyad the nafusa Moor very possibly not a likeness of a real Sumerian.
What a clown.
His skull is clearly dolichocephalic.
You retards don't even know what brachycephalism or dolichocephalism is. LMAO. You probably just think if you use a big word it makes you look smart. Lioness is so retarded she thought brachycephalism is linked to the jaw shape...
^^^^^ "The Maximum brachycephalic jaw is 2.50 inches"
ETIOLOGY OF OSSEOUS DEFORMITIES OF THE HEAD, FACE, JAWS AND TEETH
TALBOT
EUGENE S. TALBOT, M.D,, D.U.S.
Professor of Dental Surgery, Woman's Medical College; Lecturer on Dental Surgery and Pathology, Rush Medical College, Chicago; Author of "The Irregularities of the Teeth and their Treatment"; Author of " Chart of Typical Forms of Constitu- tional Irregularities of the Teeth"; Honorary President of the Dental Sec- tion of the Tenth International Medical Congress, Berlin, 1890; Member of the American Medical Association; Member of the Chicago Medical Society; Fellow of the Chicago Academy of Medicine; Member of the American Dental Association; Member of the Chicago Dental Club: Honorary Member of the Odontologischen Gesellschaft, Berlin, Ger- many; Membre Honoraire de 1' Association Gen- erale des Dentistes de France, etc., etc.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
You retards don't even know what brachycephalism or dolichocephalism is. LMAO. You probably just think if you use a big word it makes you look smart. Lioness is so retarded she thought brachycephalism is linked to the jaw shape...
YOU of all people can't be talking for we know a significantly more about bio-anthropology than YOUR dumbass! You have the nerve to laugh at us when YOU have been debunked... every time you post! Didn't you say "negroids" suddenly came into existence around 2,000 B.C. If so, they suddenly happened to appear in Egypt right? LOL Even though prehistoric skeletons since the time of Petrie were described as "negro".
Nazlet Khater man was the earliest modern human skeleton found near Luxor, in 1980. The remains was dated from between 35,000 and 30,000 years ago. The report regarding the racial affinity of this skeleton concludes: "Strong alveolar prognathism combined with fossa praenasalis in an African skull is suggestive of Negroid morphology [form & structure] Thoma A., Morphology and affinities of the Nazlet Khater man, Journal of Human Evolution, vol 13, 1984
Why did Eugene Strouhal write a paper entitled, 'Evidence of the Early Penetration of Negroes into Prehistoric Egypt' if "Negroids" didn't exist until the 2nd millennium B.C.? LOLPosts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: Zarahan - the dolichocephalic Mediterraneans are dubbed "brown race" by Elliot Smith which of course refers only to the East African black populations and the peoples of the Horn in particular. Thus yes the dolichocephalic black people of Mesopotamia like Arabia were unquestionably African affiliated people. This is the group that early anthropologists chose to misnomer "Mediterranean race" or "Eurafrican" not only in Mesopotamia but in Arabia, Egypt and North Africa. It was very rarely used for the brachycephalic whites or Nordics who had absorbed pre-Neolithic dolichocephalic peoples. Dolichocephaly as Coon stated is "no where found on a regional basis" in Europe regardless of what Anglophile and his likes would wish.
My question is not if black people were the dominant group in early Mesopoatamia/Arabia etc. Itt is when did this non-black group that is shown so often in history books in sculptures become a dominant presence in Mesopotamia.
It is only in the late Bronze Age when they become half the population of Anatolia. But the question is when do they move into Mesopotamia. The posts you posted suggest that the Bronze Age in some places may have started a lot later than was originally thought or in fact in some places this group may not have become very numerous until the Scythian period.
This may better explain why the populations in northern Arabia were still described as blacks even in historical times.
It would of course change everything.
However, the question I have is whether these black people were Africans or of recent African descent. Dana, let's not forget that the term of 'brown' or 'Mediterranean' race was also applied to dolichocephalic black peoples of Asia as well including indigenous groups in India who also bear slight resemblance to Africans, especially northeast Africans. In fact because of this resemblance Diop and several other scholars have even included 'Dravidian' Indians as a variant of "negro race".
