posted 09 March 2005 07:50 AM            

• Chapter II: Pleistocene White Men

  (1) Introducing Homo Sapiens
  (2) Pleistocene Climate
  (3) Sapiens Men of the Middle Pleistocene
  (4) Non-Sapiens Pleistocene Fossil Men
  (5) The Neanderthal Hybrids of Palestine
  (6) Upper Palaeolithic Man in Europe, the Evidence as a Whole
  (7) Chronological and Geographical Differentiation of the European Aurignacian Group
  (8) Upper Palaeolithic Hunters of North Africa
  (9) Aurignacian Man in East Africa
  (10) The Magdalenians
  (11) Upper Palaeolithic Man in China
  (12) Summary and Conclusions
  

From (12) Summary and Conclusions:

• (1) Homo sapiens was fully evolved as early as the mid-Pleistocene, if not earlier.

• (2) The earliest Homo sapiens known, as represented by several examples from Europe and Africa, was an ancestral long-headed white man of short stature and moderately great brain size.

• (3) The negro group probably evolved parallel to this white strain, from a related sapiens ancestor. At what point the ancestors of negroes and whites diverged is not known.
  

posted 09 March 2005 11:57 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
This is from the Table of Contents in Coon's Races of Europe:

• Chapter II: [b]Pleistocene White Men

  (1) Introducing Homo Sapiens
  (2) Pleistocene Climate
  (3) Sapiens Men of the Middle Pleistocene
  (4) Non-Sapiens Pleistocene Fossil Men
  (5) The Neanderthal Hybrids of Palestine
  (6) Upper Palaeolithic Man in Europe, the Evidence as a Whole
  (7) Chronological and Geographical Differentiation of the European Aurignacian Group
  (8) Upper Palaeolithic Hunters of North Africa
  (9) Aurignacian Man in East Africa
  (10) The Magdalenians
  (11) Upper Palaeolithic Man in China
  (12) Summary and Conclusions
  

From (12) Summary and Conclusions:

• (1) Homo sapiens was fully evolved as early as the mid-Pleistocene, if not earlier.

• (2) The earliest Homo sapiens known, as represented by several examples from Europe and Africa, was an ancestral long-headed white man of short stature and moderately great brain size.

• (3) The negro group probably evolved parallel to this white strain, from a related sapiens ancestor. At what point the ancestors of negroes and whites diverged is not known.
  

[/B]

---

posted 09 March 2005 12:39 PM            

quote:

---

Outdated coon gibberish..... Believing this is like believing that the world is flat.

---

Speaking of Flat-Earth Science, why should subjects like Afrocentrism be taught in our tax funded schools?

ouch, December 4, 2001
Reviewer: Orrin C. Judd "brothersjudddotcom" (Hanover, NH USA) - See all my reviews

In the fall of 1991 I was asked to write a review-article for The New Republic about Martin Bernal's Black Athena and its relation
to the Afrocentrist movement. The assignment literally changed my life. Once I began to work on the article I realized that here was
a subject that needed all the attention, and more, that I could give to it. Although I had been completely unaware of it, there was in
existence a whole literature that denied that the ancient Greeks were the inventors of democracy, philosophy, and science. There were
books in circulation that claimed that Socrates and Cleopatra were of African descent, and that Greek philosophy had actually been
stolen from Egypt. Not only were these books being read and widely distributed; some of these ideas were being taught in schools
and even in universities.
Ordinarily, if someone has a theory which involves a radical departure from what the experts have professed, he is expected to defend
his position by providing evidence in its support. But no one seemed to think it was appropriate to ask for evidence from the
instructors who claimed that the Greeks stole their philosophy from Egypt.
-Mary Lefkowitz, Not Out of Africa

One is torn by two competing emotions in reading Not Out of Africa. On the one hand, there's the visceral thrill of watching idiotic
ideas get an old-fashioned butt-whipping. But, on the other hand, there's something poignant about the need of black scholars to claim
the accomplishments of the Greeks and Egyptians as their own. It is very nearly painful to watch the ease with which Ms Lefkowitz
disposes of the lunatic ideas that make up Afrocentrism, though she deserves great credit for taking them seriously enough to lay them
out systematically, and demonstrating that they actually do have ancient sources, before annihilating them. Still, as you near the end of
the book, the contest has been so uneven that it's natural to wonder if this bloodbath was really necessary.

