posted 24 May 2005 07:19 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
You haven't explained why Angel speculated that the features came from Nubia (Sub-Saharan Africa) and you are distorting the research that Angel did by providing your own bias interpretation; how weak.

---

Nubia's not in Sub-Saharan Africa, it's in Northeast Africa. And I'm not distorting or interpreting anything. I showed you Angel's exact quote, and his own photo of the racial type referred to in that quote.

posted 24 May 2005 12:21 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Nubia's not in Sub-Saharan Africa, it's in Northeast Africa. And I'm not distorting or interpreting anything. I showed you Angel's exact quote, and his own photo of the racial type referred to in that quote.

Case closed.

---

I strongly disagree with your interpretation. None of the pictures are explicity defined as being examples of "Bushman-like" Basic Whites with negroid features from Nubia. And if you can argue that "Negroid" doesn't mean "negroid" but at the same time "Basic White" means "Bushman-like Basic Whites with negroid features from Nuba", then you are just a begot. Besides, there's plenty, plenty, plenty of evidence of showing what negroid features from Nubia means!

posted 24 May 2005 12:40 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
I strongly disagree with your interpretation. None of the pictures are explicity defined as being examples of "Bushman-like" Basic Whites with negroid features from Nubia. And if you can argue that "Negroid" doesn't mean "negroid" but at the same time "Basic White" means "Bushman-like Basic Whites with negroid features from Nuba", then you are just a bigot.

---

rotfl! and he's a really dumb one too. not because he believes any of his troll-bait crap. but because he's too stupid to realise that NO ONE does.

for 4 months he spammed his pathetic prison pinups, for which his has received nothing but well earned contempt in return.

posted 24 May 2005 12:48 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Here is the exact quote from Angel:

"...the eastern end of this belt (McGown, 1939; Vallois, 1936), shows some [b]almost Bushmen-like Basic White (A4b)...."

Here is Type A4, which Angel describes as having a "wide nose":

Ergo, that's what an "almost Bushmen-like Basic White" looks like.

Case closed.[/B]

---

posted 25 May 2005 07:42 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
I strongly disagree with your interpretation. None of the pictures are explicity defined as being examples of "Bushman-like" Basic Whites with negroid features from Nubia.

---

It's not my interpretation. Angel clearly identifies Type A4 as "Bushmen-like Basic White". Then he provides a photograph of a Type A4 individual:

Hence, that's a "Bushmen-like Basic White".

posted 25 May 2005 11:55 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
It's not my interpretation. Angel clearly identifies Type A4 as "Bushmen-like Basic White". Then he provides a photograph of a Type A4 individual:

Hence, that's a "Bushmen-like Basic White".

Case closed.

---

A4b is not equal to A4. The [b] is a clear modifier which represents the minor negroid traits observed. [b] is probably for "Bushman like".

Do you have a better explaination for the modifier?

posted 26 May 2005 08:06 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
The b is a clear modifier which represents the minor negroid traits observed. b is probably for "Bushman like".

---

That's the dumbest idea you've had so far. We don't need a "modifier" to account for the so-called "negroid traits", because they're already accounted for in Angel's in-depth description of Basic Whites:

"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, short, straight, coarse noses, angular profile, and strong chin and teeth. 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 wide nose 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."

posted 26 May 2005 11:45 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
That's the dumbest idea you've had so far. We don't need a "modifier" to account for the so-called "negroid traits", because they're already accounted for in Angel's in-depth description of Basic Whites:

"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, angular profile, and strong chin and teeth. 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 wide nose 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."

[This message has been edited by Evil Euro (edited 26 May 2005).][/B]

---

Explain the modifier and don't give me your interpretation and insults.

Question again: Why is the picture you posted described as an A4 but the description of a "Bushman-like" Basic White is described as a A4b. Also, why is the nose of the A4 illustration not as wide as either of the other 3 types? This is rather confusing. Also, in the description of A4 as it relates to your original post, there is no indication of a wide nose at all:

- from your original post in this thread -

The Basic White type A1 for example, is close to the British Atlanto-Mediterranean of Deniker and others, and it is longer-faced, more linear throughout than A3. Type A2 is a smaller version of the Upper Paleolithic norm and is broader-based and more rugged than A3, the Central Basic White, which approximates the Eurafrican of the literature and is a smaller version of Cro-Magnon. A4, a squat-faced and low-headed version of A3, being more Eastern than African; and A5 is a taller, more massive version.

The picture used is not described as having a wide nose and nor does it actually have a wide nose (open you eyes and look and you can clearly see that A4's nose is actually narrower than all the other types).

Consequently it follows that the A4 illustration does not represent an A4b subject. It is also a bad assumption on your part to try to say that A4 means A4b. This is interpretation with no basis besides a bigoted premise that you are trying to support by ignoring relevant qualifiers.

