It turns out the Euronuts are not as Neanderdumb as one might have been misled to think. They can actually be excused for their constant harping on themes thought to be mostly long obsolete in the West.
Turns out there is a big gap in the modern academy between those who are true adherents to population biology's tenant of non-racial thinking and those who still apparently think such a thing as a true black or "Negroid" exists, - much like their early counterparts Coon, Dart, Camps, Strouhal and the anthropologists of National Geographic, etcetera. Euronuts are deeply reliant on these new or modern versions of the "racial scientologists" just mentioned.
Among these new raciologists are the much quoted and apparently wrongly cited (by Afrocentrists)-Alain Froment - who still believes in such a thing as a brown intermediate race.
He and a few others within the French and Spanish academies in fact still believe in the black Caucasoid view of Seligman and "brown" African theory of Elliot Smith which is contingent on the true Negro or "true black" theory. (Although most of the rest of the scientific world have done away with the concept and stereotype of the true black or Negroid.)
That is why the Euronut and hamitic wannabe administrator of the board hamiticunion has put down Jean Hiernaux who wisely noted about the east Africans -
"There is every reason to believe that they are ancestral to the living 'Elongated East Africans'. Their features can be found in several living populations, who are very dark skinned and DIFFER GREATLY FROM EUROPEANS IN A NUMBER OF BODY PROPORTIONS. Neither of these populations, fossil and modern, should be considered to be closely related to Caucasoids of Europe and western Asia.." Hiernaux, J. 1975 The Peoples of Africa, p. 62 .
The hamiticunion board administrator so intent on making the ancient hamites i.e. original Berbers, Egyptians etc not only into non-Negroids, but into non-blacks (as if that were possible ) writes wistfully on the forum at the above url:
"Froment is a world-renowned authority on African anthropology, having been a former colleague of Jean Hiernaux (some of whose theories he also debunked in later papers) and one of the main consultants on Sarah Tishkoff's influential 2009 genetic study on African populations."
So now we know where and why Tishkoff went awry. Needless to say, it shows that there has been a school of thought within anthropology "scholarship" intent on keeping alive "the "Mediterranean man" of Coon and Camps' race mythology. It also explains why the average Euronut without blinking can in fact write to you about the genetics of Central East Africa and even 50,000 year old Aterians in Niger clearly thinking he/she is talking about some near black "Caucasian" of some sort ancestral to himself, not you supposed "Negroids".
Of course then there are the Spanish authors of confusion with their wacky reintroduction of the notion of the Eurasian Caucasian origin of ancient Maghrebis and even east Africans of 30 to 40,000 years ago.
Here is Maca-Meyer's "scientific" findings about these stealthy Caucasians - "Conclusions: The first detectable expansion occurred around 59,000–69,000 years ago from Africa, independently colonizing western Asia and India and, following this southern route, swiftly reaching east Asia. Within Africa, this expansion did not replace but mixed with older lineages detectable today only in Africa. Around 39,000–52,000 years ago, the western Asian branch spread radially, bringing Caucasians to North Africa and Europe, also reaching India, and expanding to north and east Asia. More recent migrations have entangled but not completely erased these primitive footprints of modern human expansions." "Major genomic mitochondrial lineages delineate early human expansions" Department of Genetics, Faculty of Biology, University of La Laguna, Tenerife, 38271, Spain BMC 2001.
Of course this is Maca-Meyer's code talk for "some Caucasians came back from Asia 40,000 years ago giving birth to current coastal North Africans, while those who turned black further southeast have obviously mixed with the true teeming black race who never left the sub-Saharan region." (Yes, it is Hamitic theory gone wild.)
The truth of the matter is part of the French Academy has been influenced by earlier anthropologists like Camps who wrote much on the Berbers proclaiming them early "white Mediterraneans".
Below Froment quotes another Frenchman's study G. Billy, writing "it is strange to note that the modern Hamite Ethiopian series (Tigre) and even Somali-Galla remain virtually exempt of any black contribution. The Ethiopian plateaus must therefore have remained far from the currents of black immigration which took the natural route of the Nile, whether during the dynastic period or later and more intensively, from the beginning of our era on[...]
The entire Upper Egypt series from the fourth millennium up to the Roman period may be grouped inside a relatively narrow band located in the interval for the C2H distance between 0.17 and 0.27 for the men and 0.15-0.35 for the women. The Nubians of the dynastic age, except for those of the group C, are found precisely in these zones to which a common morphological type corresponds. Although related to the above Middle Egypt type, they differ from it by a narrow head, a lower face and a broader nose. During the dynastic era, this last variety covered a wide central zone of the Nile valley, stretching well beyond towards East Africa, as shown by the similarity which persists with the present-day Ethiopian populations (Tigre) or even Somali. By virtue both of its diffusion and its perenniality, they deserve to be assimilated to the basic population type of the Egypto-Nubian complex."
One might of course wonder why the Somali and Tigre are not designated black considering the jet and blue blackness of many of them as well as their rather African hair. But then it becomes clear with the mentioning of a broad nose which is the giveaway.
In emailing the British Africanist and anthropologist Wyatt McGaffey recently he wrote back something implying that most scholars did not believe in the hamitic theory anymore or that it was not taken seriously, but clearly this is not the case.
In the attack on Afrocentrism so condescendingly voiced by the non-anthropologist Stephen Howe about African American historians he expressed his view that of a "moribund state" of the older "Eurocenttric" "Mediterranean race" theory. Afrocentrism: Mythical Pasts and Imagined Homes p. 116
But in fact nothing is further from the truth, not only is the older theory not dead but it has devolved into something even more manipulative and diabolical, as is shown bn the way some are now combining it with genetics to maintain the concept of the Euroconceptualized black of Tarzan fame i.e. true "Negroid".
Looks like Diop's argument is still in vogue. Euro supremacist clap trap genetic-style has reloaded the hamitic theory of their eugenicist forefathers.
Scary stuff.
Somali - (be aware no blacks are pictured here)
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: Jean Hiernaux who wisely noted about the east Africans -
"There is every reason to believe that they are ancestral to the living 'Elongated East Africans'. Their features can be found in several living populations, who are very dark skinned and DIFFER GREATLY FROM EUROPEANS IN A NUMBER OF BODY PROPORTIONS. Neither of these populations, fossil and modern, should be considered to be closely related to Caucasoids of Europe and western Asia.." Hiernaux, J. 1975 The Peoples of Africa, p. 62 .
dana your thread doesn't make sense. You are saying the term "Negroid" is invalid yet you endorse Hiernaux who both uses the term "Caucasoids" and says that East Africans can be distinguished by body proportions
lioness productions 2012
Posted by Vansertimavindicated (Member # 20281) on :
The train wreck continues! LOL
Posted by Vansertimavindicated (Member # 20281) on :
Yo have disappointed so many people, did you know that you filthy pink assed monkey? Hahahaha This place has turned into a joke, and you are such a sociopath that you cannot see it! LOL
I DID THIS TO YOU FAGGOT!!! HAHAHAHA!!!!
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: Jean Hiernaux who wisely noted about the east Africans -
"There is every reason to believe that they are ancestral to the living 'Elongated East Africans'. Their features can be found in several living populations, who are very dark skinned and DIFFER GREATLY FROM EUROPEANS IN A NUMBER OF BODY PROPORTIONS. Neither of these populations, fossil and modern, should be considered to be closely related to Caucasoids of Europe and western Asia.." Hiernaux, J. 1975 The Peoples of Africa, p. 62 .
dana your thread doesn't make sense. You are saying the term "Negroid" is invalid yet you endorse Hiernaux who both uses the term "Caucasoids" and says that East Africans can be distinguished by body proportions
lioness productions 2012
The fact that East African body proportions, skin color any everything on them and in them can be distinguished from Europeans doesn't mean there is a true black. If Europeans are not related to black-skinned east Africans whether they call themselves "Caucasians" or anything else that still doesn't mean there is a true black. Negroids is used in a racial sense by your Euronut kind - Maca-Meyer, Camps,etc. Hiernaux and others with sense speak of population biology that is to say groups of people.
In any case I forgive you Euronuts for your Tarzanish delusions because it is obvious some of your revered scholars still FIRMLY believe in them. Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: Jean Hiernaux who wisely noted about the east Africans -
"There is every reason to believe that they are ancestral to the living 'Elongated East Africans'. Their features can be found in several living populations, who are very dark skinned and DIFFER GREATLY FROM EUROPEANS IN A NUMBER OF BODY PROPORTIONS. Neither of these populations, fossil and modern, should be considered to be closely related to Caucasoids of Europe and western Asia.." Hiernaux, J. 1975 The Peoples of Africa, p. 62 .
dana your thread doesn't make sense. You are saying the term "Negroid" is invalid yet you endorse Hiernaux who both uses the term "Caucasoids" and says that East Africans can be distinguished by body proportions
lioness productions 2012
BTW - I would never say "Negroid" traits don't exist, because obviously they do.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vansertimavindicated: The train wreck continues! LOL
This is perhaps the ONLY intelligent thing you posted thus far.
I totally and absolutely agree!
Dana, this is truly some scary stuff. I mean I and the other veterans in this board especially Explorer, Rasol, and even Ausar have noted that the 'Hamitic Hypothesis' has made a comeback in recent years in the guise of genetics, but I just didn't know how bad it was until the advent of "Hamitic Union"!!
What's even more messed up is that some Africans especially those of 'Horn' extraction seem to be buying and drinking the poison.
I think you're right though, that followers of this revamped Hamitic b.s. could be the reason why this board is being harassed by a new wave of trolls or rather old trolls in new guises. ('White Nubian' anyone?!) They KNOW damn well that Egyptsearch remains a constant and eminent threat to their b.s.!! Posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist (Member # 18853) on :
quote: the concept of the Euroconceptualized black of Tarzan fame i.e. true "Negroid".
If you go to West and Central Africa you find this physiognomy. So the Negroid is rooted in real geographic observation, its not an arbritary classification. The only people who deny it are a handful of self-hating 'Blacks', as they hate their nappy hair and broad traits and so they seek to extend their racial taxa based on a singular trait - dark skin, so they can cluster themselves with other races who look nothing alike them, except being dark...
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: Jean Hiernaux who wisely noted about the east Africans -
"There is every reason to believe that they are ancestral to the living 'Elongated East Africans'. Their features can be found in several living populations, who are very dark skinned and DIFFER GREATLY FROM EUROPEANS IN A NUMBER OF BODY PROPORTIONS. Neither of these populations, fossil and modern, should be considered to be closely related to Caucasoids of Europe and western Asia.." Hiernaux, J. 1975 The Peoples of Africa, p. 62 .
dana your thread doesn't make sense. You are saying the term "Negroid" is invalid yet you endorse Hiernaux who both uses the term "Caucasoids" and says that East Africans can be distinguished by body proportions
lioness productions 2012
The fact that East African body proportions, skin color any everything on them and in them can be distinguished from Europeans doesn't mean there is a true black. If Europeans are not related to black-skinned east Africans whether they call themselves "Caucasians" or anything else that still doesn't mean there is a true black. Negroids is used in a racial sense by your Euronut kind - Maca-Meyer, Camps,etc. Hiernaux and others with sense speak of population biology that is to say groups of people.
In any case I forgive you Euronuts for your Tarzanish delusions because it is obvious some of your revered scholars still FIRMLY believe in them.
If you look at a lot of textbooks they might use the word "Negroid" although some have dropped these terms altogether.
But recent textbooks that might use "Negroid" would probably not use "True Negroid", that is antiquated.
So an attempt might me made to use the word "Negroid" and have it include East African type features as well.
.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
It turns out the Euronuts are not as Neanderdumb as one might have been misled to think. They can actually be excused for their constant harping on themes thought to be mostly long obsolete in the West.
Turns out there is a big gap in the modern academy between those who are true adherents to population biology's tenant of non-racial thinking and those who still apparently think such a thing as a true black or "Negroid" exists, - much like their early counterparts Coon, Dart, Camps, Strouhal and the anthropologists of National Geographic, etcetera. Euronuts are deeply reliant on these new or modern versions of the "racial scientologists" just mentioned.
Among these new raciologists are the much quoted and apparently wrongly cited (by Afrocentrists)-Alain Froment - who still believes in such a thing as a brown intermediate race.
He and a few others within the French and Spanish academies in fact still believe in the black Caucasoid view of Seligman and "brown" African theory of Elliot Smith which is contingent on the true Negro or "true black" theory. (Although most of the rest of the scientific world have done away with the concept and stereotype of the true black or Negroid.)
That is why the Euronut and hamitic wannabe administrator of the board hamiticunion has put down Jean Hiernaux who wisely noted about the east Africans -
"There is every reason to believe that they are ancestral to the living 'Elongated East Africans'. Their features can be found in several living populations, who are very dark skinned and DIFFER GREATLY FROM EUROPEANS IN A NUMBER OF BODY PROPORTIONS. Neither of these populations, fossil and modern, should be considered to be closely related to Caucasoids of Europe and western Asia.." Hiernaux, J. 1975 The Peoples of Africa, p. 62 .
The hamiticunion board administrator so intent on making the ancient hamites i.e. original Berbers, Egyptians etc not only into non-Negroids, but into non-blacks (as if that were possible ) writes wistfully on the forum at the above url:
"Froment is a world-renowned authority on African anthropology, having been a former colleague of Jean Hiernaux (some of whose theories he also debunked in later papers) and one of the main consultants on Sarah Tishkoff's influential 2009 genetic study on African populations."
So now we know where and why Tishkoff went awry. Needless to say, it shows that there has been a school of thought within anthropology "scholarship" intent on keeping alive "the "Mediterranean man" of Coon and Camps' race mythology. It also explains why the average Euronut without blinking can in fact write to you about the genetics of Central East Africa and even 50,000 year old Aterians in Niger clearly thinking he/she is talking about some near black "Caucasian" of some sort ancestral to himself, not you supposed "Negroids".
Of course then there are the Spanish authors of confusion with their wacky reintroduction of the notion of the Eurasian Caucasian origin of ancient Maghrebis and even east Africans of 30 to 40,000 years ago.
Here is Maca-Meyer's "scientific" findings about these stealthy Caucasians - "Conclusions: The first detectable expansion occurred around 59,000–69,000 years ago from Africa, independently colonizing western Asia and India and, following this southern route, swiftly reaching east Asia. Within Africa, this expansion did not replace but mixed with older lineages detectable today only in Africa. Around 39,000–52,000 years ago, the western Asian branch spread radially, bringing Caucasians to North Africa and Europe, also reaching India, and expanding to north and east Asia. More recent migrations have entangled but not completely erased these primitive footprints of modern human expansions." "Major genomic mitochondrial lineages delineate early human expansions" Department of Genetics, Faculty of Biology, University of La Laguna, Tenerife, 38271, Spain BMC 2001.
Of course this is Maca-Meyer's code talk for "some Caucasians came back from Asia 40,000 years ago giving birth to current coastal North Africans, while those who turned black further southeast have obviously mixed with the true teeming black race who never left the sub-Saharan region." (Yes, it is Hamitic theory gone wild.)
The truth of the matter is part of the French Academy has been influenced by earlier anthropologists like Camps who wrote much on the Berbers proclaiming them early "white Mediterraneans".
Below Froment quotes another Frenchman's study G. Billy, writing "it is strange to note that the modern Hamite Ethiopian series (Tigre) and even Somali-Galla remain virtually exempt of any black contribution. The Ethiopian plateaus must therefore have remained far from the currents of black immigration which took the natural route of the Nile, whether during the dynastic period or later and more intensively, from the beginning of our era on[...]
The entire Upper Egypt series from the fourth millennium up to the Roman period may be grouped inside a relatively narrow band located in the interval for the C2H distance between 0.17 and 0.27 for the men and 0.15-0.35 for the women. The Nubians of the dynastic age, except for those of the group C, are found precisely in these zones to which a common morphological type corresponds. Although related to the above Middle Egypt type, they differ from it by a narrow head, a lower face and a broader nose. During the dynastic era, this last variety covered a wide central zone of the Nile valley, stretching well beyond towards East Africa, as shown by the similarity which persists with the present-day Ethiopian populations (Tigre) or even Somali. By virtue both of its diffusion and its perenniality, they deserve to be assimilated to the basic population type of the Egypto-Nubian complex."
One might of course wonder why the Somali and Tigre are not designated black considering the jet and blue blackness of many of them as well as their rather African hair. But then it becomes clear with the mentioning of a broad nose which is the giveaway.
In emailing the British Africanist and anthropologist Wyatt McGaffey recently he wrote back something implying that most scholars did not believe in the hamitic theory anymore or that it was not taken seriously, but clearly this is not the case.
In the attack on Afrocentrism so condescendingly voiced by the non-anthropologist Stephen Howe about African American historians he expressed his view that of a "moribund state" of the older "Eurocenttric" "Mediterranean race" theory. Afrocentrism: Mythical Pasts and Imagined Homes p. 116
But in fact nothing is further from the truth, not only is the older theory not dead but it has devolved into something even more manipulative and diabolical, as is shown bn the way some are now combining it with genetics to maintain the concept of the Euroconceptualized black of Tarzan fame i.e. true "Negroid".
Looks like Diop's argument is still in vogue. Euro supremacist clap trap genetic-style has reloaded the hamitic theory of their eugenicist forefathers.
Scary stuff.
GOod exposure of the dubious "hamitic union" Dana. Their claims easily fall flat on examination in 3 ways.
1) So-called "leading authority" Froment has in no way "debunked" the data of Hiernaux. To the contrary- Hiernaux's balanced model of African diversity, including elongated Africans, has been confirmed multiple times, using both skeletal evidence and DNA, and is so cited by Keita 1991, 1999, 2005 etc. The only "debunking" is of the bogus fantasies of the equally bogus "hamitic" "union".
2. Maca-Meyer's claims are unimpressive as part of any racial "Kakazoid" model of expansion. We all know that there has been ancient gene flow via the crossroads that is the Middle East, but at what point did such gene flow become "Kakazoid", save as yet another self-serving Eurocentric labeling exercise?
In fact, Maca-Meyer undermines assorted "Kakazoid" race models by noting that gene differentiation was ALREADY occurring WITHIN Africa t`ens of thousands of years ago. IN other words, the gene variants that would become distinctive in Asia and the "Middle East" were ALREADY taking place WITHIN Africa BEFORE any SIGNIFICANT EXPANSION OUTWARD. These would grow more distinct due to time and distance from Africa but the founding variants and/or proto-variants were ALREADY in place WITHIN Africa. Hence, African fishermen migrating into the Sinai PEnisula or Arabia circa 60kya did not suddenly become "Middle Eastern" or "Eurasian" nor does a white guy who crosses the Rio Grande into Mexico suddenly become "Hispanic." THis is the cynical labeling game being foisted on the gullible by the European academy to de-africanize tropical African peoples, or minimize their built in indigenous diversity.
3. Claims of "racial backflow" (however disguised with labels like "EUrasian" or "Middle Eastern") fall short, because those "backflowing" ALREADY RESEMBLED TROPICAL AFRICANS as proved by credible studies. It is hilarious to watch the self-serving hypocrisy of Eurocentrics. When dark-skinned, broad-nosed people with tropical limb proportions are found far west of the Sahara they are firmly "true negroes." WHen similar people are found in Arabia, the SInai or Iraq they comnveniently become "Eurasian." THe bogus "hamitic union" is a prime example of this hypocrisy in operation. ------------------------------------------------------------------
In the attack on Afrocentrism so condescendingly voiced by the non-anthropologist Stephen Howe about African American historians he expressed his view that of a "moribund state" of the older "Eurocenttric" "Mediterranean race" theory. Afrocentrism: Mythical Pasts and Imagined Homes p. 116
^^Stephen Howe himself dabbles in hypocrisy and strawmen. He spends a great deal of time railing against "Afrocentrics" but carefully buried in his condescending screed is an admission of the central point raised by so-called "Afrocentrics"..
Likewise Froment is quoted as bashing the "Afrocentrics" but he too quietly admits the "sub-Saharan" character of the Nile Valley in various eras as well as similarities between Egyptians and East Africans.
Gene flow into the Nubian area during the Neolithic was not from reputed "wandering Caucasoids" but from tropical, Sub-Saharan types.
"Prior to the Neolithic, populations of the Nile Valley in Nubia are very robust, and, because of a gap in the fossil record,` it is difficult to connect them to later populations. Some have postulated a local evolution, due to diet change, while others postulated migrations, especially from the Sahara area. But between 5000 and 1000 BC, many cemeteries have supplied a large amount of skeletons, and the anatomical characters of Nubian populations are easier to follow-up. Twenty-seven archaeological samples (4 at 5000 BC, 5 at 4000 BC, 10 at 3000 BC, 3 at 2000 BC, 5 at 1000 BC), and 10 craniofacial measurements, have been considered. While cerebral skull is fairly stable, facial skull displays several regular modifications, and specially a reduction of facial and nasal heights, a broadening of the nose, and an increase of prognathism, while bizygomatic breadth is unchanged. These features illustrate a trend towards a growing resemblance with populations of Sub-Saharan Africa living in wet environments. However, paleoclimatological studies show that Nubia experienced an increasing aridification during that period. It is then unlikely that such a morphological change could be related to any local adaptive evolution to environment. Random drift is also unlikely, because the anatomical trend is relatively uniform during these millennia. It then seems more plausible that these changes correspond to the increasing presence of Southern populations migrating northward." -- Froment, A. (2002) Morphological micro-evolution of Nubian Populations from, A-Group to Christian Epochs: gene flow, not local adaptation. Am J Phys Anthropol [Suppl] 34:72.
Afrocentric critic Froment also notes: "Black populations of the Horn of Africa (Tigré and Somalia) fit well into Egyptian variations." (Froment, Alain, Origines du peuplement de l’Égypte ancienne: l’apport de l’anthropobiologie, Archéo-Nil 2 (Octobre 1992), 79-98)
This is a common pattern with the Eurocentrics. They build great bogus strawmen to slay - such as the dreaded bogeymen- the "Afrocentrics" while behind the scenes, at the backdoor, grudgingly conceding several central points raised by said "Afrocentrics." It's like Mary Lefkowitz who admits the African character of ancient Egypt, even as "Afrocentric critics" continue to use her work to "refute" Afrocentrism. These people actually believe no one has yet caught on to the game.
It turns out the Euronuts are not as Neanderdumb as one might have been misled to think. They can actually be excused for their constant harping on themes thought to be mostly long obsolete in the West.
^^Not so much excused as exposed. They can say what they like but once the the 3 points above are considered, their whole hypocritical edifice crumbles like a rotten house of cards.
Posted by Masonic Rebel (Member # 9549) on :
Actually the Afrocentrics are a powerfull circle of scholars you might have watched a few of them late at night or early on sunday morning too bad their opponents don't realize this.
Posted by facts (Member # 19596) on :
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist: they seek to extend their racial taxa based on a singular trait - dark skin, so they can cluster themselves with other races who look nothing alike them, except being dark...
Excellent point which I have been arguing for years, that is, Afrocentrists use dark skin as their 'Trojan horse' to seize to the history and legacy of all non-Negro, dark skin people.
Posted by Narmerthoth (Member # 20259) on :
LOL, but it is hardly funny at all.
The educated Negro seems to have traded off Albino indoctrination for plain common sense.
They react to every single Albino delusion when their is absolutely no need to. At this rate, by deploying the same old failed strategies, you'll be chasing Albinos throughout eternity.
1 ounce of common sense is worth 5 tons of Albino indoctrination.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
GOod exposure of the dubious "hamitic union" Dana. Their claims easily fall flat on examination in 3 ways.
1) So-called "leading authority" Froment has in no way "debunked" the data of Hiernaux. To the contrary- Hiernaux's balanced model of African diversity, including elongated Africans, has been confirmed multiple times, using both skeletal evidence and DNA, and is so cited by Keita 1991, 1999, 2005 etc. The only "debunking" is of the bogus fantasies of the equally bogus "hamitic" "union".
2. Maca-Meyer's claims are unimpressive as part of any racial "Kakazoid" model of expansion. We all know that there has been ancient gene flow via the crossroads that is the Middle East, but at what point did such gene flow become "Kakazoid", save as yet another self-serving Eurocentric labeling exercise?