^ 'Eurafricans' of Asia.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: This is the perfect representation of a brachycranic white man, and therefore like the painting of Tarik bin Ziyad the nafusa Moor very possibly not a likeness of a real Sumerian.
What a clown.
His skull is clearly dolichocephalic.
You retards don't even know what brachycephalism or dolichocephalism is. LMAO. You probably just think if you use a big word it makes you look smart. Lioness is so retarded she thought brachycephalism is linked to the jaw shape...
^^^^^ "The Maximum brachycephalic jaw is 2.50 inches"
ETIOLOGY OF OSSEOUS DEFORMITIES OF THE HEAD, FACE, JAWS AND TEETH
TALBOT
EUGENE S. TALBOT, M.D,, D.U.S.
Professor of Dental Surgery, Woman's Medical College; Lecturer on Dental Surgery and Pathology, Rush Medical College, Chicago; Author of "The Irregularities of the Teeth and their Treatment"; Author of " Chart of Typical Forms of Constitu- tional Irregularities of the Teeth"; Honorary President of the Dental Sec- tion of the Tenth International Medical Congress, Berlin, 1890; Member of the American Medical Association; Member of the Chicago Medical Society; Fellow of the Chicago Academy of Medicine; Member of the American Dental Association; Member of the Chicago Dental Club: Honorary Member of the Odontologischen Gesellschaft, Berlin, Ger- many; Membre Honoraire de 1' Association Gen- erale des Dentistes de France, etc., etc.
Brachycephalism has nothing to do with jaw shape.
All you've done in a desperate attempt to deny you have made a mistake is gone on google books and searched ''brachycephalic jaw''.
Nonsurprisingly, nothing comes up apart from a very obscure 1894 source which is clearly either a misprint or an error.
You are a terrible troll.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: However, the question I have is whether these black people were Africans or of recent African descent. Dana, let's not forget that the term of 'brown' or 'Mediterranean' race was also applied to dolichocephalic black peoples of Asia as well including indigenous groups in India who also bear slight resemblance to Africans, especially northeast Africans. In fact because of this resemblance Diop and several other scholars have even included 'Dravidian' Indians as a variant of "negro race".
^ 'Eurafricans' of Asia. [/QB]
None of those are pure Dravidians, they are Veddid-Caucasoid hybrids.
''All the four major morphological types—Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Australoid and Negrito are present in the Indian population (Malhotra 1978). The Caucasoid and Mongoloid populations are mainly concentrated in the north and northeastern parts of the country. The Australoids are mostly confined to the central, western and southern India, while the Negritos are restricted only to the Andaman Islands (CavalliSforza et al. 1994).'' - Indian Genome Variation Consortium (2005). A Project Overview. Human Genetics 118 (1): 1–11.
Most Indians are a Caucasoid-Australoid (Veddid) mix, with minor Mongoloid and Negrito admixture is isolated pockets.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ And according to you even some Rwandans are cacasoid-mixed also due to certain features. My reply was NOT directed to your dumbass who clings to debunked racial classifications but to Dana! I suggest you stick to politics as that seems to be your strong point NOT anthropology, for the former is b.s. that doesn't take much brains while the latter is a science that requires thinking. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Originally posted by Anglo-Buffoon: What my post ACTUALLY said regarding Negroids in Egypt - quote:Negroids only appeared in Egypt as late as c. 2000 BC (Junker, ''The First Appearance of Negroes in History'', Journ. Egypt. Arch. 1921, pp. 121-132).
And aint it just a tad coincidence that the ''two brothers'' date to c. 1900 BC...
You won't find Negroids or Negroid admixture in Egypt prior to 2000 BC. Read Junkers article.
^^Dumbass, the Badarians were in place a least a millennia before 2000 BC. Cranial studies show that they cluster with your "negroids". Likewise, limb studies on several samples before 2000 BC show the Egyptians clustering with "negroids" both in the north and the south. Cultural data from agricultural implements to weapons, tools and pottery also show links with "negroids" prior to 2000 BC. So how could there be "no negroids" or "negroid admixture" before 2000 BC? You really believe this crap? If so heaven help your "biodiversity" crowd. If not, you are doing an interesting trolling job- going back to Junker 1921, and others circa the 1800s.. Either way, the facts about the peopling and development of the Nile Valley by indigenous tropical Africans get established over and over again, and actually help defeat bogus Wikipedia distortions.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Let's not forget the earliest known modern human in Egypt.