A4b is similar to A4 but with a modifier that represents the features we have been discussing: "Wide Nose and Protrusive mouth".

posted 27 May 2005 08:30 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
The picture used is not described as having a wide nose

---

Yes it is:

"...a low-headed and squat-faced extreme with wide nose and low orbits (A4: S.C. Macedonian in Plate XL, u)"

But it doesn't matter anyway because Neolithic farmers were not significantly of Type A4 (or A4b). They "were mainly rugged Mediterranean (A3 and some B...." according to Angel:

posted 27 May 2005 10:07 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
Erroneous, explain the A4B modifier and don't give me your interpretation and insults.

---

Question not answered:

quote:

---

EE runs away: But it doesn't matter anyway because Neolithic farmers were not significantly of Type A4 (or A4b).

---

ROTFL!

Erroneous Troll goes down in flames once again.

posted 27 May 2005 11:41 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Yes it is:

"...a low-headed and squat-faced extreme with [b]wide nose and low orbits (A4: S.C. Macedonian in Plate XL, u)"

But it doesn't matter anyway because Neolithic farmers were not significantly of Type A4 (or A4b). They "were mainly rugged Mediterranean (A3 and some B...." according to Angel:

[/B]

---

Your point of showing the pictures is what doesn't matter. You show a picture of A4 when we are talking about A4b. Since we don't have a clear guide of A4b you interpret it to mean A4 to support your pure Aryan concepts. We can then go round and round arguing what the [b] means. I can say [b] is for black and you can say that it means nothing at all.

I think it is clear that you are bias and I am not. I am neither Afro-centric or a Euro-centric. I am logic-centric. If someone says to me that a Basic White person has some negroid traits that he got from Nubia and when I look up Nubians and see a wealth of evidence depicting Nubians with negroid features I am going to make the logical conclusion that Angel was referring to admixture. So obviously bigoted person comes along and posts a picture of someone that is described as A4, and tries to say that this undermines the meaning of negroid and that negroid doesn't mean Negroid, but the original description of the person that had admixture was A4b I am going to dismiss them outright. What a bunch of malarchy. The Europeans slaughtered millions of my ancesters (Jews) because of this so called admixture and now that it has been shown to be somehow related to agriculture and the dawn of cilization, then those same murderers want to claim us as pure Aryans.

What a bunch of political crap!

posted 27 May 2005 12:10 PM            

quote:

---

The Europeans slaughtered millions of my ancesters (Jews) because of this so called admixture and now that it has been shown to be somehow related to agriculture and the dawn of cilization, then those same murderers want to claim us as pure Aryans.

What a bunch of political crap!

GO BACK TO YOUR CAVE UNDER SOME GLACIER SOMEWHERE - CROMAGNON

---

posted 28 May 2005 07:28 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
So obviously bigoted person comes along and posts a picture of someone that is described as A4, and tries to say that this undermines the meaning of negroid and that negroid doesn't mean Negroid, but the original description of the person that had admixture was A4b I am going to dismiss them outright.

---

posted 28 May 2005 07:33 AM            

quote:

---

• If Angel's "negroid nose and mouth traits" represent black racial admixture, then where are the other Negroid traits? Where's the Negroid hair type, skull shape, skeletal form, pigmentation etc.? Funny how these Nomadic Neolithic Niggas transmitted only two of their traits to the Levantines and Greeks. Funny also that in his more detailed analyses, Angel makes no mention of a Negroid racial strain in either Neolithic farmers or modern Greeks. Neither does Coon for that matter. Nor Brace. Any answers, Negroes?

• If Arnaiz-Villena's HLA-DRB1 study on Greek-Ethiopian affinities is anything more than junk science, then why has it been rejected by not one, not two, not three, but FOUR world-renowned geneticists? And why have its results never been duplicated by a single other genetic study -- even those conducted using the same HLA genes that Arnaiz-Villena analyzed? This is quite remarkable indeed, but I'm sure the Negroes have a very good explanation. We're all waiting to hear it.

---

Questions not answered:

quote:

---

[ nothing but rasol's deafening silence ]

---

The dumb Afronut ape is still drowning . . .

posted 28 May 2005 10:23 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

A4b, regardless of what the "modifier" signifies, is not Negroid because Bushmen are not Negroid.

---

Thought Posts:

Pinhasi R, Semal P. Related Articles, Links

The position of the Nazlet Khater specimen among prehistoric and modern African and Levantine populations.

J Hum Evol. 2000 Sep;39(3):269-88

"Brothwell (1963) proposed a model in which during the Upper Pleistocene a "proto-Khoisan Negro stock" was present in East Africa."

"The existence of such a route at least during the Late Pleistocene is SUPPORTED by the fossil record, which indicates migrations FROM East Africa northward at particular points of time."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

It's also not even true Bushman because Angel describes it as "[b]almost Bushmen-like Basic White". In other words, Caucasoid with primitive traits.