In fact, Maca-Meyer undermines assorted "Kakazoid" race models by noting that gene differentiation was ALREADY occurring WITHIN Africa t`ens of thousands of years ago. IN other words, the gene variants that would become distinctive in Asia and the "Middle East" were ALREADY taking place WITHIN Africa BEFORE any SIGNIFICANT EXPANSION OUTWARD. These would grow more distinct due to time and distance from Africa but the founding variants and/or proto-variants were ALREADY in place WITHIN Africa. Hence, African fishermen migrating into the Sinai PEnisula or Arabia circa 60kya did not suddenly become "Middle Eastern" or "Eurasian" nor does a white guy who crosses the Rio Grande into Mexico suddenly become "Hispanic." THis is the cynical labeling game being foisted on the gullible by the European academy to de-africanize tropical African peoples, or minimize their built in indigenous diversity.
3. Claims of "racial backflow" (however disguised with labels like "EUrasian" or "Middle Eastern") fall short, because those "backflowing" ALREADY RESEMBLED TROPICAL AFRICANS as proved by credible studies. It is hilarious to watch the self-serving hypocrisy of Eurocentrics. When dark-skinned, broad-nosed people with tropical limb proportions are found far west of the Sahara they are firmly "true negroes." WHen similar people are found in Arabia, the SInai or Iraq they comnveniently become "Eurasian." THe bogus "hamitic union" is a prime example of this hypocrisy in operation. ------------------------------------------------------------------
In the attack on Afrocentrism so condescendingly voiced by the non-anthropologist Stephen Howe about African American historians he expressed his view that of a "moribund state" of the older "Eurocenttric" "Mediterranean race" theory. Afrocentrism: Mythical Pasts and Imagined Homes p. 116
^^Stephen Howe himself dabbles in hypocrisy and strawmen. He spends a great deal of time railing against "Afrocentrics" but carefully buried in his condescending screed is an admission of the central point raised by so-called "Afrocentrics"..
Likewise Froment is quoted as bashing the "Afrocentrics" but he too quietly admits the "sub-Saharan" character of the Nile Valley in various eras as well as similarities between Egyptians and East Africans.
Gene flow into the Nubian area during the Neolithic was not from reputed "wandering Caucasoids" but from tropical, Sub-Saharan types.
"Prior to the Neolithic, populations of the Nile Valley in Nubia are very robust, and, because of a gap in the fossil record,` it is difficult to connect them to later populations. Some have postulated a local evolution, due to diet change, while others postulated migrations, especially from the Sahara area. But between 5000 and 1000 BC, many cemeteries have supplied a large amount of skeletons, and the anatomical characters of Nubian populations are easier to follow-up. Twenty-seven archaeological samples (4 at 5000 BC, 5 at 4000 BC, 10 at 3000 BC, 3 at 2000 BC, 5 at 1000 BC), and 10 craniofacial measurements, have been considered. While cerebral skull is fairly stable, facial skull displays several regular modifications, and specially a reduction of facial and nasal heights, a broadening of the nose, and an increase of prognathism, while bizygomatic breadth is unchanged. These features illustrate a trend towards a growing resemblance with populations of Sub-Saharan Africa living in wet environments. However, paleoclimatological studies show that Nubia experienced an increasing aridification during that period. It is then unlikely that such a morphological change could be related to any local adaptive evolution to environment. Random drift is also unlikely, because the anatomical trend is relatively uniform during these millennia. It then seems more plausible that these changes correspond to the increasing presence of Southern populations migrating northward." -- Froment, A. (2002) Morphological micro-evolution of Nubian Populations from, A-Group to Christian Epochs: gene flow, not local adaptation. Am J Phys Anthropol [Suppl] 34:72.
Afrocentric critic Froment also notes: "Black populations of the Horn of Africa (Tigré and Somalia) fit well into Egyptian variations." (Froment, Alain, Origines du peuplement de l’Égypte ancienne: l’apport de l’anthropobiologie, Archéo-Nil 2 (Octobre 1992), 79-98)
This is a common pattern with the Eurocentrics. They build great bogus strawmen to slay - such as the dreaded bogeymen- the "Afrocentrics" while behind the scenes, at the backdoor, grudgingly conceding several central points raised by said "Afrocentrics." It's like Mary Lefkowitz who admits the African character of ancient Egypt, even as "Afrocentric critics" continue to use her work to "refute" Afrocentrism. These people actually believe no one has yet caught on to the game.
It turns out the Euronuts are not as Neanderdumb as one might have been misled to think. They can actually be excused for their constant harping on themes thought to be mostly long obsolete in the West.
^^Not so much excused as exposed. They can say what they like but once the the 3 points above are considered, their whole hypocritical edifice crumbles like a rotten house of cards.
Posted by Narmerthoth (Member # 20259) on :
^ You may know realize this, but do the other 99% of African and African Americans who read no more than the Bible or only watch BET and reality TV? How will exposing this help them when most don't know or care what the Hamitic nonsense is? 99.8% of these actually have brought into the "Race" theory 100%, as have so-called educated Negroes.
LOL, most black bible totters have never even seen or eaten a fig.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by false:
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_PrimeIdiot: they seek to extend their racial taxa based on a singular trait - dark skin, so they can cluster themselves with other races who look nothing alike them, except being dark...
Excellent point which I have been arguing for years, that is, Afrocentrists use dark skin as their 'Trojan horse' to seize to the history and legacy of all non-Negro, dark skin people.
Yet Eurocentrics use facial features like long faces, narrow noses, and thin lips as their 'Trojan Horse' to seize the histories and legacies of various non-European peoples including AFRICANS, and unlike Afrocentrics, it is Eurocentrics who ran academia and published their views in widespread journals and texts.
Therefore your complaints about Afrocentrics are moot! Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
As Rasol has pointed out, racial terms like "Caucasoid" and "negroid" are nothing more than terminological pawns that Eurocentrics love to play and exploit. Hypocrisy and double-standards are the rules and methods which they use these terms. Which is why I totally agreed with Rasol when he calls Eurocentric psuedo-science a fragile house of cards.
For example, why is there "true negro" but NEVER a "true caucasian" or "true blanko" as Takruri likes to put it? The fact that the Euronuts ascribe to a "true negro" must mean that there are fake negroes then! It is these fake negroes that are actually Caucasians or 'Hamites'! LOL Diop and others have long noted this glaring hypocrisy. How come blonde, blue-eyed Nordics are not 'true blankos' while all other Euros who don't conform to such phenotype, especially dark featured Mediterraneans, are not really blanko or Caucasian at all?? It is all based on the double-standards that so-called "Caucasians" possess phenotypic diversity whereas "Negroes" do not as Anglo-Idiot loves to remind us. It is this double-standard that is perpetuated by the Euronuts, despite the FACT that genetics has confirmed Africans to possess the **greatest** diversity! LOL
And then comes the hypocrisy...
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: 3. Claims of "racial backflow" (however disguised with labels like "EUrasian" or "Middle Eastern") fall short, because those "backflowing" ALREADY RESEMBLED TROPICAL AFRICANS as proved by credible studies. It is hilarious to watch the self-serving hypocrisy of Eurocentrics. When dark-skinned, broad-nosed people with tropical limb proportions are found far west of the Sahara they are firmly "true negroes." WHen similar people are found in Arabia, the SInai or Iraq they comnveniently become "Eurasian." THe bogus "hamitic union" is a prime example of this hypocrisy in operation.
Indeed! Features that are considered "true negro" remain as such ONLY when found in West or Central Africa. As soon as they are found in North Africa and especially outside of Africa, they then become a 'variant' of "Mediterranean Caucasoid" or "Basic White" or "Generalized Modern"!! LOL
Thus early Egyptian skulls despite their "negroid" traits noted by Briggs and Coon were still simply 'Mediterranean' whites.
And remember when the Natufians were first discovered in 1932, anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith outright described them as "Negroid", yet he was quick to say that they were merely "Negro-like characteristics" in appearance but not really Negroes! [sic] LOL
Suffice to say, Coon merely says they were a "Mediterraneans with negroid tendencies"! LOL
Brace (2005)
Note how in the more recent study by Brace above the Natufians are aligned very closely with Niger-Congo speakers of West Africa a.k.a. 'Forest Negroes' a.k.a. 'true Negroes'!!
And like that, the house of cards collapses. Posted by claus3600 (Member # 19584) on :
@anglo If you go to West and Central Africa you find this physiognomy.
How would YOU know? YOU'VE never been.
Posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist (Member # 18853) on :
quote:Diop and others have long noted this glaring hypocrisy. How come blonde, blue-eyed Nordics are not 'true blankos' while all other Euros who don't conform to such phenotype, especially dark featured Mediterraneans, are not really blanko or Caucasian at all?? It is all based on the double-standards that so-called "Caucasians" possess phenotypic diversity whereas "Negroes" do not as Anglo-Idiot loves to remind us. It is this double-standard that is perpetuated by the Euronuts, despite the FACT that genetics has confirmed Africans to possess the **greatest** diversity! LOL
There is no double standard retard. You are clueless about physical anthropology.
Morphologically Atlanto-Meds and Nordids are identical. All Caucasoids are highly uniform in bone structure. In contrast East Africans are Caucasoid in morphology through a significant Eurasian admixture as the genetics has repeatedly proven.
East Africans don't look like Negroids in bone structure. You are so damn retarded, as many times as this is repeated you will ignore.
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
You say "Caucasoids" have the most phenotypic diversity. But when you are shown African diversity a "true" negro must be found. You havent shown any reason to divide people by bone structure. And even if we did WHY focus on the head. Why not the limbs and other areas of the body.
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist:
quote: the concept of the Euroconceptualized black of Tarzan fame i.e. true "Negroid".
If you go to West and Central Africa you find this physiognomy. So the Negroid is rooted in real geographic observation, its not an arbritary classification. The only people who deny it are a handful of self-hating 'Blacks', as they hate their nappy hair and broad traits and so they seek to extend their racial taxa based on a singular trait - dark skin, so they can cluster themselves with other races who look nothing alike them, except being dark...
Look wannabe hamite (who will forever be just Neanderdummy) the dominant population of north Africa were Negroid and most of Asia was a black type Negroid traits nappy hair, broad noses and non-chicken lips, as the majority of "hamites" still have, even the peninsular Arabs/Arabians i.e. Afro-Asiatics in Asia had according to the 14th century writer Ibn Mandour "kinky hair" and "not lank hair", so why would ancient people in the same latitudes in Africa not have the same as the woolly haired Mauri of the Roman era.
Through all dynasties Egyptians displayed the Negroid traits and tropical limb proportions
Of course, the majority of ancient Egyptians through all dynasties and predynastic were almost fully tropical ("NEGROID") not only in limb proportions but in facial structure which is now confirmed in dna like their Haratin (Afro-SAN) kinsmen, UNLIKE some of the cushitic desert dwelling kinsmen further south.
Most ancient Egyptians come from Sahure's stock. Where are the non-Negroid traits on the faces of the ancient Egyptians
Be proud of your own NeanderScythian kind and origins which are the exact cultural opposite of blacks, because you will never be considered closely related to black Africans by most of the intelligient scholarly world, white or black.
Unlike some people on this forum I remember and KNOW FOR A FACT that Coon traced your big boned colorless type back to Central Europe 10s of thousands of years ago just as non-tropical as ever. Those are you ancestors and had nothing to do with tropical Aterians and other black peoples dominant in Eurasia who may have returned to Africa 40,000 years ago.
I also do know that the so called "NEGRO" or true black doesn't exist. Unlike most of the other people of this forum I am well aware that the so called modern "Negroids" people of the SouthWestern Sudan (Benin Yoruba Ibo etc.) mentioned by BRACE are only a mixture of the brachycephalic relatively short and THIN-LIPPED, non-prognathic(THEREFORE NOT TRUE NEGRO) broad- nosed peoples of south Central Africa so called "CONGOIDS"(THEREFORE NOT TRUE NEGRO) with large North African- originated Asselar and EURASIATIC RELATED affiliated Mechtoid-related Jebel Sahaba types (ALSO NOT A TRUE NEGRO)from which they AND THE "NEGROID-FACED" ANCIENT EYPGTIANS received their frequent thick lips, prognathasism and broad noses.
SO you see Neanderdummy - THE "TRUE NEGRO" DOESN'T EXIST except in your sick inferior-minded imaginations and largely the reason the home of the "true Negro" has never nor ever will be found.
Only various black populations exist- none of which fit the NEGRO stereo TYPE or RACE of your WACKY EUROCENTRIC conception.
Hawazin man of the Qays Ailan North West and Central Arabians - Probable remnant of the palaeolithic Eurasian par excellence of West Asia
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
It turns out the Euronuts are not as Neanderdumb as one might have been misled to think. They can actually be excused for their constant harping on themes thought to be mostly long obsolete in the West.
Turns out there is a big gap in the modern academy between those who are true adherents to population biology's tenant of non-racial thinking and those who still apparently think such a thing as a true black or "Negroid" exists, - much like their early counterparts Coon, Dart, Camps, Strouhal and the anthropologists of National Geographic, etcetera. Euronuts are deeply reliant on these new or modern versions of the "racial scientologists" just mentioned.
Among these new raciologists are the much quoted and apparently wrongly cited (by Afrocentrists)-Alain Froment - who still believes in such a thing as a brown intermediate race.
He and a few others within the French and Spanish academies in fact still believe in the black Caucasoid view of Seligman and "brown" African theory of Elliot Smith which is contingent on the true Negro or "true black" theory. (Although most of the rest of the scientific world have done away with the concept and stereotype of the true black or Negroid.)
That is why the Euronut and hamitic wannabe administrator of the board hamiticunion has put down Jean Hiernaux who wisely noted about the east Africans -
"There is every reason to believe that they are ancestral to the living 'Elongated East Africans'. Their features can be found in several living populations, who are very dark skinned and DIFFER GREATLY FROM EUROPEANS IN A NUMBER OF BODY PROPORTIONS. Neither of these populations, fossil and modern, should be considered to be closely related to Caucasoids of Europe and western Asia.." Hiernaux, J. 1975 The Peoples of Africa, p. 62 .
The hamiticunion board administrator so intent on making the ancient hamites i.e. original Berbers, Egyptians etc not only into non-Negroids, but into non-blacks (as if that were possible ) writes wistfully on the forum at the above url:
"Froment is a world-renowned authority on African anthropology, having been a former colleague of Jean Hiernaux (some of whose theories he also debunked in later papers) and one of the main consultants on Sarah Tishkoff's influential 2009 genetic study on African populations."
So now we know where and why Tishkoff went awry. Needless to say, it shows that there has been a school of thought within anthropology "scholarship" intent on keeping alive "the "Mediterranean man" of Coon and Camps' race mythology. It also explains why the average Euronut without blinking can in fact write to you about the genetics of Central East Africa and even 50,000 year old Aterians in Niger clearly thinking he/she is talking about some near black "Caucasian" of some sort ancestral to himself, not you supposed "Negroids".
Of course then there are the Spanish authors of confusion with their wacky reintroduction of the notion of the Eurasian Caucasian origin of ancient Maghrebis and even east Africans of 30 to 40,000 years ago.
Here is Maca-Meyer's "scientific" findings about these stealthy Caucasians - "Conclusions: The first detectable expansion occurred around 59,000–69,000 years ago from Africa, independently colonizing western Asia and India and, following this southern route, swiftly reaching east Asia. Within Africa, this expansion did not replace but mixed with older lineages detectable today only in Africa. Around 39,000–52,000 years ago, the western Asian branch spread radially, bringing Caucasians to North Africa and Europe, also reaching India, and expanding to north and east Asia. More recent migrations have entangled but not completely erased these primitive footprints of modern human expansions." "Major genomic mitochondrial lineages delineate early human expansions" Department of Genetics, Faculty of Biology, University of La Laguna, Tenerife, 38271, Spain BMC 2001.
Of course this is Maca-Meyer's code talk for "some Caucasians came back from Asia 40,000 years ago giving birth to current coastal North Africans, while those who turned black further southeast have obviously mixed with the true teeming black race who never left the sub-Saharan region." (Yes, it is Hamitic theory gone wild.)
The truth of the matter is part of the French Academy has been influenced by earlier anthropologists like Camps who wrote much on the Berbers proclaiming them early "white Mediterraneans".
Below Froment quotes another Frenchman's study G. Billy, writing "it is strange to note that the modern Hamite Ethiopian series (Tigre) and even Somali-Galla remain virtually exempt of any black contribution. The Ethiopian plateaus must therefore have remained far from the currents of black immigration which took the natural route of the Nile, whether during the dynastic period or later and more intensively, from the beginning of our era on[...]
The entire Upper Egypt series from the fourth millennium up to the Roman period may be grouped inside a relatively narrow band located in the interval for the C2H distance between 0.17 and 0.27 for the men and 0.15-0.35 for the women. The Nubians of the dynastic age, except for those of the group C, are found precisely in these zones to which a common morphological type corresponds. Although related to the above Middle Egypt type, they differ from it by a narrow head, a lower face and a broader nose. During the dynastic era, this last variety covered a wide central zone of the Nile valley, stretching well beyond towards East Africa, as shown by the similarity which persists with the present-day Ethiopian populations (Tigre) or even Somali. By virtue both of its diffusion and its perenniality, they deserve to be assimilated to the basic population type of the Egypto-Nubian complex."
One might of course wonder why the Somali and Tigre are not designated black considering the jet and blue blackness of many of them as well as their rather African hair. But then it becomes clear with the mentioning of a broad nose which is the giveaway.
In emailing the British Africanist and anthropologist Wyatt McGaffey recently he wrote back something implying that most scholars did not believe in the hamitic theory anymore or that it was not taken seriously, but clearly this is not the case.
In the attack on Afrocentrism so condescendingly voiced by the non-anthropologist Stephen Howe about African American historians he expressed his view that of a "moribund state" of the older "Eurocenttric" "Mediterranean race" theory. Afrocentrism: Mythical Pasts and Imagined Homes p. 116
But in fact nothing is further from the truth, not only is the older theory not dead but it has devolved into something even more manipulative and diabolical, as is shown bn the way some are now combining it with genetics to maintain the concept of the Euroconceptualized black of Tarzan fame i.e. true "Negroid".
Looks like Diop's argument is still in vogue. Euro supremacist clap trap genetic-style has reloaded the hamitic theory of their eugenicist forefathers.
Scary stuff.
GOod exposure of the dubious "hamitic union" Dana. Their claims easily fall flat on examination in 3 ways.
1) So-called "leading authority" Froment has in no way "debunked" the data of Hiernaux. To the contrary- Hiernaux's balanced model of African diversity, including elongated Africans, has been confirmed multiple times, using both skeletal evidence and DNA, and is so cited by Keita 1991, 1999, 2005 etc. The only "debunking" is of the bogus fantasies of the equally bogus "hamitic" "union".
2. Maca-Meyer's claims are unimpressive as part of any racial "Kakazoid" model of expansion. We all know that there has been ancient gene flow via the crossroads that is the Middle East, but at what point did such gene flow become "Kakazoid", save as yet another self-serving Eurocentric labeling exercise?
In fact, Maca-Meyer undermines assorted "Kakazoid" race models by noting that gene differentiation was ALREADY occurring WITHIN Africa t`ens of thousands of years ago. IN other words, the gene variants that would become distinctive in Asia and the "Middle East" were ALREADY taking place WITHIN Africa BEFORE any SIGNIFICANT EXPANSION OUTWARD. These would grow more distinct due to time and distance from Africa but the founding variants and/or proto-variants were ALREADY in place WITHIN Africa. Hence, African fishermen migrating into the Sinai PEnisula or Arabia circa 60kya did not suddenly become "Middle Eastern" or "Eurasian" nor does a white guy who crosses the Rio Grande into Mexico suddenly become "Hispanic." THis is the cynical labeling game being foisted on the gullible by the European academy to de-africanize tropical African peoples, or minimize their built in indigenous diversity.
3. Claims of "racial backflow" (however disguised with labels like "EUrasian" or "Middle Eastern") fall short, because those "backflowing" ALREADY RESEMBLED TROPICAL AFRICANS as proved by credible studies. It is hilarious to watch the self-serving hypocrisy of Eurocentrics. When dark-skinned, broad-nosed people with tropical limb proportions are found far west of the Sahara they are firmly "true negroes." WHen similar people are found in Arabia, the SInai or Iraq they comnveniently become "Eurasian." THe bogus "hamitic union" is a prime example of this hypocrisy in operation.
Zarahan - although I agree for the most part with you, my purpose for presenting the Mediterranean nationalist's hamiticunion post was to show where European academics in Europe have been contributing to misleading these Euronutzies in their delusional belief system.
The hamiticunion poster has said that the translation was taken from Fromen's paper. I am assuming he is using a different one than the one you have posted. However, the fact that Froment wrote the below means that he is absolutely NOT stating that only blacks fit the variations of the ancient Egyptians. In fact it is clear he is stating the opposite in the below paragraph as the hamiticunion poster has said, and using a revised form of hamitic theory.
"The physique of the ancient Egyptians is exactly equidistant between Europeans and "negro" Africans' one one hand, certain populations of the Mediterranean, (and) on the other in the Horn of Africa (the Tigre and Somalis), fall within the range of the gamut of variation in ancient Egyptians."
"le physique des Egyptiens Anciens est exactement à équidistance de celui des Européens et de celui des négro-africains; certaines populations de la Méditerranée d'une part, de la Corne de l'Afrique (Tigré, Somalie) de l'autre, tombent à l'intérieur de la gamme de variation des Egyptiens Anciens."
That is very different than simply saying: "Black populations of the Horn of Africa (Tigré and Somalia) fit well into Egyptian variations." (Froment, Alain, Origines du peuplement de l’Égypte ancienne: l’apport de l’anthropobiologie, Archéo-Nil 2 (Octobre 1992), 79-98)
So I am assuming the hamitic union poster either translating from a different paper, or that the latter statement has been taken without its full context.
The hamiticunion poster also may have taken liberties with the words "negro" or "Negroid" in some of its English translations, replacing it with "black" which is normally translated as "noire" in French.
In any case, if Froment made the statement that there is no "negroid" element in the ancient Egyptians that is of course different than saying no black, and it can only mean he is referring to so-called "hamitic" black populations that may not have had as obvious Negroid element as do populations further west and south today in the Horn.
Posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist (Member # 18853) on :
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: You say "Caucasoids" have the most phenotypic diversity. But when you are shown African diversity a "true" negro must be found. You havent shown any reason to divide people by bone structure. And even if we did WHY focus on the head. Why not the limbs and other areas of the body.
Differences in morphology are delimited by geographical boundaries:
quote:[...]morphological features tend to follow geographic boundaries coinciding often with climatic zones.
(Gill, 2000)
We know the extent of Negroid territory, based on empirical observation of the populations that inhabit Africa. Negroid traits are only limited to Western and Central Sub-Sahara Africa.
East Africans are not Negroid, but Caucasoid admixed, while North Africans are Caucasoid.
Dana has everything wrong and is just a liar. As far as palaeoanthropology has shown - the earliest remains in places like Algeria are Caucasoid (thin nosed, orthognathic). Prehistoric North Africans simply weren't nappy haired Negroids, they are people that looked like me.
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: As Rasol has pointed out, racial terms like "Caucasoid" and "negroid" are nothing more than terminological pawns that Eurocentrics love to play and exploit. Hypocrisy and double-standards are the rules and methods which they use these terms. Which is why I totally agreed with Rasol when he calls Eurocentric psuedo-science a fragile house of cards.
For example, why is there "true negro" but NEVER a "true caucasian" or "true blanko" as Takruri likes to put it? The fact that the Euronuts ascribe to a "true negro" must mean that there are fake negroes then! It is these fake negroes that are actually Caucasians or 'Hamites'! LOL Diop and others have long noted this glaring hypocrisy. How come blonde, blue-eyed Nordics are not 'true blankos' while all other Euros who don't conform to such phenotype, especially dark featured Mediterraneans, are not really blanko or Caucasian at all?? It is all based on the double-standards that so-called "Caucasians" possess phenotypic diversity whereas "Negroes" do not as Anglo-Idiot loves to remind us. It is this double-standard that is perpetuated by the Euronuts, despite the FACT that genetics has confirmed Africans to possess the **greatest** diversity! LOL
And then comes the hypocrisy...