Nazlet Khater man was the earliest modern human skeleton found near Luxor, in 1980. The remains was dated from between 35,000 and 30,000 years ago. The report regarding the racial affinity of this skeleton concludes: "Strong alveolar prognathism combined with fossa praenasalis in an African skull is suggestive of Negroid morphology [form & structure]. The radio-humeral index of Nazlet Khater is practically the same as the mean of Taforalt (76.6). According to Ferembach (1965) this value is near to the Negroid average." The burial was of a young man of 17-20 years old, whose skeleton lay in a 160cm- long narrow ditch aligned from east to west. A flint tool, which was laid carefully on the bottom of the grave, dates the burial as contemporaneous with a nearby flint quarry. Thoma A., Morphology and affinities of the Nazlet Khater man, Journal of Human Evolution, vol 13, 1984.
But to get back to the topic, Zarahan what do you think of the Sumerian 'Eurafrican' or 'Brown Mediterranean' types having to do with Indians.
Sumerians Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:My reply was NOT directed to your dumbass who clings to debunked racial classifications
Here is what the Indian Genome Variation Consortium says on the matter -
''All the four major morphological types—Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Australoid and Negrito are present in the Indian population (Malhotra 1978). The Caucasoid and Mongoloid populations are mainly concentrated in the north and northeastern parts of the country. The Australoids are mostly confined to the central, western and southern India, while the Negritos are restricted only to the Andaman Islands (CavalliSforza et al. 1994).''
None of this is 'debunked', 'obsolete' etc. The Indian Genome Variation Consortium as of 2012 (today) recognises the Caucasoid genetic and morphological admixture in India.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Cranial studies show that they cluster with your "negroids".
Through limited sampling.
Coon (1967, p. 94) has pointed out that most craniometric analyses of predynastic skulls never include Capoid (Bushmen) samples.
Negroids only arrived on the scene c. 2000 BC.
Those ''broad'', wrongly labeled ''negroid'' traits of predynastic crania, are in fact Capoid.
Coon, and others like Biasutti which you claim are outdated have now been proven correct by modern studies on Nazlet Khater Man. Contrary to Afrocentric claims that Nazlet Khater Man is Negroid, the mandible is Capoid and non-Negroid (Vermeersch, 2002, p. 326).
As my essay showed before...
quote:That the non-Caucasoid pre-dynastic egyptians were Capoid (Bushman) and not Negroid is further supported by archaeological findings such as steatopygous Badarian figurines (Petrie, 1901, pp. 248-249; Perry, 1935; Massoulard 1949, p. 163; Alimen 1957, p. 119). An example is of a steatopygous woman figurine, made of ivory (tomb 5107) who also has a wide Bushmanoid nose. Capoids have steatopygia, a curvature of the lower spine, which leads to a prominant projection of fat in the buttocks: ''Steatopygia is recorded as the shortest distance between the deepest point in the hollow of the back and a plane, placed at right angles to the median sagittal, just touching the most posterior point of the buttocks'' (Baker, 1974, pp. 317-322). Negroids do not have steatopygia, and within Africa only Capoids (Khoisan) and Pygmies do. Heavily admixed Negroids with Capoid genes however have inherited this feature (Coon, 1962; Gayre, 1966, p. 63). This admixture however took place during the Bantu Expansion, many thousands of years after the pre-dynastic period. It is thus clear native North Africans were ancestral to the Bushmanoid race who had lived there from at least the early Upper Palaeolithic (Coon, 1965, p. 62; Jenkins, 1972, pp. 25-26).