However, in her conclusion, Ms Lefkowitz makes the case for why it is necessary to utterly destroy Afrocentrism, and here she is
equally persuasive. Her reasons are as follows :

(1) By claiming European civilization as a product of Africans, Afrocentrism has the perverse effect of making blacks responsible
for the culture which justified their enslavement and oppression for centuries.

(2) By focussing solely on the achievements of the Egyptians, Afrocentrism fails to consider genuinely black African cultures, like
that of Nubia.

(3) By teaching black students that white Europeans stole their culture, Afrocentrism fosters racial animosity.

(4) Afrocentrism is not only antihistorical it is also antiscientific--denying genetic, archaeological, linguistic, and other forms of
data.

(5) It wastes precious educational time; the time that students spend learning the lies of Afrocentrism is time that they are not
spending learning the truth.

And she closes with a very strong statement :

Students of the modern world may think it is a matter of indifference whether or not Aristotle stole his philosophy from Egypt. They
may believe that even if the story is not true, it can be used to serve a positive purpose. But the question, and many others like it,
should be a matter of serious concern to everyone, because if you assert that he did steal his philosophy, you are prepared to ignore or
to conceal a substantial body of historical evidence that proves the contrary. Once you start doing that, you can have no scientific or
even social-scientific discourse, nor can you have a community, or a university.

That's pretty bracing stuff, but it cuts to the quick : are we truly prepared to sacrifice our universities and our students on the altar of
political correctness, self esteem, and multicultural hogwash? One would certainly hope not, and we can only thank Ms Lefkowitz for
having the courage to take on the racially charged task of confronting these issues head on. She has done us all a great service.

GRADE : A

Source: Amazon.com

posted 10 March 2005 08:04 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by HERU:
What a nutcase

---

Its really sad, not particularly shocking that Evil Euro has to post refuted, outdated Coon gibberish to find a way to put "Caucasoids" in East Africa. Aurignacian refers exclusively to the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic in Europe and the earliest physical remains associated with it[Grimaldi Man] don't even resemble white men. And since when are Neanderthal-Hybrids[refuted by genetics] white men? Evil Euro lost all credibility with that post.

posted 10 March 2005 08:07 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Keins:
Outdated coon gibberish

---

The only thing "outdated" about Coon are some of his theories, which have been disproven. But that goes for all of the old anthropologists, including the Afronut favorites. Coon's observational data is as valid today as it was when he compiled it. He looked at skeletal remains from Pleistocene East Africa, and saw that they were Caucasoid. Nothing speculative about that. Just a cold, hard fact.

quote:

---

The quicker you accept the fact that Africans/black/negro are the centre and root of the modern human family the better off your life will be.

---

posted 10 March 2005 08:15 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Africans, yes. Blacks/Negroes, no. They're an insignificant branch of the human family whose ancestors took a wrong turn in Africa and never got back on track.

---

You have been discredited with that statement.

quote:

---

The only thing "outdated" about Coon are some of his theories, which have been disproven. But that goes for all of the old anthropologists, including the Afronut favorites. Coon's observational data is as valid today as it was when he compiled it. He looked at skeletal remains from Pleistocene East Africa, and saw that they were Caucasoid. Nothing speculative about that. Just a cold, hard fact

---

The fact that no anthropologist today believes Pleistocene East Africans were Caucasoids proves that Coon's data is outdated. Coon also looked at Neanderthal-Hybrids(?) and saw white men, to that you say he was wrong but to "Aurignacian East African Caucasoids" you have no problem saying he's right, its simply pointless arguing with a racist idiot who cites selected outdated material to prove what cannot be proven.

posted 10 March 2005 08:29 AM            

Towards a Theory of Modern Human Origins: Geography, Demography, and Diversity in Recent Human Evolution
http://www.human-evol.cam.ac.uk/Members/Lahr/pubs/YPA-98-41.pdf

posted 10 March 2005 09:07 AM            

quote:

---

The fact that no anthropologist today believes Pleistocene East Africans were Caucasoids proves that Coon's data is outdated. Coon also looked at Neanderthal-Hybrids(?) and saw white men, to that you say he was wrong but to "Aurignacian East African Caucasoids" you have no problem saying he's right, its simply pointless arguing with a racist idiot who cites selected outdated material to prove what cannot be proven.