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: 3. Claims of "racial backflow" (however disguised with labels like "EUrasian" or "Middle Eastern") fall short, because those "backflowing" ALREADY RESEMBLED TROPICAL AFRICANS as proved by credible studies. It is hilarious to watch the self-serving hypocrisy of Eurocentrics. When dark-skinned, broad-nosed people with tropical limb proportions are found far west of the Sahara they are firmly "true negroes." WHen similar people are found in Arabia, the SInai or Iraq they comnveniently become "Eurasian." THe bogus "hamitic union" is a prime example of this hypocrisy in operation.
Indeed! Features that are considered "true negro" remain as such ONLY when found in West or Central Africa. As soon as they are found in North Africa and especially outside of Africa, they then become a 'variant' of "Mediterranean Caucasoid" or "Basic White" or "Generalized Modern"!! LOL
Thus early Egyptian skulls despite their "negroid" traits noted by Briggs and Coon were still simply 'Mediterranean' whites.
And remember when the Natufians were first discovered in 1932, anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith outright described them as "Negroid", yet he was quick to say that they were merely "Negro-like characteristics" in appearance but not really Negroes! [sic] LOL
Suffice to say, Coon merely says they were a "Mediterraneans with negroid tendencies"! LOL
Brace (2005)
Note how in the more recent study by Brace above the Natufians are aligned very closely with Niger-Congo speakers of West Africa a.k.a. 'Forest Negroes' a.k.a. 'true Negroes'!!
And like that, the house of cards collapses.
True Djehuti but its just surprising to find out some countries are still teaching this kind of rhetoric in universities when the vast majority of academics have rejected it.
The problem then turns to attacks by more politicized people like the Martin Bernal, Diop, and even Keita and anyone who is trying to teach the facts or truth in university. To teach about African history proper to show and discover their global or worlwide accomplishments.
The likes of academics like Dunn-Campbell, Keita. and Bernard Leeman and investigative journalists like Richard Poe (Black Spark, White Fire) then become the object of scorn and black people, I guess like the Bible thumping Narmer mentions are not able to learn about their history in the public school system.
This is institutional racism at its worst, and the reason so many blacks and non-blacks are decried as stealing others' heritage.
Truly pitiful, but i guess one has to just keep "fighting the powers that be", and be accused of being a bigot at the same time. Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist:
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: You say "Caucasoids" have the most phenotypic diversity. But when you are shown African diversity a "true" negro must be found. You havent shown any reason to divide people by bone structure. And even if we did WHY focus on the head. Why not the limbs and other areas of the body.
Differences in morphology are delimited by geographical boundaries:
quote:[...]morphological features tend to follow geographic boundaries coinciding often with climatic zones.
(Gill, 2000)
We know the extent of Negroid territory, based on empirical observation of the populations that inhabit Africa. Negroid traits are only limited to Western and Central Sub-Sahara Africa.
East Africans are not Negroid, but Caucasoid admixed, while North Africans are Caucasoid.
Dana has everything wrong and is just a liar. As far as palaeoanthropology has shown - the earliest remains in places like Algeria are Caucasoid (thin nosed, orthognathic). Prehistoric North Africans simply weren't nappy haired Negroids, they are people that looked like me.
Neanderniggah!- East Africans near Ottoman peoples have absorbed some Turkish blood. That includes the Somali and Beja in particular. Before that the Amhara have of course once lived on both sides of he Arabian Sea and have likely absorbed various Eurasiatic groups.
Fortunately we know from blood group studies Somalis and other Negroes are NOT any more connected with modern EURASIATICS than Southern Italians and southern Iberians are with west Africans.
That is the fact that you can not accept. We don't get our long narrow head faces and noses from NEANDERDULLS or BASQUES!. YOU ARE MUCH MORE RELATED TO THEM THEN YOU ARE TO ANY BLACK WHATSOEVER!
LIKE I SAID ENJOY AND LEARN TO APPRECIATE YOUR OWN SCYTHONEANDERDULLIC ANCESTRY BECAUSE THAT'S THE BULK OF YOUR BIOLOGICAL AND IN FACT CULTURAL HERITAGE. AND I AM SORRRY IF THAT HURTS! Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Vansertimavindicated: The train wreck continues! LOL
This is perhaps the ONLY intelligent thing you posted thus far.
I totally and absolutely agree!
Dana, this is truly some scary stuff. I mean I and the other veterans in this board especially Explorer, Rasol, and even Ausar have noted that the 'Hamitic Hypothesis' has made a comeback in recent years in the guise of genetics, but I just didn't know how bad it was until the advent of "Hamitic Union"!!
What's even more messed up is that some Africans especially those of 'Horn' extraction seem to be buying and drinking the poison.
Messed up is an understatement. But what is also messed up is the people who apparently think they stand to benefit the most are the half black mulatto people of North Africa and the Arabian peninsula who apparently have worshipped "whiteness" for some centuries now.
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist:
quote:Diop and others have long noted this glaring hypocrisy. How come blonde, blue-eyed Nordics are not 'true blankos' while all other Euros who don't conform to such phenotype, especially dark featured Mediterraneans, are not really blanko or Caucasian at all?? It is all based on the double-standards that so-called "Caucasians" possess phenotypic diversity whereas "Negroes" do not as Anglo-Idiot loves to remind us. It is this double-standard that is perpetuated by the Euronuts, despite the FACT that genetics has confirmed Africans to possess the **greatest** diversity! LOL
There is no double standard retard. You are clueless about physical anthropology.
Morphologically Atlanto-Meds and Nordids are identical. All Caucasoids are highly uniform in bone structure. In contrast East Africans are Caucasoid in morphology through a significant Eurasian admixture as the genetics has repeatedly proven.
East Africans don't look like Negroids in bone structure. You are so damn retarded, as many times as this is repeated you will ignore.
I would like to know what exact institution of higher learning in Liverpool you attend that relies on Coon's books and terminology, Scythian-descendant. I don't believe you learned this there, although I do think Camps, the Frenchman and Berber-specialist continued to use these terms.
As I told you American and even most British scientists consider Coon a wacky pseudoanthropologist. Posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist (Member # 18853) on :
Daniels (1970) reports that pre and post Roman Garamantian remains from southern Libya were Mediterranid Caucasoid.
Chamla’s (1976, 1980) conclusions after morphological analysis of mid-Holocene Maghreban crania are as follows:
In other words 88% of crania are Caucasoid. I would dispute the 12% Negroid, based on the fact Capoids were excluded from such studies.
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist: Daniels (1970) reports that pre and post Roman Garamantian remains from southern Libya were Mediterranid Caucasoid.
Chamla’s (1976, 1980) conclusions after morphological analysis of mid-Holocene Maghreban crania are as follows:
In other words 88% of crania are Caucasoid. I would dispute the 12% Negroid, based on the fact Capoids were excluded from such studies.
Scytho-Neanderdummy - Daniels refers only to the "Mediterranean Caucasoid" in Sergi's sense of the phrase which refers to the Ba-Hima "Eurafricans" of CentralEast Africa and other Negroes as much as to the so-called Nordic's he also considers Eurafricans.
That was my whole point in writing about the myth of the "Mediterranean race'.
No the pitch black Garamantians whom Ptolemy II thought were Ethiopians weren't WHITES of any sort!
Are you seriously expecting us to go back to believing that such people as the Bahima of Uganda and others of our ancestors are CAUCASIANS more related to you than to other black Africans.
You are plumb wacko like the other Neanderdummies.
Now try to lie and tell me Sergi didn't call the Central East Africans like the Bahima "Mediterranean Caucasoids".
No your Scytho Teutonic ancestors and people like this BaHima woman have very little affiliation. And this black Ba-Hima woman is the original Eurafrican Mediterranean of Sergi.
Anthropology has EVOLVED since then! Sorry you haven't. Long headedness doesn't make you related to US!
BTW - the only true Caucasoid you mentioned was the Armenoid, and I am truly grateful you mentioned that it is only 6 percent since that means that's how much white was in early Holocene Africans.lol!.
Atlanto Mediterranean is what the Carthaginian and Phoenician and early pre Turk influenced Tuareg were. Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
You don't know what you are talking about. The so-called East African "Nordics" of Coon and "Eurafricans" of Sergi turn out to be Nilotic Negroes of more modern anthropologists. And believe me they and teh original Atlanto-Mediterraneans WERE the same BLACK people.
"In Kenya the remains from Gamble’s Cave …have been interpreted as showing Caucasoid features. And possible archaeological affinities with the Mediterranean Capsian industries (Ferembach). As we have seen in previous chapters recent sub-Saharan Africans are cranially MORE GRACILE than Europeans and therefore fossil African specimens of greater size and robusticity have been traditionally considered non-African in character. ..Rightmire found that these East African remains as well as those from the sites as Willy Kopje, Nakuru and Makalia, cluster with one or other sub-Saharan population, and not with either Egyptians or San/Khoi…Similar results were obtained by Brauer (1978), and Rightmire has suggested that these fossils may represent Nilotic peoples… These findings are very important because they suggest that not only late Pleistocene to early Holocene remains like Gambles Cave and Elmenteita SHOULD NOT be interpreted as Caucasoid elements, but that the great levels of cranial variation observed today in sub-Saharan Africa were probably even greater in the late Pleistocene.” P. 283 The Evolution of Moderrn Human Diversity: A Study of Cranial Variation Mart Mirazon Lahr 1996
Capsians elongated east AFrican and other Mediterranean types were nothing but some black long-headed non-Scythic peoples. I am sorry that you have a distaste for your Scythic ancestry but you need tto focus on it and not trying to make yourself into US BLACKS! Posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist (Member # 18853) on :
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche:
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist: Daniels (1970) reports that pre and post Roman Garamantian remains from southern Libya were Mediterranid Caucasoid.
Chamla’s (1976, 1980) conclusions after morphological analysis of mid-Holocene Maghreban crania are as follows:
In other words 88% of crania are Caucasoid. I would dispute the 12% Negroid, based on the fact Capoids were excluded from such studies.
Scythonneanderdummy - Daniels refers only to the Mediterranean Caucasoid in Sergi's sense of the phrase which refers to the Ba- Hima "Eurafricans" of CentralEast Africa and other Negroes as much as to the so-called Nordic's he also considers Eurafricans.
That was my whole point in writing about the myth of the Mediterranean race.
Are you seriously expecting us to go back to believing that such people as the Bahima of Uganda and others of our ancestors are CAUCASIANS more related to you than to other black Africans.
You are plumb wacko like the other Neanderdummies.
Now try to lie and tell me Sergi didn't call the Central East Africans like the Bahima "Mediterranean Caucasoids".
No your Scytho Teutonic ancestors and people like this BaHima woman have very little affiliation. And this black Ba-Hima woman is the original Eurafrican Mediterranean of Sergi.
Anthropology has EVOLVED since then! Sorry you haven't. Long headedness doesn't make you related to US!
BTW - the only true Caucasoid you mentioned was the Armenoid, and I am truly grateful you mentioned that it is only 6 percent since that means that's how much white was in early Holocene Africans.lol!.
Atlanto Mediterranean is what the Carthaginian and Phoenician and early pre Turk influenced Tuareg were.
The Bahima, Hima are Caucasoid admixed. They are Nilo-Hamites.
''The Nilo-Hamites or half-Hamites include the Turkana and Masai of Kenya and Tanganyika and the Karamojong of Uganda who [...] A Nilo-Hamitic strain persists also among the Hima of Uganda, the giant Tusi of Ruanda, and the pastoral Fula'' (Allan, 1965)
Genetics confirms. Each dubbed ''Nilo-Hamitic'' group from earlier anthropological sources are now known to be part Eurasian in their genepool.
The Hima, cluster closer to ''Ethiosemites'' than ''surrounding Bantu'' (Negroids).
- Genetics and History of Sub-Saharan Africa",Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 30 (1987), pp. 151-194.
As we know Ethiopians are Caucasoid admixed, and the Hima cluster with them BEFORE Negroids.
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist:
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche:
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist: Daniels (1970) reports that pre and post Roman Garamantian remains from southern Libya were Mediterranid Caucasoid.
Chamla’s (1976, 1980) conclusions after morphological analysis of mid-Holocene Maghreban crania are as follows:
In other words 88% of crania are Caucasoid. I would dispute the 12% Negroid, based on the fact Capoids were excluded from such studies.
Scythonneanderdummy - Daniels refers only to the Mediterranean Caucasoid in Sergi's sense of the phrase which refers to the Ba- Hima "Eurafricans" of CentralEast Africa and other Negroes as much as to the so-called Nordic's he also considers Eurafricans.
That was my whole point in writing about the myth of the Mediterranean race.
Are you seriously expecting us to go back to believing that such people as the Bahima of Uganda and others of our ancestors are CAUCASIANS more related to you than to other black Africans.
You are plumb wacko like the other Neanderdummies.
Now try to lie and tell me Sergi didn't call the Central East Africans like the Bahima "Mediterranean Caucasoids".
No your Scytho Teutonic ancestors and people like this BaHima woman have very little affiliation. And this black Ba-Hima woman is the original Eurafrican Mediterranean of Sergi.
Anthropology has EVOLVED since then! Sorry you haven't. Long headedness doesn't make you related to US!
BTW - the only true Caucasoid you mentioned was the Armenoid, and I am truly grateful you mentioned that it is only 6 percent since that means that's how much white was in early Holocene Africans.lol!.
Atlanto Mediterranean is what the Carthaginian and Phoenician and early pre Turk influenced Tuareg were.
The Bahima, Hima are Caucasoid admixed. They are Nilo-Hamites.
''The Nilo-Hamites or half-Hamites include the Turkana and Masai of Kenya and Tanganyika and the Karamojong of Uganda who [...] A Nilo-Hamitic strain persists also among the Hima of Uganda, the giant Tusi of Ruanda, and the pastoral Fula'' (Allan, 1965)
Genetics confirms. Each dubbed ''Nilo-Hamitic'' group from earlier anthropological sources are now known to be part Eurasian in their genepool.
The Hima, cluster closer to ''Ethiosemites'' than ''surrounding Bantu'' (Negroids).
- Genetics and History of Sub-Saharan Africa",Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 30 (1987), pp. 151-194.
As we know Ethiopians are Caucasoid admixed, and the Hima cluster with them BEFORE Negroids.
We have been the way we are since the Pleistocene, Scythian-descendant. The fact that Africans were related to ancient Eurasiatics has nothing to do with your Neanderkind which has its own ancestry somewhere in Europe. Remnant of the pre-Caucasoid Eurasiatic.
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist:
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche:
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist: Daniels (1970) reports that pre and post Roman Garamantian remains from southern Libya were Mediterranid Caucasoid.
Chamla’s (1976, 1980) conclusions after morphological analysis of mid-Holocene Maghreban crania are as follows:
In other words 88% of crania are Caucasoid. I would dispute the 12% Negroid, based on the fact Capoids were excluded from such studies.
Scythonneanderdummy - Daniels refers only to the Mediterranean Caucasoid in Sergi's sense of the phrase which refers to the Ba- Hima "Eurafricans" of CentralEast Africa and other Negroes as much as to the so-called Nordic's he also considers Eurafricans.
That was my whole point in writing about the myth of the Mediterranean race.
Are you seriously expecting us to go back to believing that such people as the Bahima of Uganda and others of our ancestors are CAUCASIANS more related to you than to other black Africans.
You are plumb wacko like the other Neanderdummies.
Now try to lie and tell me Sergi didn't call the Central East Africans like the Bahima "Mediterranean Caucasoids".
No your Scytho Teutonic ancestors and people like this BaHima woman have very little affiliation. And this black Ba-Hima woman is the original Eurafrican Mediterranean of Sergi.
Anthropology has EVOLVED since then! Sorry you haven't. Long headedness doesn't make you related to US!
BTW - the only true Caucasoid you mentioned was the Armenoid, and I am truly grateful you mentioned that it is only 6 percent since that means that's how much white was in early Holocene Africans.lol!.
Atlanto Mediterranean is what the Carthaginian and Phoenician and early pre Turk influenced Tuareg were.
The Bahima, Hima are Caucasoid admixed. They are Nilo-Hamites.
''The Nilo-Hamites or half-Hamites include the Turkana and Masai of Kenya and Tanganyika and the Karamojong of Uganda who [...] A Nilo-Hamitic strain persists also among the Hima of Uganda, the giant Tusi of Ruanda, and the pastoral Fula'' (Allan, 1965)
Genetics confirms. Each dubbed ''Nilo-Hamitic'' group from earlier anthropological sources are now known to be part Eurasian in their genepool.
The Hima, cluster closer to ''Ethiosemites'' than ''surrounding Bantu'' (Negroids).
- Genetics and History of Sub-Saharan Africa",Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 30 (1987), pp. 151-194.
As we know Ethiopians are Caucasoid admixed, and the Hima cluster with them BEFORE Negroids.
That nonsense may be good enough for the Dodona board but won't work here. Like I told you previously most scholars do not believe modern Tutsi and Hima have any significant Caucasoid ancestry. YOU EURONUTS ARE JEALOUS AND NEED TO GET OVER YOUR FANTASIES!
Ethiopic people tall elongated Nilotes as represented on the rock art of the Syro-Arabnian deserts and other black nappy- headed Eritraean and more robust Natufian people left THEIR GENES in the Arabian peninsula/Levant and parts of Eurasia. THAT is the only connection they have to being related to later J haplotype carrying round-headed white hairsute EURASIATICS in southwest Asia. AND U6 evidently WAS NOT FROM WHITES according to some people on this board.
You have NOTHING LEFT!
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
You NeanderScyths are funny. Looking at your fantastical pseudoscientific wacky postings on other forums can keep anyone entertained for hours.
If you can not even be traced back to the freaking Cro-Magnon man in Europe how are you everwhere else at the same time, losers!
"'The first proto-Caucasoid or Europo-Aethiopoid forms did not occur in the Middle East but in the Ethiopian heartland." Skadi forum
"Scientists in Britain have identified the oldest skeleton ever found on the American continent in a discovery that raises ... However, the most intriguing aspect of the skull is that it is long and narrow and typically Caucasian in appearance..." thewhiterace.com
"The oldest remains found in America were Proto-Caucasoid and not mongoloid nor Proto-Mongoloid, see this thread..." forumbiodiversity
LOL! The jealousy and hilarity of you nobodies never ceases! Keep that hope and delusion alive!
Neanderdummy i.e. Anglophile's "Caucasoid admixed" Karamajong Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Dana, IGNORE the Anglo-PrimeIdiot! He is just lashing out in desperation since this very thread of yours exposes and busts the pseudo-scholarly con-game he and his idiotic ilk play! Note how all the outdated sources he cites don't go past 1990, which only confirm what you've said all along! LOL
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: Neanderniggah!- East Africans near Ottoman peoples have absorbed some Turkish blood. That includes the Somali and Beja in particular. Before that the Amhara have of course once lived on both sides of he Arabian Sea and have likely absorbed various Eurasiatic groups.
Fortunately we know from blood group studies Somalis and other Negroes are NOT any more connected with modern EURASIATICS than Southern Italians and southern Iberians are with west Africans.
Actually! Just a small correction. You're right that relatively few East Africans do have some admixture from Eurasians and that most of it is indeed very recent. Unfortunately the converse can't be said for Europeans! LOL In fact, among BOTH southern Italians and southern Iberians, there are many who carry West African genes and genetic signatures like paternal E1b1a, E1b1b, E2, maternal L2, L1, and even Benin HBS (sickle cell)!! In fact all of these genetic influences are not recent at all but are very ancient dating back to at least the Neolithic!
Of course the Anglo-Idiot admits that E1b1b in Europeans was derived from Africans, though claims such Africans were "Mediterranean Caucasoids"! LOL
quote:That is the fact that you can not accept. We don't get our long narrow head faces and noses from NEANDERDULLS or BASQUES!. YOU ARE MUCH MORE RELATED TO THEM THEN YOU ARE TO ANY BLACK WHATSOEVER!
LIKE I SAID ENJOY AND LEARN TO APPRECIATE YOUR OWN SCYTHONEANDERDULLIC ANCESTRY BECAUSE THAT'S THE BULK OF YOUR BIOLOGICAL AND IN FACT CULTURAL HERITAGE. AND I AM SORRRY IF THAT HURTS!
I wouldn't be too sure about that if I were you! Just as many Africans were mistakenly thought to have so-called "caucasian" ancestry for having certain facial features, there are many Europeans who look totally white but could have recent African ancestry! Remember there are some Europeans who carry African lineages; some of these lineages are ancient while some are more recent! In other words, don't judge a book by its cover.
Perhaps the Anglo-Idiot needs to check his own genealogy before he concerns himself with the lineage of other peoples in Africa! LMAO Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: "In Kenya the remains from Gamble’s Cave …have been interpreted as showing Caucasoid features. And possible archaeological affinities with the Mediterranean Capsian industries (Ferembach). As we have seen in previous chapters recent sub-Saharan Africans are cranially MORE GRACILE than Europeans and therefore fossil African specimens of greater size and robusticity have been traditionally considered non-African in character. ..Rightmire found that these East African remains as well as those from the sites as Willy Kopje, Nakuru and Makalia, cluster with one or other sub-Saharan population, and not with either Egyptians or San/Khoi…Similar results were obtained by Brauer (1978), and Rightmire has suggested that these fossils may represent Nilotic peoples… These findings are very important because they suggest that not only late Pleistocene to early Holocene remains like Gambles Cave and Elmenteita SHOULD NOT be interpreted as Caucasoid elements, but that the great levels of cranial variation observed today in sub-Saharan Africa were probably even greater in the late Pleistocene.” P. 283 The Evolution of Moderrn Human Diversity: A Study of Cranial Variation Mart Mirazon Lahr 1996
Indeed, the above confirms the findings of Hiernaux.
"The oldest remains of Homo sapiens sapiens found in East Africa were associated with an industry having similarities with the Capsian. It has been called Upper Kenyan Capsian, although its derivation from the North African Capsian is far from certain. At Gamble's Cave in Kenya, five human skeletons were associated with a late phase of the industry, Upper Kenya Capsian C, which contains pottery. A similar associationis presumed for a skeleton found at Olduvai, which resembles those from Gamble's Cave. The date of Upper Kenya Capsian C is not precisely known (an earlier phase from Prospect Farm on Eburru Mountain close to Gamble's Cave has been dated to about 8000 BC); but the presence of pottery indicates a rather later date, perhaps around 400 BC. The skeletons are of very tall people. They had long, narrow heads, and relatively long, narrow faces. The nose was of medium width; and prognathism, when present, was restricted to the alveolar, or tooth-bearing, region......all their features can be found in several living populations of East Africa, like the Tutsi of Rwanda and Burundi, who are very dark skinned and differ greatly from Europeans in a number of body proportions..... From the foregoing, it is tempting to locate the area of differentiation of these people in the interior of East Africa. There is every reason to believe that they are ancestral to the living 'Elongated East Africans'. Neither of these populations, fossil and modern, should be considered to be closely related to the populations of Europe and western Asia." Jean Hiernaux The People of Africa (Peoples of the World Series) 1975
quote:Capsians elongated east AFrican and other Mediterranean types were nothing but some black long-headed non-Scythic peoples. I am sorry that you have a distaste for your Scythic ancestry but you need tto focus on it and not trying to make yourself into US BLACKS!
Thus is the very crux of the matter-- that these same racist whites who think themselves to be so superior to Africans, want to actually claim the very people and cultures of Africa for themselves!!
Yes it is a very sick and twisted paradox. It's very similar to mentality of 'God fearing', zealous, and fervent Christians who worship (a Jewish) Christ and follow the Bible (a Jewish book), yet hate Jews! LOL
They are psychopaths that are in deep need of mental treatment. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Another example of a Hamitic Caucasoid from North Africa.