posted
Btw, the Capoid-Egyptian link goes a long way to explain why some egyptians were painted sallow or yellow skinned, a tint only observable today in the Khoisan (Capoid) population. Neither Negroids or Caucasoids are yellow.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
Variation in ancient Egyptian stature and body proportions
Sonia R. Zakrzewski*
American Journal of Physical Anthropology Volume 121, Issue 3, pages 219–229, July 2003
quote: Stature and the pattern of body proportions were investigated in a series of six time-successive Egyptian populations in order to investigate the biological effects on human growth of the development and intensification of agriculture, and the formation of state-level social organization. Univariate analyses of variance were performed to assess differences between the sexes and among various time periods. Significant differences were found both in stature and in raw long bone length measurements between the early semipastoral population and the later intensive agricultural population. The size differences were greater in males than in females. This disparity is suggested to be due to greater male response to poor nutrition in the earlier populations, and with the increasing development of social hierarchy, males were being provisioned preferentially over females. Little change in body shape was found through time, suggesting that all body segments were varying in size in response to environmental and social conditions. The change found in body plan is suggested to be the result of the later groups having a more tropical (Nilotic) form than the preceding populations. Am J Phys Anthropol, 2003.
Population continuity or population change: Formation of the ancient Egyptian state
Sonia R. Zakrzewski*
American Journal of Physical Anthropology Volume 132, Issue 4, pages 501–509, April 2007
quote: The origins of the ancient Egyptian state and its formation have received much attention through analysis of mortuary contexts, skeletal material, and trade. Genetic diversity was analyzed by studying craniometric variation within a series of six time-successive Egyptian populations in order to investigate the evidence for migration over the period of the development of social hierarchy and the Egyptian state. Craniometric variation, based upon 16 measurements, was assessed through principal components analysis, discriminant function analysis, and Mahalanobis D2 matrix computation. Spatial and temporal relationships were assessed by Mantel and Partial Mantel tests. The results indicate overall population continuity over the Predynastic and early Dynastic, and high levels of genetic heterogeneity, thereby suggesting that state formation occurred as a mainly indigenous process. Nevertheless, significant differences were found in morphology between both geographically-pooled and cemetery-specific temporal groups, indicating that some migration occurred along the Egyptian Nile Valley over the periods studied. Am J Phys Anthropol, 2007.
An Examination of Nubian and Egyptian biological distances: Support for biological diffusion or in situ development?
Homo. 2009;60(5):389-404. Epub 2009 Sep 19.
Godde K. et al.
quote: "The clustering of the Nubian and Egyptian samples together supports this paper's hypothesis and demonstrates that there may be a close relationship between the two populations. This relationship is consistent with Berry and Berry (1972), among others, who noted a similarity between Nubians and Egyptians. If Nubians and Egyptians were not biologically similar, one would expect the scores to separately cluster by population (e.g. Nubians compared to Nubians would have small biological distances, and Nubians compared to Egyptians would have high biological distances). However, this was not the case in the current analysis and the Results suggest homogeneity between the two populations."
The nubian mesolithic: A consideration of the Wadi Halfa remains
Meredith F. Small* et al.
quote: Morphological variation of the skeletal remains of ancient Nubia has been traditionally explained as a product of multiple migrations into the Nile Valley. In contrast, various researchers have noted a continuity in craniofacial variation from Mesolithic through Neolithic times. This apparent continuity could be explained by in situ cultural evolution producing shifts in selective pressures which may act on teeth, the facial complex, and the cranial vault.
A series of 13 Mesolithic skulls from Wadi Halfa, Sudan, are compared to Nubian Neolithic remains by means of extended canonical analysis. Results support recent research which suggests consistent trends of facial reduction and cranial vault expansion from Mesolithic through Neolithic times.
"....inhabitants of East Africa right on the equator have appreciably longer, narrower, and higher noses than people in the Congo at the same latitude. A former generation of anthropologists used to explain this paradox by invoking an invasion by an itinerant "white" population from the Mediterranean area, although this solution raised more problems than it solved since the East Africans in question include some of the blackest people in the world with characteristically wooly hair and a body build unique among the world's populations for its extreme linearity and height.... The relatively long noses of East Africa become explicable then when one realizes that much of the area is extremely dry for parts of the year." (C. Loring Brace, "Nonracial Approach Towards Human Diversity," cited in The Concept of Race, Edited by Ashley Montagu, The Free Press, 1980, pp. 135-136, 138)
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: ^^There yu go, it is within the realm of that diversity.