---

Correct. And of course Coon's discredited polygenic views are directly related to his fabrication of 'caucazoids', the most descredited concept in the history of anthropology.

The whole point of polygenesis was to establish a 'scientific' basis for white priorty, which increasingly flew in the face of the facts as fossil find after fossil find indicated African and Africoid anteriority.

Carelton Coon caucasoid polygenesis is

NULL......

Stephen Jay Gould:
How could a new species evolve in lockstep parallelism from three ancestral populations spread over more than half the globe? Three groups, each moving in the same direction, and all still able to interbreed and constitute a single species after more than a million years of change? (I know that multiregionalists posit limited gene flow to Circumvent this problem, but can such a claim represent more than necessary special pleading in the face of a disabling theoretical difficulty? - Stephen Jay Gould.

and VOID.....

SOY Keita:
fosils indicate the presence of anatomical modern people in supra-Saharan and Nile Valley Africa at a time when hominids in Europe had Neanderthal morphology

Citing Carleton Coon is like citing Piltdown Man as proof of the English origins of homo-sapiens. It's a confession of defeat, poorly disguised as a stubborn 'argument'.

posted 10 March 2005 09:20 AM            

quote:

---

Topdog:

The fact that no anthropologist today believes Pleistocene East Africans were Caucasoids proves that Coon's data is outdated. Coon also looked at Neanderthal-Hybrids(?) and saw white men, to that you say he was wrong but to "Aurignacian East African Caucasoids" you have no problem saying he's right, its simply pointless arguing with a racist idiot who cites selected outdated material to prove what cannot be proven.

---

Needless to say that you are right, as usual, in respect to Evil. Earlier, you said that Evil lost credibility...did he have one to begin with?

Let's do a quick recap here:

• He claimed southern Europeans were pure...that was a non-starter.

• He claimed that E3b was unrelated to E3a...so dumb, that it perhaps makes the mentally ill, look quite intelligent!

• He claimed that E3b is of North African origin, with the Horn of Africa in mind...one only needs to look at a map of Africa, to see where the Horn of Africa lies - need I say more about that one.

• He turns around and claims that the Horn of Africa populations were "non-negroid generalized" morderns. When pressed for the scientific definition...he has no answers.

• He claims that Bantu negroids appeared recently in West Africa, and moved their way to the Horn of Africa, to explain the tropical African looks of East Africans. He attributes this to small dosages of E3a in the Horn of Africa populations, when there are no Bantu speaking groups in the Horn of Africa to speak of, to justify his claim.

  In fact, E3a is found in Senegal, where there are no Bantu speakers.

• He was asked to provide a chronology for the appearance of "caucasoid" and "negroid" appearance in East Africa, after being exposed for the erroneous timelime he provided for the "negroid" presence in East Africa...he fails to provide one, after the wild claims he made, and then goes onto say that it is not his job. Go figure.

  
  

• He attributes the broad type facial Physiognomy to E3a, and hence the Tutsi's must have been E3b carrying people who got overrun by Bantus. He was in for a shocker with the many studies and gene maps available.

• Asked to provide his definitions for "negroid" and "caucasoid", and what they meant in a scientific sense...to date, we still have no answers on these. Later on, his starts pointing fingers at outdated anthropological works that used such terminology. I gather from which, we are to conclude that there is no scientific bases for the defunct terms, he continues to use.

