For discussion of initial Early Modern Human dispersals from Africa, possible AMHs not of Africa whom they may have met, and backflows to Africa before the Holocene shaping of the major world populations by the basic regions as known today with their familiar phenotypes.
In other words opinions on what people(s) who first left Africa look like, how long they looked that way in the regions they went to, when and how did they begin looking like identifiable Mediteranean Africans, SW Asians, south Asians, Austral Asians, Oceanics, E&N Asians, N&S original Americans, NW/N/Central Europeans, S Europeans, E Europeans and E and C Asians, before 1700 years ago.
(For example ancient Egyptian art shows Med Europeans, Med Africans, Nile Africans, Red Sea Africans, and Levantines more or less looking surprisingly like they do today.)
I'm defining OoA as 45ky and earlier and backflow to Africa as between 50-11kya.
Also is there anything to non-mtDNA Eve humans, i.e., are OoA theory upholders dogmatic and refuse to consider even dead end humans not of ultimate mtDNA L and nrY CT stock?
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Really, somebody help me out here
quote:
In other words opinions on what people(s) who first left Africa look like, how long they looked that way in the regions they went to, when and how did they begin looking like identifiable Mediterranean Africans, SW Asians, south Asians, Austral Asians, Oceanics, W&N Asians, N&S original Americans, NW/N/Central Europeans, S Europeans, E Europeans and E and C Asians, before 1700 years ago.
(For example ancient Egyptian art shows Med Europeans, Med Africans, Nile Africans, Red Sea Africans, and Levantines more or less looking surprisingly like they do today.)
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Will give more details later with relevant citations. Unlike many here(who are caught up in dogma) I use objective science to propose and back up my views...hence there is no Caucasians and Negros.
We have to keep in mind geography, genes and genetic drift determines what AMH looked like.
AMH point of entry into Asia(Straits)
1. Black/brown skin 2. Black/brown eyes 3. Osteometrically Tropically adapted 4. Straightish hair.(I maintain that kinky hair is a recent adaptation 5. Most likely prognathic(like most AEians) They probably looked like modern day Dravidians/Australians/Indians
Those enetering Europe(peninsulas) from North Africa maybe lighter complexioned, but similar features. My guess thinner nose because of the dryness. Also prognathic.
Keep in mind - I am in Kittles/Norton et al camp. So I believe de-furring took place in the higher latitudes of Africa and not in the tropical belt. S. Tishkoff also is of that belief.
Reading - Norton's doctoral thesis on Penn State website - she believes AMH did not leave Africa really dark.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
I maintain that kinky hair is a recent adaptation
what is it an adaptation to ?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Simple. Most hot tropical peoples in the old world(outside Africa) have kinky hair.
If they left with kinky hair some then evolved straight hair or conversely if they left with straight hair some evolved kinky hair.
The latter makes more sense.
We went through this many times. Hot humid= wide nostril, kinky hair(and may be everted lips).
Hot, humid, forest, tropics = small, wide nostril, kinky hair, dark skin.eg Biaka, New Guinea, Andaman, etc
Dry, hot, sub-tropic, desert/plain = taller, narrower nose, brown/dark skin, wavy hair eg people of the Sahel and Sahara.
Remember evolution did not take place in the forest. It took place in the plains of Africa. That is why narrow nose can be found on the crania of Africans going back 40ky. BEFORE the occupation of Europe and Asia.
I am out.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:That is why narrow nose can be found on the crania of Africans going back 40ky.
The oldest crania in Africa with low nasal indices date as late as the Holocene.
That's why they are evidence for Caucasoids.
If Africans in situ evolved straight hair, thin noses etc - where are they 30 or even 20k?
No specimens exist in Africa 40k, 30k or even 20k with thin noses. Show these fossils then.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
Xyyman, have you ever even read a single book on African paleo-anthropology?
The oldest skulls in Africa with thin noses are from the Eubrran strata of gambles cave, and also Capsian skulls (10,000-7000 B.P).
"There is skeletal material from Kenya (Gamble's Cave) associated with an early Holocene culture called the Eburran. The craniofacial characteristics of this material have the narrow face and nose and profile" (Philips, 2006)
Thus contrary to Hiernaux (1975):
"There is no need to postulate an extra-African 'Caucasoid' element in their genepool for explaining such a characteristic as the narrow nose."
The fossil record completely debunks this idea indigenous Africans evolved those features, as Froment (1992, 1994) shows because they are so late to arrive.
Froment, A. 1992. Origines du Peuplement de l'Egypte Ancienne: l'Apport de l'anthropobiologie. Archéo-Nil 2:79-98. Froment, A. 1994. Race et Histoire: La recomposition ideologique de l'image des Egyptiens anciens. Journal des Africanistes 64:37-64.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Cass please rephrase the question...I have no idea what a Caucasoid is?
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
So no coily hair until after OoA event >50k ?
Arose independently and simultaneously in Africa for -excuse these unavoidable physical anthropology terms- Pygmies, Bushmen, and Negroes
and outside Africa for Andamanese, Negritos and Melanesians
but not in Australia or the Americas tropic zones including South Americas rain forest?
Yet coily hair is very specific. Besides us and sheep what other animals have it? Was there a loose timespan that allowed for it so that it didn't exist <50k and was locked down before Brazil's rainforest was populated?
Another thing epicanthic fold in Africa occurs among coily haireds. Is this true of Asia too?
. . .
It's very interesting to me how in 50,000 years a small bottlenecked African population could not have generally looked like Africans do today from 15° N down to Cape Agulhas when they first stepped out from the continent although those remaining on the continent would still take on geographic environmental effected features.
Was the supposedly bottlenecked -small in number- OoA folk diverse enough to have all combinations of hair textures, eyefold, etc. by phenotype -or just recessively?- or did they arise here and there along the 20k trek?
Did Aboriginees, Papuans, and Melanesians arrive as they now look or get to look as they do after residency? How related are they? Does the natural path of migration in fact coinside with order of inhabitation and of relatively close times?
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
Sheeps don't have coily fur. Humans are the only animals with coily hair as far as I know. Even monkey primates don't have coily hair (as far as I know). If anybody knows some animals with coily hair (which is possible obviously even if there just isn't) please post it here.
That's Sheep fur:
Looks nice and cozy though. Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
That sheep's locks are coiled alright; its just that the coils have large spaces in between between them, causing them to appear wavy. More space in between the coils produces near-straight hair (i.e., the coils are so large you need meters of hair to notice them), less space in between the coils produces more curly hair. I agree though, that that sheep's hair seems to be more like European type hair than stereotypical African type hair.
For those with curly hair, pick some hairs off your comb and you'll see it for yourself; very tiny 'S' shaped coils.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
This is a stupid Thread. Craniometrics can and does differentiate between the races. Months ago Mike gave a primer on how races are easily recognized in the bones.
There are no skeletons of caucasians dating before 2000bc. The first whites appear in Egyptian art during the New Kingdom when the Peoples of the Sea invaded the Meditteranean. The Syrian white types appeared around the same time in Sumerian art as represented by the Gutians. The oldest Indo-European language is Hittite, which is basically of Kushite Hattic origin.
There were no ‘whites’ in ancient Africa. The dates the genetists claim various haplogroups are suppose to have ‘returned’ to Africa the Levant was still under the control of Neanderthals.
Evolution has nothing to do with different races, including different Africoid people. It appears that when some people go up into the mountains they come back down years later a different ethnic group this is why the Egyptians claimed they came from the Mountains of the Moon, The caucasians from the Caucassus Mountains, and the Chinese fron the Tian Shan (I believe).
The archaeology using craniometrics record the raise of the various races. The Australians represent the OoA population. Next the Busman/Khoisan, and after them the Pygmies. After the pygmies we have the raise of the classical mongoloid people represented by the Indo-Chinese, Indonesians and etc. After this group we get the taller Blacks represented by Niger-Congo speakers. The Europeans followed. The final group to appear was the Chinese/Mongolian (tall) Asian people.
LOL. You guys are talking about the pygmies in the jungles of the Congo. How soon people forget that when Europeans explored the world they found pygmy people on every continent. Moreover, we know Egypt was founded by pygmies/Anu people who also began civilization [img] Mesopotamia.http://wysinger.homestead.com/tera-neter.jpg [/img]
Although these are the facts, ignorant people see this once great people as always being a primative people living in marginal areas. They live in marginal areas today because they were conquered by the Taller (Niger-Congo) Blacks in Africa and Mesopotamia, Indo-Europeans in Europe and Mongoloids in Asia.
In Europe when you read the old literature it is full of reference to the ‘wee people’, who were rich and captured by Euros to be ransomed for gold. And West Africans make it clear when they arrived on the scene there were pygmies already settled in the area.