Anthropologists classify dolichocephalic crania not from a face looks from the outside to an observer. The questino is not if black types are diverse. They were but the predominant head form of the blacks in ancient Egypt as in east Africa Sahara Sahel etc is dolichocephalic. This of course changes in other parts of Africa.
Remember his citation?
" ...brown human variety, neither white nor Negroid, but pure in its elements, that is to say not a product of the mixture of Whites with Negroes or Negroid peoples'' (Sergi, 1901, p. 250)."
quote: Northern Egypt near the Mediterranean shows the same pattern- limb length data puts its peoples closer to tropically adapted Africans that cold climate Europeans
"...sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine.
The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans."
Barry Kemp, "Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation. (2005) Routledge. p. 52-60
quote:"When the Elephantine results were added to a broader pooling of the physical characteristics drawn from a wide geographic region which includes Africa, the Mediterranean and the Near East quite strong affinities emerge between Elephantine and populations from Nubia, supporting a strong south-north cline."
Barry Kemp. (2006) Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization. p. 54
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Biologically race doesn't exist. People are biological entities.
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_fart: Btw, the Capoid-Egyptian link goes a long way to explain why some egyptians were painted sallow or yellow skinned, a tint only observable today in the Khoisan (Capoid) population. Neither Negroids or Caucasoids are yellow.
Geneticist Sarah Tishkoff: Non-Africans are recently descendant from a small population of East Africans.
Throughout much of modern human history, sub-Saharan Africa has maintained a large effective population size.
Physiologically Africans have always been diverse as well.
There is no such thing as a single African phenotype, or 'pure' race, and there never has been.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
The "African climate" incorporates diverse temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, rainfall, atmospheric particle count and other meteorological elements in a wide range of environments -- from deserts, to high altitude snowy zones, to jungle, to savannah, to mixed woodlands, to higher altitude cloud forest, and all that is WITHIN the TROPICAL zone of Africa.
And just as tropical African environments are diverse, so are tropical African peoples as credible scientists note time and time again. QUOTES:
Most phenotypic variation – Quote: "Both methods for estimating regional diversity show sub-Saharan Africa to have the highest levels of phenotypic variation, consistent with many genetic studies." --- Relethford, John 2001. Global Analysis of Regional Differences.. Human Biology - V73, n5, pp. 629-636)
Most genetic diversity – Quote: "Africa contains tremendous cultural, linguistic and genetic diversity.. Studies using mitochondrial (mt)DNA and nuclear DNA markers consistently indicate that Africa is the most genetically diverse region of the world." ---Tishkoff & Williams. 2002. Genetic analysis of African populations.. NatuRevGen (8)
Most skin color diversity – Quote: "Regional differences in local within-population [skin color] diversity were examined using two measures of variability: the sample variance and the sample coefficient of variation. For both measures, the average level of within-population diversity is higher in sub-Saharan Africa than in other geographic regions. This difference persists even after adjusting for a correlation between within-population diversity and distance from the equator. Though affected by natural selection, skin color variation shows the same pattern of higher African diversity as found with other traits." -- Relethford JH.(2000). Human skin color diversity is highest in sub-Saharan African populations. Hum Biol. 72(5):773-80.)
Most ancestral dental diversity – Quote: “.. research by the first author revealed that, relative to other modern peoples, sub-Saharan Africans exhibit the highest frequencies of ancestral (or plesiomorphic) dental traits.." --Irish JD, Guatelli-Steinberg D.(2003) Ancient teeth.. Hum Evol. 45(2):113-44
Highest level of albinism in the world and built-in native diversity gives tropical Africans variation in hair and eye color. Quote- "Blondism, especially in young children, is common in many dark haired populations (e.g. Australian, Melanesian), and is still found in some Nubian villages.“ (-Hardy D. 1978. Analysis of Hair..AJPA 49) Though Europe posts more people by volume, Africa’s high albinism means differing hair and eye colors are present.
Quote: "In general, the prevalence of albinism in Africa is much higher, in the range of 1 in 1 100 to 1 in 3900.“ (-Roach and Miller. 2004. Neurocutaneous disorders.)