^ I believe she's from the Nubian region and Dongolan so obviously she of the same 'type' as 'White Nubian'! LOL Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Up for the lying Euroloons!
Posted by gorpa (Member # 20501) on :
Actually, Jean Hiernaux did not analyse any of the East African Caucasoid remains. He just hypothesized/guessed that they may have been ancestral to Sub-Saharan folks like the Tutsi because of the somewhat narrower features in this ethnic group relative to other Negroid peoples.
Gunter Bräuer, on the other hand, did conduct several such cranial analyses from the late 1970s to 1990. And he found that the East African Gamble's Cave and related skeletal material grouped nearest to certain prehistoric Caucasoid remains from West Eurasia. They weren't Negroid, though some Negroid and Khoisan specimens did also coexist in the region during various periods (similar to the situation in prehistoric North Africa).
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by gorpa: Actually, Jean Hiernaux did not analyse any of the East African Caucasoid remains. He just hypothesized/guessed that they may have been ancestral to Sub-Saharan folks like the Tutsi because of the somewhat narrower features in this ethnic group relative to other Negroid peoples.
Gunter Bräuer, on the other hand, did conduct several such cranial analyses from the late 1970s to 1990. And he found that the East African Gamble's Cave and related skeletal material grouped nearest to certain prehistoric Caucasoid remains from West Eurasia. They weren't Negroid, though some Negroid and Khoisan specimens did also coexist in the region during various periods (similar to the situation in prehistoric North Africa).
If people living in Olduvai Gorge way the hell in Tanzania during 15,000 BC are "Europid" according to you, there is no helping you.
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: If people living in Olduvai Gorge way the hell in Tanzania during 15,000 BC are "Europid" according to you, there is no helping you.
I'm aware of the recent evolution of light skin coloration in modern humans (not just West Eurasians). All humans are believed to have originally had brown skin.
That doesn't change the fact that the Afro-Asiatic peoples in North Africa and the Horn region have a majority incidence of the same, recently-evolved allele that is associated with light skin pigmentation in modern West Eurasian populations. Black Africans, on the other hand, do not have the variant unless they've experienced some West Eurasian admixture; either directly or through intermediaries.
In other words, while the earlier population movements from West Eurasia into North and East Africa likely involved Caucasoid-featured peoples possessing the original generic brown human skin coloration, later waves of immigration from the same geographic area at some point(s) clearly introduced the aforementioned West Eurasian pigmentation allele. It didn't just get there and spread so widely by itself. Neither did the various downstream West Eurasian mtDNA lineages that are today so common in these particular regions.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by claus3600: @anglo If you go to West and Central Africa you find this physiognomy.
How would YOU know? YOU'VE never been.
loool
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: You say "Caucasoids" have the most phenotypic diversity. But when you are shown African diversity a "true" negro must be found. You havent shown any reason to divide people by bone structure. And even if we did WHY focus on the head. Why not the limbs and other areas of the body.
There is no double standard retard. You are clueless about physical anthropology.
Morphologically Atlanto-Meds and Nordids are identical. All Caucasoids are highly uniform in bone structure.
In contrast East Africans are Caucasoid in morphology through a significant Eurasian admixture as the genetics has repeatedly proven.
East Africans don't look like Negroids in bone structure. You are so damn retarded, as many times as this is repeated you will ignore.
I swear this Anglo idiot, is a retard.smh
As Swenet stated before, it's mind boggling.
Eurasians are cold adapted and extensive HAIRY! East Africans are not!
190,000 Kya
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote: Morphologically Atlanto-Meds and Nordids are identical. All Caucasoids are highly uniform in bone structure.
^lol at cacasoids are most diverse.lol
You are even too dumb to understand what you yourself are writing.
When actual anthropologist say Africans are most diverse it means for example Africans in complete different phenotype, bonestructere, yet clustering within the same group genetically. Yes, without foreign genetic input. Dumbass!
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
Village idiot.
quote:Originally posted by gorpa: Actually, Jean Hiernaux did not analyse any of the East African Caucasoid remains. He just hypothesized/guessed that they may have been ancestral to Sub-Saharan folks like the Tutsi because of the somewhat narrower features in this ethnic group relative to other Negroid peoples.
Gunter Bräuer, on the other hand, did conduct several such cranial analyses from the late 1970s to 1990. And he found that the East African Gamble's Cave and related skeletal material grouped nearest to certain prehistoric Caucasoid remains from West Eurasia. They weren't Negroid, though some Negroid and Khoisan specimens did also coexist in the region during various periods (similar to the situation in prehistoric North Africa).
First off all, the terminology you're using exposes you.
Second, what is West Eurasian? Cro-Magnon? Who?lol
^ The major morphological attributes in subspecies are uniform, what though can vary a considerable amount is ''soft tissue'' - phenotypic traits like pigmentation, hair colour and so forth. The majority of the intra-variation within a subspecies is in the latter - hence we recognise different races or clusters within the Caucasoid, Mongoloid etc. On the most micro level they are a continuum, and are constantly being created. ''Africans'' are not a race. Its a geographical term. Africa has been inhabited by many different subspecies and races for thousands of years. The peoples of Madagascar and the eastern coasts of Africa for example are from Indonesia.
The equivilant of what you are saying is to take the USA - and claim it has the most 'natural' physical variation because today it is an extreme multiracial cesspool... No logic whatsoever. But that's to be expected since you are an ignorant Afronut troll. As many times as these facts are presented you just ignore.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by gorpa: In other words, while the earlier population movements from West Eurasia into North and East Africa likely involved Caucasoid-featured peoples possessing the original generic brown human skin coloration
I don't deny that today's North and East Africans have some admixture with West Eurasians, as that kind of intercourse is historically documented, but what I'm addressing is your claim that this "Caucasoid" component goes back to the Paleolithic. If Wandering Caucasoids of any color ever back-migrated into sub-Saharan Africa in significant numbers, they apparently skipped Egypt, as Egyptian remains from the time period in question show sub-Saharan affinities according to relatively recent analyses:
In the sum, the results obtained further strengthen the results from previous analyses. The affinities between Nazlet Khater, MSA, and Khoisan and Khoisan related groups re-emerges. In addition it is possible to detect a separation between North African and sub-saharan populations, with the Neolithic Saharan population from Hasi el Abiod and the Egyptian Badarian group being closely affiliated with modern Negroid groups. Similarly, the Epipaleolithic populations from Site 117 and Wadi Halfa are also affiliated with sub-Saharan LSA, Iron Age and modern Negroid groups rather than with contemporaneous North African populations such as Taforalt and the Ibero-maurusian.---Pierre M. Vermeersch (Author & Editor), 'Palaeolithic quarrying sites in Upper and Middle Egypt', Egyptian Prehistory Monographs Vol. 4, Leuven University Press (2002).
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by gorpa:
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: If people living in Olduvai Gorge way the hell in Tanzania during 15,000 BC are "Europid" according to you, there is no helping you.
I'm aware of the recent evolution of light skin coloration in modern humans (not just West Eurasians). All humans are believed to have originally had brown skin.
That doesn't change the fact that the Afro-Asiatic peoples in North Africa and the Horn region have a majority incidence of the same, recently-evolved allele that is associated with light skin pigmentation in modern West Eurasian populations. Black Africans, on the other hand, do not have the variant unless they've experienced some West Eurasian admixture; either directly or through intermediaries.
In other words, while the earlier population movements from West Eurasia into North and East Africa likely involved Caucasoid-featured peoples possessing the original generic brown human skin coloration, later waves of immigration from the same geographic area at some point(s) clearly introduced the aforementioned West Eurasian pigmentation allele. It didn't just get there and spread so widely by itself. Neither did the various downstream West Eurasian mtDNA lineages that are today so common in these particular regions.
YES - slavery WAS common in North AFrica and especially in the Beja and Eritraean region where many Ottoman Trukish men and women arrived.
Our narrow elongated features come from the depths of hot, super-arid, BLACK Africa and are therefore NOT "Caucasoid" in origin. Your polar icecap-originated features came from your OWN ANCESTORS. If you NUTS weren't so busy on this forum trying to make East AFricans and other blacks into "Caucasoids" maybe you would known by now where. Posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist (Member # 18853) on :
Afronuts once again quote-mining Vermeersch yet fail to note that his multivariate analysis on the mandible of Nazlet Khater clusters it with Capoid (Khoisanid) not Negroid:
''Therefore, on the basis of factor score [...] the Nazlet Khater and Khoisan groups are closely related. Based on this observation, I hypothesize that Nezlet Khater represent a (or ''the'') ''Proto-Khoisan'' stock, which could have extended as far north as egypt.'' - Vermeersch, 2002 p. 325
Which confirms Coon's (1962) theory that Capoids are indigenous to North Africa, having been pushed south by Caucasoids during the turn of the Holocene.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Yet what does such slavery have ANYTHING to do with the gracile "Caucasoid" skulls of prehistoric Tanzania??!!
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: If people living in Olduvai Gorge way the hell in Tanzania during 15,000 BC are "Europid" according to you, there is no helping you.
Truthcentric hit the nail right on the head. When this 'gorpa' first showed up, I tried giving her the benefit of the doubt that she was merely a misguided black person. But now I see such hope does not exist here in this forum! LOL This person is nothing more than one of the Euroloons trying desperately to revive the Hamitic b.s. that Dana is warning us about! Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: Neanderniggah!- East Africans near Ottoman peoples have absorbed some Turkish blood. That includes the Somali and Beja in particular. Before that the Amhara have of course once lived on both sides of he Arabian Sea and have likely absorbed various Eurasiatic groups.
Fortunately we know from blood group studies Somalis and other Negroes are NOT any more connected with modern EURASIATICS than Southern Italians and southern Iberians are with west Africans.
Actually! Just a small correction. You're right that relatively few East Africans do have some admixture from Eurasians and that most of it is indeed very recent. Unfortunately the converse can't be said for Europeans! LOL In fact, among BOTH southern Italians and southern Iberians, there are many who carry West African genes and genetic signatures like paternal E1b1a, E1b1b, E2, maternal L2, L1, and even Benin HBS (sickle cell)!! In fact all of these genetic influences are not recent at all but are very ancient dating back to at least the Neolithic!
Of course the Anglo-Idiot admits that E1b1b in Europeans was derived from Africans, though claims such Africans were "Mediterranean Caucasoids"! LOL
quote:That is the fact that you can not accept. We don't get our long narrow head faces and noses from NEANDERDULLS or BASQUES!. YOU ARE MUCH MORE RELATED TO THEM THEN YOU ARE TO ANY BLACK WHATSOEVER!
LIKE I SAID ENJOY AND LEARN TO APPRECIATE YOUR OWN SCYTHONEANDERDULLIC ANCESTRY BECAUSE THAT'S THE BULK OF YOUR BIOLOGICAL AND IN FACT CULTURAL HERITAGE. AND I AM SORRRY IF THAT HURTS!
I wouldn't be too sure about that if I were you! Just as many Africans were mistakenly thought to have so-called "caucasian" ancestry for having certain facial features, there are many Europeans who look totally white but could have recent African ancestry! Remember there are some Europeans who carry African lineages; some of these lineages are ancient while some are more recent! In other words, don't judge a book by its cover.
Perhaps the Anglo-Idiot needs to check his own genealogy before he concerns himself with the lineage of other peoples in Africa! LMAO
Though I am just speaking generically and half-jokingly, what you say here is true Djehuti. Southern Europeans so-called "Caucasoids" in particular probably have more black African in them than East Africans possess of their Caucasoid genes.
Hence the confusion at the foundations of the everpresent the "hamitic" Mediterranean concept. Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Truthcentric hit the nail right on the head. When this 'gorpa' first showed up, I tried giving her the benefit of the doubt that she was merely a misguided black person. But now I such hope does not exist here in this forum! LOL This person is nothing more than one of the Euroloons trying desperately to revive the Hamitic b.s. that Dana is warning us about!
I got the impression that gorpa had some association with the Hamitic Union dudes. He did come not too long after Dana created a thread against Hamitic Union.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ I figured as much. I was actually wondering when the the fools from that board would lay siege to Egyptsearch as soon as Dana called them out! LOL
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_PrimeIdiot: Afronuts once again quote-mining Vermeersch yet fail to note that his multivariate analysis on **the mandible** of Nazlet Khater clusters it with Capoid (Khoisanid) not Negroid:
''Therefore, on the basis of factor score [...] the Nazlet Khater and Khoisan groups are closely related. Based on this observation, I hypothesize that Nezlet Khater represent a (or ''the'') ''Proto-Khoisan'' stock, which could have extended as far north as egypt.'' - Vermeersch, 2002 p. 325
Which confirms Coon's (1962) theory that Capoids are indigenous to North Africa, having been pushed south by Caucasoids during the turn of the Holocene.
Again, you focus on the ONE trait of the mandible! LOL You are such a desperate loser!
Why don't you finish the rest of what Vermeersch says??
In the sum, the results obtained further strengthen the results from previous analyses. The affinities between Nazlet Khater, MSA, and Khoisan and Khoisan related groups re-emerges. In addition it is possible to detect a separation between North African and sub-saharan populations, with the Neolithic Saharan population from Hasi el Abiod and the Egyptian Badarian group being closely affiliated with modern Negroid groups. Similarly, the Epipaleolithic populations from Site 117 and Wadi Halfa are also affiliated with sub-Saharan LSA, Iron Age and modern Negroid groups rather than with contemporaneous North African populations such as Taforalt and the Ibero-maurusian. Title Palaeolithic quarrying sites in Upper and Middle Egypt Volume 4 of Egyptian prehistory monographs Author Pierre M. Vermeersch
LOL You say Nazlet Khater is 'Capoid' yet many sources note that he as well as remains in Nubia such as Wadi Halfa show features that are "negroid" as well in facial form and you claim "Capoids" as different from "negroids" in facial measurements!!
Here is what we have from the experts!:
"Both hypotheses are compatible with the hypothesis proposed by Brothwell (1963) of an East African proto-Khoisan Negro stock which migrated southwards and westwards at some time during the Upper Pleistocene, and replaced most of the local populations of South Africa. Under such circumstances, it is possible that the Nazlet Khater specimen is part of a relict population of this proto-Khoisan Negro stock which extended as far north as Nazlet Khater at least until the late part of the Late Pleistocene. At the onset of the Holocene, the proto-Khoisan Negro stock became differentiated to proto-Negro and large proto-Khoisan varieties. The proto-Negro stock migrated west and the large proto-Khoisan varities migrated south.... ...The morphometric affinities of the 33,000 year old skeleton from Nazlet Khater, Upper Egypt are examined using multivariate statistical procedures.. The results indicate a strong association between some of the sub-Saharan Middle Stone Age (MSA) specimens, and the Nazlet Khater mandible. Furthermore, the results suggest that variability between African populations during the Neolithic and Protohistoric periods was more pronounced than the range of variability observed among recent African and Levantine populations." (Pinhasi Ron, Semal Patrick (2000). The position of the Nazlet Khater specimen among prehistoric and modern African and Levantine populations. Journal of human evolution. 2000, vol. 39, no3, pp. 269-288)
Posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist (Member # 18853) on :
^ Do you not understand what a diagnostic trait is? The shape of Nazlet Khater's mandible is exclusively Khoisanid. Vermeersch (2002) explains this in detail with a diagram.
Negroids didn't arrive in the area (North/East Africa) until the Bantu expansion. The oldest Negroid skeleton we know of is only 12k in WEST Africa, and they don't appear in the fossil record until as recent as 2000 BC in other parts after the Bantu migration.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
^ Would you consider South Sudanese and other Nilotes "Negroid"? They are not Bantu.
Posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist (Member # 18853) on :
^ I think the prehistoric or ancient inhabitants of these areas need to be distinguished from those that currently dwell there.
Negroids were not in South, North or East Africa until c. 2000 - 1000 BC (4000 - 3000 BP).
Read Peter Frost's (2008) article on ''Black African Origins'', which i have posted -
quote:By about 4,000 BP, the expansion had reached as far east as the middle Nile, when black Africans first appear in paintings from Pharaonic Egypt and in skeletal remains from Nubia (Junker, 1921). About 3,000 BP, another wave of advance began along the Nigerian-Cameroon border and spread rapidly throughout central, eastern, and southern Africa (Cavalli-Sforza, 1986c, pp. 361-362; Diamond, 1997; Oliver, 1966). By 300 AD, pioneering groups had advanced as far south as KwaZulu-Natal''
So Negroids moved into Central, South Africa as late as c. 1000 BC (3000 BP).
Frost, thus quite correctly concludes:
''[...]black Africans were still absent from most of sub-Saharan Africa even within historic times.''
Caucasoids and Khoisanids predate Negroids in all these areas before c. 2000 - 1000 BC.
The Negroid is a very recent mutation:
quote:True Black Africans appear as a recent adaptive radiation in the above dendrograms, apparently branching off from an ancestral Pygmy population — a line of ancestry also indicated by osteological data (Coon 1962:651-656; Watson et al. 1996). This radiation seems to have occurred somewhere in West Africa. Before the Bantu expansion about 3,000 years ago, true Black Africans were absent from the continent's central, eastern, and southern regions (Cavalli-Sforza 1986:361-362; Oliver 1966). They were also absent from the middle Nile until about 4,000 years ago, at which time they begin to appear in paintings from Pharaonic Egypt and in skeletal remains from Nubia (Junker 1921).
quote:Originally posted by gorpa: Actually, Jean Hiernaux did not analyse any of the East African Caucasoid remains. He just hypothesized/guessed that they may have been ancestral to Sub-Saharan folks like the Tutsi because of the somewhat narrower features in this ethnic group relative to other Negroid peoples.
Gunter Bräuer, on the other hand, did conduct several such cranial analyses from the late 1970s to 1990. And he found that the East African Gamble's Cave and related skeletal material grouped nearest to certain prehistoric Caucasoid remains from West Eurasia. They weren't Negroid, though some Negroid and Khoisan specimens did also coexist in the region during various periods (similar to the situation in prehistoric North Africa).
If people living in Olduvai Gorge way the hell in Tanzania during 15,000 BC are "Europid" according to you, there is no helping you.
Unfortunately scientists like Maca-meyer have it even earlier.lol! This is why I am saying we have to give these more ignorant people something of a break. They are totally gone off to Mars somewhere. Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Yet what does such slavery have ANYTHING to do with the gracile "Caucasoid" skulls of prehistoric Tanzania??!!
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: If people living in Olduvai Gorge way the hell in Tanzania during 15,000 BC are "Europid" according to you, there is no helping you.
Truthcentric hit the nail right on the head. When this 'gorpa' first showed up, I tried giving her the benefit of the doubt that she was merely a misguided black person. But now I see such hope does not exist here in this forum! LOL This person is nothing more than one of the Euroloons trying desperately to revive the Hamitic b.s. that Dana is warning us about!
yes Djehuti, but I don't think Truthcentric really gets how deep the problem is. It is no point answering some of these "Euroloons" any more and no point in even getting angry because they are only following what they are being told by some scientists who never got the news that colonialist racial concepts are considered obsolete,and who are apparently still reliant on old Mediterranean "hamitic" theories of the white supremacists and eugenicists.
I, like Stephen How,e had thought that at least some of this nonsense about Gamble's Cave Mediterranean Nordics in Kenya had died out. But alas, lol! I am probably understating that it is worse than before, and the cause is basically lost.
It doesn't matter that Tiye looks like some little black woman from any Harlem street corner or that Tut likely died of sickle cell, they'll never believe Nefertiti's bust was done over in nouveau French style or that Cleopatra's mother was probably more African than European, that Peruvian and Egyptian mummies have red auburn hair because of chemicals or that Mehipre was wearing a non-mummified wig. All the facts no longer matter any more because these people are brainwashed and on some near nationalist high that they are basically the be all and the end all of human civilized history in Africa. There is nothing that was ever built in Africa that wasn't built by them or did not have their taint on it.lol!
Even though they were only a likely minority in Eurasia up until the neolithic and as Brace's analuysis implied a minority in the Near East up until the late Bronze age.
Even the spacemen will be them, as far as they ae concerned.
That is why the reaction has been so vitriolic to the latest dna findings about Tut and even people like Brace who told them they couldn't possibly have a direct ancestry from east Africans or even most neolithic Mediterraneans.
We are truly dealing with neo-Nazi like psyche's here, that would prefer to live in delusional lie than in Truth. They are unbending characters and so certain they are right that it is quite hilarious and yet sickening at the same time. There is nothing that will convince such people that there is not some blackened white race living in the heart of Africa.lol!
After all - as these wackos like to say - "look at the dna".
So we might as well get used to it. Heil Gunter Brauer. Here's to Kenya's Nordics. Cheers!
Posted by Narmerthoth (Member # 20259) on :
^ BINGO!
Logic fails in this situation.
DNA analysis is influenced but many factors, the most important being Intellectual control which definitely ain't black. Name one black firm on the globe who designs/manufactures DNA analysis gear. Can't be done. They don't exist. So, from the very start you are placing your faith blindly, in the integrity and exactness of that design and in many cases, unaware of the true theory of it's operation. I went to court once when a Negro COP wrote me a ticket for supposedly speeding. I informed him to just let me go cause he didn't have a chance of winning in court because he had no idea of how the radar he was using actually worked. He was just blindly using the Albino tool to profile black motorist in a black neighborhood. We went to court. I told my mouthpiece which questions to ask about the radar, and the case was dismissed. Albino designed tools can be made to give the results they want. They understand it's operation because they control the design. These designs are closely held and out of the public domain for a reason.
Of course these clowns sabotaging the board have no clue of their operations either but, they don't need to. These details are up to the Jews who own the companies who design and manufacture them.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: yes Djehuti, but I don't think Truthcentric really gets how deep the problem is. It is no point answering some of these "Euroloons" any more and no point in even getting angry because they are only following what they are being told by some scientists who never got the news that colonialist racial concepts are considered obsolete,and who are apparently still reliant on old Mediterranean "hamitic" theories of the white supremacists and eugenicists.
Actually I agree that a lot of biological anthropologists even today do seem to suffer from the old hypotheses' influence. We could accomplish a lot more by addressing them rather than fruitlessly arguing with boneheads on the Internet. This is one major reason I've chosen to major in Biological Anthropology; change must come from within the system.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Yet whatever bias exists in today's anthropological circles is not that bad where they are regurgitating the 'Hamitic hypothesis' at least not in the typological race approach that these Euroloon trolls are doing! In all honesty I completely stopped taking these Euroloons seriously long time ago. They are suffering from a psychological disorder indeed and its called psychotic delusion where all reality is rejected in favor of some ideology no matter how bankrupt it is.
All these Euroloons are good for is maybe a laugh as well as exploiting their ignorance and stupidity for educational purposes.
Case in point...
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_PrimeIdiot: Do you not understand what a diagnostic trait is? The shape of Nazlet Khater's mandible is exclusively Khoisanid. Vermeersch (2002) explains this in detail with a diagram.
Do you not understand that there is no such thing as a 'racial' trait let alone one that's diagnostic?! Do you not understand that statistical and variable analysis of skulls relies on much more than just ONE trait such as the mandible?
Do you not understand that as a whole the skull shows just as many so-called "negroid" features as "Capoid" features? Hence, this passage from Pinhasi et. al?
"Both hypotheses are compatible with the hypothesis proposed by Brothwell (1963) of an East African proto-Khoisan Negro stock which migrated southwards and westwards at some time during the Upper Pleistocene, and replaced most of the local populations of South Africa. Under such circumstances, it is possible that the Nazlet Khater specimen is part of a relict population of this proto-Khoisan Negro stock which extended as far north as Nazlet Khater at least until the late part of the Late Pleistocene. At the onset of the Holocene, the proto-Khoisan Negro stock became differentiated to proto-Negro and large proto-Khoisan varieties. The proto-Negro stock migrated west and the large proto-Khoisan varities migrated south...."
By the way, you still fail to explain how "Negroes" and "Capoids" are two distinct races but "Nordics" and "Alpines" are not.
quote:Negroids didn't arrive in the area (North/East Africa) until the Bantu expansion. The oldest Negroid skeleton we know of is only 12k in WEST Africa, and they don't appear in the fossil record until as recent as 2000 BC in other parts after the Bantu migration.