Mike has tried to educate you guys to the fact Europeans lie. They teach you falsehood that maintain a Eurocentric view of history. LOL the have been able to convince most people that while Europeans and etc., have left their ‘homelands’ to settle new geographical areas, African peopl left Africa 60-45kya, and did not reach other locals until the slave trade.LOL, what fools you are to believe this lie.
For example, the archaeological evidence makes it clear the Melanesians have recently settled the Islands. The Melanesians live in the lowlands, and have placenames that are identical to West African toponyms. The Australian type lives in the highlands since they were the original settlers of the Islands.
They use genetics to imply that there are no races—yet claim specific ‘races/Nationalities carry specific genes. For example they give haplogroups new names to make it appear Africans have always lived in Africa, while they say only Europeans are R1, they fail to admit that most R1 yDNA clades are found in Africa, and give it a different name V88, to perpetuate the lie. Genetists claim that only mtDNA M1, is found in Africa, while they call the Asian M1—haplogroup D—to maintain this lie.
You guys are confused because you believe all Europeans are teaching true science and history, while most maintain the status quo: White Supremacy. This thread is an attempt to perpetuate the great lie—Blacks have no history.
Again this is a confused stupid thread trying to make true the lies the contributors to this tread have accepted as true history taught them by the white supremacy Academe.
.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
Don't be ridiculous.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Will give more details later with relevant citations. Unlike many here(who are caught up in dogma) I use objective science to propose and back up my views...hence there is no Caucasians and Negros.
We have to keep in mind geography, genes and genetic drift determines what AMH looked like.
AMH point of entry into Asia(Straits)
1. Black/brown skin 2. Black/brown eyes 3. Osteometrically Tropically adapted 4. Straightish hair.(I maintain that kinky hair is a recent adaptation 5. Most likely prognathic(like most AEians) They probably looked like modern day Dravidians/Australians/Indians
Those enetering Europe(peninsulas) from North Africa maybe lighter complexioned, but similar features. My guess thinner nose because of the dryness. Also prognathic.
Keep in mind - I am in Kittles/Norton et al camp. So I believe de-furring took place in the higher latitudes of Africa and not in the tropical belt. S. Tishkoff also is of that belief.
Reading - Norton's doctoral thesis on Penn State website - she believes AMH did not leave Africa really dark.
This is hogwash. The first people to leave Africa, were the Australians and they are dark.
Many researchers fail to recognize that there is a craniometric difference between Australoids /Australians representatives of the OOA population, Mongoloids and Melanoids; craniometric differences that indicate two migrations of the Black Variety into the Pacific and East Asia.
Tsuenehiko Hanihare discussed the phenotypic variations between these populations(1). Tsuenehiko classified these people into three major populations Southeast Asian Mongoloids (Polynesians), the Australians or Austroloid type and the Nicobar and Andaman (Melanoid) samples which he found lie between the predominately Southeast Asian and Australoid/Australian type (1).
The Australian aborigines and Melanesians show cranonical variates and represent two distinct Black populations(2).[/] The Australoids or Australians live mainly in Australia and the highland regions of Oceania, the Melanoid people on the otherhand live in the coastal regions of Near Oceania and Fiji. D.J de Laubenfels discussed the variety of Blacks found in Asia.[b] Laubenfiels explained that Negroids/Melanoids such as the Tasmanians are characterized by wooly black hair and sparse body hair (2). Australoids or Australians on the otherhand have curly, wavy or straight hair and abundant body hair. Other differences between these Black populations include Negroid / Melanoid brows being vertical and without eyebrow ridges, whereas Australoid brows are sloping and with prominent ridges (2).
This led M. Pietrusewky to recognize two separate colonizations of the Pacific by morphologically distinct populations one Polynesian and the other Melanesian (3). Pietrusewky’s research indicates a clear separation between the Australian-Melanesian crania and the Polynesian crania (3). The findings indicate an origin for the Polynesians in Southeast Asia (3-5), and an early Australo-Melanesian presence in East Asia as discussed in the earlier comment.
Laubenfels argues that the Australians are remnants of the original African migration to the region 60kya (2). This view is supported by David Bulbeck who found that the Australian craniometrics are different from the Mongoloid (Polynesian), and Melanoid crania metrics (4). This research indicates that whereas Australian aborigine crania agree with the archaic population of Asia and first group of Africans to exit Africa, they fail to correspond to the Sahulland crania which are distinctly of Southwest Pacific or Melanoid affinity (2,4). This suggests that by the rise of Sahulland there were two distinct Black populations in Asia one Austroloid and the other Melanoid (4).
The Melanesian type does not appear in East Asia (Siberia) until after 5000 BC. This is thousands of years after Luizia and Eva Neharon had existed in Brazil and Mexico respectively.
By the Neolithic the Melanoids or Papuans are associated with millet cultivation at Yangshao and Lougshan according to Pietrusewky’s work (5). Tsang argues that the probable homeland of the Austronesian speakers was the Pearl River delta, here the Melanoid people cultivated millet (6). Sagart believes that there is a Proto-Sino-Tibetan-Austronesian family of languages based on the millet culture the Melanoids introduced to China (7).
The craniometrics make it clear the Australians are not related to the Melanesians.
Reference:
1. Tsunehiko Hanihare, Interpretation of craniofacial variations and diversification of East and Southeast Asia. In Bioarchaeology of Southeast Asia. (Eds.) Marc Oxenhan and Nancy Tayles (pp.91-111). Cambridge, 2005.
2. D.J. Laubenfels, Australoids, Negroids and Negroes: A suggested explanation for their distinct distributions. Annals Association of Am. Geographers, 58(1), 1968: 42-50.
3. Michael Pietrusewky, A multivariate craniometric study of the prehistoric and modern inhabitants of Southeast Asia, East Asia and surrounding regions:A human kaleidoscope. Cambridge Studies in Biological and Evolutionary Anthropology, No. 43, 2006: 59-90.
5. M. Pietrusewsky, The Physical anthropology of the Pacific, East Asia: A multivariate craniometric analysis. . In L. Sagart, R. Blench, A. Sanchez-Mazos (Eds), The peopling of East Asia Putting together Archaeology,Linguistics and Genetics (pp.201-229). RutledgeCurzon, 2005.
6. Tsang Cheng-Hwa, Recent discoveries at Tapenkeng culture sites in Taiwan;Implications for the problem of Austronesian origins. In The peopling of East Asia Putting together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics ,(Eds) L. Sagart, R. Blench, A. Sanchez-Mazos (pp.63-74). RutledgeCurzon, 2005.
7. L. Sagart, Sino-Tibetan-Austronesian an Updated and improved argument. In L. Sagart, R. Blench, A. Sanchez-Mazos (Eds), The peopling of East Asia Putting together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics (pp.161-176). RutledgeCurzon, 2005.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: So no coily hair until after OoA event >50k ?
Arose independently and simultaneously in Africa for -excuse these unavoidable physical anthropology terms- Pygmies, Bushmen, and Negroes
and outside Africa for Andamanese, Negritos and Melanesians
but not in Australia or the Americas tropic zones including South Americas rain forest?
Yet coily hair is very specific. Besides us and sheep what other animals have it? Was there a loose timespan that allowed for it so that it didn't exist <50k and was locked down before Brazil's rainforest was populated?
Another thing epicanthic fold in Africa occurs among coily haireds. Is this true of Asia too?
. . .
It's very interesting to me how in 50,000 years a small bottlenecked African population could not have generally looked like Africans do today from 15° N down to Cape Agulhas when they first stepped out from the continent although those remaining on the continent would still take on geographic environmental effected features.
Was the supposedly bottlenecked -small in number- OoA folk diverse enough to have all combinations of hair textures, eyefold, etc. by phenotype -or just recessively?- or did they arise here and there along the 20k trek?
Did Aboriginees, Papuans, and Melanesians arrive as they now look or get to look as they do after residency? How related are they? Does the natural path of migration in fact coinside with order of inhabitation and of relatively close times?
A simple observation of Melanesians and Aborigines make it clear that they resemble Africans moreso than Aborigines--the original settlers of Asia.
The ancestors of the Melanesians and Polynesians probably lived in East Asia. The late appearance of Melanoid people from East Asia on the shore areas of Oceania would explain the differences between the genetic make up of Melanesians living in the highlands and Melanesians living along the shore [1-2].
The skeletal evidence from East Asia [3-7,12] suggests that the TMRCAs of the Polynesians and some of the coastal Melanesians may be mainland East Asia, not Taiwan. The ancestral population for the shoreline Melanesians was probably forced from East Asia by Proto-Polynesians as they were pushed into Southeast Asia by the Han or contemporary Chinese. This would explain the genetic diversity existing among shoreline Melanesians, in comparison to the genetic homogeneity among isolated inland Melanesian, like the Highland New Guineans.