[/B]

---

Thought Writes:

Yet Angel CLEARLY attributes these traits to gene flow and not relic 'primitive traits'.

posted 28 May 2005 10:40 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
A4b, regardless of what the "modifier" signifies,

---

Let us help you: It signifies that you're a Neanderthal numbskull who has no answer. Erroneous fraud.

quote:

---

Bushman is not Negroid

---

SPINNING LIES, MAKES EE a DIZZY DOG.

Try again.

posted 28 May 2005 03:06 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
A4b, regardless of what the "modifier" signifies, is not Negroid because Bushmen are not Negroid. It's also not even true Bushman because Angel describes it as "[b]almost Bushmen-like Basic White". In other words, Caucasoid with primitive traits. You're grasping at straws.[/B]

---

posted 28 May 2005 03:14 PM            

It is making me ill to look at them over and over again!

Why does he keep posting those pics anyway? Are they his relatives or something?!

posted 29 May 2005 07:25 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
The position of the Nazlet Khater specimen among prehistoric and modern African and Levantine populations.

---

We've already been over your wishful thinking regarding Nazlet Khater man:

quote:

---

The description of Nazlet Khater man is consistent with him being an undifferentiated pre-historic type, not a developed Negroid type:

"The Nazlet Khater 4 site (Nile Valley, Upper Egypt) is located on one of the small wadi- interfluves in the lower desert near the steep cliffs bordering the western Nile Valley edge (Fig. 1). We have previously reported the excavation of an early Upper Palaeolithic blade industry at this site, although blade industries in the Nile Valley had only been known to occur since 18,000 yr ago. The 1982 excavation reported here confirms that Nazlet Khater 4 is a chert mining site with a complex extraction strategy, going back 33,000 yr. A nearby grave contained a skeleton of a man in the extended position. We show that the cranial morphology is anatomically modern with archaic characteristics such as a very robust mandible. There is evidence that the skeleton has a similar age to that of the mining site."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_ uids=6427628&dopt=Abstract

But if you really want to consider him one of your "Black Africans", then keep this in mind:

"The earlier find was dubbed the 'Nazlet Khater man', and was reported to the scientific community in the journals Human Evolution and Nature in 1984. [...] A flint tool, which was laid carefully on the bottom of the grave, dates the burial as contemporaneous with a nearby flint quarry. The man seemed to have been worked to death in that quarry and may have represented, according to one interpretation, a very early record of slavery."

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2002/588/eg11.htm

---

Africa Wasn't Black Until Historic Times:

"True" Black Africans appear as a recent adaptive radiation in the above dendrograms, apparently branching off from an ancestral Pygmy population -- a line of ancestry also indicated by osteological data (Coon 1962:651-656; Watson et al. 1996). This radiation seems to have occurred somewhere in West Africa. Before the Bantu expansion about 3,000 years ago, true Black Africans were absent from the continent's central, eastern, and southern regions (Cavalli-Sforza 1986:361-362; Oliver 1966). They were also absent from the middle Nile until about 4,000 years ago, at which time they begin to appear in paintings from Pharaonic Egypt and in skeletal remains from Nubia (Junker 1921).

posted 29 May 2005 07:33 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
More interpretation. Where does Angel suggest that the traits are primitive? He says they are of Nubia.

---

posted 29 May 2005 08:03 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
You have to use your brain (something Afronuts are not accustomed to doing). The Basic [b]White type is a Caucasoid racial type. The version of it that Angel describes is "almost Bushmen-like". Hence, he's not talking about actual Khoisanid Bushmen, and he's certainly not talking about Negroids. He's describing a Caucasoid type which has retained traits typical of primitive humans (i.e. Bushmen). That this type came from Nubia is nothing special, since Nubia is in Northeast, and not "Black", Africa.[/B]

---

Nubia is 'Black Africa' you idiot.

posted 29 May 2005 09:04 AM            

You must like to talk to hear yourself talk...

You post pictures of those you call caucasoids, which I think you mean to say means white people. OK, nothing wrong with that.

Then you say they have features that originated in Nubia. OK, nothing wrong with that eiter, all people originated in Africa and Africa is the home of most if not all human physical traits or phenotypes.

Then you say nubia is not African....
NOT. Now you are engaging in non-sense.

Do me a favor, go get a map and a dictionary.
Look up the word Africa and African in the dictionary. Afterwards, look up Africa on the map and then look up Nubia. Where is it........

On top of that, you say Nubians were not originally black. Based on what evidence?
Yes, some Europeans have cranial features similar to Nubians. However, that in and of itself does not prove that the original Nubians were white.