  In fact, despite the defunct status of both "negroid" and "caucasoid" terms, unlike the "negroid" term, the "caucasoid" is a fraudulent term, because it implies something of a particular geographic origin - the Caucasus! There is not one study available, that suggests that the so-called features attributed to "caucasoid" in Africa, has anything to do with the Caucasus region.

• He resorts to Larry Angel's use of the term "Bushman like Basic-Whites", a term in itself that makes no sense, however he fails to see the context of Mr. Angel's study:

  J. L. Angel, The People of Lerna, p. 101:

  "Although the first agricultural inhabitants of the belt from Syria-Israel-Jordan to North Africa were mainly rugged Mediterranean (A3 and some B, in varying preponderance) the eastern end of this belt (McGown, 1939; Vallois, 1936), shows some almost Bushmen-like Basic White (A4b) as well as lateral traits (E1 and C4 [DP: Mixed Alpine and Alpine] as at Jericho."
  Hence the first agriculturalists were mainly Mediterranean and Basic White with some Alpine and some "Bushmen-like" [DP: Khoisan] Basic Whites only in the eastern part."

  But then...

  J. Lawrence Angel
  Journal of Human Evolutiom
  1972
  1, Pg 307

  "Against this background of disease, movement and pedomorphic reduction of body size one can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers, probably from Nubia via the unknown predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians....".

  Elsewhere Thought wrote:

  quote:

  ---

  He [Angel] is very clear about why they have these traits:

  "probably from Nubia via the unknown predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians...."

  ---

  
  SOY Keita
  Arethusa
  26 (1993) pg 329:

  "I was a student of Larry Angel and am in some postion to comment on his views, which I know from conversation, the literature and personal correspondnce."

  "Angel also found evidence for a "black" (if such exists) genetic influence in neolithic and later Aegean populations. Racialists models, which imply non-overlapping gene pools, are clearly negated by Angel's work."

• He claims that HBS in Sicilian populations has nothing to do with its spread from Africa, but the presence of the Benin Sickle cell belies his claim.

  In fact, the mere presence of E3b shatters his entire premises, which is why he needs to have different but contradictory explanations for its non-tropical African origins!

  
  

• Additional notes, that don't make Evil look good:

  African Exodus

  Chris Stringer and Robin McKie:

  "Nor does the picture get any clearer when we move on to the Cro-Magnons, the presumed ancestors of modern Europeans. Some looked more like present-day Australians or Africans, judged by OBJECTIVE anatomical categorizations, as is the case with some early modern skulls from the Upper Cave at Zhoukoudian in China."

  
  From the Am J Phys Anthropol. 1975 May;42(3):351-69, we have...

  New studies of post-Pleistocene human skeletal remains from the Rift Valley, Kenya.

  Rightmire GP.

  "Prehistoric human crania from Bromhead's Site, Willey's Kopje, Makalia Burial Site, Nakuru, and other localities in the Eastern Rift Valley of Kenya are reassessed using measurements and a multivariate statistical approach. Materials available for comparison include series of Bushman and Hottentot crania. South and East African Negroes, and Egyptians. Up to 34 cranial measurements taken on these series are utilized to construct three multiple discriminant frameworks, each of which can assign modern individuals to a correct group with considerable accuracy. When the prehistoric crania are classified with the help of these discriminants, results indicate that several of the skulls are best grouped with modern Negroes. This is especially clear in the case of individuals from Bromhead's Site, Willey's Kopje, and Nakuru, and the evidence hardly suggests post-Pleistocene domination of the Rift and surrounding territory by "Mediterranean" Caucasoids, as has been claimed.

  Recent linguistic and archaeological findings are also reviewed, and these seem to support application of the term Nilotic Negro to the early Rift populations."
  

Evil was given every chance to make a case...but it appears that he never had one.

posted 10 March 2005 09:38 AM            

quote:

---

For Godsakes, the guy claims that blacks represent an "insignificant" branch of the human family, even though they are the people that never left Africa, where humankind originated! He insists that there were prehistoric "whites" in Africa! What is the purpose of arguing with him?

---

The point is not to persuade EuroDisney to come to his senses, but rather to expose fallacious thinking, and to share more up-to-date and accurate information regarding bioanthropology.