There were two Shang Dynasties, one Melanoid (Qiang-Shang) and the other Proto-Polynesian (Yin-Shang). The first Shang Dynasty was founded by Proto-Melanesians or Melanoids belonging to the Yueh tribe called Qiang [7]. The Qiang lived in Qiangfeng, a country to the west of Yin-Shang, Shensi and Yunnan [7-11,13].
The archaeological evidence also indicates that the Polynesians probably originated in East Asia [4,6-7,12-13]. Consequently, the Polynesian migration probably began in East Asia, not Southeast Asia. Taiwan genetically probably belongs to the early Polynesians who settled Taiwan before they expanded into outer Oceania.
Given the archaeological record of intimate contact between Proto-Polynesians and Proto-Melanoids, neither a “slow boat” or “express train” explains the genetic relationship between the Melanesian and Polynesian populations. This record makes it clear that these populations lived in intimate contact for thousands of years and during this extended period of interactions both groups probably exchanged genes.
References 1. Manfred Kayser, Oscar Lao, Kathrin Saar, Silke Brauer, Xingyu Wang, Peter Nürnberg, Ronald J. Trent, Mark Stoneking Genome-wide Analysis Indicates More Asian than Melanesian Ancestry of Polynesians. The American Journal of Human Genetics - 10 January 2008, 82 (1); pp. 194-198.
2. J. S. Fredlaender, F.R. Friedlaender, J.A. Hodgson, M. Stoltz, G. Koki, G. Horvat,S. Zhadanov, T. G. Schurr and D.A. Merriwether, Melanesian mtDNA complexity, PLoS ONE, 2(2) 2007: e248.
3 F. Weidenreich F., Bull. Nat. Hist. Soc. Peiping 13, (1938-40): p. 163.
4. Kwang-chih Chang, Archaeology of ancient China (Yale University Press, 1986) p. 64.
5. G. H. R. von Koenigswald, A giant fossil hominoid from the pleistocene of Southern China, Anthropology Pap. Am Museum of Natural History, no.43, 1952, pp. 301-309).
6. K. C. Chang, The archaeology of ancient China, (Yale University Press: New Haven, 1977): p. 76
7. Winters, Clyde Ahmad, “The Far Eastern Origin of the Tamils”, Journal of Tamil Studies, no27 (June 1985), pp. 65-92.
8. K. C. Chang, Shang Civilization, (Yale University Press: New Haven, 1980) pp. 227-230.
9. C. A. Winters, The Dravido-Harappa Colonization of Central Asia, Central Asiatic Journal, (1990) 34 (1-2), pp. 120-144.
10. Y. Kan, The Bronze culture of western Yunnan, Bull. Of the Ancient Orient Museum (Tokyo), 7 (1985), pp. 47-91.
11. S. S. Ling, A study of the Raft, Outrigger, Double, and Deck canoes of ancient China, the Pacific, and the Indian Ocean. The Institute of Ethnology Academic Sinica. Nankang, Taipei Taiwan, 1970.
12. Kwang-chih Chang, “Prehistoric and early historic culture horizons and traditions in South China”, Current Anthropology, 5 (1964): pp. 359-375: 375).
13. Winters,Clyde Ahmad, “Dravidian Settlements in ancient Polynesia”, India Past and Present 3, no2 (1986): pp. 225-241.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
The Australian aborigines and Melanesians show cranonical variates and represent two distinct Black populations. The Australoids or Australians live mainly in Australia and the highland regions of Oceania, the Melanoid people on the otherhand live in the coastal regions of Near Oceania and Fiji. D.J de Laubenfels discussed the variety of Blacks found in Asia. Laubenfiels explained that Negroids/Melanoids such as the Tasmanians are characterized by wooly black hair and sparse body hair .
Australoids or Australians on the otherhand have curly, wavy or straight hair and abundant body hair. Other differences between these Black populations include Negroid / Melanoid brows being vertical and without eyebrow ridges, whereas Australoid brows are sloping and with prominent ridges.
D.J. Laubenfels, Australoids, Negroids and Negroes: A suggested explanation for their distinct distributions. Annals Association of Am. Geographers, 58(1), 1968: 42-50.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [ This is a stupid Thread. Craniometrics can and does differentiate between the races. Months ago Mike gave a primer on how races are easily recognized in the bones.
There are no skeletons of caucasians dating before 2000bc.
Evolution has nothing to do with different races, including different Africoid people. It appears that when some people go up into the mountains they come back down years later a different ethnic group this is why the Egyptians claimed they came from the Mountains of the Moon, The caucasians from the Caucassus Mountains, and the Chinese fron the Tian Shan (I believe).
Mike has tried to educate you guys to the fact Europeans lie.
So Clyde what is it about these mountains that when people come out of them they go out and build a civilization? If it's not evolution in those mountains what is this mysterious process? I was thining that some of these caves might have had tunnles leading to inner earth dwelling pygmies (anu?) who they may have been getting the knowledge from.
Also your sayiing There are no skeletons of caucasians dating before 2000bc. I thought you had theorized that white people had been locked in caves by ice but 2000 years ago was much later than the last glacial period. That last glacial period was around 20,000 years ago. The ice covered conditions would have long since thawed out.
Also when the white man came out of the caves the usual thought was that he was a hairy and ignorant cave beast walking on all fours. But in such a short period of time he was able to take over the ord and harness technology? Isn't it more likely that in these caves he was getting the knowledge form the inner earth people in tunnels and that when he came out he was far more advanced then when he came in?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
Don't be ridiculous.
What exactly, is ridiculous about my post?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: For discussion of initial Early Modern Human dispersals from Africa, possible AMHs not of Africa whom they may have met, and backflows to Africa before the Holocene shaping of the major world populations by the basic regions as known today with their familiar phenotypes.
In other words opinions on what people(s) who first left Africa look like, how long they looked that way in the regions they went to, when and how did they begin looking like identifiable Mediteranean Africans, SW Asians, south Asians, Austral Asians, Oceanics, E&N Asians, N&S original Americans, NW/N/Central Europeans, S Europeans, E Europeans and E and C Asians, before 1700 years ago.
(For example ancient Egyptian art shows Med Europeans, Med Africans, Nile Africans, Red Sea Africans, and Levantines more or less looking surprisingly like they do today.)
I'm defining OoA as 45ky and earlier and backflow to Africa as between 50-11kya.
Also is there anything to non-mtDNA Eve humans, i.e., are OoA theory upholders dogmatic and refuse to consider even dead end humans not of ultimate mtDNA L and nrY CT stock?
We know Southwest Asia, particularly Arabia was the launching point of OOA. And as you yourself have consistently pointed out, there really should be no division between Arabia and Africa as the two regions are closely and intimately tied together both geologically as well as biogeographically. As such, any back-migrations should be taken as merely Africans going back to the continent. I already made a thread a couple months back that talks about the earliest known OOA culture in Arabia tied to Nubia here.
Really I don't know what the pre-Holocene has to do with dynastic Egyptian history and ethnology of folks.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: For discussion of initial Early Modern Human dispersals from Africa, possible AMHs not of Africa whom they may have met, and backflows to Africa before the Holocene shaping of the major world populations by the basic regions as known today with their familiar phenotypes.
In other words opinions on what people(s) who first left Africa look like, how long they looked that way in the regions they went to, when and how did they begin looking like identifiable Mediteranean Africans, SW Asians, south Asians, Austral Asians, Oceanics, E&N Asians, N&S original Americans, NW/N/Central Europeans, S Europeans, E Europeans and E and C Asians, before 1700 years ago.
(For example ancient Egyptian art shows Med Europeans, Med Africans, Nile Africans, Red Sea Africans, and Levantines more or less looking surprisingly like they do today.)
I'm defining OoA as 45ky and earlier and backflow to Africa as between 50-11kya.
Also is there anything to non-mtDNA Eve humans, i.e., are OoA theory upholders dogmatic and refuse to consider even dead end humans not of ultimate mtDNA L and nrY CT stock?
We know Southwest Asia, particularly Arabia was the launching point of OOA. And as you yourself have consistently pointed out, there really should be no division between Arabia and Africa as the two regions are closely and intimately tied together both geologically as well as biogeographically. As such, any back-migrations should be taken as merely Africans going back to the continent. I already made a thread a couple months back that talks about the earliest known OOA culture in Arabia tied to Nubia here.
Really I don't know what the pre-Holocene has to do with dynastic Egyptian history and ethnology of folks.
That's ridiculous. It's obvious you're going out of your way to say Arabian are like African people. It's crazy to say Arabians are like Africans, or that Chinese are like Arabians or Russians are like Native Americans (beside that we are all humans obviously).
There's a relatively great genetic distance between Arabian and African people (as well as between Arabian and East Asian for example), produced by thousand of years of relative isolation after the OOA migration movement.
This is just an example but it shows great genetic distance between Arabian (in the middle eastern green rectangle) and Africans (to the left).
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ That depends on which Arabian people and from what time period. I never intended my post to mean all Arabians today in general are closely related to Africans.