You keep saying this, yet despite the above passage by Pinhasi et al. the same can also be said about "Capoids". But what are we to make of the passage by Vermeesch that I cited, the one you conveniently like to leave out?
"In the sum, the results obtained further strengthen the results from previous analyses. The affinities between Nazlet Khater, MSA, and Khoisan and Khoisan related groups re-emerges. In addition it is possible to detect a separation between North African and sub-saharan populations, with the Neolithic Saharan population from Hasi el Abiod and the Egyptian Badarian group being closely affiliated with modern Negroid groups. Similarly, the Epipaleolithic populations from Site 117 and Wadi Halfa are also affiliated with sub-Saharan LSA, Iron Age and modern Negroid groups rather than with contemporaneous North African populations such as Taforalt and the Ibero-maurusian.
Why do you keep ignoring such info from your own source?! LOL
There's also this as well...
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: Would you consider South Sudanese and other Nilotes "Negroid"? They are not Bantu.
Indeed, these Nilotic "negroid" groups have inhabited east Africa long before the Bantu expansion. And so have the Ethiopians in the picture below as discussed in this thread.
The Anglo-Idiot claims the above people to be Bantus yet they speak NO Bantu words at all and practice an entirely different culture. In fact there are no Bantus at all in Ethiopia except in the areas bordering Kenya in the south. The people above come from the Omo Valley in western central Ethiopia and actually speak Afro-asiatic languages!
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_PrimeIdiot: I think the prehistoric or ancient inhabitants of these areas need to be distinguished from those that currently dwell there.
What you 'think' is irrelevant to the FACTS of what is!
quote:Negroids were not in South, North or East Africa until c. 2000 - 1000 BC (4000 - 3000 BP).
Read Peter Frost's (2008) article on ''Black African Origins'', which i have posted -
We've read your claims as well as the Frost source enough times to know that it is rubbish covered in bloody bullocks. Your (and Frost's) narrow definition of "negroid" does not exist any more than your ridiculously wide definition of "caca-soid".
Begone with you stupid bugger. Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: yes Djehuti, but I don't think Truthcentric really gets how deep the problem is. It is no point answering some of these "Euroloons" any more and no point in even getting angry because they are only following what they are being told by some scientists who never got the news that colonialist racial concepts are considered obsolete,and who are apparently still reliant on old Mediterranean "hamitic" theories of the white supremacists and eugenicists.
Actually I agree that a lot of biological anthropologists even today do seem to suffer from the old hypotheses' influence. We could accomplish a lot more by addressing them rather than fruitlessly arguing with boneheads on the Internet. This is one major reason I've chosen to major in Biological Anthropology; change must come from within the system.
Maybe it would be quicker just to get some of these people together to debate each other. As was done with Martin Bernal and Mary Lefkowitz.
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Yet whatever bias exists in today's anthropological circles is not that bad where they are regurgitating the 'Hamitic hypothesis' at least not in the typological race approach that these Euroloon trolls are doing! In all honesty I completely stopped taking these Euroloons seriously long time ago. They are suffering from a psychological disorder indeed and its called psychotic delusion where all reality is rejected in favor of some ideology no matter how bankrupt it is.
All these Euroloons are good for is maybe a laugh as well as exploiting their ignorance and stupidity for educational purposes.
Case in point...
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_PrimeIdiot: Do you not understand what a diagnostic trait is? The shape of Nazlet Khater's mandible is exclusively Khoisanid. Vermeersch (2002) explains this in detail with a diagram.
Do you not understand that there is no such thing as a 'racial' trait let alone one that's diagnostic?! Do you not understand that statistical and variable analysis of skulls relies on much more than just ONE trait such as the mandible?
Do you not understand that as a whole the skull shows just as many so-called "negroid" features as "Capoid" features? Hence, this passage from Pinhasi et. al?
"Both hypotheses are compatible with the hypothesis proposed by Brothwell (1963) of an East African proto-Khoisan Negro stock which migrated southwards and westwards at some time during the Upper Pleistocene, and replaced most of the local populations of South Africa. Under such circumstances, it is possible that the Nazlet Khater specimen is part of a relict population of this proto-Khoisan Negro stock which extended as far north as Nazlet Khater at least until the late part of the Late Pleistocene. At the onset of the Holocene, the proto-Khoisan Negro stock became differentiated to proto-Negro and large proto-Khoisan varieties. The proto-Negro stock migrated west and the large proto-Khoisan varities migrated south...."
By the way, you still fail to explain how "Negroes" and "Capoids" are two distinct races but "Nordics" and "Alpines" are not.
quote:Negroids didn't arrive in the area (North/East Africa) until the Bantu expansion. The oldest Negroid skeleton we know of is only 12k in WEST Africa, and they don't appear in the fossil record until as recent as 2000 BC in other parts after the Bantu migration.
You keep saying this, yet despite the above passage by Pinhasi et al. the same can also be said about "Capoids". But what are we to make of the passage by Vermeesch that I cited, the one you conveniently like to leave out?
"In the sum, the results obtained further strengthen the results from previous analyses. The affinities between Nazlet Khater, MSA, and Khoisan and Khoisan related groups re-emerges. In addition it is possible to detect a separation between North African and sub-saharan populations, with the Neolithic Saharan population from Hasi el Abiod and the Egyptian Badarian group being closely affiliated with modern Negroid groups. Similarly, the Epipaleolithic populations from Site 117 and Wadi Halfa are also affiliated with sub-Saharan LSA, Iron Age and modern Negroid groups rather than with contemporaneous North African populations such as Taforalt and the Ibero-maurusian.
Why do you keep ignoring such info from your own source?! LOL
There's also this as well...
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: Would you consider South Sudanese and other Nilotes "Negroid"? They are not Bantu.
Indeed, these Nilotic "negroid" groups have inhabited east Africa long before the Bantu expansion. And so have the Ethiopians in the picture below as discussed in this thread.
The Anglo-Idiot claims the above people to be Bantus yet they speak NO Bantu words at all and practice an entirely different culture. In fact there are no Bantus at all in Ethiopia except in the areas bordering Kenya in the south. The people above come from the Omo Valley in western central Ethiopia and actually speak Afro-asiatic languages!
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_PrimeIdiot: I think the prehistoric or ancient inhabitants of these areas need to be distinguished from those that currently dwell there.
What you 'think' is irrelevant to the FACTS of what is!
quote:Negroids were not in South, North or East Africa until c. 2000 - 1000 BC (4000 - 3000 BP).
Read Peter Frost's (2008) article on ''Black African Origins'', which i have posted -
We've read your claims as well as the Frost source enough times to know that it is rubbish covered in bloody bullocks. Your (and Frost's) narrow definition of "negroid" does not exist any more than your ridiculously wide definition of "caca-soid".
Begone with you stupid bugger.
Djehuti there is no point in trying to explain this stuff to people with Tarzan on the brain. Just goes in one PrimeIdiot ear and out the other.lol!
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
^^ No doubt 'gorpa' is yet another bogus "sista". Hilarious that the lamers actually think anyone is fooled. And since we are speaking of "mixed" populations, white populations like some Greeks must similarly be considered "mixed." Indeed, using the race percentage approach, white people are themselves a hybrid "mixed" breed according to conservative white scholars. ------------------------------------------
1-- Villena's Greek-Macedonian-African study has nothing to do with the Jew-Palestinian controversy. The study was withdrawn for political reasons, and offended sensibilities of various Jewish and other groups. Assorted "biodiversity" types try to use that to advance a bogus claim that the Greek data was "withdrawn." Total BS. It is alive and well and appears specifically in Vilenna's Greek study: HLA genes in Macedonians and the sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks Tissue Antigens 2001: 57: 118–127 Jewish - Palestinian controversies have nothing to do with it.
2-- The Palestinian study also notes that Greeks are related to Africans via cystic fibrosis mutations.
3-- It is true that the data being used is highly variable HLA genes. However the presence of Japanese clustering with south Africans is not as far fetched as it seems. HLA genes are useful in analyzing certain arthritis conditions. There is hard medical data in various HLA studies that indeed show Japanese and south African blacks grouping together in relation to arthritis conditions. See the data below.
4-- Anthro/Archaeo data show the presence of African traits (and remember Africans have a wide variety of traits) in the Neolithic data. The full info has already been posted but here is some anthro/archaeo data affirming the presence of "negroid" traits from early times: quote: "The female of forty-plus years of age from Grave 2 was examined by J. L. Angel who noted what he interpreted as a number of 'negroid' .. traits in the face." The skull is fairly complete, but not enough so for discriminant function analysis." There is marked maxillary prognathism and the orbits may be described as rectangular, traits frequently used in forensic diagnosis of Negro crania... " -- Skeletons of Lerna Hollow. Al B. Wesolowsky. Hesperia, Vol. 42, No. 3. (Jul. - Sep., 1973), pp. 340-351.
"Early Neolithic Macedonia centered on a Dinaric-Mediterranean (type F) average but with an extremely broad nose, more prognathism, and a little more mouth tilt than expected (all, perhaps from negroid development of the incisor region.." -- The people of Lerna: analysis of a prehistoric Aegean population. J.L Angel 1971
"The portrayal on the 'minature fresco' from Thera, and on the other, very fragmentary Aegean frescoes, of diverse stylistic elements- flora a nd fauna, 'negroid' human representations, the riverine setting, of the 'minature fresco,' etc- that seem to be north African, 'Libyan' or Egyptian in origin." --The Aegean and the Orient in the second millennium: proceedings of the 50th anniversary symposium, Cincinnati, 18-20 April 1997
"The inhabitants of the Aegean area in the Bronze Age may have been much like many people in the Mediterranean basin today, short and slight of build with dark hair and eyes and sallow complexions. Skeletons show that the population of the Aegean was already mixed by Neolithic times, and various facial types, some with delicate features and pointed noses, others pug-nosed, almost negroid, are depicted in wall paintings from the 16th century BC..." -- The Home of the Heroes: The Aegean Before the Greeks (1967)
------------------ Scholars also link the Negroid elements to sickle-cell anemia------- QUOTE: "The female from Grave 2 is among those with thickened parietals. It should be pointed out that maxillary prognathsm, one of the skeleton's "Negroid" features, is characteristic both of thalassemia and sickle-cell anemia." -- Skeletons of Lerna Hollow. Al B. Wesolowsky. Hesperia, Vol. 42, No. 3. (Jul. - Sep., 1973), pp. 340-351.
5-- Other elements like Benin Sickle Cell traits are also found among the Greeks and various Africans and some skeletal/cranial studies find African elements in Greece (Angel 1972 for example) QUOTE:
"A late Pleistocene-early Holocene northward migration (from Africa to the Levant and to Anatolia) of these populations has been hypothesized from skeletal data (Angel 1972, 1973; Brace 2005) and from archaeological data, as indicated by the probable Nile Valley origin of the "Mesolithic" (epi-Paleolithic) Mushabi culture found in the Levant (Bar Yosef 1987). This migration finds some support in the presence in Mediterranean populations (Sicily, Greece, southern Turkey, etc.; Patrinos et al.; Schiliro et al. 1990) of the Benin sickle cell haplotype. This haplotype originated in West Africa and is probably associated with the spread of malaria to southern Europe through an eastern Mediterranean route (Salares et al. 2004) following the expansion of both human and mosquito populations brought about by the advent of the Neolithic transition (Hume et al 2003; Joy et al. 2003; Rich et al 1998). This northward migration of northeastern African populations carrying sub-Saharan biological elements is concordant with the morphological homogeneity of the Natufian populations (Bocquentin 2003), which present morphological affinity with sub-Saharan populations (Angel 1972; Brace et al. 2005). In addition, the Neolithic revolution was assumed to arise in the late Pleistocene Natufians and subsequently spread into Anatolia and Europe (Bar-Yosef 2002), and the first Anatolian farmers, Neolithic to Bronze Age Mediterraneans and to some degree other Neolithic-Bronze Age Europeans, show morphological affinities with the Natufians (and indirectly with sub-Saharan populations; Angel 1972; Brace et al 2005), in concordance with a process of demic diffusion accompanying the extension of the Neolithic revolution (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994)."
-- F. X. Ricaut, M. Waelkens. (2008). Cranial Discrete Traits in a Byzantine Population and Eastern Mediterranean Population Movements Human Biology - Volume 80, Number 5, October 2008, pp. 535-564
6-- Other cultural/archaeo data testify to the African presence, africans again having a wde range of features
QUOTES "THE FORERUNNERS During the Early Minoan period the population of southern Crete may have included a Negroid element. The presence of such an element from Libya in the Cretan population has been argued on the basis of an inlay of shell now in the Ashmolean Museum. This inlay may have come from an early circular tomb at Ayios Onouphrios. It depects a bearded face, with thick lips and snub nose. Other objects might lead to the same observaton for later periods. Among the faiences showing house fronts (Middle Minoan II)15 there is one in which are seen the prow of a ship and swarthy, prognathous, clearly Negroid people, some steatopygic... It is uncertain, however, what role to assign to the non-Minoan figures in this scene, which it has been suggested, may represent the represent the siege of a seacoast town. Scholars are in greater agreement with respect to their interpretations of the coal black spearmen who appear in a fragment of a fresco, which Evans called The Captain of the Blacks, belonging to Late Minoan 145 II.18 The fresco depicts a Minoan captain, wearing a yellow kilt and a horned cap of skin, who leads, at the double, a file of black men similarly dressed." -- The image of the Black in Western art: Volume 4, Part 1 Jean Vercoutter, Ladislas Bugner, Jean Devisse. 1976
"The Theran is a young man whose black wavy hairm rather thick lips, and nose with reduced platyrrniny are clearly shown. Although he acknowledges that these traits suggest a NEgrito or Nubian, Marinatos avoids precise anthropological definition and concludes that the characteristics seem to indicate an "African".
"An intrepretation of NEgroes in Crete and Pylos as soldiers would have some support in the example of Egypt, with its long tradition of Nubian mercenaries. A striking example, belonging somewhat earlier period that that of the Minoan Captain of the Blacks fresco, is provided by the wooden models of forthy black archers in Cairo, found in a tomb of a prince of Assiut." pg 138
L. Bertholon and E. Chantre have analyzed results of black-white crossings in their detailed anthropoligical study of ancient and modern Tripolitiana, Tunisia, and Algeria. They call attention to the degrees of Negro admixture as evidenced by the extent to which Negroid features appear in mixed North African peoples. R. Bartoccini in his study of the somatic characteristics of anciet Libyans, illustrates his observations on racial crossings between Libyans and Negroes from the interior by pointing to the Negroid nose (broad) and hair (curly or wooly) .."
"Some of the physical features of this type are: dark or black color expressed in a variety of ways, tightly curled platyrrhine nose, and thick, often everted lips. '
"In a scene on a red-figured calyx-krater of the peropd from Canicattoni, now in Syracuse, a female dancer, fully draped, stands on tiptoe. The treatment of the nose, the lips and the tightly curled hair indicates that Negroid features were intended.. the realism and anthropological fidelity of those cited above leave no doubt as to the artists' intent.." pg 171 -- The image of the Black in Western art: Volume 4, Part 1 Jean Vercoutter, Ladislas Bugner, Jean Devisse. 1976
-------------------------------
7.. ADDITIONAL DATA: AFRICAN HAPLOGROUP E FOUND IN GREEKS
QUOTE: "Underhill et al. (2001) showed that the frequency of the YAP+ Y haplogroup commonly referred to as haplogroup E or (III) is relatively high (about 25%) in the Middle East and Mediterranean. This haplogroup E is the major haplogroup found in sub-Saharan Africa (over 75% of all Y chromosomes). SPecifically, Europeans contain the E3b subhaplogroup, which was derived from haplogroup E in sub-Saharan Africa and currently is distributed along the North and East of Africa.. It appears that the 171 AIM test subject of this chapter may recognize the haplogroup E character as West African."
--T. Frudakis. 2006. Molecular photofitting: predicting ancestry and phenotype using DNA Well according to genetic analyses the Greeks are close to 1/4th black carrying 23% African paternal lineages.
Critique of critique of HLA studies. The "critique" made by some is to proffer bogus strawmen made by alleged "Afrocentrists" that can then be "refuted." BUt no credible observer claims that Greeks are Africans. The only point at issue is that there is clearly documented gene and cultural flow between Greece and Africa from ancient times. HLA studies are one link in that documented chain of evidence. ANd if "mixed race" models are to be deployed to describe African divesity, then their use is likewise justified in describing EUropean diversity as "mixed race." Eurocentrics no longer get' to play the standard hypocritical one-way labeling game.
The minimization ploy The cystic fibrosis finding is admitted but minimized with dubious sleight of hand. Dink and his boys hold that Dörk et al. did find an African-type of cystic fibrosis mutation in Greeks, however this mutation was extremely rare; it was detected only in three Greek families. WHat they conveniently leave out is that the Greek families were part of a batch of 17 samples under detailed analysis. 3 out of 17 is approx 18%, but they attempt to make it appear as if it is only 3 families out of all of Greece where the cystic fibrosis mutation occurs. See Dork ref. Dörk T, El-Harith EH, Stuhrmann M, et al. (August 1998). "Evidence for a common ethnic origin of cystic fibrosis mutation 3120+1G-->A in diverse populations". Am. J. Hum. Genet. 63
The mysteriously missing African samples to "refute" Dink and his servitors then tout a 2000 study by Richards that found "very little" African gene flow in Greece, but in fact, Richards's study specifically EXCLUDED African samples. DInk and his boys further proffer Maaspina 2000 as another example, saying that the "only African" dna trace in a Greek sample was hg "A" at less than 1%. The only thing that they onveniently forget to tell the reader is that the African samples were mostly Arabized types from Egypt, not sub-Saharan Africa, crucially East Africa/Ethiopia where an apples to apples comparison could be done.
The non-sequitir "comparison" The Dinkenites also cite a study by A. Petlichkovski on Macedonians showing where "sub-Saharans" groups away from the Macedonians thus allegedly "contradicting" Vilenna. Again they onveniently leave out that the samples of Petlichkovski were NOT from the same area of Africa as Vilenna's Ethiopians, his main group that clustered with Greeks. The sampling was not an apples to apples comparison. INterestingly enough, Petlichkovski's study groups Egyptians with other African populations.
More "missing" Africans to "refute" The DInkenites continue their sleight of hand by proferring another study by Weale 2001, but this study concerned Armenians and had NO African samples. Other claims by the DInkenites attempt to use an obscure Siberian haplotype as some sort of "stand in" for Africans but indeed the studies proferred for Greek-African comparisons are notable for the ABSENCE or minor use of African samples.
The nugatory "North African" markers Semino 2004 is used by DInk and the boys to argue the MEdicentrist line, alleging that the Greeks show little of the "North African marker" J-M267, essentially setting up a strawman true type to "refute." But in fact Semino's Greek samples showed significant amounts of E-M78, a haplotype itself originating in East Africa per Semino. Dink doesn't mention this. J-M267 is important to them however, because the Dork cystic fibrosis study found a link with Saudi populations which have much J-M267. But what Dink and his boys conveniently leave out is that other studies of Saudis such as Amero 2008, found almost 14% of the Saudi samples to have sub-Saharan DNA markers, confirming Dork's view of long-standing Africa-Arabia gene flow. Hence it is not merely "North African" J-M267 that could cause a link with the Greek and Africans, but long-standing African markers. The link shows up in people who are African or African influenced like Saudis or African-Americans.
Curious charts The DInkenites also proffer a critique by JObling of Vilenna's sub-Saharan tracers, but Jobling did not dispute the presence of such African alleles only how they were used in creating a chart, since their origin was known before the study. But such is standard procedure in other DNA studies run by European race category proponents. Only this time, it showed the Greek- African links rather than the usual "true type" segregation format.
The "three wise men" critique- claim a part is the whole to "refute" DInkenites also refer to criticism of Vilenna by "three respected geneticists" Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Alberto Piazza and Neil Risch. But the three men over no detailed rebuttal of Vilenna's results, only "puzzlement" over how Greeks link with Africans and how Japanese could be in the mix. They express puzzlement on how: "Greeks are very similar to Ethiopians and east Africans but very distant from other south Europeans; and that the Japanese are nearly identical to west and south Africans."
But the "three sages" misrepresent Vilenna with false strawmen. Vilenna is not referring to ALL greeks but part of them, as seen in samples from the Aegean and near Athens. The "all Greeks" charge is bogus, just as the "identical Japanese" is similarly bogus. The three sages conveniently fail to mention that HLA genes, in association with certain rheumatoid arthritis MEDICAL conditions, can show similarity across several distant populations, and thus accounting for why Japanese would share certain arthritis conditions with SOuth African San. Doesnt mean there was historic gene flow between them, only that the gene mutations involved in the particular rheumatoid arthritis conditions may hit both peoples in a similar way. ( Rimoin and Emery 2006 Principles and pratice of medical genetics).
The above does not mean that there are no weaknesses in using HLA to study populations, but neither does it mean that HLA cannot be used as one of SEVERAL lines of confirmatory cross evidence on the issue of links between Africa and Greece.
Sucn controversies also offer good insight into EUrocentric hypocrisy- which ES has often exposed. Gene frequencies are sometimes touted as "racial" markers- i.e. high frequencies of certain genes in "Eurasian" areas enables the population to be labeled as "EUrasian." But the same method is, curiously, too often, not applied when African gene data is involved. Hence high frequencies of certain genes in Africa do not earn them the "African" label when there are overlaps into Europe and the so-called "Middle East". Many who speak expansively of "mixed races" in Africa suddenly maintain a mysterious silence when the concept is extended into EUrope. Suddenly numerous sub-divisions, obfuscations and "qualifications" enter the labeling picture - the standard modus operandi of Euro-centric hypocrisy and double standards.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Dana, a par exemplar of the idiocy you warned us of:
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_PrimeIdiot: There is no ancient egyptian race debate. 'Afrocentrics' ADMIT the AE's were Caucasoid (European) in facial features:
quote:Djehuti: Of course I admit that Egyptians and other Africans have 'Caucasoid' facial features! That has never been the issue! The issue is whether such features means they are actually related to Europeans and others in Eurasia!
Its just a game of denial and semantics.
Despite admitting the ancient Egyptians were Caucasoid in facial features the Afrocentrics then claim they were ''Black''.
Its just a double standard. So someone that looks 'white' (Caucasoid) according to Afrocentrics is in fact 'black'...
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Taken from another silly thread...
quote:Originally posted by Manu: Northeast Africans are not dark Caucasians... the only similarity is the small/narrow nose, orthognathous jaws, narrow face, and regressed cheekbones, but not much else.
Typically Northeast Africans have huge foreheads, curly hair, and full lips, which is not common in Caucasians. So while similar, they are also different from them.
This reminds me of the following source...
The present indigenous inhabitants of sub-Saharan Africa fall into three groups: Negroid, Khoisan (Khoikhoin or 'Hottentots', and San or 'Bushmen'), and "Caucasoid" (Eastern Hamites). These groups may be easily distinguished by external features such as skin color and hair form, but in skeletal features alone there is a good deal of overlap even today, when they have probably become increasingly divergent from their more generalized ancestors. From fragmentary fossil remains, therefore, it is difficult to distinguish among the different groups. Negroids, for instance, typically have a narrow skull and rounded forehead, but Eastern Hamites also tend to have a narrow skull and rounded forehead, and San also have a rounded forehead. A protruding upper jaw is characteristic of Negroids, but this part of the face is not always preserved in fossil remains... 'Phylogenetic Affinities of African Fossils to Modern Man', The New Encyclopaedia Britannica Macropaedia Vol. 13, 15th ed (1990)
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Taken from another silly thread...
quote:Originally posted by Manu: Northeast Africans are not dark Caucasians... the only similarity is the small/narrow nose, orthognathous jaws, narrow face, and regressed cheekbones, but not much else.
Typically Northeast Africans have huge foreheads, curly hair, and full lips, which is not common in Caucasians. So while similar, they are also different from them.
This reminds me of the following source...