Here are some Nubians:

(Note how these areas are rich with archeological information, however they are not getting much attention by Egyptologists..... Maybe the evidence is too black maybe?)
http://egypt.adventure.freeservers.com/photos/nubian%20village%20street%20scene%20313 .JPG
And here... http://egypt.adventure.freeservers.com/photo14.html

posted 29 May 2005 09:42 AM            

The fact that you use racial slurs and derogatory words to justify your claims already shows your level of education and motivation for this debate.

First I didn’t pay attention to these threads but I finally got to read one. So what is your claim? First let me tell you that none of those pictures look overly negroid. In fact I have seen those “primitive Caucasians” as you describe in real life as of today. You take those pictures and show it to random people around the street they wouldn’t see anything unusual other than their old fashion hair style and clothing. So no need to call them bushmen or bushmen-like as they exist even today. Come to the southern part of the states and you’ll see a lot of those “basic white men”. Yes they do have little bit of negroid features (first look I didn't even noticed to be quite honest, only after careful look) but really doesn't prove anything.

I have no idea what you are trying to prove here. If those white Caucasian had any similar features of that of black Nubians it proves that the Caucasians derived (or mixed)from the Africans not the other way around because the Africans came first and that’s no rocket science- it’s common sense. So really logically what you have really proven is that those white Caucasian are actually of black race in a broader term.

Other than that only thing I can come up with is that Africans (nubians) were originally white and they some how “mysterically” transformed into dark Africans just like the puff the magic dragon. If that’s what you are trying to say then this is really hilarious. Wait....

*Laughing my Ass out*

If that’s the case then you are really trying to be funny and not being serious. Almost close to a comedy joint. You should seriously think about getting some medication or something. Anyone with common sense would laugh at this assertion. I have seen a lot of distorted history but this might be one of the lamest and most unconvincing up to date.

posted 29 May 2005 05:55 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
You have to use your brain (something Afronuts are not accustomed to doing). The Basic [b]White type is a Caucasoid racial type. The version of it that Angel describes is "almost Bushmen-like". Hence, he's not talking about actual Khoisanid Bushmen, and he's certainly not talking about Negroids. He's describing a Caucasoid type which has retained traits typical of primitive humans (i.e. Bushmen). That this type came from Nubia is nothing special, since Nubia is in Northeast, and not "Black", Africa.[/B]

---

I have better things to do than to argue over subjective classifications that even my 4 year old understands.

You are a waste of internet bandwidth and blog space.

posted 29 May 2005 09:02 PM            

quote:

---

Evil-Bozo says: Africa Wasn't Black Until Historic Times:

---

What the f***?!!!

ROTFLMAO

So what are you saying, that most Africans in prehistoric times were caucasoid?!!!

quote:

---

Bozo says: "True" Black Africans appear as a recent adaptive radiation in the above dendrograms, apparently branching off from an ancestral Pygmy population -- a line of ancestry also indicated by osteological data (Coon 1962:651-656; Watson et al. 1996). This radiation seems to have occurred somewhere in West Africa. Before the Bantu expansion about 3,000 years ago, true Black Africans were absent from the continent's central, eastern, and southern regions (Cavalli-Sforza 1986:361-362; Oliver 1966). They were also absent from the middle Nile until about 4,000 years ago, at which time they begin to appear in paintings from Pharaonic Egypt and in skeletal remains from Nubia (Junker 1921).

---

It's obvious you are going by that old dead "true-negroid" theory, which states that "true negroids" only come in one phenotype and that is the stereotypical Guinea type. This is like saying whites only come in one type and that is the blonde haired blue-eyed Nordic type!

You need help! All of your sources are straight up old petrified bull****!!

posted 30 May 2005 03:29 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
You have to use your brain (something Afronuts are not accustomed to doing). The Basic [b]White type is a Caucasoid racial type.

---

Basic White is Caucasoid?

>>>>"Basic White" is a loose and rather vague term unless further defined, since it can be taken to mean any ancient form that an author may assume was directly ancestral to most or all modern white and near-white varieties.<<<<

(Stone Age Races of Northwest Africa, pg 58)

posted 31 May 2005 12:10 PM            

This is getting off topic. The discussion is surrounding the use of these pictures by Angel to undermine the arguement that Negroid East Africans migrated into Eastern Europe and mixed with the local inhabitants.

Evil E argues that the East Africans were originally Caucausoid and therefore this migration do not bring in Black Africans and thus core arguement of AfroCentrics is unfounded. He is using these pictures to illiustrate that Angel did not mean Negroid in the way we use it.

This being said I have pointed out something that Evil E is ignoring.

"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 [Mixed Alpine and Alpine]) as at Jericho."

Note that "Busmen-like Basic White" is labeled as an A4b.

Note we then have a statement like this:

"negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers....probably FROM NUBIA via the predessors of the Badarians" - Larry Angel

What Evil E is doing is trying to use the picture of A4 to undermine the meaning of negroid traits. Since clearly the A4 labeled picture has no clear negroid traits at all. What I notice, however, as I have noticed with alot of Evil E's arguements, is that he posts Red Herrings. The picture he is using is labeled A4 but the arguement that the Afrocentrics are using from Angel is in regards (A4b)! The Afrocentric argues that this represents admixture between type A4 and a type [b]. The [b] therefore is the negroid traits that are from Nubia. This is completely logical since Ancient Nubians were tropically adapted and clearly depicted with so called negroid features.

Thus this logic-centric person sides with the argument made by the afrocentric and concludes that Evil E should concede. However, his stubborness is beyond rationale and one must conclude that it is pure bigotry (mental disorder).

posted 01 June 2005 01:12 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:

"What Evil E is doing is trying to use the picture of A4 to undermine the meaning of negroid traits. Since clearly the A4 labeled picture has no clear negroid traits at all. What I notice, however, as I have noticed with alot of Evil E's arguements, is that he posts Red Herrings. The picture he is using is labeled A4 but the arguement that the Afrocentrics are using from Angel is in regards (A4b)! The Afrocentric argues that this represents admixture between type A4 and a type [b]. The [b] therefore is the negroid traits that are from Nubia."

---

Thought Posts:

PA Underhill et al.

The phylogeography of Y chromosome binary haplotypes and the origins of modern human populations.

Ann Hum Genet.

2001 Jan;65(Pt 1):43-62.

posted 01 June 2005 07:57 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
Note that "Busmen-like Basic White" is labeled as an A4b. [...] What Evil E is doing is trying to use the picture of A4 to undermine the meaning of negroid traits. Since clearly the A4 labeled picture has no clear negroid traits at all.

---

Why are you resurrecting this thread after your humiliating defeat, and with the same destroyed "arguments" no less? It's sad how desperate you Negroes are to associate yourselves with something of value. That speaks of your historical underachievement and deep-seated insecurity about it.

Here's your basic problem: You want "negroid traits of nose and prognathism" to equal "Negroid ancestry" and tie in with the "almost Bushmen-like Basic White" type. But Negroids and Khoisanids are two entirely distinct peoples. So how can Angel be using them both to describe a single racial accretion? Obviously, he's doing nothing of the kind. He's simply referring to a couple of isolated primitive traits found in a pre-historic Caucasoid racial type (Basic White) which happen to be most common in primitive peoples like Negroes and Bushmen. That's all.

Prognathism is normal among Neolithic peoples:

"Facial prognathism is greater than the average amongst modern and late Neolithic Chinese but is similar to the early Neolithic male average."

http://www-personal.une.edu.au/~pbrown3/Liujiang.html

Type A4 is described as having a broad nose:

"...a low-headed and squat-faced extreme with wide nose and low orbits (A4: S.C. Macedonian in Plate XL, u)"

Basic Whites have archaic "negroid" and "almost Bushmen-like" traits, but no Negroid or Khoisanid admixture:

"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, short, straight, coarse noses, angular profile, and strong chin and teeth. 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 wide nose 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."

See, it has nothing to do with actual Negroes or Khoisans. Sorry to disappoint you.

posted 01 June 2005 04:02 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Why are you resurrecting this thread after your humiliating defeat, and with the same destroyed "arguments" no less? It's sad how desperate you Negroes are to associate yourselves with something of value. That speaks of your historical underachievement and deep-seated insecurity about it.

Here's your basic problem: You want "negroid traits of nose and prognathism" to equal "Negroid ancestry" and tie in with the "almost Bushmen-like Basic White" type. But Negroids and Khoisanids are two entirely distinct peoples. So how can Angel be using them both to describe a single racial accretion? Obviously, he's doing nothing of the kind. He's simply referring to a couple of isolated [b]primitive traits found in a pre-historic Caucasoid racial type (Basic White) which happen to be most common in primitive peoples like Negroes and Bushmen. That's all.

Prognathism is normal among Neolithic peoples:

"Facial prognathism is greater than the average amongst modern and late Neolithic Chinese but is similar to the early Neolithic male average."

http://www-personal.une.edu.au/~pbrown3/Liujiang.html

Type A4 is described as having a broad nose:

"...a low-headed and squat-faced extreme with wide nose and low orbits (A4: S.C. Macedonian in Plate XL, u)"

Basic Whites have archaic "negroid" and "almost Bushmen-like" traits, but no Negroid or Khoisanid admixture:

"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, short, straight, coarse noses, angular profile, and strong chin and teeth. 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 wide nose 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."

See, it has nothing to do with actual Negroes or Khoisans. Sorry to disappoint you.

[This message has been edited by Evil Euro (edited 01 June 2005).][/B]

---

Boring Cromagnon. Can't you come up with something better to debate about than your stupid A4 picture. You can't use it to describe an A4b and thats that. Doesn't mean your wrong its just you can't prove it since you don't have direct correlations.

Again, all I have to say is that A4 = Basic white and B = Negroe which follows that A4 + b results in [A4b], our Black traits in your Cromagnon brothers.

How it feel to know you got some soul after all? But you can stay in denial if you like.

posted 02 June 2005 12:46 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

Here's your basic problem: You want "negroid traits of nose and prognathism" to equal "Negroid ancestry" and tie in with the "almost Bushmen-like Basic White" type. But Negroids and Khoisanids are two entirely distinct peoples. So how can Angel be using them both to describe a single racial accretion?

[This message has been edited by Evil Euro (edited 01 June 2005).]

---

Thought Posts:

Pinhasi R, Semal P. Related Articles, Links

The position of the Nazlet Khater specimen among prehistoric and modern African and Levantine populations

J Hum Evol. 2000 Sep;39(3):269-88

"Brothwell proposed a model in which during the Upper Paleolithic a "proto-Khoisan Negro stock" was present in East Africa."

"Lahr observed that morphological variability among Sub-Saharan African populations was at its peak during the Late Pleistocene-early Holocene period. However, this is partially due to the fact that during this period many of the Sub-Saharan and North African populations display levels of robusticity which are largely lost in present African populations."

"Both hypotheses are compatible with the hypothesis proposed by Brothwell of an East African proto-Khoisan Negro stock which migrated southwards and westwards at some time during the Upper Pleistocene..."

Thought Writes:

The enhanced robusticity of the Pinhasi et al mention correlates well with the "LARGE Capoid Type" Coon saw as indigenous to North Africa and that Angel saw migrating into the Levant and Aegean spreading E3b according to Underhill et al.

posted 02 June 2005 07:19 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
A4 = Basic white and B = Negroe which follows that A4 + b results in [A4b]

---

posted 02 June 2005 07:28 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
The position of the Nazlet Khater specimen among prehistoric and modern African and Levantine populations

---

* Yawn *

The description of Nazlet Khater man is consistent with him being an undifferentiated pre-historic type, not a developed Negroid type:

"The Nazlet Khater 4 site (Nile Valley, Upper Egypt) is located on one of the small wadi- interfluves in the lower desert near the steep cliffs bordering the western Nile Valley edge (Fig. 1). We have previously reported the excavation of an early Upper Palaeolithic blade industry at this site, although blade industries in the Nile Valley had only been known to occur since 18,000 yr ago. The 1982 excavation reported here confirms that Nazlet Khater 4 is a chert mining site with a complex extraction strategy, going back 33,000 yr. A nearby grave contained a skeleton of a man in the extended position. We show that the cranial morphology is anatomically modern with archaic characteristics such as a very robust mandible. There is evidence that the skeleton has a similar age to that of the mining site."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_ uids=6427628&dopt=Abstract

quote:

---

"Lahr observed that morphological variability among Sub-Saharan African populations was at its peak during the Late Pleistocene-early Holocene period. However, this is partially due to the fact that during this period many of the Sub-Saharan and North African populations display levels of robusticity which are largely lost in present African populations."

---

Interesting. Highlights the racial transition that took place in Africa during the Holocene. Are you sure you meant to post that? Because it kind of proves you wrong.

quote:

---

correlates well with the "LARGE Capoid Type" Coon saw as indigenous to North Africa

---

What does a Pleistocene "Capoid Type" from North Africa have to do with your Holocene, sub-Saharan Negroid ancestors?

posted 02 June 2005 11:43 AM            

quote:

---

I thought Coon was a "racist, outdated fraud".

---

Correct, and racist pseudo's such as Dienekes and Erroneous fan-boy are notorious for, contradicting themselves, contradicting each other, contradiction via academia as well as being contradicted by their own sources.

quote:

---

Erroneous outpouring of desperate ignorance continues: Bushman is not Negroid

---

Your 'tactic' of pretending to not understand a clear sentense such as above is flawed. It makes you appear to be either a total liar, or extremely stupid...or both.

YOU BETTER STOP SPINNING AND FIND SOME ANSWERS FAST!

ps - this thread was worthwhile if only for Osirian exposing your inability to explain the a4B designation, in spite of your photo spamming.

It proves that you parrot Dienekes, and are otherwise clueless, just as we suspected.

posted 02 June 2005 12:44 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
A4b is described as "Bushmen-like", and Bushmen are not Negroes.

---

posted 02 June 2005 10:33 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

Interesting. Highlights the racial transition that took place in Africa during the Holocene. Are you sure you meant to post that? Because it kind of proves you wrong.

---

Thought Writes:

Using your same logic the neolithic Greeks would be unrelated to modern Greeks.

posted 02 June 2005 11:29 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

Using your same logic the neolithic Greeks would be unrelated to modern Greeks.

---

As we've pointed out before, as a practical matter the physical features in question: "broad nose and prognathous jaw" are shared by a number of African peoples, and ancient skeletal remains quite often do not exactly resemble Khoisan, Broad nor Elongated archtypes, nor would one expect them too:

Of interest from a South African blog regarding 60,000 year old remains at Border cave:

Question: Apparently there was a major find of prehistoric H. sapiens
fossils in South Africa within the last few years. These were discovered in a cave or cavern near the southern coast.
Can anyone offer fuller information concerning this find? How does it relate to similar early H. sapiens fossils found in
Europe or Asia? Can the fossils be distinguished by race?

Reply:
Race is not a term we like very much here in S.Africa , but some earlier
workers have attempted the old negroid vs khoisanoid game on the wee bits
available. Futile! We have no viable sample of specimens to speak of in
order to establish the range of variation of this early population for
comparison with similar modern stats. They can be said to be African.

Erroneous is none too clever, the 'old negroid vs. khoisanoid game' is what he will play for tomorrows [Futile!] response.

Null&Void pseudoscience makes Erroneous a dull boy.

posted 03 June 2005 07:45 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
"...one can identify Negroid (Ethiopic or Bushmanoid) traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters and in Anatolian and Macedonian firts farmers, probably FROM NUBIA..." Larry Angel

Your 'tactic' of pretending to not understand a clear sentense such as above is flawed. It makes you appear to be either a total liar, or extremely stupid...or both.

---

Your 'tactic' of misquoting clear sentences by adding a capital "N" to "negroid" is flawed. It makes you appear to be either a total liar, or extremely stupid...or both.

Bushmen are NOT Negroid:

"The San (Bushmen) in southern Africa are a group that physically looks quite different from other Negroids. Baker (1974), and Coon (1965) among others, have argued they are as different from Negroids as Caucasoids are, and should be treated as a separate race from other Negroids."

Dumb, drowning ape.

posted 03 June 2005 07:50 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Using your same logic the neolithic Greeks would be unrelated to modern Greeks.

---

posted 03 June 2005 07:55 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:

Come on erroneous, explain to me how this is not a Black african. Lost Greeks in Africa right? Come one I am waiting.

---

posted 03 June 2005 11:51 AM            

quote:

---

Erroneous' latest desperate plea:
That man, like all Bushmen today, is a mix of ancient Khoisanid and modern Negroid (Bantu) races.

---

quote:

---

but some earlier
workers have attempted the old negroid vs khoisanoid game on the wee bits
available. Futile!

---

Sorry lil' E, no one is buying it.

The reason that Erroneous is so pathetically predictable, is that his 'brain' such as it is, is a mixture of ancient Neanderthal and 'modern racist' sensibilities. Sorry Erroneous you'll need to do much better than that.

For the record
Carleton Coon is dead and discredited .

Dienekes is a pseudo and a fraud.

Erroneous (fanboy) Euro has no answers , for Larry Angel - Negroid....from Nubia.

After 5 months of floundering, his latest humiliation over his inability to explain a4B leaves him stuck at his usual:

posted 03 June 2005 12:58 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Your 'tactic' of misquoting clear sentences by adding a capital "N" to "negroid" is flawed. It makes you appear to be either a total liar, or extremely stupid...or both.

Bushmen are NOT Negroid:

"The San ([b]Bushmen) in southern Africa are a group that physically looks quite different from other Negroids. Baker (1974), and Coon (1965) among others, have argued they are as different from Negroids as Caucasoids are, and should be treated as a separate race from other Negroids."

Dumb, drowning ape.

[/B]

---

In 1974 and 1965 two white men published a report where they stated an opinion on the subjective racial classification of Bushmen.

**have argued they are as different from Negroids as Caucasoids are, and should be treated as a separate race from other Negroids.**

So according to your logic you believe that since 1965, Bushmen went from being classified as a completely separated race from Negroids to being 100% mixed in only 45 years?

Define Negroid phenotype and then define Sanoid and then show the difference. Or do you just believe whatever you read!

But then don't bother. Your response was not as entertaining as I hoped for. It was dull and repetitive. Same stupid stuff that has been refuted over and over again.

You still think that phenotype can be all explained by racial mixture rather than adapatation. That is you weak argument every time. Boring spawn of Cromagnon Neaderthal hybrids.

posted 03 June 2005 02:53 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:

Define Negroid phenotype and then define Sanoid and then show the difference. Or do you just believe whatever you read!

---

Be prepared to become a retired senior some day, and still never get an answer to that question. Questions not different from the one you are asking, have been asked thousands of times for about 5 months now.

posted 03 June 2005 03:14 PM            

quote:

---

Boring spawn of Cromagnon Neaderthal hybrids.

---

ROTFL! And Carletoon Coon whom Erroneous quotes actually DID CLAIM that Neanderthal was 'caucazoid'.

This is because back during the NAZI era, when he published his early race theories, the Europeans wanted man to begin in, well....Europe.

The problem is, that when modern man lived in Africa....Europe had nothing but primative Neanderthal caveman - so Coon tried to say that Neanderthal was the true ancester of modern whites.

Of course Coon is dismissed by modern anthropologists:
Carleton Coon was a racist, and his main claim is that five races of humans developed separately, without gene flow, so that they are basically five subspecies.

The polygenic aspects of Coon's theory were racist and widely recognized to be wrong (Dobzhansky 1963, 1968; Hulse 1963; Montagu 1963; Oschinsky 1963; Washburn 1963 [based on the presidential address at the AAA]).

- American Anthropologist (2003)

Intellectual Zombie's like Dienekes and his fanboy Erroneous who continue to quote Coon should be pitied and not hated.

They are like burnt out addicts or used up prostitutes, limping around trying to 'attract attention' and illiciting only revulsion instead.

posted 04 June 2005 07:31 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
his inability to explain a4B

---

Already been explained, monkey. Angel describes it as "almost Bushmen-like Basic White", which means it's neither Negroid nor even truly Bushmen, but simply primitive Caucasoid. Case closed.

Now, let's have some answers, slave boy . . .

quote:

---

• If Angel's "negroid nose and mouth traits" represent black racial admixture, then where are the other Negroid traits? Where's the Negroid hair type, skull shape, skeletal form, pigmentation etc.? Funny how these Nomadic Neolithic Niggas transmitted only two of their traits to the Levantines and Greeks. Funny also that in his more detailed analyses, Angel makes no mention of a Negroid racial strain in either Neolithic farmers or modern Greeks. Neither does Coon for that matter. Nor Brace. Any answers, Negroes?

• If Arnaiz-Villena's HLA-DRB1 study on Greek-Ethiopian affinities is anything more than junk science, then why has it been rejected by not one, not two, not three, but FOUR world-renowned geneticists? And why have its results never been duplicated by a single other genetic study -- even those conducted using the same HLA genes that Arnaiz-Villena analyzed? This is quite remarkable indeed, but I'm sure the Negroes have a very good explanation. We're all waiting to hear it.

---

posted 04 June 2005 07:39 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
So according to your logic you believe that since 1965, Bushmen went from being classified as a completely separated race from Negroids to being 100% mixed in only 45 years?

---

No, stupid. They remain distinct from Negroids despite some admixture. So you can imagine just how different pre-historic, unmixed Khoisanid types would have been from modern blacks.

quote:

---

Define Negroid phenotype and then define Sanoid and then show the difference.

---

I'm not an anthropologist. I don't have specific data on each group. But if anthropologists say they're significantly different, then they're significantly different. Period. And why shouldn't they be? Khoisanids are ancestral to all humans, not just Africans.

quote:

---

Or do you just believe whatever you read!

---

posted 04 June 2005 09:48 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Already been explained

---

Sorry Erroneous, your refusal to grasp the obvious does not constitute an explanation, but rather merely...a bad excuse.

quote:

---

which means it's neither Negroid nor even truly Bushmen, but simply primitive Caucasoid. Case closed.

---

Indeed, the case was closed long ago on admixture from Black Africa in Southern Europeans. You were found 'guilty as charged'. And the verdict still stands.

What you are trying to do is 'appeal the verdict'.

Sorry, not a chance, and you can spam all the irrelevant prison photos you like,

Answers from Angel, Keita, McCown, Ehret, Garrod and Furon:

Negroids from Nubia, (per Angel and McCown)...

further specified as "Ethiopic OR Bushmanoid", because the features....

present Negroid characteristics attributable to C R O S S B R E E D I N G - (Garrod and Furon.)...

and which denote the biological intrusion from Black Africa in Ancient Greeks and Western Asians (Ehret, Keita) and would be similiar in any case.

Of course Erroneous cannot debate Angel or Mccown, Garrod or Furon, Keita or Ehret, all of whom concur. He can only spam prison pin-ups which are completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.

This leaves Erroneous to pretend to be too stupid to understand the meaning of what any of the above scholars are saying.

But, who, other than Erroneous, wishes to imploy such and obtuse approach to argument?

No wonder Mike the Hellene abandoned him.

Erroneous E, the last Neanderthal, is one lonely idiot. Cheer up Erroneous, you'll always have Dienekes [afraid of his African blood] Pontikos.

KEEP SQUIRMING, Erroneous.

posted 04 June 2005 10:31 AM            

quote:

---

Erroneous writes: I'm not an anthropologist.

---

quote:

---

I don't have specific data on each group.

---

Nor do you have a chronology for your so-called race groups. Nor do you have definition of terms. Nor do you have the good sense to know when to quit making a fool of yourself.

"Don't have", should be your middle name.