...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Ancient west Eurasian ancestry in southern and eastern Africa 2013
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tukuler: [QB] Just remember Hamiticism is inseparably linked to NE & E Africa as AMH Caucas(ian/oid) so it's not necessarily needing post chalcolithic or historic West Eurasian invaders. Besides the Wiedner map from Doc Ben, Diop exposed Caucas(ian/oid) AMH E Africans as exemplified by Masai physiognomy in particular. Think of that geneticist who postulated Maasai as best modern reps of ancient Egyptians, a safe view because of the NE&E African AMH Caucas(ian/oid) ideology correlate of Hamiticism. = = = = = = = The human skeletons discovered by Leakey near Elmenteita (Kenya) in the grotto called Gamble's Cave II, and which probably belonged to the same human type as the Olduvai man (northern Tanzania) of the Capsian, have caused much ink to flow. [i]"It is certain that these are not true Negroes, in the usual sense of the word. These are men comparable to the Nilotics in the Great Lakes region, or else comparable to the lighter-skinned populations of those territories. A skeleton recently found at Naivasha (Kenya) obviously belongs to the same type."[/i] From these discoveries, prehistorians, historians, and ethnologists draw conclusions of varying importance concerning the early peopling of Black Africa. [URL=http://underscore]In the [b]Olduvai man[/b], Cornevin sees the ancestor of the [b]Nilotic[/b], of the [b]Shilluk[/b], [b]Dinka[/b], [b]Nuer[/b], and [b]Masai[/b]. He makes him a [b]Caucasoid[/b].[/URL] His existence, Cornevin contends, [i]"proves that it is useless to make the East African, improperly called Nilo-Hamitic, come from India or Arabia."[/i] Finally, referring to the Naivasha man just mentioned, on the next page he writes that archeological research reveals affinities with the Cro-Magnon race: [i]"tall stature, low, wide face, broad forehead, rectangular sockets, thin nose, little prognathism."[/i] There was no Cro-Magnon man in sub-Saharan Africa. At an interview that Professor Vallois was kind enough to grant me at the Paris Institute of Human Paleontology, this scientist was categorical about this. Only the Boskop man (Transvaal Province, South Africa) was, for a time, considered as a Cro-Magnoid having affinities with the Bushman. But this opinion was later abandoned by its partisans. Cornevin, unfortunately, continues to confuse Grimaldi man -- a "Negroid" with marked prognathism and broad nose -- with Cro-Magnon man, who is not at all prognathous but presents in hypertrophic fashion typical European traits: thin lips, prominent chin, narrow nose. There is reason to reexamine the documents. The theory that makes [b]Causcasoids[/b] of the [b]Dinka[/b], [b]Nuer[/b], [b]Masai[/b], etc., is the most unwarranted. [URL=http://underscore]Suppose an African ethnologist insisted on recognizing only blond Scandinavians as Whites and systematically refused all other Europeans -- especially Mediterraneans, French, Italians, Greeks, Spaniards, and Portuguese -- membership in the White race.[/URL] Just as Scandinavians and Mediterraneans must be considered as the two poles, the two extremes of the same anthropological reality, it would be only fair to do the same for the two extremes of the reality of the Black world: Negroes of East Africa and those of West Africa. [URL=http://underscore]To call a [b]Shilluk[/b], a [b]Dinka[/b], or a [b]Masai[/b] a [b]Caucasoid[/b] is as devoid of sense and scientific validity[/URL] for an African as it would be for a European to claim that a Greek or a Latin are not White. The desperate search for a non-Negro solution sometimes leads to talk about [i]"a primitive stock that might not yet have assumed a differentiated Black or White character,"[/i] or to whitening Negroes such as the Masai. All the human types found in Kenya from the Paleolithic to the end of the Neolithic, are perfectly distinguishable as Negroes. Dr. Leakey, who has studied nearly all of them, knows this. He knows that all the skeletons that have fallen into his hands have Negritic proportions in the full sense of the word. He also is aware that the obervation by Boule and Vallois on the [i]"floor of the nasal fossae"[/i] is applicable to all the skulls that he has studied. One can understand why anthropologists are silent on these determining points. On the contrary, they readily expand on [URL=http://underscore]cranial measurements[/URL], for in this domain, except in extreme cases, it is [URL=http://underscore]harder to distinguish a Negro from a White[/URL]. They admit, for example, that [URL=http://underscore][i]from the Paleolithic to our day[/i] [b]Kenya[/b], [b]East Africa[/b], and the [b]Upper Nile[/b] have been [i]inhabited by the same population[/i] which has remained [i]anthropologically unchanged[/i], with [i]the [b]Masai[/b] as one of the most [b]authentic representative type[/b]s[/i][/URL]. [URL=http://underscore]To the anthropologists, he is the very type of the undifferentiated Negro. Whenever they discuss the late appearance of the "true Negro," we must remember that this is because they do not consider him as such, for he has been there since the beginning of time, since the Paleolithic. All the skull specimens considered non- Negroid, following the measurements of Leakey and other anthropologists, are really those of his archeological forebears from whom he does not differ morphologically.[/URL] Dr. Leakey and all the anthropologists will confirm this. [URL=http://underscore]If he were not a living reality, his skull would have come out whitened or, in any case, "denegrified" by their measurements, with an orthognathous face held high, a thin nose, high forehead, etc. Even alive, he is not a Negro in the view of the so-called specialists, but the authentic type of the Nilo-Hamite.[/URL] I invite the reader to verify this. He will simply find these facts confirmed. Anthropologists have invented the ingenious, convenient, fictional notion of the "[b]true Negro[/b]," which allows them to consider, if need be, [URL=http://underscore]all the real Negroes on earth as fake Negroes, more or less approaching a kind of Platonic archetype, without ever attaining it[/URL]. Thus, African history is full of "Negroids," Hamites, semi-Hamites, Nilo-Hamitics, Ethiopoids, Sabaeans, even Caucasoids! Yet, [URL=http://underscore]if one stuck strictly to scientific data and archeological facts, the prototype of the White race would be sought in vain throughout the earliest years of present-day humanity[/URL]. The Negro has been there from the beginning; for millennia he was the only one in existence. Nevertheless, on the threshold of the historical epoch, the "scholar" turns his back on him, raises questions about his genesis, and even speculates "objectively" about his tardy appearance ... Diop [Mercer] 1974 pp.268,273-4 [/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