North African Berber language speakers, a mixed genetic pool, also show variation (Hiernaux 1975).
Hair also varies in Africa – from the Horn, to the Atlantic to the Cape. Quote: “Extremely "wooly" hair is not the only kind native to tropical Africa.." (S. Keita 1993. "Studies and Comments)
Dental diversity not so evident here.... lol
More tropically proportioned diversity ...... note brachial and cural indexes
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Dummy, Africa has a much broader range of latitude and thus climes than Europe. You are correct about Asia (of which Europe is actually a subcontinent of) however, the since Africa is the source of humankind, African populations still possess the greatest genetic diversity. As Tishkoff has stated Eurasians are merely a subset of East Africans who are in turn a subset of Africans in general!
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_PrimeIdiot: Btw, the Capoid-Egyptian link goes a long way to explain why some egyptians were painted sallow or yellow skinned, a tint only observable today in the Khoisan (Capoid) population. Neither Negroids or Caucasoids are yellow.
Dummy, the yellow skin convention was applied to women only. And even then, this convention was not always used as women are shown with skin equally and in rare cases darker than their male counterparts. And of course by 'dark' I mean BLACK as milk chocolate to dark chocolate complexions was the hue typically applied.
quote:haha. Just noticed Keita's study clusters Badarians closest to the Bushmen.
Yet the afronuts then claim they are ''black''. lol.
And Keita does not consider Bushmen to be black?? I doubt that! The same way sane European men would consider Bushmen to be black as well due to the obvious.
San (Bushmen)
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: However, the question I have is whether these black people were Africans or of recent African descent. Dana, let's not forget that the term of 'brown' or 'Mediterranean' race was also applied to dolichocephalic black peoples of Asia as well including indigenous groups in India who also bear slight resemblance to Africans, especially northeast Africans. In fact because of this resemblance Diop and several other scholars have even included 'Dravidian' Indians as a variant of "negro race".
^ 'Eurafricans' of Asia.
None of those are pure Dravidians, they are Veddid-Caucasoid hybrids.
''All the four major morphological types—Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Australoid and Negrito are present in the Indian population (Malhotra 1978). The Caucasoid and Mongoloid populations are mainly concentrated in the north and northeastern parts of the country. The Australoids are mostly confined to the central, western and southern India, while the Negritos are restricted only to the Andaman Islands (CavalliSforza et al. 1994).'' - Indian Genome Variation Consortium (2005). A Project Overview. Human Genetics 118 (1): 1–11.
Most Indians are a Caucasoid-Australoid (Veddid) mix, with minor Mongoloid and Negrito admixture is isolated pockets. [/QB]
This is a bunch of bull. i am certain the most of the kinky haired afro-wearing dravidians of today are not related to Negritos. The Negrito culture is also not AFrican as the Dravidian culture has too many dozens if not hundreds of similarities to that of Africans.
Tamil girl
Pure Tamils, Gonds and Telegus are not Negritos
This Teda girl is no more "Negrito" than the Tamil girl above
Wow! This guy looks like so many Somali I have seen in New York City.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist: Btw, the Capoid-Egyptian link goes a long way to explain why some egyptians were painted sallow or yellow skinned, a tint only observable today in the Khoisan (Capoid) population. Neither Negroids or Caucasoids are yellow.