You do realize that even in Saudi Arabia there is a good percentage of folks who carry African mitochondrial and some Y-chromosomal lineages?
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [ This is a stupid Thread. Craniometrics can and does differentiate between the races. Months ago Mike gave a primer on how races are easily recognized in the bones.
There are no skeletons of caucasians dating before 2000bc.
Evolution has nothing to do with different races, including different Africoid people. It appears that when some people go up into the mountains they come back down years later a different ethnic group this is why the Egyptians claimed they came from the Mountains of the Moon, The caucasians from the Caucassus Mountains, and the Chinese fron the Tian Shan (I believe).
Mike has tried to educate you guys to the fact Europeans lie.
So Clyde what is it about these mountains that when people come out of them they go out and build a civilization? If it's not evolution in those mountains what is this mysterious process? I was thining that some of these caves might have had tunnles leading to inner earth dwelling pygmies (anu?) who they may have been getting the knowledge from.
Also your sayiing There are no skeletons of caucasians dating before 2000bc. I thought you had theorized that white people had been locked in caves by ice but 2000 years ago was much later than the last glacial period. That last glacial period was around 20,000 years ago. The ice covered conditions would have long since thawed out.
Also when the white man came out of the caves the usual thought was that he was a hairy and ignorant cave beast walking on all fours. But in such a short period of time he was able to take over the ord and harness technology? Isn't it more likely that in these caves he was getting the knowledge form the inner earth people in tunnels and that when he came out he was far more advanced then when he came in?
I don't believe the first Euros were hairy beast. You don't find hairy creatures living in the bowels of the earth.
The original whites probably didn't exit the caves until after techtonic events made opening from the caves around 2000bc. These tectonic events would have weaken the Anu and Kushite civilizations enough for the Euros to take control of surrounding civilized sites whose populations would have been drastically deminished. By 1400bc Euros were on the move attacking Kushite civilizations in Eurasia.
I don't believe ancient Euros met inner earth people. The caves would not have been deep enough.
The inner earth people are cowards.Many of them are probably former Anu, who were Driven into the Pole area by the early Euros and entered the center earth via the north pole. They may be representative of the 'brown people' who used to pilot UFOs, before they created the myth of the 'Greys' to deny the fact that the nost technologically advance group on the planet are pygmies. .
It appears that a population lives in the Mountains, until tectonic events cause earthquakes and floods that weaken the fromer people who ruled these lowland ares. The best example is the great flood which destroyed various Anu/Pygmy centers that left them spread throughout the world isolated. The Kushites (Niger-Congo) people later came from the Mountains of the Moon and took over the civilizations and trade routes the Anu had established in Eurasia and Egypt.
If you really think about it we may be due for a change in peoples ruling the earth. Knowledge is very fragile today. All it takes is magnectic pulse to destroy info on our computers and stop our vechicles because everything is computer generated.
Secondly all the great Univserities are located near water, tectonic events could cause floods which would submerge libraries and all our knowledge in the West would be lost. The Japanese will not lose all their knowledge because they support people to keep up the ancient arts. Other people have oral tradition to maintain ther history. In the West knowledge is only maintained in a library or WWW. Sad. .
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Thanks everybody but try to stick to the point which is physical anthroplogy or phenotype of the original OoAs and when and where their looks first diversified into the general looks of the major geographic populations i.e.: * Mediterranean Africans, * SW Asians, * south Asians, * Austral Asians, * Oceanics, * E&N Asians, * N&S original Americans, * NW/N/Central Europeans, * S Europeans, * E Europeans and * E and C Asians, before 1700 years ago.
I think 1st OoAs were a generalized type of inner African.
Xyyman thinks they were flop straight haired blacks -Indians?- and light skinned Med Africans depending on which direction they travelled - that's hella diversity for a bottlenecked few.
Clyde thinks they were Australoid.
How do any of our thoughts fit the fossil record at the OoA point(s) of exit? Talking about the facial features of the skull not its shape or size. Face a-front b-3/4s and c-profile is how we immediately classify a person as inner African, SW Asian, Indian, Aborigenee, Papuan, Melanesian, far east Asian, European or AmerInd etc. and we do it without fancy craniometry all the time and are usually right.
Later we can get into the deep rooted uniparental haplogroups and see if Aka, Nama, and San post dating supposed OoA Australoids is an anachronism or not. There are uniparentals pre-dating the OoA event(s) and some peoples bearing them never left Africa until nearly modern times.
I have soft nappy hair. No comb scissors or razor has touched my head for decades. I use coily to mean typical inner African hair from peppercorn tight to medium frequency waves -even frizzy "fuzzy wuzzy" hair-.
When I firat took on Naziruth my locks were sheeplike. "I and I are sheeplike people"
Click pens have a spring representing the highest frequency like peppercorn hair typical of Nama and San -btw San is as reproachable a term as Bushmen- . If you take that spring/coil and slowly pull at either end thus decreasing its frequency you'll see all the gradients of coily hair from peppercorn to sheep waves.
Then there is kinky hair where the coil doesn't make a nice spiral but bends this way and that along its length kind of like if you'd ball up a slighlty stretched spring/coil. Curly hair of course is a coil of somewhat medium frequency but with immense amplitude.
The main characteristic of coily hair is that it grows up and out whereas the straight to wavy non-coily hair flops down.
One major point of this thread that one or two of you picked up on is time and place. This becomes important especially dealing with so-called back migration from Eurasia back into Africa pleistocene and holocene both.
Anyway there are quite a few questions I asked that nobody's tackled. Don't wait for me to ask them again. Please help yourself dig in and help me some more.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
I won't start a fight with the semantic police on this site but for me coily hair are black African hair period. Not wavy or slightly coily or something like that. Real Afro, African hair. Then how do you call medium frequency waves hair? Well I call them medium frequency wave hair or wavy hair for short i guess. And people with straight hair, how do you call them? Well, straight hair people.
Just so people stop using multiple categories which end up meaning nothing I see 3 main types of hair:
1 - tightly coil hair = coily hair = afro hair= black African hair 2 - wavy 3 - straight
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
I see. If you don't like demonstrated definitions then they are meaningless to you. All African blacks don't have tightly coiled hair and all coily hair is not tightly coiled. All hair with any coil to it is coily hair. You're playing the old True Negro game where only extreme features count when it comes to Africa's black and you dare label any disagreers as playing semantics? Really?
Let's complete your undemonstrated semantic black African
- tightly coil hair = coily hair = afro hair= black African hair - very wide nose = wide nose = afro nose = black African nose - bridgeless flat nose = flat nose = afro nose = black African nose - thick pouty lips = thick lips = afro lips = black African lips - extreme prognathic profile = prognathic profile = afro profile = black African profile
I.e., if its not the epitome it doesn't count as a category member.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: I see. If you don't like demonstrated definitions then they are meaningless to you. All African blacks don't have tightly coiled hair and all coily hair is not tightly coiled. All hair with any coil to it is coily hair. You're playing the old True Negro game where only extreme features count when it comes to Africa's black and you dare label any disagreers as playing semantics? Really?
You're misunderstanding me. It's possible for Africans to have wavy and even straight hair or a mix of those for whatever reason. It's just that if you combined wavy and coiled hair in the **same category**, the category means nothing.
Sure there's a lot of people that can be found in the gray area between those type of hair i mentioned above and those categories could be subdivided further more (for example, straight hair of European people are less straight and thick than many Asian people). That's something beside the point.
Also coiled hair or Afro hair are hardly extreme or rare features of African people. It's crazy to say that. Most ethnic Africans have that type of hair.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
I thought I explained my point of view already. I repeat, from my earlier post in this thread. Three things plays a role on how a population look. 1. Genes, 2. Geography 3. Genetic drift.
Yes – AMH left Africa dark/brown skin – Why- Geography!!. Pull on that famous UV map of the globe. Notice the migration path along the coasts are tropic high UV zones. And yes that includes indigenous Arabs, indigenous Persians and ultimately Australian and the surrounding Islands.
AMH to the north in Africa – were probably lighter complexioned. Why- Geography. ditto! ditto! Africans probably entered Southern Europe lighter skin.
@ Clyde – We are ALMOST saying the same thing. Yes, there is a devide between North and South populations, whether in Africa, Europe, Asia and even in North America. But they are closer to each other compared to other populations. Irregardless to how different they look.
Southern Europeans are closer to Northern Europeans than to Asians or Africans although Southern Europeans have more African bloodline than Northerners.
Andaman Islanders carry the so-called Asian/Mongoloid lineage even if the look black African. Similarly the Papau New Guineans. They look like modern day African but carry lineage and genes closer to the people surrounding them.
It all comes down to migration and Geography. Ie Where you live and who your parent are.
It is not rocket science.
There is a reason why these zones were first inhabited ….warmth!!!. Gradually AMH moved north to higher latitude and colder regions.