The present indigenous inhabitants of sub-Saharan Africa fall into three groups: Negroid, Khoisan (Khoikhoin or 'Hottentots', and San or 'Bushmen'), and "Caucasoid" (Eastern Hamites). These groups may be easily distinguished by external features such as skin color and hair form, but in skeletal features alone there is a good deal of overlap even today, when they have probably become increasingly divergent from their more generalized ancestors. From fragmentary fossil remains, therefore, it is difficult to distinguish among the different groups. Negroids, for instance, typically have a narrow skull and rounded forehead, but Eastern Hamites also tend to have a narrow skull and rounded forehead, and San also have a rounded forehead. A protruding upper jaw is characteristic of Negroids, but this part of the face is not always preserved in fossil remains... 'Phylogenetic Affinities of African Fossils to Modern Man', The New Encyclopaedia Britannica Macropaedia Vol. 13, 15th ed (1990)
It is probable that this encyclopaedia article comes from a much earlier printing and needs to be updated. I doubt whether people are still writing these types of things now in Britain. you often find those kinds of Articles in encyclopaedia's with many editions going back to the early or mid 20th century.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ True, but notice how the author admits that all three groups including "Caucasoid" Hamites share a common ancestry. Later on in the article, it delves into the 'races' that predominate Sub-Sahara, that being 'Negroids' and 'Khoisan' but states these two derive from a more common ancestor. This automatically reminds me of Brothwell's ' "proto-Khoisan-Negro" stock with which he identifies Nazlet-Khater to be.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
It turns out the Euronuts are not as Neanderdumb as one might have been misled to think. They can actually be excused for their constant harping on themes thought to be mostly long obsolete in the West.
Turns out there is a big gap in the modern academy between those who are true adherents to population biology's tenant of non-racial thinking and those who still apparently think such a thing as a true black or "Negroid" exists, - much like their early counterparts Coon, Dart, Camps, Strouhal and the anthropologists of National Geographic, etcetera. Euronuts are deeply reliant on these new or modern versions of the "racial scientologists" just mentioned.
Among these new raciologists are the much quoted and apparently wrongly cited (by Afrocentrists)-Alain Froment - who still believes in such a thing as a brown intermediate race.
He and a few others within the French and Spanish academies in fact still believe in the black Caucasoid view of Seligman and "brown" African theory of Elliot Smith which is contingent on the true Negro or "true black" theory. (Although most of the rest of the scientific world have done away with the concept and stereotype of the true black or Negroid.)
That is why the Euronut and hamitic wannabe administrator of the board hamiticunion has put down Jean Hiernaux who wisely noted about the east Africans -
"There is every reason to believe that they are ancestral to the living 'Elongated East Africans'. Their features can be found in several living populations, who are very dark skinned and DIFFER GREATLY FROM EUROPEANS IN A NUMBER OF BODY PROPORTIONS. Neither of these populations, fossil and modern, should be considered to be closely related to Caucasoids of Europe and western Asia.." Hiernaux, J. 1975 The Peoples of Africa, p. 62 .
The hamiticunion board administrator so intent on making the ancient hamites i.e. original Berbers, Egyptians etc not only into non-Negroids, but into non-blacks (as if that were possible ) writes wistfully on the forum at the above url:
"Froment is a world-renowned authority on African anthropology, having been a former colleague of Jean Hiernaux (some of whose theories he also debunked in later papers) and one of the main consultants on Sarah Tishkoff's influential 2009 genetic study on African populations."
So now we know where and why Tishkoff went awry. Needless to say, it shows that there has been a school of thought within anthropology "scholarship" intent on keeping alive "the "Mediterranean man" of Coon and Camps' race mythology. It also explains why the average Euronut without blinking can in fact write to you about the genetics of Central East Africa and even 50,000 year old Aterians in Niger clearly thinking he/she is talking about some near black "Caucasian" of some sort ancestral to himself, not you supposed "Negroids".
Of course then there are the Spanish authors of confusion with their wacky reintroduction of the notion of the Eurasian Caucasian origin of ancient Maghrebis and even east Africans of 30 to 40,000 years ago.
Here is Maca-Meyer's "scientific" findings about these stealthy Caucasians - "Conclusions: The first detectable expansion occurred around 59,000–69,000 years ago from Africa, independently colonizing western Asia and India and, following this southern route, swiftly reaching east Asia. Within Africa, this expansion did not replace but mixed with older lineages detectable today only in Africa. Around 39,000–52,000 years ago, the western Asian branch spread radially, bringing Caucasians to North Africa and Europe, also reaching India, and expanding to north and east Asia. More recent migrations have entangled but not completely erased these primitive footprints of modern human expansions." "Major genomic mitochondrial lineages delineate early human expansions" Department of Genetics, Faculty of Biology, University of La Laguna, Tenerife, 38271, Spain BMC 2001.
Of course this is Maca-Meyer's code talk for "some Caucasians came back from Asia 40,000 years ago giving birth to current coastal North Africans, while those who turned black further southeast have obviously mixed with the true teeming black race who never left the sub-Saharan region." (Yes, it is Hamitic theory gone wild.)
The truth of the matter is part of the French Academy has been influenced by earlier anthropologists like Camps who wrote much on the Berbers proclaiming them early "white Mediterraneans".
Below Froment quotes another Frenchman's study G. Billy, writing "it is strange to note that the modern Hamite Ethiopian series (Tigre) and even Somali-Galla remain virtually exempt of any black contribution. The Ethiopian plateaus must therefore have remained far from the currents of black immigration which took the natural route of the Nile, whether during the dynastic period or later and more intensively, from the beginning of our era on[...]
The entire Upper Egypt series from the fourth millennium up to the Roman period may be grouped inside a relatively narrow band located in the interval for the C2H distance between 0.17 and 0.27 for the men and 0.15-0.35 for the women. The Nubians of the dynastic age, except for those of the group C, are found precisely in these zones to which a common morphological type corresponds. Although related to the above Middle Egypt type, they differ from it by a narrow head, a lower face and a broader nose. During the dynastic era, this last variety covered a wide central zone of the Nile valley, stretching well beyond towards East Africa, as shown by the similarity which persists with the present-day Ethiopian populations (Tigre) or even Somali. By virtue both of its diffusion and its perenniality, they deserve to be assimilated to the basic population type of the Egypto-Nubian complex."
One might of course wonder why the Somali and Tigre are not designated black considering the jet and blue blackness of many of them as well as their rather African hair. But then it becomes clear with the mentioning of a broad nose which is the giveaway.
In emailing the British Africanist and anthropologist Wyatt McGaffey recently he wrote back something implying that most scholars did not believe in the hamitic theory anymore or that it was not taken seriously, but clearly this is not the case.
In the attack on Afrocentrism so condescendingly voiced by the non-anthropologist Stephen Howe about African American historians he expressed his view that of a "moribund state" of the older "Eurocenttric" "Mediterranean race" theory. Afrocentrism: Mythical Pasts and Imagined Homes p. 116
But in fact nothing is further from the truth, not only is the older theory not dead but it has devolved into something even more manipulative and diabolical, as is shown bn the way some are now combining it with genetics to maintain the concept of the Euroconceptualized black of Tarzan fame i.e. true "Negroid".
Looks like Diop's argument is still in vogue. Euro supremacist clap trap genetic-style has reloaded the hamitic theory of their eugenicist forefathers.
Scary stuff.
Somali - (be aware no blacks are pictured here)
Anyone who believes that those who created the whole doctrine and pseudo science of race to put white Europeans on the top of the human pyramid have somehow suddenly changed their minds and changed their ways are sadly mistaken. The only thing that has changed is that they have decided to tone down the rhetoric and make their agenda more covert. In reality they haven't changed one bit and basically all you are doing is exposing their new more covert methods of maintaining the same racist ideas in modern science.
Posted by gorpa (Member # 20501) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Yet what does such slavery have ANYTHING to do with the gracile "Caucasoid" skulls of prehistoric Tanzania??!!
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: If people living in Olduvai Gorge way the hell in Tanzania during 15,000 BC are "Europid" according to you, there is no helping you.
Truthcentric hit the nail right on the head. When this 'gorpa' first showed up, I tried giving her the benefit of the doubt that she was merely a misguided black person. But now I see such hope does not exist here in this forum! LOL This person is nothing more than one of the Euroloons trying desperately to revive the Hamitic b.s. that Dana is warning us about!
When did I ever claim to be black? And since when is EGYPTsearch a black-only forum? Those are conclusions you arrived at on your own, my friend.
The questions from my previous post are still open for anyone to attempt at answering, by the way.
Posted by gorpa (Member # 20501) on :
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: Somali - (be aware no blacks are pictured here)
Yeah? Well how about these Somalis:
See the problem with selective photos? Anyone can pick them out, but they don't make the Caucasoid-looking Horn Africans or North Africans disappear. Those folks are still very much there and numerous too.
Not only 'Eurocentrists' of yore have observed these obvious physical differences. So have modern Black African scientists (who, incidentally, don't have nearly as much trouble accepting actual Black African features as do certain people on this forum):
"Cephalic and nasal index are very useful anthropologically to find out racial differences and medical management (Shah and Jadhav, 2004; Porteret al., 2003; Ochi and Ohashi, 1983). Cephalic index is used to measure the size of the head which is done by determining the ratio of the maximum head breadth to the maximum head length (Kelly et al., 1999). There are three classifications of cephalic index which can be used to describe the human head; these include dolicocephaly, mesocephaly and brachycephaly (Golalipour et al., 2005). Nasal index measurement can be utilized in the analysis and classification of fossil remains as well as the study of living populations (Alex et al., 1996). Studies have shown that the Negroid race mainly of African descent have the platyrrhine nose type (Carleton, 1989)[...]
Oladipo et al. (2007) conducted a study on the morphometric analysis of the nasal parameters of Igbo, Ijaw and Yoruba ethnic groups of Southern Nigeria. The results obtained showed that an average Igbo had a mean nasal index of 94.1±0.37, Yoruba 89.2±0.30 and Ijaw 96.37±1.06. Thus the Ijaws had a significant higher nasal index (p less than 0.05). Fawehinmi et al. (2008) reported a mean nasal index of 98.5±0.93 and 94.1±1.18 for male and females of Kalabari ethnic group of Nigeria. The Somalia people in East Africa have a nasal index similar to that of European Caucasoid of 69.90 or less, which is of leptorrhine nose type (Porter et al., 2003; Carleton, 1989). The nasal index of African-American women is 79.70, Bantu speaking negroes and the bushmen of Africa as well as the Australoids of Australia are platyrrhine having a broad nose and a nasal index of 85.00 or more (Mulchand, 2004)[...]
Various studies have been carried out to determine the racial and ethnic differences in nasal index amongst different populations of the world. The European Caucasoids are leptorrhine (having long narrow nose). The Bantu-speaking Negroes, the Bushmen of Africa and the Australoids of Australia are platyrrhine (having broad nose). The nasal index of African-American women indicates that they are mesorrhine (having medium nose). The nasal index obtained in this study has revealed that the value for the Ogu males was higher than that obtained by Oladipo et al. (2007) on average Igbos, (94.1±0.37) and Yorubas (89.2±0.30) but lower than that obtained for the Ijaws (96.37±1.06). The value for the Igbos and Ijaws was higher than that obtained for the Ikwerres in this study. But the value for the Ikwerres was higher than that of the Yorubas.The mean nasal index obtained by Fawehinmi et al. (2008) for Kalabari males (98.5±0.93) and females (94.1±1.18) was higher than that gotten in this study for both the Ogu and the Ikwerre ethnic groups. The results of this study agrees with the findings of Mulchand, (2004) on the nasal index of the African population which he gave as 85.00 and above and Oladipo et al. (2007) on the nasal index of major ethnic groups in Southern Nigeria which he gave as 89.00-100.00 described as playtrrhine. Sexual dimorphism was observed in the nasal index of the ethnic groups studied with the males having significantly higher values (p less than 0.05). However, the ethnic groups still falls within the platyrrhine nose type expected of an African."
An objective person tries to explain in an empirical, scientific manner why those different physical features exist in the first place. He or she does not alternate between denying their very existence (a losing game) and playing them up according to his or her fancy or temporary requirements.
Posted by gorpa (Member # 20501) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: The people above come from the Omo Valley in western central Ethiopia and actually speak Afro-asiatic languages!
Actually, the linguistic affiliation of the Omotic languages is debated.
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: what is the name of that study
It's by the same lead researcher you just linked to.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by gorpa:
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: If people living in Olduvai Gorge way the hell in Tanzania during 15,000 BC are "Europid" according to you, there is no helping you.
I'm aware of the recent evolution of light skin coloration in modern humans (not just West Eurasians). All humans are believed to have originally had brown skin.
That doesn't change the fact that the Afro-Asiatic peoples in North Africa and the Horn region have a majority incidence of the same, recently-evolved allele that is associated with light skin pigmentation in modern West Eurasian populations. Black Africans, on the other hand, do not have the variant unless they've experienced some West Eurasian admixture; either directly or through intermediaries.
In other words, while the earlier population movements from West Eurasia into North and East Africa likely involved Caucasoid-featured peoples possessing the original generic brown human skin coloration, later waves of immigration from the same geographic area at some point(s) clearly introduced the aforementioned West Eurasian pigmentation allele. It didn't just get there and spread so widely by itself. Neither did the various downstream West Eurasian mtDNA lineages that are today so common in these particular regions.
.
Another idiot Albino trying to equate ADMIXTURE with EVOLUTION. .
Why are these same people Everywhere?
.
Idiot Albino Boy, can you read a Map?
.
.
What's that you say Albino Boy, a map is too complicated for you to read.
Here, see if this picture brings the point home to you.
.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by gorpa: Yeah? Well how about these Somalis:
See the problem with selective photos? Anyone can pick them out, but they don't make the Caucasoid-looking Horn Africans or North Africans disappear. Those folks are still very much there and numerous too.
Actually the guy in the 1st picture at the very top is Ethiopian. And yes I do see the problem with selective photos as the vast majority of Somalis I've seen--in photos online, video footage on television, as well as in REAL LIFE (there's a large Somali community where I live)-- are much darker than the ones you posted. Perhaps the limited selection is coming from you.
quote:Not only 'Eurocentrists' of yore have observed these obvious physical differences. So have modern Black African scientists (who, incidentally, don't have nearly as much trouble accepting actual Black African features as do certain people on this forum):
"Cephalic and nasal index are very useful anthropologically to find out racial differences and medical management (Shah and Jadhav, 2004; Porteret al., 2003; Ochi and Ohashi, 1983). Cephalic index is used to measure the size of the head which is done by determining the ratio of the maximum head breadth to the maximum head length (Kelly et al., 1999). There are three classifications of cephalic index which can be used to describe the human head; these include dolicocephaly, mesocephaly and brachycephaly (Golalipour et al., 2005). Nasal index measurement can be utilized in the analysis and classification of fossil remains as well as the study of living populations (Alex et al., 1996). Studies have shown that the Negroid race mainly of African descent have the platyrrhine nose type (Carleton, 1989)[...]
Oladipo et al. (2007) conducted a study on the morphometric analysis of the nasal parameters of Igbo, Ijaw and Yoruba ethnic groups of Southern Nigeria. The results obtained showed that an average Igbo had a mean nasal index of 94.1±0.37, Yoruba 89.2±0.30 and Ijaw 96.37±1.06. Thus the Ijaws had a significant higher nasal index (p less than 0.05). Fawehinmi et al. (2008) reported a mean nasal index of 98.5±0.93 and 94.1±1.18 for male and females of Kalabari ethnic group of Nigeria. The Somalia people in East Africa have a nasal index similar to that of European Caucasoid of 69.90 or less, which is of leptorrhine nose type (Porter et al., 2003; Carleton, 1989). The nasal index of African-American women is 79.70, Bantu speaking negroes and the bushmen of Africa as well as the Australoids of Australia are platyrrhine having a broad nose and a nasal index of 85.00 or more (Mulchand, 2004)[...]
Various studies have been carried out to determine the racial and ethnic differences in nasal index amongst different populations of the world. The European Caucasoids are leptorrhine (having long narrow nose). The Bantu-speaking Negroes, the Bushmen of Africa and the Australoids of Australia are platyrrhine (having broad nose). The nasal index of African-American women indicates that they are mesorrhine (having medium nose). The nasal index obtained in this study has revealed that the value for the Ogu males was higher than that obtained by Oladipo et al. (2007) on average Igbos, (94.1±0.37) and Yorubas (89.2±0.30) but lower than that obtained for the Ijaws (96.37±1.06). The value for the Igbos and Ijaws was higher than that obtained for the Ikwerres in this study. But the value for the Ikwerres was higher than that of the Yorubas.The mean nasal index obtained by Fawehinmi et al. (2008) for Kalabari males (98.5±0.93) and females (94.1±1.18) was higher than that gotten in this study for both the Ogu and the Ikwerre ethnic groups. The results of this study agrees with the findings of Mulchand, (2004) on the nasal index of the African population which he gave as 85.00 and above and Oladipo et al. (2007) on the nasal index of major ethnic groups in Southern Nigeria which he gave as 89.00-100.00 described as playtrrhine. Sexual dimorphism was observed in the nasal index of the ethnic groups studied with the males having significantly higher values (p less than 0.05). However, the ethnic groups still falls within the platyrrhine nose type expected of an African."
An objective person tries to explain in an empirical, scientific manner why those different physical features exist in the first place. He or she does not alternate between denying their very existence (a losing game) and playing them up according to his or her fancy or temporary requirements.
Yet again, you focus on nasal index as that is if that was the only diagnostic or qualifying trait to determine indigenous African identity. How convenient that you leave out a number of other cranial features as well as skeletal body measurements, the latter by the way among many East Africans including Somalis align them more so with those Africans you consider "true" than with fair-skinned so-called 'Caucasoid' Eurasians! In this thread alone, Dana has cited studies showing prehistoric remains as far as south as Kenya and even Tanzania who in cranial features like nasal indices were considered 'Caucasoid'. And let's not forget the genetic studies which eradicate your claims entirely.
Troll Patrol is right. You are just another troll rehashing the same debunked nonsense as the rest of them. Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
Looks like gruel-for-brains returned for another intellectual thrashing! I thought he had run away for good.
quote:Originally posted by gorpa:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: The people above come from the Omo Valley in western central Ethiopia and actually speak Afro-asiatic languages!
Actually, the linguistic affiliation of the Omotic languages is debated.
Actually the Afroasiatic identity of Omotic has been vindicated:
Although its Afroasiatic affiliation has been disputed, the allocation of Omotic within this family is now well-established, based on the attestation of morphological properties that this family shares with other Afroasiatic branches.---Gerrit Dimmendaal, "Language Ecology and Linguistic Diversity on the African Continent", in Language and Linguistics Compass 2/5:841
Posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist (Member # 18853) on :
Nasal Index is only one of countless indices which clusters Ethiopians and Somali with Europeans and West/South Asians (Caucasoids).
Take a look at tooth size -
Hanihara T, Ishida H: Metric dental variation of major human populations. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 2005, DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.20080.
Somali are microdont (Caucasoid) in dentition. Look at the huge difference between Negroids and Caucasoids in tooth size.
You will also see pre-dynastic and ancient egyptians cluster with Caucasoids. Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist: Nasal Index is only one of countless indices which clusters Ethiopians and Somali with Europeans and West/South Asians (Caucasoids).
Take a look at tooth size -
Hanihara T, Ishida H: Metric dental variation of major human populations. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 2005, DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.20080.
Somali are microdont (Caucasoid) in dentition. Look at the huge difference between Negroids and Caucasoids in tooth size.
You will also see pre-dynastic and ancient egyptians cluster with Caucasoids.
^^Dumb muthafcck, do you realize that you debunk yourself with your own diagram?
The Somalis cluster with "SUb-Saharan" Africans just as they do in Hanihara 2003 cranial analysis. ANd Egytians cluster with other Africans- North Africans. Sheesh, you are such a pathetic idiot. Your own diagram destroys you.
Furthermore the study abstract shows you are a quadruple idiot.
1-- First, microdont or small teeth in the study were a characteristic of Western Eurasians aka white people. The Egyptian samples are LARGER than ANY of your "Caucasians" and in this respect most resemble other Africans.
2- Second, you always deny African diversity in post after post, but the study again confirms that Africans have the greatest diversity of all, and confirms the OOA pattern.
3-- Third, the SOmalians cluster with other Africans as do the Egyptians.
4-- Fourth, other dental studies show the Badarians, to be an excellent representative of what the ancient Egyptians would have looked like.
Stupid muthafuuck, your own diagram exposes your idiocy.
------------------------------------ Am J Phys Anthropol. 2005 Oct;128(2):287-98. Metric dental variation of major human populations. Hanihara T, Ishida H. Source
Department of Anatomy and Biological Anthropology, Saga Medical School, Saga 849-8501, Japan. hanihara@post.saga-med.ac.jp Abstract
Mesiodistal and buccolingual crown diameters of all teeth recorded in 72 major human population groups and seven geographic groups were analyzed. The results obtained are fivefold. First, the largest teeth are found among Australians, followed by Melanesians, Micronesians, sub-Saharan Africans, and Native Americans. Philippine Negritos, Jomon/Ainu, and Western Eurasians have small teeth, while East/Southeast Asians and Polynesians are intermediate in overall tooth size. Second, in terms of odontometric shape factors, world extremes are Europeans, aboriginal New World populations, and to a lesser extent, Australians. Third, East/Southeast Asians share similar dental features with sub-Saharan Africans, and fall in the center of the phenetic space occupied by a wide array of samples. Fourth, the patterning of dental variation among major geographic populations is more or less consistent with those obtained from genetic and craniometric data. Fifth, once differences in population size between sub-Saharan Africa, Europe, South/West Asia, Australia, and Far East, and genetic drift are taken into consideration, the pattern of sub-Saharan African distinctiveness becomes more or less comparable to that based on genetic and craniometric data. As such, worldwide patterning of odontometric variation provides an additional avenue in the ongoing investigation of the origin(s) of anatomically modern humans. ------------------------------------
SOmalis cluster with other Africans
Posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist (Member # 18853) on :
^ You can't read basic data.
Hanihara (2005) clusters Somali with Caucasoids. Look at the huge gap between Negroids.
Somali and Negroids are polar extremes.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
No dumbass. They group with other Africans, just as they do in Hanihara's cranial studies. You just debunked your own argument with your own "supporting references" doofus.. lmao..
The Somalis cluster with "SUb-Saharan" Africans just as they do in Hanihara 2003 cranial analysis. ANd Egytians cluster with other Africans- North Africans. Sheesh, you are such a pathetic idiot. Your own diagram destroys you.
Furthermore the study abstract shows this on 4 counts:
1-- First, microdont or small teeth in the study were a characteristic of Western Eurasians aka white people. The Egyptian samples are LARGER than ANY of your "Caucasians" and in this respect most resemble other Africans.
2- Second, you always deny African diversity in post after post, but the study again confirms that Africans have the greatest diversity of all, and confirms the OOA pattern.
3-- Third, the SOmalians cluster with other Africans as do the Egyptians. Pooled sampling in some studies hides detail but the Badarian dental data confirm the pattern.
4-- Fourth, other dental studies show the Badarians, to be an excellent representative of what the ancient Egyptians would have looked like.
Doofus in attempting to "refute" the "Afrocentrics" you just debunked yourself. Now adjourn your wanker ass.
