...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Subracial Types of Neolithic Agriculturalists
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by osirion: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Evil Euro: [b] Here are Angel's full descriptions and plates of the various Basic White types (probable "[URL=http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/001943.html]negroid nose and mouth traits[/URL]" are in bold): [i]"Basic Whites (Type A: Plate XL, u-y) are sturdy. They have large and long heads with somewhat low and receding bony foreheads, massive browridges, and a generally angular and ill-filled appearance emphasized in slight midline gabling of parietals and lamboid flattening just above the projecting occiput. Their almost trapezoid faces lack height, and show rectangular orbits, [b]short, straight, coarse noses[/b], angular profile, and [b]strong chin and teeth[/b]. They were probably above medium stature, strong, dark-brown haired, and swarthy. They show noteworthy similarity to Chalcolithic Palestinians, Siculans, Chalcolithic Sardinians, and Neolithic type British, and are obviously also comparable to Atlanto-Mediterraneans in Mesopotamia. They are less homogeneous as a group than the other types, covering the range from a linear and high-skulled "Megalithic" variant with high, thin-nosed hatchet-face (A1 and A2: Cephallenian and Athenian in Plate XL, v, w), to a low-headed and squat-faced extreme with [b]wide nose[/b] and low orbits (A4: S.C. Macedonian in Plate XL, u), with a central group (A3 and A5: Corinthian of Argive parentage and Lemnian in Plate XL, x and y) connecting these divergent tendencies."[/i] [IMG]http://dienekes.angeltowns.net/texts/greekmorphological/u.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://dienekes.angeltowns.net/texts/greekmorphological/v.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://dienekes.angeltowns.net/texts/greekmorphological/w.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://dienekes.angeltowns.net/texts/greekmorphological/x.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://dienekes.angeltowns.net/texts/greekmorphological/y.jpg[/IMG] Where's the "Black African" racial influence? I don't see it, and neither does Angel.[/B][/QUOTE] Are you an expert at determining "Black African" influence via photography? Just because you don't see it in a picture doesn't mean its not there. Trust me, I have shown these pictures to my Korean wife (non-bias race) and she doesn't consider the Basic White to be Caucausian. She thinks they are some kind of MIX - like Mexican or Latino. From someone on the outside with an idealistic idea of what White people look like, these are not good examples. Besides, I still don't see anyone in the pictures exhibiting "Wide noses". Angel says that there is a range from thin to wide, obviously the pictures don't contain this. Picture X actually likes non-White but has a thin nose, if the nose was wider I would certainly say he was Negroid. But it doesn't matter, he doesn't describe anyone in the picture as having Negroid features or "Bushman-like" so obviously the pictures don't represent the skeletal remains that he describes as having "negroid features". Besides, nobody can possibly take someone like you that has shown enormous amount of bias seriously. You can't have it both ways! You can't claim that a Somalian with a couple of Caucausian features as "White" and a Greek with a couple of Negroid features as "White" as well. The simple fact is that the issue isn't Black or White and that is the whole crux of the problem. There is a "Gray area and the Mediterranean are righ in the thick of it". In otherwards, you show me someone classifying Viking skelatal remains as Bushman-like with some negroid features and I concede the debate to you. However, if the negroid features in research increases in frequency as you get closer to Africa then any rationale person will admit that this is due to gene flow from the Sub-sahara. If you cannot admit to that then your are not rationale. Finally, what do you all think of the new National Geographic gene flow map. [URL=http://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html]http://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html[/URL] Is this valid stuff or does anyone have issue with it? By the way, National Geographic appears to have darkend the reconstruction of Tut up a bit. Kind of interesting that they did that. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3