@ Sage – The Americas were “recently” inhabited. Central Americans are darker than those from the North and South. Citation provided. Kinky hairy has not evolved yet…maybe.
Epicantic fold – San carries it, even some Bantus. I read where even Europeans have it. However ***all*** natives of the Americas carry it. That is proof that the founding stock(parents) was East Asians ie mongoloids ie maybe genetic drift.
Further example of genetic drift – red hair in North West Europe. European population in a similar latitude do NOT have the frequency of red-hair. Why – genetic drift.
Another example is the so called “red-bone” increasingly noticed in South Africa Bantus. They have the highest frequency of “red bone” of all black Africans. High latitude and genetic drift(yes- Amun Ra-Ultimate- high latitude). Citation provided on ESR.
I remember reading when some European travelers first encountered Central South African(1500’s) remarking that some was the same complexion as Southern Europeans, citation provided. There is a reason…latitude. So yes, Amun Ra-Ultimate, no admixture needed. Not all indigenous Africans are black skinned.
Finally – There is no “back-to-africa” migration. Migration =resettlement=relocation. Migration is always away FROM Africa. During the Helocene there wasn’t any back-migration per se. Migration is typically to new and un-occupied territories, sadly that is how it worked in pre-history. During historical times back-migration=conflict=invasion. Migration is now defined as war or colonization. Eg Europeans “migrating” to the Americas.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
Also coiled hair or Afro hair are hardly extreme or rare features of African people. It's crazy to say that. Most ethnic Africans have that type of hair.
But you say tightly coiled hair is the only coiled hair is the only black African hair and that's certainly extreme. Peppercorn is tightly coiled hair and only a small minority of black Africans have peppercorn hair, a rarity.
Africa's blacks are predominantly coily haired including all varieties as I demonstrated above and anybody can replicate with the spring/coil of a click pen.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
Also coiled hair or Afro hair are hardly extreme or rare features of African people. It's crazy to say that. Most ethnic Africans have that type of hair.
But you say tightly coiled hair is the only coiled hair is the only black African hair and that's certainly extreme. Peppercorn is tightly coiled hair and only a small minority of black Africans have peppercorn hair, a rarity.
Africa's blacks are predominantly coily haired including all varieties as I demonstrated above and anybody can replicate with the spring/coil of a click pen.
As long as you don't put wavy hair in the coil/Afro hair category then we're fine.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:You're misunderstanding me. It's possible for Africans to have wavy and even straight hair or a mix of those for whatever reason. It's just that if you combined wavy and coiled hair in the **same category**, the category means nothing.
No one is misunderstanding you. Your nonsensical qualification of only tightly coiled hair as ''real African'' speaks louder than words.
'Coiled' is not discrete, it exist on a spectrum, and spans various hair types other than stereotypical African hair. You can't digitize something that isn't discrete in the first place.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:You're misunderstanding me. It's possible for Africans to have wavy and even straight hair or a mix of those for whatever reason. It's just that if you combined wavy and coiled hair in the **same category**, the category means nothing.
No one is misunderstanding you. Your nonsensical qualification of only tightly coiled hair as ''real African'' speaks louder than words.
'Coiled' is not discrete, it exist on a spectrum, and spans various hair types other than stereotypical African hair. You can't digitize something that isn't discrete in the first place.
You guys are funny. That's call categorization. Sure everything is about gray area, that's not a reason to not make categories about things. I think we can all agree about those 3 categories (no matter how you call them):
1 - Afro hair 2 - Wavy hair 3 - Straight hair
I say Afro but it could be another name like coily or spiraled. The name is not important but the category. I guess I could place photo above each category. Sure they will be some gray areas between those categories and even subcategories. I used the word Afro because it's a word commonly used to refer to, well, Afro hair. You can't put straight, wavy and afro hair in the same category.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
[For purposes of this thread] I'm defining OoA as 45ky and earlier and backflow to Africa as between 50-11kya.
We know Southwest Asia, particularly Arabia was the launching point of OOA. And as you yourself have consistently pointed out, there really should be no division between Arabia and Africa as the two regions are closely and intimately tied together both geologically as well as biogeographically. As such, any back-migrations should be taken as merely Africans going back to the continent. I already made a thread a couple months back that talks about the earliest known OOA culture in Arabia tied to Nubia here.
Really I don't know what the pre-Holocene has to do with dynastic Egyptian history and ethnology of folks.
It doesn't. I only mentioned Egy art because it graphically proves that the basic or underlying phenotypes in regions they knew have'nt changed up to today. In other words by the mid-late Holocene humanity had aquired the geographic phenotypes of hair and face we know so well today whereas at the time of the OoA event(s) presumably the vast majority of human varity known today didn't exist.
I can see where 50k back migration across the Strait of Tears would involve (nearly) identical populations but by 11k would that still be true?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:You're misunderstanding me. It's possible for Africans to have wavy and even straight hair or a mix of those for whatever reason. It's just that if you combined wavy and coiled hair in the **same category**, the category means nothing.
No one is misunderstanding you. Your nonsensical qualification of only tightly coiled hair as ''real African'' speaks louder than words.
'Coiled' is not discrete, it exist on a spectrum, and spans various hair types other than stereotypical African hair. You can't digitize something that isn't discrete in the first place.
You guys are funny. That's call categorization. Sure everything is about gray area, that's not a reason to not make categories about things. I think we can all agree about those 3 categories (no matter how you call them):
1 - Afro hair 2 - Wavy hair 3 - Straight hair
I say Afro but it could be another name like coily or spiraled. The name is not important but the category. I guess I could place photo above each category. Sure they will be some gray areas between those categories and even subcategories. I used the word Afro because it's a word commonly used to refer to, well, Afro hair. You can't put straight, wavy and afro hair in the same category.
You just don't get it, do you? All the hair you describe above are spiraled. Only tight spirals (tiny 's' shapes) are specific to Africans and some black Asian groups, other hair forms (larger 's' shapes) exist in Africa, but also elsewhere.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
Also coiled hair or Afro hair are hardly extreme or rare features of African people. It's crazy to say that. Most ethnic Africans have that type of hair.
But you say tightly coiled hair is the only coiled hair is the only black African hair and that's certainly extreme. Peppercorn is tightly coiled hair and only a small minority of black Africans have peppercorn hair, a rarity.
Africa's blacks are predominantly coily haired including all varieties as I demonstrated above and anybody can replicate with the spring/coil of a click pen.
As long as you don't put wavy hair in the coil/Afro hair category then we're fine.
I don't know anything about any so-called Afro hair as Africans aren't resticted to one and only one hair. When you say afro hair you are only reiterating negro hair which is no way to type hair any more than caucasian is a way to type hair.
Technically human hair fits into three anthropologial categories ulotrichous, cymotrichous, and leiotrichous
My goal is not to be fine with anybody nor to protect certain varities of wavy hair from the coily category. I think Swenet already demonstrated the differences of extremely low frequency wavy European hair (which essentially looks straight but isn't wavelessly straight as is far east Asian straight hair) and higher frequency wavy hair where coiling is readily apparent.
There's a reason ancient Greeks labeled their Aethiopians' hair woolly (sheep fur) and why the term's still used to describe Negro Negrito and Negrillo hair whether African, S&SE Asian, or Oceana originating.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:You're misunderstanding me. It's possible for Africans to have wavy and even straight hair or a mix of those for whatever reason. It's just that if you combined wavy and coiled hair in the **same category**, the category means nothing.
No one is misunderstanding you. Your nonsensical qualification of only tightly coiled hair as ''real African'' speaks louder than words.
'Coiled' is not discrete, it exist on a spectrum, and spans various hair types other than stereotypical African hair. You can't digitize something that isn't discrete in the first place.
You guys are funny. That's call categorization. Sure everything is about gray area, that's not a reason to not make categories about things. I think we can all agree about those 3 categories (no matter how you call them):
1 - Afro hair 2 - Wavy hair 3 - Straight hair
I say Afro but it could be another name like coily or spiraled. The name is not important but the category. I guess I could place photo above each category. Sure they will be some gray areas between those categories and even subcategories. I used the word Afro because it's a word commonly used to refer to, well, Afro hair. You can't put straight, wavy and afro hair in the same category.
You just don't get it, do you? All the hair you describe above is spiraled. Only tight spirals (tiny 's' shapes) are specific to Africans and some black Asian groups, other hair forms (larger 's' shapes) exist in Africa, but also elsewhere.
I agree with this. I called tight spirals hair Afro-hair or coily hair above.
The majority of black African people have tight spirals hair which are commonly refereed as Afro-textured hair.
I just wanted to say that wavy hair and Afro-hair (spirals/coily) are not in the same category. You just can't give the same name to 2 different hair type. That's my only point (that subtopic went for too long already )).
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^You're not in agreement with me at all.