You could learn a lot in these threads from SOY Kieta, PA Underhill and many others if you are patient and of keen mind.

Too many African scholars and students alike, I have found - will repeat the fallacious outdated terminology/conceptions of Eurocentric anthropology without really understanding what they ARE PLAYING INTO.

It is they whom I am communicating with.

EuroDisney is just a troll-muse. A means to and end as it were. And his racist remarks simply expose his frustration level, and do not bother me (same with Horemheb).

posted 10 March 2005 12:18 PM            

quote:

---

Indeed, I personally find it less entertaining and more pointless to play with Abobo or Horemheb, because frankly it takes two to tango, and in those cases there is nobody home. Some prefer arguing with Abobo I guess because they recognize that he can't fight back? All he can do is cut and paste spam, like a retarded child. You prefer to 'debate' with him? Too each his own.

---

LOL...
You are right, which is why I've given up on Abobo!

quote:

---

The point is not to persuade EuroDisney to come to his senses, but rather to expose fallacious thinking, and to share more up-to-date and accurate information regarding bioanthropology.

You could learn a lot in these threads from SOY Kieta, PA Underhill and many others if you are patient and of keen mind.

Too many African scholars and students alike, I have found - will repeat the fallacious outdated terminology/conceptions of Eurocentric anthropology without really understanding what they ARE PLAYING INTO.

It is they whom I am communicating with.

---

I totally understand now. So by all means, carry on!!

posted 11 March 2005 07:28 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
Evil was given every chance to make a case...but it appears that he never had one.

---

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/001582.html
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/001582.html
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/001582.html
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/001582.html
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/001582.html

posted 11 March 2005 07:35 AM            

quote:

---

Topdog:

The fact that no anthropologist today believes Pleistocene East Africans were Caucasoids proves that Coon's data is outdated. Coon also looked at Neanderthal-Hybrids(?) and saw white men, to that you say he was wrong but to "Aurignacian East African Caucasoids" you have no problem saying he's right, its simply pointless arguing with a racist idiot who cites selected outdated material to prove what cannot be proven.

---

quote:

---

Supercar writes:
Needless to say that you are right, as usual, in respect to Evil. Earlier, you said that Evil lost credibility...did he have one to begin with?

Let's do a quick recap here:

• He claimed southern Europeans were pure...that was a non-starter.

• He claimed that E3b was unrelated to E3a...so dumb, that it perhaps makes the mentally ill, look quite intelligent!

• He claimed that E3b is of North African origin, with the Horn of Africa in mind...one only needs to look at a map of Africa, to see where the Horn of Africa lies - need I say more about that one.

• He turns around and claims that the Horn of Africa populations were "non-negroid generalized" morderns. When pressed for the scientific definition...he has no answers.

• He claims that Bantu negroids appeared recently in West Africa, and moved their way to the Horn of Africa, to explain the tropical African looks of East Africans. He attributes this to small dosages of E3a in the Horn of Africa populations, when there are no Bantu speaking groups in the Horn of Africa to speak of, to justify his claim.

  In fact, E3a is found in Senegal, where there are no Bantu speakers.

• He was asked to provide a chronology for the appearance of "caucasoid" and "negroid" appearance in East Africa, after being exposed for the erroneous timelime he provided for the "negroid" presence in East Africa...he fails to provide one, after the wild claims he made, and then goes onto say that it is not his job. Go figure.

  
  

• He attributes the broad type facial Physiognomy to E3a, and hence the Tutsi's must have been E3b carrying people who got overrun by Bantus. He was in for a shocker with the many studies and gene maps available.

• Asked to provide his definitions for "negroid" and "caucasoid", and what they meant in a scientific sense...to date, we still have no answers on these. Later on, his starts pointing fingers at outdated anthropological works that used such terminology. I gather from which, we are to conclude that there is no scientific bases for the defunct terms, he continues to use.