------------------------------------ Am J Phys Anthropol. 2005 Oct;128(2):287-98. Metric dental variation of major human populations. Hanihara T, Ishida H. Source
Department of Anatomy and Biological Anthropology, Saga Medical School, Saga 849-8501, Japan. hanihara@post.saga-med.ac.jp Abstract
Mesiodistal and buccolingual crown diameters of all teeth recorded in 72 major human population groups and seven geographic groups were analyzed. The results obtained are fivefold. First, the largest teeth are found among Australians, followed by Melanesians, Micronesians, sub-Saharan Africans, and Native Americans. Philippine Negritos, Jomon/Ainu, and Western Eurasians have small teeth, while East/Southeast Asians and Polynesians are intermediate in overall tooth size. Second, in terms of odontometric shape factors, world extremes are Europeans, aboriginal New World populations, and to a lesser extent, Australians. Third, East/Southeast Asians share similar dental features with sub-Saharan Africans, and fall in the center of the phenetic space occupied by a wide array of samples. Fourth, the patterning of dental variation among major geographic populations is more or less consistent with those obtained from genetic and craniometric data. Fifth, once differences in population size between sub-Saharan Africa, Europe, South/West Asia, Australia, and Far East, and genetic drift are taken into consideration, the pattern of sub-Saharan African distinctiveness becomes more or less comparable to that based on genetic and craniometric data. As such, worldwide patterning of odontometric variation provides an additional avenue in the ongoing investigation of the origin(s) of anatomically modern humans. ------------------------------------
SOmalis cluster with other Africans
Posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist (Member # 18853) on :
quote: The Somalis cluster with "SUb-Saharan" Africans just as they do in Hanihara 2003 cranial analysis.
No they don't.
Somali's cluster in the MICRODONT range with CAUCASOIDS. Retard, look who they cluster CLOSEST with - SWISS, FINLAND, AFGHANISTAN and NORTH INDIANS (Caucasoids).
Like i said - you can't even read basic data.
All craniometric and dentition studies cluster Somali with Caucasoids. Attempting to bury this fact with your pathetic spams doesn't change the data.
Posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist (Member # 18853) on :
Also note the tiny dental variation in Negroids.
All the intra-variation is in Caucasoids once again as with virtually everything else.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
All craniometric and dentition studies cluster Somali with Caucasoids.
Dummy, the Somalis cluster with the sub-Saharan Africans for they are "sub-Saharan" Africans to begin with, and sub-Saharan Africans have the highest ancestral dental diversity.
And "microdont" among SUb-Saharan Africans is just another "sub-Saharan" variant- nothing unusual at all - being also influenced by dietary practices, as noted by some scholars. QUOTE: "Evidently the ancestors of the Somalis had long been associated with food preparation practices that reduced the selective force intensity maintaining tooth size. This is consistent with the possibility that the Ethiopian highlands were the locale of one of the ancient and semi-independent centers of plant domestication." (--Mary Lefkowitz, Guy ROgers, Black Athena Revisited 1993)
ANd if all these studies show SOmalis cluster with "Caucasoids" why does Hanihara 2003 show them clustering with other "SUb Saharans" dumbass?
SOmalis cluster with other Africans
------------------------------------
Am J Phys Anthropol. 2005 Oct;128(2):287-98. Metric dental variation of major human populations. Hanihara T, Ishida H. Source
Department of Anatomy and Biological Anthropology, Saga Medical School, Saga 849-8501, Japan. hanihara@post.saga-med.ac.jp Abstract
Mesiodistal and buccolingual crown diameters of all teeth recorded in 72 major human population groups and seven geographic groups were analyzed. The results obtained are fivefold. First, the largest teeth are found among Australians, followed by Melanesians, Micronesians, sub-Saharan Africans, and Native Americans. Philippine Negritos, Jomon/Ainu, and Western Eurasians have small teeth, while East/Southeast Asians and Polynesians are intermediate in overall tooth size. Second, in terms of odontometric shape factors, world extremes are Europeans, aboriginal New World populations, and to a lesser extent, Australians. Third, East/Southeast Asians share similar dental features with sub-Saharan Africans, and fall in the center of the phenetic space occupied by a wide array of samples. Fourth, the patterning of dental variation among major geographic populations is more or less consistent with those obtained from genetic and craniometric data. Fifth, once differences in population size between sub-Saharan Africa, Europe, South/West Asia, Australia, and Far East, and genetic drift are taken into consideration, the pattern of sub-Saharan African distinctiveness becomes more or less comparable to that based on genetic and craniometric data. As such, worldwide patterning of odontometric variation provides an additional avenue in the ongoing investigation of the origin(s) of anatomically modern humans. ------------------------------------
Badarian dental not only based on indigenous stocks but also diet practices in Nile Valley,
QUOTE: "The question of the genetic origins of ancient Egyptians, particularly those during the Dynastic period, is relevant to the current study. Modern interpretations of Egyptian state formation propose an indigenous origin of the Dynastic civilization (Hassan, 1988). Early Egyptologists considered Upper and Lower Egyptians to be genetically distinct populations, and viewed the Dynastic period as characterized by a conquest of Upper Egypt by the Lower Egyptians. More recent interpretations contend that Egyptians from the south actually expanded into the northern regions during the Dynastic state unification (Hassan, 1988; Savage, 2001), and that the Predynastic populations of Upper and Lower Egypt are morphologically distinct from one another, but not sufficiently distinct to consider either non-indigenous (Zakrzewski, 2007). The Predynastic populations studied here, from Naqada and Badari, are both Upper Egyptian samples, while the Dynastic Egyptian sample (Tarkhan) is from Lower Egypt. The Dynastic Nubian sample is from Upper Nubia (Kerma). Previous analyses of cranial variation found the Badari and Early Predynastic Egyptians to be more similar to other African groups than to Mediterranean or European populations (Keita, 1990; Zakrzewski, 2002). In addition, the Badarians have been described as near the centroid of cranial and dental variation among Predynastic and Dynastic populations studied (Irish, 2006; Zakrzewski, 2007). This suggests that, at least through the Early Dynastic period, the inhabitants of the Nile valley were a continuous population of local origin, and no major migration or replacement events occurred during this time.
Studies of cranial morphology also support the use of a Nubian (Kerma) population for a comparison of the Dynastic period, as this group is likely to be more closely genetically related to the early Nile valley inhabitants than would be the Late Dynastic Egyptians, who likely experienced significant mixing with other Mediterranean populations (Zakrzewski, 2002). A craniometric study found the Naqada and Kerma populations to be morphologically similar (Keita, 1990). Given these and other prior studies suggesting continuity (Berry et al., 1967; Berry and Berry, 1972), and the lack of archaeological evidence of major migration or population replacement during the Neolithic transition in the Nile valley, we may cautiously interpret the dental health changes over time as primarily due to ecological, subsistence, and demographic changes experienced throughout the Nile valley region."
-- AP Starling, JT Stock. (2007). Dental Indicators of Health and Stress in Early Egyptian and Nubian Agriculturalists: A Difficult Transition and Gradual Recovery. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 134:520–528
Furthermore, Africans have the highest ancestral dental diversity. The ancient populations gave birth to all subsets outside Africa- they can be micro, meso or megadont, because they are the originals. And food preparation practices in ancient Africa impacted dental patterns as shown by scholars. Tropical Africa has it all covered- whether it be built-in native diversity or environmental or cultural adaptation. You lose again, wanker boy.
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by gorpa:
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: Somali - (be aware no blacks are pictured here)
Yeah? Well how about these Somalis:
requirements.
Since I didn't post that so I am assuming you weren't talking to me.
BTW - yes everyone here knows Somalis, Ethiopians and Sahelians have "Caucasoid' i.e. Eurasiatic blood. That doesn't mean their ancient black African ancestors were "Caucasoids". Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: All craniometric and dentition studies cluster Somali with Caucasoids.
Dumb muthafvvck, the Somalis cluster with the sub-Saharan Africans for they are "sub-Saharan" Africans to begin with, and sub-Saharan Africans have the highest dental diversity. And "microdont" among SUb-Saharan Africans is just another "sub-Saharan" variant- nothing unusual at all - being caused by dietary practices, as noted by several scholars. QUOTE: "Evidently the ancestors of the Somalis had long been associated with food preparation practices that reduced the selective force intensity maintaining tooth size. This is consistent with the possibility that the Ethiopian highlands were the locale of one of the ancient and semi-independent centers of plant domestication." (--Mary Lefkowitz, Guy ROgers, Black Athena Revisited 1993)
ANd if all these studies show SOmalis cluster with "Caucasoids" why does Hanihara 2003 show them clustering with other "SUb Saharans" dumbass?
SOmalis cluster with other Africans
Wow. I truly think the research into discrete i.e. genetically determined non-metric traits will save the day.
Along with dnatribes and their STRs and SNPs.lol!
Hanihara's study clearly suggests - like Ehret had proposed - Somalis are an Afro-San people.
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Truthcentric hit the nail right on the head. When this 'gorpa' first showed up, I tried giving her the benefit of the doubt that she was merely a misguided black person. But now I such hope does not exist here in this forum! LOL This person is nothing more than one of the Euroloons trying desperately to revive the Hamitic b.s. that Dana is warning us about!
I got the impression that gorpa had some association with the Hamitic Union dudes. He did come not too long after Dana created a thread against Hamitic Union.
Oh - I didn't know this. I hope so and if so let the war games begin. Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist:
quote: The Somalis cluster with "SUb-Saharan" Africans just as they do in Hanihara 2003 cranial analysis.
No they don't.
Somali's cluster in the MICRODONT range with CAUCASOIDS. Retard, look who they cluster CLOSEST with - SWISS, FINLAND, AFGHANISTAN and NORTH INDIANS (Caucasoids).
Like i said - you can't even read basic data.
All craniometric and dentition studies cluster Somali with Caucasoids. Attempting to bury this fact with your pathetic spams doesn't change the data.
Tooth size in itself is not a discrete genetically-determined trait, dimwit.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Tooth size in itself is not a discrete genetically-determined trait, dimwit.
^Exactly. ANd Somalis are "sub-Saharan" Africans to begin with, who themselves have the highest ancestral dental diversity. "Sub Saharan" Africans are the originals from which all subsets of dental variation spring. Microdont teeth in Africa ain't nothing special given that ancestral diversity. Furthermore, tooth size is itself influenced by dietary and food prep practices.
QUOTE from another Hanihara study - confirming African diversity:
The patterns of inter- and intra-regional variation among 12 major geographical groups from around the world were investigated .. Subsaharan Africans show the largest intra-regional diversity among the groups compared." --Hanihara 2008 Morphological variation of major human populations based on non metric dental traits AJPA 136,2 169-182
Posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist (Member # 18853) on :
We've gone over this countless times, the morphological variation in Africa is not intra but inter regional:
''Furthermore, in agreement with Howells (1989) and Froment (1998) [...] the range of variation in sub-Saharan Africa was not continuous or clinal, as significant differences were still observed between the different regions'' - Differentiation of modern sub-Saharan African populations: craniometric interpretations in relation to geography and history », Bulletins et mémoires de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris, 16 (3-4), 2004.
The variation in Sub-Sahara is not clinal. In other words there is no continuous gradient in Sub-Saharan Africans. Instead the morphological and phenotypic differences correspond to discrete regions seperated by geographical barriers, hence Sub-Saharan Africans are different races (and subraces): Aethiopids (Caucasoid-Negroid hybrids), Congoids (Pygmies, Negroids), Khoisanids etc.
None of this is ''eurocentric''. Its empirical fact, easily observable.
Zaharans' parroted pseudo-scientific ''tropical african diversity'' [sic] has been debunked. Sub-Saharan africans are diverse because they are different races and they cluster into distinct regional populations. The variations or diversity are not a continuous gradient.
The ''tropical african diversity'' of Keita et al, would only work if that diversity is found in intra not inter African regions. So for example you would need to find all the traits in a single zone. This doesn't occur though because Sub-Saharan Africans are different races. Only Khoisanids or those that have Khoisan admixture for example have epicanthic folds.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
We've gone over this countless times, the morphological variation in Africa is not intra but inter regional:
^^DUmmy, look at what your boy Hanihara says below. Your neat little race scheme with Negrids, Kohsianids, Ethiopids, etc is a complete bust...
"The patterns of inter- and intra-regional variation among 12 major geographical groups from around the world were investigated .. Subsaharan Africans show the largest intra-regional diversity among the groups compared." --Hanihara 2008 Morphological variation of major human populations AJPA 136,2 169-182
You lose... again...
Posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist (Member # 18853) on :
Look at the breakdown of that existing intra-diversity. It doesn't exist in Negroids.
''[...]group differentiation was lower in the largest inter-regional data set (41%-54.4%) than in the two smaller ones (58.2%-80.1%). In addition, it was lower in Bantu- speakers (58.2%-71.4%) than in non Bantu-speakers (58.2%-80.1%).''
''This fact suggested that, the latter reflected marked differences such as between Western Africa [Negroid] and KhoiSan, and that, Bantu-speakers groups were less differentiated between each other.''
Biggest inter-variation is between Khoisanids (Bushmen) and Negroids, while the latter have the lowest intra-regional or in-group variation.
The above craniometric variables, GOL, XCB, BBH, BNL, BPL, NPH, ZYB, DKB, NLB, OBB are taken from the 2004 study above.
Negroids have very little intra diversity. It is why you will cluster yourself with Khoisanids to claim all their diversity.
Are you a Bushman?
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
We've gone over this countless times, the morphological variation in Africa is not intra but inter regional:
^Duh 1... "The patterns of inter- and intra-regional variation among 12 major geographical groups from around the world were investigated .. Subsaharan Africans show the largest intra-regional diversity among the groups compared." --Hanihara 2008 Morphological variation of major human populations AJPA 136,2 169-182
All craniometric and dentition studies cluster Somali with Caucasoids.
^^^Duh 2...
You lose... again...
Posted by gorpa (Member # 20501) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: yes I do see the problem with selective photos as the vast majority of Somalis I've seen--in photos online, video footage on television, as well as in REAL LIFE (there's a large Somali community where I live)-- are much darker than the ones you posted. Perhaps the limited selection is coming from you.
You mistakenly assume that Somalis are a uniform people, the same in all clans and parts of their territory and elsewhere. This is not at all the case (nor is it the case with Ethiopians, Tuareg, etc.). Certain of their clan groupings have more Negroid influence than others; sometimes markedly so. Much of the ethnological literature on them indicates this. Actual anthropological studies have likewise demonstrated this, such as N. Puccioni's exhaustive Antropologia e Etnografia delle genti della Somalia, Vols I, III (Bologna: N. Zanichelli, 1931, 1936).
"Within the Ethiopic group, the Somali belong to the eastern division, and show very few Negroid characteristics as compared with the western division, which is quite notably Negroid. As a result of his very extensive examination of Somali physical types, Puccioni considers that the southern Sab confederacies show a higher degree of Negroid influence, corresponding to their part Negroid origin. This is, of course, consistent with the history of racial and tribal movements in Somaliland"
Similarly, note where Billy et al. (1988) groups the southern Sab Somalis relative to the northern Somalis in the dendrogram below. Which of the two groups morphologically clusters more closely to the Yemeni and North African samples? Puccioni's less Negroid-influenced northerners, of course.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Yet again, you focus on nasal index as that is if that was the only diagnostic or qualifying trait to determine indigenous African identity.
That quote was from a cranial study prepared by Nigerian researchers. So that's to whom your complaints should be directed.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: How convenient that you leave out a number of other cranial features as well as skeletal body measurements, the latter by the way among many East Africans including Somalis align them more so with those Africans you consider "true" than with fair-skinned so-called 'Caucasoid' Eurasians!
Nonsense. On most morphological variables, including the dreaded nasal index, Somalis and other Horners group more closely with Caucasoids than with Negroids. This all comes down to their Afro-Asiatic (Caucasoid) ancestry. As Loring Brace observed with regard to largely non-adaptive craniofacial traits:
"When the nonadaptive aspects of craniofacial configuration are the basis for assessment, the Somalis cluster with Europeans before showing a tie with the people of West Africa or the Congo Basin[...]
As our data show, the people of the Horn of Africa are craniofacially less distinct from a spectrum of samples marginally including South Asia and running all the way from the Middle East to northwest Europe than they are to any group in sub-Saharan Africa."
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: In this thread alone, Dana has cited studies showing prehistoric remains as far as south as Kenya and even Tanzania who in cranial features like nasal indices were considered 'Caucasoid'.
That's because those prehistoric East African specimens in question were, in fact, Caucasoid, not Negroid. Prior to the expansion of Bantu and Nilotic Negroid peoples into that Great Lakes region, the area was already inhabited by three distinct human groups: early Negroids, Khoisan and Caucasoids. Refer again to the helpful chart above by Bräuer; it shows which actual prehistoric specimens belong to each of these racial clusters.
Posted by gorpa (Member # 20501) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: Actually the Afroasiatic identity of Omotic has been vindicated
Not really. Here's the actual direction that the status quo on Omotic classification has been increasingly moving in since the work of Rolf Theil, an Omotic specialist:
"Omotic is the most controversial grouping typically characterized as Afroasiatic because the grammatical formatives ‘to which Afroasiaticists have tended to attach the greatest importance are either absent or distinctly wobbly’ (Hayward 1995: 14). Greenberg (1963) and others considered Omotic to be a subgroup of Cushitic, but there have been repeated questions as to whether Omotic can be considered Afroasiatic at all (e.g., Theil 2006). One view is that only the most divergent set of Omotic languages, the Aroid languages (including languages Ari, Hamer, and Dime), are actually Nilo-Saharan (e.g., Zaborski 2004; Moges 2007). Most specialists regard Omotic as a separate sub-branch of Afroasiatic, but this might lead some to underestimate the internal diversity of the 25 or so Omotic languages, which appears to be greater than that found in Berber and Semitic."
“Omotic languages”, =416, still cause a lot of disagreement; whether it belongs or not to “Afro-Asiatic languages” has been questioned in recent years, and many influential authors (e.g. Newman, 1980, and Theil, 2006) believe that it should be regarded as an independent family."
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: [QUOTE]Wow. I truly think the research into discrete i.e. genetically determined non-metric traits will save the day.
Along with dnatribes and their STRs and SNPs.lol!
Hanihara's study clearly suggests - like Ehret had proposed - Somalis are an Afro-San people.
Don't get too excited now. The overwhelming majority of cranial and dental studies cluster not just Somalis, but Ethiopians and Eritreans too, with Caucasoids.
However, there are a handful of exceptions, all of which have one thing in common: they all use unrepresentative samples. Take, for example, Hanihara et al. (2003), the non-metric cranial study that that dendrogram comes from. It is one of at least three different studies that utilizes the same sample set of Somalis. These sampled individuals in turn all belong to the same western Ogaden clan, one historically regarded by the purer northern Somalis as being on average more admixed with the aboriginal peoples of the Horn. Hence, the skewed results.
"It is also interesting to note that this group of tribes shows more connection in language with the Ogaden Somalis than do the tribes which now occupy the great expanse of intervening country. This is still more remarkable when we bear in mind that the northern Somalis rather look down on the Ogadens as having been more contaminated by mixture of blood with the aboriginal inhabitants."
quote:That's because those prehistoric East African specimens in question were, in fact, Caucasoid, not Negroid. Prior to the expansion of Bantu and Nilotic Negroid peoples into that Great Lakes region, the area was already inhabited by three distinct human groups: early Negroids, Khoisan and Caucasoids. Refer again to the helpful chart above by Bräuer; it shows which actual prehistoric specimens belong to each of these racial clusters.
What though are these ''early Negroid'' types? Does this refer to an ancestral Pygmy (Bambutid)?
My view is that there were no Negroids in East Africa until the Bantu expansion wave 3000 BP (Cavalli-Sforza, 1986). Although there were Pygmies here before then, so if ''early Negroid'' = Pygmy (Bambutid) then I can make sense.
Posted by gorpa (Member # 20501) on :
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: BTW - yes everyone here knows Somalis, Ethiopians and Sahelians have "Caucasoid' i.e. Eurasiatic blood. That doesn't mean their ancient black African ancestors were "Caucasoids".
Ok, so we agree that admixture has taken place; we just disagree in which direction. My perspective on this issue is the same as Gunther Bräuer's. He at various periods studied the key North and East African prehistoric remains at hand. Here's a summary of what he wrote in his 1978 paper linked to earlier:
"There is a third African major race: the Mediterranean. The populations living on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea and in parts of East Africa are classified as Mediterranean or Afro-Mediterranean because of their relatively homogeneous Europid characteristics. Due to various admixtures with neighbouring Negrid populations in prehistoric and historic times, the present populations of East Africa in particular are more or less heterogeneous in appearance, especially with regard to soft-tissue morphology[...]
The Mediterranean character is clearly dominant among the Ethiopids, who include the large populations of the Amhara, the Galla and the Somali. Their skeletal features are predominantly Europid; the nose is generally narrow and prominent. However, there are also Negrid admixtures of varying degrees among the individual tribes. The Negrid character is strongest among the Sidamos in South West Ethiopia, and at its weakest among the Somali (Cole 1965)[...]
The number of sites in Algeria and Morocco belonging to the Ibero-Maurusian culture is relatively large. Especially well-known is the mesolithic cemetary of Afalou-bou-Rhummel on the Algerian coast, where in 1928-30 remains of more than 40 adults and a number of children were excavated (Arambourg 1929; Arambourg et al. 1934; Vallois 1952). Likewise linked with the Ibero-Maurusian culture is the important skeletal series of more than 280 individuals found in the Taforalt cave (Morocco) in 1951-1953 (Ferembach 1962). A late Pleistocene layer of this site has been dated to about 10,000-12,000 B.P. (Roche 1959).
In Maghreb, however, there are also numerous settlements of the North African Capsian, which are linked with huge shell mounds. The most important site of this type is Mechta-el-Arbi, southwest of Constantine (Algeria), where in 1907-1927 remains of more than 30 individuals were found in a huge shell mound (Arambourg et al. 1934). As an indication of the dating, the absolute age of another shell mound associated with the same culture (Upper Capsian) may be of interest; it has been dated at about 8,400 + or - 400 B. P., the beginning of the Holocene (Ivanova 1972). The skeletons from Dar-es-Soltan near Rabat (Morocco) also are ascribed to the Mechta type (Vallois 1951; Ferembach 1976).
The morphological affinities of all of these samples are generally Europid, though there appears to have been differentiation into two morphotypes. One is represented by tall, robust individuals with large, long and high crania, broad faces with low, rectangular sloping orbitae and heavy rugged jaws with strong chins (Briggs 1955; Ferembach 1962). The other type comprises individuals with small faces and less rugged "leptodolichomorphic" characteristics. Although both combinations of characteristics do not generally occur separately, relating to the sites, there is some evidence of a tendency (Schwidetzky 1970) for the more robust type to be more numerous in Ibero-Maurusian sites, while the leptodolichomorphic form is more frequent in those of the Capsian, as shown by the East African men of the Kenya Capsian.
The modern populations, too, can be understood on the basis of this polarity of types. The Berber populations from the Maghreb and North West Africa tend to be more robust and broad-faced than the Arabian populations and other groups from the East.
The present Egyptians are closer to the pole of the small leptodolichomorphic Mediterranean populations (Schwidetzky 1970), as evidenced by the populations of Egypt since predynastic times, and have yielded some larger series. However, Egypt had been infiltrated by groups of various populations, especially in historical times. The increase of Negrid influence is due primarily to the Arabic slave-trade. Nevertheless, Negrid influences in ancient Egypt seem to have been much smaller than in Nubia (Strouhal 1975). The present southern Nubians are tall and lightly built, but the skin colour is darker; they are probably the product of hybridization between Europid Egyptians and Negroids." Posted by gorpa (Member # 20501) on :
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist: What though are these ''early Negroid'' types? Does this refer to an ancestral Pygmy (Bambutid)?
My view is that there were no Negroids in East Africa until the Bantu expansion wave 3000 BP (Cavalli-Sforza, 1986). Although there were Pygmies here before then, so if ''early Negroid'' = Pygmy (Bambutid) then I can make sense.
There indeed were, generally speaking, no Negroid types in East Africa until the relatively recent Bantu and subsequent Nilotic expansions from Central Africa. However, there were incipiently Negroid peoples that had begun to or already diverged from a common stock as the Bushmen from the Neolithic onwards.
It's uncertain which modern populations might be their likely descendants. But if I had to wager a guess, I'd say the pariah tribes in the Great Lakes region, such as the Hadza and Sandawe hunter-gatherers. These outcaste groups in general didn't arrive in the area with either the Bantu or Nilotic expansions. They also like to assert and are, in fact, regarded as the aboriginal peoples of the area. Many of them have also managed to retain click sounds in their (usually adopted) languages, which again point to their original Khoisan-like languages and affinities.
Posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist (Member # 18853) on :
quote:Originally posted by gorpa:
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist: What though are these ''early Negroid'' types? Does this refer to an ancestral Pygmy (Bambutid)?
My view is that there were no Negroids in East Africa until the Bantu expansion wave 3000 BP (Cavalli-Sforza, 1986). Although there were Pygmies here before then, so if ''early Negroid'' = Pygmy (Bambutid) then I can make sense.
There indeed were, generally speaking, no Negroid types in East Africa until the relatively recent Bantu and subsequent Nilotic expansions from Central Africa. However, there were incipiently Negroid peoples that had begun to or already diverged from a common stock as the Bushmen from the Neolithic onwards.
It's uncertain which modern populations might be their likely descendants. But if I had to wager a guess, I'd say the pariah tribes in the Great Lakes region, such as the Hadza and Sandawe hunter-gatherers. These outcaste groups in general didn't arrive in the area with either the Bantu or Nilotic expansions. They also like to assert and are, in fact, regarded as the aboriginal peoples of the area. Many of them have also managed to retain click sounds in their (usually adopted) languages, which again point to their original Khoisan-like languages and affinities.
I don't personally believe Pygmies and Capoids have a common ancestor. The African Pygmies definately though have an ancestral connection to Negroids. Coon (1962) theorises that the Capoid evolutionary sequence is Ternifine-Temara-Rabat-Tangier-Boskop, while the Negroid (or Congoid rather) line of descent very different.
Probably though the Pygmies were originally lighter skinned like the Capoids. Dark skin as in Negroid pigmentation appears to be a very recent mutation.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by gorpa: That's because those prehistoric East African specimens in question were, in fact, Caucasoid, not Negroid. Prior to the expansion of Bantu and Nilotic Negroid peoples into that Great Lakes region, the area was already inhabited by three distinct human groups: early Negroids, Khoisan and Caucasoids. Refer again to the helpful chart above by Bräuer; it shows which actual prehistoric specimens belong to each of these racial clusters.
Will you stop masturbating over that outdated Brauer study and answer this more recent craniometric data I presented earlier?
In the sum, the results obtained further strengthen the results from previous analyses. The affinities between Nazlet Khater, MSA, and Khoisan and Khoisan related groups re-emerges. In addition it is possible to detect a separation between North African and sub-saharan populations, with the Neolithic Saharan population from Hasi el Abiod and the Egyptian Badarian group being closely affiliated with modern Negroid groups. Similarly, the Epipaleolithic populations from Site 117 and Wadi Halfa are also affiliated with sub-Saharan LSA, Iron Age and modern Negroid groups rather than with contemporaneous North African populations such as Taforalt and the Ibero-maurusian.---Pierre M. Vermeersch (Author & Editor), 'Palaeolithic quarrying sites in Upper and Middle Egypt', Egyptian Prehistory Monographs Vol. 4, Leuven University Press (2002).
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Puccioni's exhaustive Antropologia e Etnografia delle genti della Somalia, Vols I, III (Bologna: N. Zanichelli, 1931, 1936).
Similarly, note where Billy et al. (1988) groups the southern Sab Somalis relative to the northern Somalis in the dendrogram below. Which of the two groups morphologically clusters more closely to the Yemeni and North African samples? Puccioni's less Negroid-influenced northerners, of course.
Uh, hold on ace. You conveniently missed something else. The Sab, based on Hiernaux's sample are a caste group of Somalia, despised by the pastoralists, denied the right to own livestock, or intermarry. Below is a typical Midgan Sab of southern Somalia- definitely not the hoped for white "Caucasoids" lmao..
^White Caucasoid Somalian... lmao..
and the closest grouping with the Sab is the Oromo shown below.. Again, no white Caucasoids.. lol
The "white" Oromo are sometimes curiously undersampled in "Ethiopian" DNA studies.. ----------------------------------------------------------
You fail in all the rest. Cranial studies superseding the 1988 Bill study show Somalis clustering with Kenyans.
----------------------------
quote:Originally posted by Anglo-Pyramidologist: We've gone over this countless times, the morphological variation in Africa is not intra but inter regional:
^Debunk 1... "The patterns of inter- and intra-regional variation among 12 major geographical groups from around the world were investigated .. Subsaharan Africans show the largest intra-regional diversity among the groups compared." --Hanihara 2008 Morphological variation of major human populations AJPA 136,2 169-182
Originally posted by Anglo-Pyramidologist: All craniometric and dentition studies cluster Somali with Caucasoids.
^^^DEbunk 2...
You lose... again... [/QB]
---------------------------------------------
DNA clustering shows Somalis cluster most with other East Africans, confirming the cranial data of Hanihara..
^^BLood studies also show Somalis cluster more with other East Africans rather than EUropeans or Middle Easterners..
[/b]
^Some studies undersample the ORomo giving a false picture.. --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by gorpa: That's because those prehistoric East African specimens in question were, in fact, Caucasoid, not Negroid.
^^Rigggghhhhtttttt........ lmao...
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by gorpa:
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: Actually the Afroasiatic identity of Omotic has been vindicated
Not really. Here's the actual direction that the status quo on Omotic classification has been increasingly moving in since the work of Rolf Theil, an Omotic specialist:
"Omotic is the most controversial grouping typically characterized as Afroasiatic because the grammatical formatives ‘to which Afroasiaticists have tended to attach the greatest importance are either absent or distinctly wobbly’ (Hayward 1995: 14). Greenberg (1963) and others considered Omotic to be a subgroup of Cushitic, but there have been repeated questions as to whether Omotic can be considered Afroasiatic at all (e.g., Theil 2006). One view is that only the most divergent set of Omotic languages, the Aroid languages (including languages Ari, Hamer, and Dime), are actually Nilo-Saharan (e.g., Zaborski 2004; Moges 2007). Most specialists regard Omotic as a separate sub-branch of Afroasiatic, but this might lead some to underestimate the internal diversity of the 25 or so Omotic languages, which appears to be greater than that found in Berber and Semitic."
“Omotic languages”, =416, still cause a lot of disagreement; whether it belongs or not to “Afro-Asiatic languages” has been questioned in recent years, and many influential authors (e.g. Newman, 1980, and Theil, 2006) believe that it should be regarded as an independent family."
If you had bothered to read your first quote carefully, it actually agrees that most specialists do accept Omotic as Afroasiatic, even if a handful of guys like Thiel disagree.
Not that Omotic is really necessary to prove that Afroasiatic as a phylum originated in Africa as is the scholarly consensus anyway...
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
GOod exposure of the dubious "hamitic union" Dana. Their claims easily fall flat on examination in 3 ways.
1) So-called "leading authority" Froment has in no way "debunked" the data of Hiernaux. To the contrary- Hiernaux's balanced model of African diversity, including elongated Africans, has been confirmed multiple times, using both skeletal evidence and DNA, and is so cited by Keita 1991, 1999, 2005 etc. The only "debunking" is of the bogus fantasies of the equally bogus "hamitic" "union".
2. Maca-Meyer's claims are unimpressive as part of any racial "Kakazoid" model of expansion. We all know that there has been ancient gene flow via the crossroads that is the Middle East, but at what point did such gene flow become "Kakazoid", save as yet another self-serving Eurocentric labeling exercise?
In fact, Maca-Meyer undermines assorted "Kakazoid" race models by noting that gene differentiation was ALREADY occurring WITHIN Africa t`ens of thousands of years ago. IN other words, the gene variants that would become distinctive in Asia and the "Middle East" were ALREADY taking place WITHIN Africa BEFORE any SIGNIFICANT EXPANSION OUTWARD. These would grow more distinct due to time and distance from Africa but the founding variants and/or proto-variants were ALREADY in place WITHIN Africa. Hence, African fishermen migrating into the Sinai PEnisula or Arabia circa 60kya did not suddenly become "Middle Eastern" or "Eurasian" nor does a white guy who crosses the Rio Grande into Mexico suddenly become "Hispanic." THis is the cynical labeling game being foisted on the gullible by the European academy to de-africanize tropical African peoples, or minimize their built in indigenous diversity.
3. Claims of "racial backflow" (however disguised with labels like "EUrasian" or "Middle Eastern") fall short, because those "backflowing" ALREADY RESEMBLED TROPICAL AFRICANS as proved by credible studies. It is hilarious to watch the self-serving hypocrisy of Eurocentrics. When dark-skinned, broad-nosed people with tropical limb proportions are found far west of the Sahara they are firmly "true negroes." WHen similar people are found in Arabia, the SInai or Iraq they comnveniently become "Eurasian." THe bogus "hamitic union" is a prime example of this hypocrisy in operation. ------------------------------------------------------------------
[b]In the attack on Afrocentrism so condescendingly voiced by the non-anthropologist Stephen Howe about African American historians he expressed his view that of a "moribund state" of the older "Eurocenttric" "Mediterranean race" theory. Afrocentrism: Mythical Pasts and Imagined Homes p. 116
^^Stephen Howe himself dabbles in hypocrisy and strawmen. He spends a great deal of time railing against "Afrocentrics" but carefully buried in his condescending screed is an admission of the central point raised by so-called "Afrocentrics"..
Likewise Froment is quoted as bashing the "Afrocentrics" but he too quietly admits the "sub-Saharan" character of the Nile Valley in various eras as well as similarities between Egyptians and East Africans.
Gene flow into the Nubian area during the Neolithic was not from reputed "wandering Caucasoids" but from tropical, Sub-Saharan types.
"Prior to the Neolithic, populations of the Nile Valley in Nubia are very robust, and, because of a gap in the fossil record,` it is difficult to connect them to later populations. Some have postulated a local evolution, due to diet change, while others postulated migrations, especially from the Sahara area. But between 5000 and 1000 BC, many cemeteries have supplied a large amount of skeletons, and the anatomical characters of Nubian populations are easier to follow-up.
Midgan1/2 cluster -kenya-somalia
Twenty-seven archaeological samples (4 at 5000 BC, 5 at 4000 BC, 10 at 3000 BC, 3 at 2000 BC, 5 at 1000 BC), and 10 craniofacial measurements, have been considered. While cerebral skull is fairly stable, facial skull displays several regular modifications, and specially a reduction of facial and nasal heights, a broadening of the nose, and an increase of prognathism, while bizygomatic breadth is unchanged. These features illustrate a trend towards a growing resemblance with populations of Sub-Saharan Africa living in wet environments. However, paleoclimatological studies show that Nubia experienced an increasing aridification during that period. It is then unlikely that such a morphological change could be related to any local adaptive evolution to environment. Random drift is also unlikely, because the anatomical trend is relatively uniform during these millennia. It then seems more plausible that these changes correspond to the increasing presence of Southern populations migrating northward." -- Froment, A. (2002) Morphological micro-evolution of Nubian Populations from, A-Group to Christian Epochs: gene flow, not local adaptation. Am J Phys Anthropol [Suppl] 34:72.
Afrocentric critic Froment also notes: "Black populations of the Horn of Africa (Tigré and Somalia) fit well into Egyptian variations." (Froment, Alain, Origines du peuplement de l’Égypte ancienne: l’apport de l’anthropobiologie, Archéo-Nil 2 (Octobre 1992), 79-98)
This is a common pattern with the Eurocentrics. They build great bogus strawmen to slay - such as the dreaded bogeymen- the "Afrocentrics" while behind the scenes, at the backdoor, grudgingly conceding several central points raised by said "Afrocentrics." It's like Mary Lefkowitz who admits the African character of ancient Egypt, even as "Afrocentric critics" continue to use her work to "refute" Afrocentrism. These people actually believe no one has yet caught on to the game.
It turns out the Euronuts are not as Neanderdumb as one might have been misled to think. They can actually be excused for their constant harping on themes thought to be mostly long obsolete in the West.
^^Not so much excused as exposed. They can say what they like but once the the 3 points above are considered, their whole hypocritical edifice crumbles like a rotten house of cards. ------------------------------------------------ Originally posted by Truthcentric: In the sum, the results obtained further strengthen the results from previous analyses. The affinities between Nazlet Khater, MSA, and Khoisan and Khoisan related groups re-emerges. In addition it is possible to detect a separation between North African and sub-saharan populations, with the Neolithic Saharan population from Hasi el Abiod and the Egyptian Badarian group being closely affiliated with modern Negroid groups. Similarly, the Epipaleolithic populations from Site 117 and Wadi Halfa are also affiliated with sub-Saharan LSA, Iron Age and modern Negroid groups rather than with contemporaneous North African populations such as Taforalt and the Ibero-maurusian.---Pierre M. Vermeersch (Author & Editor), 'Palaeolithic quarrying sites in Upper and Middle Egypt', Egyptian Prehistory Monographs Vol. 4, Leuven University Press (2002).
^Indeed. Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
This might also be pertinent:
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by gorpa:
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: BTW - yes everyone here knows Somalis, Ethiopians and Sahelians have "Caucasoid' i.e. Eurasiatic blood. That doesn't mean their ancient black African ancestors were "Caucasoids".
Ok, so we agree that admixture has taken place; we just disagree in which direction. My perspective on this issue is the same as Gunther Bräuer's. He at various periods studied the key North and East African prehistoric remains at hand. Here's a summary of what he wrote in his 1978 paper linked to earlier:
"There is a third African major race: the Mediterranean. The populations living on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea and in parts of East Africa are classified as Mediterranean or Afro-Mediterranean because of their relatively homogeneous Europid characteristics. Due to various admixtures with neighbouring Negrid populations in prehistoric and historic times, the present populations of East Africa in particular are more or less heterogeneous in appearance, especially with regard to soft-tissue morphology[...]
The Mediterranean character is clearly dominant among the Ethiopids, who include the large populations of the Amhara, the Galla and the Somali. Their skeletal features are predominantly Europid; the nose is generally narrow and prominent. However, there are also Negrid admixtures of varying degrees among the individual tribes. The Negrid character is strongest among the Sidamos in South West Ethiopia, and at its weakest among the Somali (Cole 1965)[...]
The number of sites in Algeria and Morocco belonging to the Ibero-Maurusian culture is relatively large. Especially well-known is the mesolithic cemetary of Afalou-bou-Rhummel on the Algerian coast, where in 1928-30 remains of more than 40 adults and a number of children were excavated (Arambourg 1929; Arambourg et al. 1934; Vallois 1952). Likewise linked with the Ibero-Maurusian culture is the important skeletal series of more than 280 individuals found in the Taforalt cave (Morocco) in 1951-1953 (Ferembach 1962). A late Pleistocene layer of this site has been dated to about 10,000-12,000 B.P. (Roche 1959).
In Maghreb, however, there are also numerous settlements of the North African Capsian, which are linked with huge shell mounds. The most important site of this type is Mechta-el-Arbi, southwest of Constantine (Algeria), where in 1907-1927 remains of more than 30 individuals were found in a huge shell mound (Arambourg et al. 1934). As an indication of the dating, the absolute age of another shell mound associated with the same culture (Upper Capsian) may be of interest; it has been dated at about 8,400 + or - 400 B. P., the beginning of the Holocene (Ivanova 1972). The skeletons from Dar-es-Soltan near Rabat (Morocco) also are ascribed to the Mechta type (Vallois 1951; Ferembach 1976).
The morphological affinities of all of these samples are generally Europid, though there appears to have been differentiation into two morphotypes. One is represented by tall, robust individuals with large, long and high crania, broad faces with low, rectangular sloping orbitae and heavy rugged jaws with strong chins (Briggs 1955; Ferembach 1962). The other type comprises individuals with small faces and less rugged "leptodolichomorphic" characteristics. Although both combinations of characteristics do not generally occur separately, relating to the sites, there is some evidence of a tendency (Schwidetzky 1970) for the more robust type to be more numerous in Ibero-Maurusian sites, while the leptodolichomorphic form is more frequent in those of the Capsian, as shown by the East African men of the Kenya Capsian.
The modern populations, too, can be understood on the basis of this polarity of types. The Berber populations from the Maghreb and North West Africa tend to be more robust and broad-faced than the Arabian populations and other groups from the East.
The present Egyptians are closer to the pole of the small leptodolichomorphic Mediterranean populations (Schwidetzky 1970), as evidenced by the populations of Egypt since predynastic times, and have yielded some larger series. However, Egypt had been infiltrated by groups of various populations, especially in historical times. The increase of Negrid influence is due primarily to the Arabic slave-trade. Nevertheless, Negrid influences in ancient Egypt seem to have been much smaller than in Nubia (Strouhal 1975). The present southern Nubians are tall and lightly built, but the skin colour is darker; they are probably the product of hybridization between Europid Egyptians and Negroids."
Umm... if I were u I wouldn't quote Strouhal or other neo-Nazic East Europids in addressing me. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. The narrow noses u see on us blacks are as those Europeans WITH BRAINS have concluded - due to the trend toward gracilizationm narrowness, elongation in osteology among US BLACKS whose ancestors evolved in deset-like coniditions. Not due to a connection with u squareheaded Europids i.e. Caucasoids.
Moral and END of story! "Dolphins look like fish, but THEY ARE NOT!" GET IT!?
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: This might also be pertinent:
This analysis looks interesting and I will definitely have to check into it.
Maybe Tishkoff's genetic methodology has sometimes to say for it after all.
Posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist (Member # 18853) on :
^ Simpleton, go back a few pages and Gorpa has posted an excellent link to multiple NIGERIAN and other West African anthropometric studies from 2009, 2010 etc. These studies were carried out by Negroids themselves, and they reveal that West Africans strictly only have platyrrhine(wide) noses.
Thin noses do not exist in Negroids (West Africans). This has been confirmed by your own scientists you retard. Are you now calling Black Nigerian anthropologists ''neo-nazis''? Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Does that include Fulani peoples of northern Nigeria or other parts of West Africa?? Funny how you call platyrrhine a "negroid" trait though when its found in the lower Nile Valley like Wadi Halfa and Badarians, or in the Levant among Natufians, or *shock* in Mesopotamia among Ubaidian and early Ur skulls, they are either 'bushmanoid' or archaic 'caucasoids'!! LOL Posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist (Member # 18853) on :
Fulani have inherited Caucasoid traits, they personally distinguish themselves to Negroids and they avoid mixing with them calling them "hyenas, apes, and asses" (Dupire, 1962) and intermarriage is considered "eating the fruit of the bitter black plum tree" (Stenning, 1959). They don't socially identify as "Black". Their genetics reveals a Western Eurasian (Caucasoid) component.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ All lies and distortions. Firstly, we had a couple of Fulani who posted on this board before and called you out on those exact lies!! Do you think I would forget, or perhaps YOU have faulty memory! LMAO What Fulani in his or her right mind would not consider himself as 'black', especially since there is NO difference between them and other West Africans in terms of color or complexion, you moron!!
The Fulani man above for example is painting his face for decorative purposes and not trying to 'hide' his complexion by any means. LOL
Secondly, what exactly is this "Western Eurasian" genetic component?? Last time I checked, Fulani are overwhelmingly no different from other "negroid" West Africans genetically both autosomally as well as in Y-chromosome and mitochondria. In fact the only "West Eurasian" genetic input among them are those along the coasts who have intermarried with European colonialists, yet these have "negroid" features. The majority who live farther inland and have so-called "caucasoid" features such as the Wodaabe carry 100% E1b1a lineages.
Less baseless claims and more evidence Anglo-Idiot!
Oh and I note you didn't bother to respond to the part about platyrrhine being found among the groups I listed. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Anglo-Idiot please comeback and answer why the Fulani man in the above picture is not 'black' or would not consider himself as such.
Also in regards to platyrrhine being a "negroid" trait. If that's so why do we have this in regards to early Sumerians?
The forehead was retreating and the brow ridges were always prominent, the cheek bones were rather broad and the nose also was broad, in some case inclining to extreme platyrrhine…There can be no doubt that this type is that which has been described by Sergi, Giuffrida-Ruggeri, and Fleure, and named the Eurafican type… Buxton and Rice (1931)
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Where are you Anglo-Idiot??! Come and address these FACTS!
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_pisspot: Fulani have inherited Caucasoid traits, they personally distinguish themselves to Negroids and they avoid mixing with them calling them "hyenas, apes, and asses" (Dupire, 1962) and intermarriage is considered "eating the fruit of the bitter black plum tree" (Stenning, 1959). They don't socially identify as "Black". Their genetics reveals a Western Eurasian (Caucasoid) component.
This was already responded to and was debunked many times, anyway. Repost!
Some Fulani's are in autosomal genetically related to the a lesser degree with Baggara Arabs and more so with Chadic people. The Chadic sample is probebly what they've sequeced as "eurasian" lol
And this is a Baggara Arab.
quote: The Shuwa Arabs are commonly referred to as the "Baggara." This name is derived from the Arabic word bagar, meaning "cow," and refers to the Arab tribes in West Africa who are cattle herders.
Tiskoff et al. has sequeces of them in a paper by her.
It completely destroys your repetitive bullshit.Yup, it does!
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Indeed, that would be the same Tishkoff study that labeled significant autosomal sequences among the Dogon as "Eurasian" as well!
Here are Dogon people..
The problem with labeling autosomal sequences is that one is not entirely certain of affinity or origins of certain sequences especially when data for the genomics of closely related populations are sorely lacking which is the exact case of Africans of the Saharan and northern region.
This is why uniparental markers like Y-chromosome SNP or mitochondria is more reliable.
By the way, I believe Explorer and Rasol posted craniometric data before that show affinities between Dogon and early 'Mechtoid' types.
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_pisspot: Fulani have inherited Caucasoid traits, they personally distinguish themselves to Negroids and they avoid mixing with them calling them "hyenas, apes, and asses" (Dupire, 1962) and intermarriage is considered "eating the fruit of the bitter black plum tree" (Stenning, 1959). They don't socially identify as "Black". Their genetics reveals a Western Eurasian (Caucasoid) component.
This was already responded to and was debunked many times, anyway. Repost!
Yeah! Just like I said, the Anglo-Idiot's very post above was debunked by ACTUAL FULANI who posted on this thread. But of course the white racist fool is always right, right? LOL Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist: Fulani have inherited Caucasoid traits, they personally distinguish themselves to Negroids and they avoid mixing with them calling them "hyenas, apes, and asses" (Dupire, 1962) and intermarriage is considered "eating the fruit of the bitter black plum tree" (Stenning, 1959). They don't socially identify as "Black". Their genetics reveals a Western Eurasian (Caucasoid) component.
Africans didn't in general socially identify as black in the European sense of the word - Neandernut, although i do agree with you that the original Fulani being descendants of the black people that occupied the coasts of the Mediterranean for thousands of years and spread to the deserts of Syro-Arabia have probably absorbed some recent Eurasiatic blood which has led to longer hair. Its been established they have "low levels of European and/or Middle Eastern ancestry", obviously much lower than the people of Zanzibar, African Americans, Amhara Ethiopians ,etc. Nevertheless their phenotype which is clearly like that of the Papuans, and like blacks evolved from their black desert dwelling ancestors Watusi and Somali and has been present for thousands of years as shown by the rock art. That is why of course bigger boned white people in Europe SUCH AS YOURSELF don't tend to have elongated refined features or faces with low vaulted noses like the Woodabe Fulani or as Coon mentioned Ramses which were similar to those of other ancient tall or elongated Afro-Asiatics of eastern Africa and Arabia.
Another words you are not us! Does that help?
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: Jean Hiernaux who wisely noted about the east Africans -
"There is every reason to believe that they are ancestral to the living 'Elongated East Africans'. Their features can be found in several living populations, who are very dark skinned and DIFFER GREATLY FROM EUROPEANS IN A NUMBER OF BODY PROPORTIONS. Neither of these populations, fossil and modern, should be considered to be closely related to Caucasoids of Europe and western Asia.." Hiernaux, J. 1975 The Peoples of Africa, p. 62 .
dana your thread doesn't make sense. You are saying the term "Negroid" is invalid yet you endorse Hiernaux who both uses the term "Caucasoids" and says that East Africans can be distinguished by body proportions
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Through all dynasties Egyptians displayed the Negroid traits and tropical limb proportions
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
[/b]