Right, Takruri. Look here, for instance:
^At the bottom their hair is on the verge of making another wave/coil, its just that the waves have large intervals that would go unnoticed at moderate to medium lengths. Presumably, coils correlate with hair follicle ellipticity, in which case, only hairs that are rooted in perfectly circular hair follicles, are non-coiled, and truly straight. Not sure if perfectly circular hair follicles exist.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^You're not in agreement with me at all.
Right, Takruri. Look here, for instance:
^At the bottom their hair is on the verge of making another wave/coil, its just that the waves have large intervals that would go unnoticed at moderate to medium lengths. Presumably, coils correlate with hair follicle Ellipticity, in which case, only hairs that are rooted in perfectly circular hair follicles, are non-coiled, and truly straight. Not sure if perfectly circular hair follicles exist.
If that's a picture of Afro haired people then you're good for the nut house. Calling those hair coily or even wavy is also pushing it and you know it.
This is corrupt and designed to segregate "black Africans."
If not, then where is Euro-hair or Asio-hair?
You're buying a book of preconception which is OK for you but I don't and will never subscribe.
Technical physical anthropology does the same thing whenever depicting woolly/kinky hair.
I stick by my paradigm until demonstrated false.
Unlike Fletcher, who allowed but didn't demonstrate all "sun or helix hair" is restricted whereas "dog hair" includes everything but sun/helix hair, I demonstrate that my broad category "coily" breaks down into several varieties peppercorn, nappy, hi to mid frequency wavy, and curly hair leaving non-coily hair as straight and low frequency wavy varieties.
And I've done it without resorting to simplistic negro vs causasian paradigms that fail including peoples who are neither black negro African nor white caucasian European but strictly by hair's formation itself.
quote:Click pens have a spring representing the highest frequency like peppercorn hair typical of Nama and San -btw San is as reproachable a term as Bushmen- . If you take that spring/coil and slowly pull at either end thus decreasing its frequency you'll see all the gradients of coily hair from peppercorn to sheep waves.
Then there is kinky hair where the coil doesn't make a nice spiral but bends this way and that along its length kind of like if you'd ball up a slighlty stretched spring/coil. Curly hair of course is a coil of somewhat medium frequency but with immense amplitude.
The main characteristic of coily hair is that it grows up and out whereas the straight to wavy non-coily hair flops down.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Here is a tree of Y-chromosome lineages.
Those clades circled red are clades believe to have arisen in Africa, whereas those circled in green are believed to have arisen in Eurasia.
Here is a tree of mitochondrial lineages with the same markings.
There is no doubt that IF these clades really did arise in Eurasia, they did so at least in close proximity to Africa i.e. Southwest Asia.
So your other question is how did these people look like?
Well we have fossilized physical remains in the form of skulls and skeletons and it's agreed they were of the 'generalized modern' type with archaic traits like large brow ridges etc. That these early Eurasians/African immigrants were black skinned is doubtless. As far as hair texture, we have no direct evidence for that. I tend to go with Rasol's notion that perhaps the best clues can be found among aboriginal groups of Asia and the Pacific. Some have wavy hair, while others have frizzy or kinky hair. The ancestral group must have had hair of similar texture.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
the microscopic cross section strand shape is what is analyzed at left predicts the hair's resulting look so there is no need to talk about "S" shapes or coils if you just look at the cross section
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
Sources:
The Archological Survey of Nubia: Report For 1907-1908 -G. Elliot Smith,F. Wood Jones
Crania Ægyptiaca, or, Observations on Egyptian ethnography -Samuel George Morton
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
Obviously those categories can be further subdivided and there's people between those categories.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
the microscopic cross section strand shape is what is analyzed at left predicts the hair's resulting look so there is no need to talk about "S" shapes or coils if you just look at the cross section
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
Sources:
The Archological Survey of Nubia: Report For 1907-1908 -G. Elliot Smith,F. Wood Jones
Crania Ægyptiaca, or, Observations on Egyptian ethnography -Samuel George Morton
^There comes mr. google scholar himself. Has there ever been a single Anthropology topic here on ES that you knew about from being well read, where you didn't have to scour google to feel like you have something to relevant to say? I can't recall a single instance where you said something noteworthy without plagiarizing and/or copy and pasting.
Its so obvious that you took a few keywords that were used here to scavenge the internet for any bit of usable information you could find, so you could come here and act like you knew it all along.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
"Curly" as a category doesn't exist. It's just at the lower spectrum of wavy.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
We also have those category:
Here they use coiled, kinky, spiral coiled for afro-hair texture.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: There comes mr. google scholar himself. Has there ever been a single Anthropology topic here on ES that you knew about from being well read, where you didn't have to scour google to feel like you have something to relevant to say? I can't recall a single instance where you said something noteworthy without plagiarizing and/or copy and pasting.
Its so obvious that you took a few keywords that were used here to scavenge the internet for any bit of usable information you could find, so you could come here and act like you knew it all along.
you got a problem?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: We also have those category:
Here they use coiled, kinky, spiral coiled for afro-hair texture.
I just posted the exact same thing, the left of the chart
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: The three hair types:
"Curly" as a category doesn't exist. It's just at the lower spectrum of wavy.
what percentage of this man is Negroid?
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
^ Saw your thread at anthroscape. Gave me a laugh.
CG is claiming crania with prognathism and wide noses are Caucasoid Meds. lol. Like I said, he's a parody account.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
ok, answer the question please, the above man has curly hair so what percentage is he negroid, you're suppoed to be the race expert
also note that same topic at the other forum posted first here, unadressed by you was the point at which you went awol for a couple of weeks Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: We also have those category:
Here they use coiled, kinky, spiral coiled for afro-hair texture.
I just posted the exact same thing, the left of the chart
You probably mean NOT the exact same thing but something very similar. I just post different sources in agreement and addition with your post.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
^^^ also there are infinate stages in between each folicle type listed
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: ok, answer the question please, the above man has curly hair so what percentage is he negroid, you're suppoed to be the race expert
I don't know, and I don't do 'armchair' typology (the fools at places like apricity/anthroscape do that). I look at statistics, how typology is actually done. All you can do with a photo is rule out extreme types. This man posted is evidently neither Caucasoid nor Negroid and shows a mixture of traits from both those macro categories. He's obviously an interracial clinal type between them, but shows more Negroid traits.
I don't claim to be an 'expert'. I criticise internet/armchair typologists for a reason. These are people who simply think they are smart for thowing ids and oids around, yet ask them for a simple metric datasheet for each type and they will wet themself or ignore you.
quote:also note that same topic at the other forum posted first here, unadressed by you was the point at which you went awol for a couple of weeks [/qb]
couple of weeks = christmas. Anyone posting on here on christmas day etc must be sad.
And I explained a while back, that if that skull is genuine (I thought it was one of mike's games) that it isn't Caucasoid.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Posting "follicle" charts from some hair care site is cool I guess but meaningless unless you know how the nomeclature developed and if racial pigeon holing was involved. More later.
The sad part is do they know follicle from lumen?
At least they weren't whimsical enough to label any of them afr-o hair, eur-o hair, asi-o hair, or other continent-o or etc-o hair.
Below is standard old school scientific hair info. They want to reserve cymotrichous hair for white race. Pay particular attention to what's said about cross section wherein they conclude there are only two, either circular or elliptical, which contradicts their idea about cymotrichous hair is white peoples' hair and comports to what I tried getting across with my coil/spring analogy.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Do you think transverse lumen shape is new news? I included it 8 years ago in the thread I bet you never linked to in a previous post. You could've at least tried to think up some kind of original text to go along with your images but that takes more than GOOGLE scholarship.
quote:I don't know anything about any so-called Afro hair as Africans aren't resticted to one and only one hair. When you say afro hair you are only reiterating negro hair which is no way to type hair any more than caucasian is a way to type hair.
Technically human hair fits into three anthropologial categories ulotrichous, cymotrichous, and leiotrichous
Pertinent material from the linked thread
quote: Originally posted 22 December 2004:
Where did Fletchers terms cynotrichous (dog hair) and heliotrichous (sun hair) come from? What happened to ulotrichous (wooly hair), cymotrichous (wavy hair), and leiotrichous (straight hair)? Are any of the major continental human varieties (Afrikan, European, Asian) limited to having just one hair type?
Haddon 1925 characterised two opposing hair types:
ULOTRICHY _ long to short close interlocking spirals (coils ___________ curved follicle ___________ compressed lumen ___________ narrow oval cross section
LEIOTRICHY_ long lank stiff coarse and flopping straight down ___________ straight follicle ___________ round lumen ___________ pseudo circular cross section
This was based on Bory de St Vincent 1827 but with a precision and expansion. Haddon placed the range of hair types ranging between wooly and straight extremes into another category:
CYMOTRICHY frizzly _ - very short deep wave having no curve or spiral ___________ curly __ - complete circle or large spiral ___________ wavy __ - low to deep waves ___________ smooth_ - thin soft slightly curved tending to wave ___________ curved to straight follicle ___________ compressed to round lumen ___________ oval to pseudo circular cross section
The terms invented by Fletcher(?) are loaded with preconceptions and take terrible liberties with their invented Greek etymologies. Outside of racial joking, just what is dog hair? Is it determined by its smell when wet? Is it like the fur of a poodle, an Afghan hound, a spaniel, a wire hair terrier, or a chihuahua? And sun hair brings to mind images of a color, the tendency of strong sunlight to bleach hair to reddish and yellowish tints.
Dr. Fletcher's coinages detract from the standard anthropological and forensic terminology for a fanciful biased determination of hair type related to stereotypical ideas of the misnomered classifications Caucasian and Negro. As such it should be avoided. We should not begin classifying those Ethiopians with straight hair as Caucasians or those Scotch-Irish or Ashkenazim with wooly hair as Negro (I only use that word for purposes of illustration).
I recall an Ashkenazi with a Jewfro joking with me that there are two kinds of hair. There's either hair that grows up or hair that grows down. This would rob both Fletcher and Bory de St Vincent of their opinions of frizzly and curly hair being Caucasian and wavy hair not being Negro.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Tukuler, would you say some hair types are not indigenous to contemporary Africa?
Also the chart I posted illustrated the cross section, regardless of the fact it was from a hair care site. Your posting mentioned it at the bottom but doesn't show it. Cross section shape hadn't been mentioned in the thared until that point
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Posting follicle charts from some hair care site is cool I guess but meaningless unless you know how the nomeclature developed and if racial pigeon holing is involved.
At least they weren't whimsical enough to label any of them afr-o, eur-o, asi-o, etc-o, hair.
Here is standard old school scientific hair info. They want to reserve cymotrichous hair for white race. Pay particular attention to what's said about cross section wherein they conclude there are only two, either circular or elliptical, which contradicts their idea about cymotrichous hair is white peoples' hair and comports to what I tried getting across with my coil/spring analogy.
You only proved that "negroes" hair can be called "Ulotrichous" hair too.
It doesn't mean Ulotrichous is the same category as wavy. In fact, it shows the contrary.
Type of hair (according to book above/other book/anthropology):
It's not a question semantic it's a question of categorization. It doesn't matter if you call them ulotrichous or coiled or Afro-textured or whatever as long as we're talking about the same kind of hair.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: ok, answer the question please, the above man has curly hair so what percentage is he negroid, you're suppoed to be the race expert
I don't know, and I don't do 'armchair' typology (the fools at places like apricity/anthroscape do that). I look at statistics, how typology is actually done. All you can do with a photo is rule out extreme types. This man posted is evidently neither Caucasoid nor Negroid and shows a mixture of traits from both those macro categories. He's obviously an interracial clinal type between them, but shows more Negroid traits.
I don't claim to be an 'expert'. I criticise internet/armchair typologists for a reason. These are people who simply think they are smart for thowing ids and oids around, yet ask them for a simple metric datasheet for each type and they will wet themself or ignore you.
quote:also note that same topic at the other forum posted first here, unadressed by you was the point at which you went awol for a couple of weeks
couple of weeks = christmas. Anyone posting on here on christmas day etc must be sad.
And I explained a while back, that if that skull is genuine (I thought it was one of mike's games) that it isn't Caucasoid. [/QB]
You do armchair typology all the time. A short while back you even said you could make determinations by looking at a photo. Look at the brother at the top. had he been pictured with his head shave you would be calling him a Negroid, come on So he's not Negroid or Caucasoid? do we need to add a new race here?
And what do we have here??:
Hrafnkell Örn Guðjónsson
^^^ yet another race?
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
You only proved that "negroes" hair can be called "Ulotrichous" hair too.
It doesn't mean Ulotrichous is the same category as wavy. In fact, it shows the contrary.
You do realize, au contraire, the Greeks described * Odysseus' wavy hair * Aethiopians' nappy hair * sheep's wool all with the word ulotrichous? It's elementary.
Yet another in a series of confirmations that wool, wavy hair, and nappy hair are all coily. The concept has an over two millenia history.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
Type of hair (according to book above/other book/anthropology):
Oh! You got jokes!!!
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
You only proved that "negroes" hair can be called "Ulotrichous" hair too.
It doesn't mean Ulotrichous is the same category as wavy. In fact, it shows the contrary.
You do realize, au contraire, the Greeks described * Odysseus' wavy hair * Aethiopians' nappy hair * sheep's wool all with the word ulotrichous? It's elementary.
Yet another in a series of confirmations that wool, wavy hair, and nappy hair are all coily. The concept has an over two millenia history.
You're funny. You're the one who posted those definition with your book scan. You're debating against yourself.
Here's another book scan that says the same thing as your own:
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
^^^ the question is if there are are exception cases to these categorizations such as the two previous photos does it make the catagorizations useless?
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: ^^^ the question is if there are are exception cases to these categorizations such as the two previous photos does it make the catagorizations useless?
What do you think? Why would it? That's ridiculous.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: ^^^ the question is if there are are exception cases to these categorizations such as the two previous photos does it make the catagorizations useless?
What do you think? Why would it? That's ridiculous.
To an extent similar arguments could be made for the existence of race
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: ^^^ the question is if there are are exception cases to these categorizations such as the two previous photos does it make the catagorizations useless?
What do you think? Why would it? That's ridiculous.
To an extent similar arguments could be made for the existence of race
Now you're just deflecting and being ridiculous.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
At least somebody's got some independent thought to themselves. Who'd've guessed it'd be the Lioness?
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: ^^^ the question is if there are are exception cases to these categorizations such as the two previous photos does it make the catagorizations useless?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
thnaks, the answer to that question I'm not sure about
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Nah I'm not the joker I'm the thief who's stealing back African agency with independent analysis and original thought instead of joking around falling for the okey-doke unable to see through the fog.
Unlike the clueless I don't post images or book pages for blanket acceptance but for critical examination. You skip over any critique and just nod yup to the images and text not once bothering to question it or test to see how well it holds water.
Peppercorn, nappy, curly, wavy are all coily just frequency and amplitude variants. You've presented nothing disconfirming that fact.
All types of coily hair are as African as any one of them you'd like to segregate as the one and only true negr-o afr-o oh oh oh hair.
But I obviously waste time discussing these things with a booster of the old school true negro smokescreen which allows for making the vast majority of "black Africans" into fake negroes whenever and where ever old school anthropologists wanted to seperate "black African" achievements from "black African" people.
You haven't even attempted to disconfirm my demonstration on coily hair just going on and on with empty debate. You can go ahead and declare yourself the debate game winner but as for knowledge increasing discussion and paradigm brokering well ...
You even refuse to admit error when conclusively shown; eg., ulotrichous applying to wool, nappy, and wavy hair when you said it didn't.
You just want to win a game not learn something.
Eg., your shifting goal post from tightly coiled hair to coily hair to ulotrichous hair defining your silly afr-o o o so-called hairtype. Please.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
You only proved that "negroes" hair can be called "Ulotrichous" hair too.
It doesn't mean Ulotrichous is the same category as wavy. In fact, it shows the contrary.
You do realize, au contraire, the Greeks described * Odysseus' wavy hair * Aethiopians' nappy hair * sheep's wool all with the word ulotrichous? It's elementary.
Yet another in a series of confirmations that wool, wavy hair, and nappy hair are all coily. The concept has an over two millenia history.
You're funny. You're the one who posted those definition with your book scan. You're debating against yourself.
Here's another book scan that says the same thing as your own:
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Saying hair types other than tightly coiled hair aren't coiled is like saying only gamma rays are true waves, while micro waves and radio waves are somehow not.
The stupidity that goes out from that notion is mind-boggling.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: [QB]
Unlike the clueless I don't post images or book pages for blanket acceptance but for critical examination. You skip over any critique and just nod yup to the images and text not once bothering to question it or test to see how well it holds water.
Well I won't repeat what I said above since even anthropology books agrees with me. Yes there's people who fit between those types of hair categories exposed in the books (and in this thread) and also those categories can be subdivided furthermore.
The only part I agree with you is that African people can have different types of hair such as coily (ulotrichous), wavy and even straight. Asian and Caucasian people can also have many different types of hair for that matter (for various reasons).
So I don't want to pigeonhole any ethnic groups, much less Africans, into a particular hair type. Although the coily/ulotrichous hair type is much more common among African people and very rare among other people. While wavy is more prevalent among Caucasians. That's what the books meant I suppose.
There's also the semantic question of what word to use to describe ulotrichous hair beside this technical anthropological term. We often see coily, spiraled, afro, nappy, wooly, etc, but this is not what interest me here. It's only semantic not related to the classification itself.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
blab blab back peddle shift goalpost woof woof
Ho hum. Move along sir.
NEXT! Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
You can move along without being an ass about it. You're the one who thinks your own books scans are wrong after all.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
Tukuler, would you say some hair types are not indigenous to contemporary Africa?
What say you in answer to the thread's subject which is (1)physical anthroplogy or phenotype of the original OoAs and (2)when and where their looks first diversified into the general looks of the major geographic populations i.e.:
* Mediterranean Africans, * SW Asians, * south Asians, * Austral Asians, * Oceanics, * E&N Asians, * N&S original Americans, * NW/N/Central Europeans, * S Europeans, * E Europeans and * E and C Asians,
all before 1700 years ago?
quote:Also the chart I posted illustrated the cross section, regardless of the fact it was from a hair care site. Your posting mentioned it at the bottom but doesn't show it. Cross section shape hadn't been mentioned in the thared until that point
We readily observe hair form of any passerby. This is a "look like" factor as in post #1.
You can't see cross section but it perfectly illustrates the coily vs non-coily point i.e.,
Only oval or elliptical cross sections produce coily hair from hi-freq lo-amplitude peppercorn hair through medium freq hi-amplitude wavy hair.
Only round or circular cross sections produce non-coily hair from lo-freq varying-amplitude wavy hair to 0-freq 0-amplitude straight hair.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: You can move along without being an ass about it.
Ooh! Low blow!! LOL!!! Welcome to my ignore list you name calling loser you. Better you stick to your no-brainer ancient Egyptian art posts. You excell at that since no analysis critique or independent thought is required there. Thanks.
I don't need you to accept or even agree with my paradigm, which you fail to disconfirm, just recognize its validity among the other options.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Saying hair types other than tightly coiled hair aren't coiled is like saying only gamma rays are true waves, while micro waves and radio waves are somehow not.
The stupidity that goes out from that notion is mind-boggling.
Sure using the same logic as you this is a picture of a black or brown person. We're all shades of brown after all:
Here's an image of coiled haired people according to Swenet and maybe even Tukuler:
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: The only part I agree with you is that African people can have different types of hair such as coily (ulotrichous), wavy and even straight. Asian and Caucasian people can also have many different types of hair for that matter (for various reasons).
quote:Sure using the same logic as you this is a picture of a black or brown person. We're all shades of brown after all:
Ok, you've just pulled that out of your behind, like the rest of your views you've made public in this thread. No scientific discipline I know maintains that all humans are a shade of brown.
quote:Here's an image of coiled haired people according to Swenet and maybe even Tukuler
Please post a definition of ''spiral'' or ''helix'' that requires its coils to be contiguous.
Don't worry, I'll wait.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by the Nadir: Here's an image of coiled haired people according to Swenet and maybe even Tukuler
This thread's subject
is (1)physical anthroplogy or phenotype of the original OoAs and (2)when and where their looks first diversified into the general looks of the major geographic populations i.e.:
* Mediterranean Africans, * SW Asians, * south Asians, * Austral Asians, * Oceanics, * E&N Asians, * N&S original Americans, * NW/N/Central Europeans, * S Europeans, * E Europeans and * E and C Asians,
all before 1700 years ago.
STFU if you can't contribute to it. More than enough time already wasted on your sheep are not coily ulotrichous woolly non-argument.
Respect my thread by leaving me out of your replies to other posters or go start one of your own to go endlessly on nowhere about afr-o oh oh hair and what not please.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: I don't need you to accept or even agree with my paradigm, which you fail to disconfirm, just recognize its validity among the other options. [/QB]
I only recognize that Africans can have many different types of hair. It doesn't invalidate the type of hair classification exposed in anthropological books and in this thread.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Sure using the same logic as you this is a picture of a black or brown person. We're all shades of brown after all:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Ok, you've just pulled that out of your behind, like the rest of your views you've made public in this thread. No scientific discipline I know maintains that all humans are a shade of brown.
what does the scientific disciplines call the other skin colors of people that are not shades of brown ?
The layers of skin below the top layer in all humansl is a whitish color until blood is flowing through it and it appears to be pinkish red. Only the top layer varies in melanin content. " White" people just have less of it and because of it the top layer is more translucent showing pinkish only in some areas, the cheeks mainly, nose a little sometimes. It's not the surface layer called the stratum basale.
The way an artist would mix paint to match the above person would be to use mostly white with a small dab of brown and then very tiny amounts of red mixed in only certain places. The basis is brown there is just less of it so stop the bull about " No scientific discipline"
thanks.
lioness
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
^^^ This type of loose limp hair doesn't exist in Africa or is extremely rare. and more so for West Africa The closest you see to this is somebody with combed out stiff hair or somebody with Arab or Asian Indian ancestry.
Just because Africans have the widest genetic diversity does not mean every type of human is represented by a contemporary African population. There is a thing called eveolution where people living in different conditions become isolated and change. I think people who think every type is covered in Africa are closet disbelievers in evolution as if every type of human appeared in Africa indepedantly and then spread out and never changed after that.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
^ Dear the Lioness,
Yes yes we all know that already for quite sure so c'mon dammit and say something on-topic please.
What i asked for is when and where these features developed implying they mostly weren't in Africa at OoA place(s) and time(s). Check me again.
quote: (1)physical anthropology or phenotype of the original OoAs and (2)when and where their looks first diversified into the general looks of the major geographic populations i.e.:
* Mediterranean Africans, * SW Asians, * south Asians, * Austral Asians, * Oceanics, * E&N Asians, * N&S original Americans, * NW/N/Central Europeans, * S Europeans, * E Europeans and * E and C Asians,
all before 1700 years ago.
STFU if you can't contribute to it. More than enough time already wasted on hairbrained ish.
So far as for the original OoA exiters looks we got - me w/generalized non-specific African blacks - Xyyman w/straight haired darks and nondescript lights - Clyde w/Australoids - DJ w/archaic African (the most logical option yet).
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: ^ Dear the Lioness,
Yes yes we all know that already for quite sure so c'mon dammit and say something on-topic please.
What i asked for is when and where these features developed implying they mostly weren't in Africa at OoA place(s) and time(s). Check me again.
quote: (1)physical anthropology or phenotype of the original OoAs and (2)when and where their looks first diversified into the general looks of the major geographic populations i.e.:
* Mediterranean Africans, * SW Asians, * south Asians, * Austral Asians, * Oceanics, * E&N Asians, * N&S original Americans, * NW/N/Central Europeans, * S Europeans, * E Europeans and * E and C Asians,
all before 1700 years ago.
STFU if you can't contribute to it. More than enough time already wasted on hairbrained ish.
So far as for the original OoA exiters looks we got - me w/generalized non-specific African blacks - Xyyman w/straight haired darks and nondescript lights - Clyde w/Australoids - DJ w/archaic African (the most logical option yet).
The question is not articulated that clearly. And of course lioness productions cannot cooperate with STFU threats
lioness productions
Posted by Vansertimavindicated (Member # 20281) on :
ABSOLUTELY NOONE TAKES THIS PATHETIC FAGGOT DIICK SUCKING MONKEY IN ALL ITS FAJE NAMES SERIOUSLY! LMBAO!!!!!
THIS PATHETIC CREATURE STILL THINKS FOLKS DO NOT KNOW THAT IT IS A FRAUD THAT CREATES FAKE NAMES TO ARTGUE WITH ITSELF WITH LOL
THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU ARE AN ANTI SOCIAL DIRTBAG FOLKS! YOUR ENTIRE LIFE IS MAKING UP CHARACTERS ON THE INTERNET
This video is actually becoming famous LOL along the lines of two videos that you made using your Salsassin name monkey! hehehehe
And one made in the Blokcom name. Unfortunately for you we have copied it and also included to PowerPoint so you will not be getting any hits other than what someone sees here monkey! You have outdone yourself on this one faggot! LOL and if you can find our copy... SUE US! lol
The video that I posted below of the degenerate reprobate in another one of its fake names should be required reading to understand this SocioPath. The creature is actually arging with itself in its fake names, but all you need to do is look at the video that this monster created to pee; back the layers of ALL of its fake names!
The monkey gets no traffic whatsoever, all of its bullshit forums and blogs have been exposed, and this is one very sick degenerate! ALL OVER THE NET THIS MONKEY ARGUES WITH ITSELF! this creature is hoping that you go to its other blogs and pages and argue with it! LOL yoo bad it only argues with itself!
This monkey hopes that there are some numbskulls that have not yet ascertained that it is talking and arguing with itself!
This scumnag is certifiable!
This is what you get when you have a pathetic cracker diick suckin faggot with no life! You get all these fake names with the degenerate talking to itself all day long!
LOL the filthy, degenerate monkey in its fale names is a lauaghable reprobate is it not? LOL
I told yall that this pathetic piece of shiit would start to tyalk to itself in ts fake names and provide entertainment! LOL
I will even show you something that this creature created in yet another one of its fake names! Have you noticed how this forum has incrementally become as ridiculous as this?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