San people not black - Anglophile?lol! BTW - Afro-Asiatics of Egypt and Ethiopia were not called Afro-San speakers by Ehret for nothing. It was considered there was a San element in the people thus you have a point. On the hand they are fundamentally sub-Saharan African in origin i.e. unrelated to you any more than any other Negroid. Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: dana you have to understand any morphological trait other than short limb ratios is within the realm of African diversity
brachycephalic, boad head
essentially everybody's an African except for their arms and legs
This is a good example of what happened when Ethiopians like the Tigrai and Amhara mixed with groups of non-Africans like the Armenians, Greeks and Turks. This guy if he is as brachycranic as he looks wouldn't fit in particularly well with the so-called hamitic i.e. gracile African negroid type predominant in ancient Egypt. Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: [ ---------------------------------------------------------
And just as tropical African environments are diverse, so are tropical African peoples as credible scientists note time and time again. QUOTES:
Most phenotypic variation – Quote: "Both methods for estimating regional diversity show sub-Saharan Africa to have the highest levels of phenotypic variation, consistent with many genetic studies." --- Relethford, John 2001. Global Analysis of Regional Differences.. Human Biology - V73, n5, pp. 629-636)
Most genetic diversity – Quote: "Africa contains tremendous cultural, linguistic and genetic diversity.. Studies using mitochondrial (mt)DNA and nuclear DNA markers consistently indicate that Africa is the most genetically diverse region of the world." ---Tishkoff & Williams. 2002. Genetic analysis of African populations.. NatuRevGen (8)
Most skin color diversity – Quote: "Regional differences in local within-population [skin color] diversity were examined using two measures of variability: the sample variance and the sample coefficient of variation. For both measures, the average level of within-population diversity is higher in sub-Saharan Africa than in other geographic regions. This difference persists even after adjusting for a correlation between within-population diversity and distance from the equator. Though affected by natural selection, skin color variation shows the same pattern of higher African diversity as found with other traits." -- Relethford JH.(2000). Human skin color diversity is highest in sub-Saharan African populations. Hum Biol. 72(5):773-80.)
Most ancestral dental diversity – Quote: “.. research by the first author revealed that, relative to other modern peoples, sub-Saharan Africans exhibit the highest frequencies of ancestral (or plesiomorphic) dental traits.." --Irish JD, Guatelli-Steinberg D.(2003) Ancient teeth.. Hum Evol. 45(2):113-44
Highest level of albinism in the world and built-in native diversity gives tropical Africans variation in hair and eye color. Quote- "Blondism, especially in young children, is common in many dark haired populations (e.g. Australian, Melanesian), and is still found in some Nubian villages.“ (-Hardy D. 1978. Analysis of Hair..AJPA 49) Though Europe posts more people by volume, Africa’s high albinism means differing hair and eye colors are present.
Quote: "In general, the prevalence of albinism in Africa is much higher, in the range of 1 in 1 100 to 1 in 3900.“ (-Roach and Miller. 2004. Neurocutaneous disorders.)
North African Berber language speakers, a mixed genetic pool, also show variation (Hiernaux 1975).
Hair also varies in Africa – from the Horn, to the Atlantic to the Cape. Quote: “Extremely "wooly" hair is not the only kind native to tropical Africa.." (S. Keita 1993. "Studies and Comments)
Dental diversity not so evident here.... lol
More tropically proportioned diversity ...... note brachial and cural indexes [/qb]
one would almost think you've taken some of these photos yourself, Zarahan. Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Let's not forget the earliest known modern human in Egypt.
Nazlet Khater man was the earliest modern human skeleton found near Luxor, in 1980. The remains was dated from between 35,000 and 30,000 years ago. The report regarding the racial affinity of this skeleton concludes: "Strong alveolar prognathism combined with fossa praenasalis in an African skull is suggestive of Negroid morphology [form & structure]. The radio-humeral index of Nazlet Khater is practically the same as the mean of Taforalt (76.6). According to Ferembach (1965) this value is near to the Negroid average." The burial was of a young man of 17-20 years old, whose skeleton lay in a 160cm- long narrow ditch aligned from east to west. A flint tool, which was laid carefully on the bottom of the grave, dates the burial as contemporaneous with a nearby flint quarry. Thoma A., Morphology and affinities of the Nazlet Khater man, Journal of Human Evolution, vol 13, 1984.
But to get back to the topic, Zarahan what do you think of the Sumerian 'Eurafrican' or 'Brown Mediterranean' types having to do with Indians.
Sumerians
Djehuti where did you get this photo. I was wondering if they were truly Sumerians or Amorites (Akkadians). It reminds me a little of the Amorite painting from Mari.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: This is the perfect representation of a brachycranic white man, and therefore like the painting of Tarik bin Ziyad the nafusa Moor very possibly not a likeness of a real Sumerian.
What a clown.
His skull is clearly dolichocephalic.