  In fact, despite the defunct status of both "negroid" and "caucasoid" terms, unlike the "negroid" term, the "caucasoid" is a fraudulent term, because it implies something of a particular geographic origin - the Caucasus! There is not one study available, that suggests that the so-called features attributed to "caucasoid" in Africa, has anything to do with the Caucasus region.

• He resorts to Larry Angel's use of the term "Bushman like Basic-Whites", a term in itself that makes no sense, however he fails to see the context of Mr. Angel's study:

  J. L. Angel, The People of Lerna, p. 101:

  "Although the first agricultural inhabitants of the belt from Syria-Israel-Jordan to North Africa were mainly rugged Mediterranean (A3 and some B, in varying preponderance) the eastern end of this belt (McGown, 1939; Vallois, 1936), shows some almost Bushmen-like Basic White (A4b) as well as lateral traits (E1 and C4 [DP: Mixed Alpine and Alpine] as at Jericho."
  Hence the first agriculturalists were mainly Mediterranean and Basic White with some Alpine and some "Bushmen-like" [DP: Khoisan] Basic Whites only in the eastern part."

  But then...

  J. Lawrence Angel
  Journal of Human Evolutiom
  1972
  1, Pg 307

  "Against this background of disease, movement and pedomorphic reduction of body size one can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers, probably from Nubia via the unknown predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians....".

  Elsewhere Thought wrote:

  [QUOTE]He [Angel] is very clear about why they have these traits:

  "probably from Nubia via the unknown predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians...."

  ---

quote:

---

SOY Keita
Arethusa
26 (1993) pg 329:

"I was a student of Larry Angel and am in some postion to comment on his views, which I know from conversation, the literature and personal correspondnce."

"Angel also found evidence for a "black" (if such exists) genetic influence in neolithic and later Aegean populations. Racialists models, which imply non-overlapping gene pools, are clearly negated by Angel's work."

He claims that HBS in Sicilian populations has nothing to do with its spread from Africa, but the presence of the Benin Sickle cell belies his claim.

In fact, the mere presence of E3b shatters his entire premises, which is why he needs to have different but contradictory explanations for its non-tropical African origins!

Additional notes, that don't make Evil look good:

African Exodus

Chris Stringer and Robin McKie:

"Nor does the picture get any clearer when we move on to the Cro-Magnons, the presumed ancestors of modern Europeans. Some looked more like present-day Australians or Africans, judged by OBJECTIVE anatomical categorizations, as is the case with some early modern skulls from the Upper Cave at Zhoukoudian in China."

From the Am J Phys Anthropol. 1975 May;42(3):351-69, we have...

New studies of post-Pleistocene human skeletal remains from the Rift Valley, Kenya.

Rightmire GP.

"Prehistoric human crania from Bromhead's Site, Willey's Kopje, Makalia Burial Site, Nakuru, and other localities in the Eastern Rift Valley of Kenya are reassessed using measurements and a multivariate statistical approach. Materials available for comparison include series of Bushman and Hottentot crania. South and East African Negroes, and Egyptians. Up to 34 cranial measurements taken on these series are utilized to construct three multiple discriminant frameworks, each of which can assign modern individuals to a correct group with considerable accuracy. When the prehistoric crania are classified with the help of these discriminants, results indicate that several of the skulls are best grouped with modern Negroes. This is especially clear in the case of individuals from Bromhead's Site, Willey's Kopje, and Nakuru, and the evidence hardly suggests post-Pleistocene domination of the Rift and surrounding territory by "Mediterranean" Caucasoids, as has been claimed.

Recent linguistic and archaeological findings are also reviewed, and these seem to support application of the term Nilotic Negro to the early Rift populations."

Evil was given every chance to make a case...but it appears that he never had one.

---

posted 12 March 2005 08:26 AM            

quote:

---

What's taking so long

---

How about the fact that you are a slow learner who substitues non responsive replies to deflect attention from his ludicrous theories and complete lack of answers?

posted 13 March 2005 08:18 AM            

Your two months of fruitless-floundering exemplify the above and expose you, as the laughably impotent idiot troll that you are.

So just continue to wallow.....

...in your own pooh.

Sforza can't save you, no one can.