You retards don't even know what brachycephalism or dolichocephalism is. LMAO. You probably just think if you use a big word it makes you look smart. Lioness is so retarded she thought brachycephalism is linked to the jaw shape...
Neanderdummy - you don't tell brachycephalic from looking at a sculpture. But you should know that these are the sculptures their talking about when they are mentioning the brachycranic Armenoid type.
You are clown and the Nut, Anglophile. Middle Eastern people today are the most brachycranic people ON EARTH along with Euromediterraneans TODAY. just like their hairsute, non-African non-Afro-Asiatic WHITE ancestors. Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: dana you have to understand any morphological trait other than short limb ratios is within the realm of African diversity
brachycephalic, boad head
essentially everybody's an African except for their arms and legs
This is a good example of what happened when Ethiopians like the Tigrai and Amhara mixed with groups of non-Africans like the Armenians, Greeks and Turks. This guy if he is as brachycranic as he looks wouldn't fit in particularly well with the so-called hamitic i.e. gracile African negroid type predominant in ancient Egypt.
quote: Originally posted by Mike111
Userkaf, Old Kingdom, Founder of the Fifth Dynasty
^^^^ early king, broader head, more Bantu in look
__________________________ Thutmose III, broader head, more Bantu in look
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:You are clown and the Nut, Anglophile. Middle Eastern people today are the most brachycranic people ON EARTH along with Euromediterraneans TODAY. just like their hairsute, non-African non-Afro-Asiatic WHITE ancestors
Well done for debunking yourself.
The EARLIEST depiction of Sumerians we have shows them as having Caucasoid flowing hair.
Warka Vase c. 3,200 BC -
No nappy haired Negroids... note the long wavy-straight flowing hair reaching the Sumerians buttocks.
Negroid hair in contrast looks like this...
GAME OVER . lol.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:You are clown and the Nut, Anglophile. Middle Eastern people today are the most brachycranic people ON EARTH along with Euromediterraneans TODAY. just like their hairsute, non-African non-Afro-Asiatic WHITE ancestors
Well done for debunking yourself.
Negroid hair in contrast looks like this...
GAME OVER . lol.
This study shows that northern Iraq was only originally occupied in the time period of the Sumerians by predominantly dolichocephalic broad nosed people - of the African sort! Not the very prominent nosed stocky hairsute brachycephals that are common there today and in the pictorial representations of the early Sumerian-Akkadian.
{Geometric morphometric study of temporal variations in human crania excavated from the Himrin Basin and neighboring areas, northern Iraq by Naomichi Ogihara, Haruyuki Makishima, Hidemi Ishida, Anthropological Science (2009) Volume: 117, Issue: 1, Pages: 9-17
There is something WRONG in the discrepancy!
The point of this post was actually meant to determine what scholars think and are really saying about the age of these brachycranic beak- nosed white types so often shown in books. The question is do they really date back to as early as the textbooks have been saying. Does the archeological evidence support this. Since for the most part they are a rather small minority in early Mesopotamia, and don't appear to have become numerous until the late Bronze Age in Turkey and the Mediterranean and possibly much later in other places i.e. Mesopotamia.
Obviously that has yet to be determined. Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Let's not forget the earliest known modern human in Egypt.
Nazlet Khater man was the earliest modern human skeleton found near Luxor, in 1980. The remains was dated from between 35,000 and 30,000 years ago. The report regarding the racial affinity of this skeleton concludes: "Strong alveolar prognathism combined with fossa praenasalis in an African skull is suggestive of Negroid morphology [form & structure]. The radio-humeral index of Nazlet Khater is practically the same as the mean of Taforalt (76.6). According to Ferembach (1965) this value is near to the Negroid average." The burial was of a young man of 17-20 years old, whose skeleton lay in a 160cm- long narrow ditch aligned from east to west. A flint tool, which was laid carefully on the bottom of the grave, dates the burial as contemporaneous with a nearby flint quarry. Thoma A., Morphology and affinities of the Nazlet Khater man, Journal of Human Evolution, vol 13, 1984.
But to get back to the topic, Zarahan what do you think of the Sumerian 'Eurafrican' or 'Brown Mediterranean' types having to do with Indians.
Sumerians
I was thinking of the same.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic