posted 10 March 2005 07:48 AM            

• The Classic Mediterranean type B1 is a generalized Mediterranean, whereas B2 is the more angular form, as often found in Egypt. Types B3, more linear and "Classic" in Sergi's sense, and B4, with the long face, approximate the desert-belt Mediterranean in the range from North Africa and Siwah to Hissar and Kazakhstan.

  
  

  
  

• 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 Alpine type C1 is the typical Central European Alpine form, C2 a smaller trend of this, and C3 is the Upper Paleolithic to Mesolithic form (cf. Borreby). Type C4, short-faced but narrow-nosed and with an almost flat occiput, is an Eastern but not Armenoid form; and C3 is a low-headed and squat-faced version of C4, perhaps frequent in Hittites. These two may be pre-Armenoid.

  

  
  

• The Mixed-Alpine type E1 has the A3 form puffed out and more paedomorphic (cf. Alpine), whereas E2 is Nordic-Alpine and E3 Mediterranean Alpine.

  

[1] J. Lawrence Angel, The People of Lerna: Analysis of a Prehistoric Aegean Population. American School of Classical Studies, Athens, 1971, pp. 36-38.

posted 12 May 2005 03:20 PM            

quote:

---

Rasol posts: 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 predessors of the Badarians - Larry Angel

---

quote:

---

The People of Lerna
J.L. Angel

"Egypt includes an almost Mouillian-negroid early population, linear but with extraordinarily broad nose and heavy and deep mouth region, as well as the negroid small-faced and prognathous and broad-nosed trend in the gracile Badarians."

Thought Writes:

Angel goes on to state that these people migrated FROM Egypto-Nubia TO the Levant, Anatolia and Macedonia (Greece)

---

posted 12 May 2005 03:38 PM            

Plus, if Angel really thought the Classic Mediterranean type is Negroid in origin, he wouldn't have included it in his table of Caucasoid Morphological Types.

[This message has been edited by Mike the Hellene (edited 12 May 2005).]

posted 12 May 2005 04:41 PM            

quote:

---

I respect J.L. Angel, but the idea that the Classic Mediterraneans who migrated to Europe were Negroids just because they had a few negroid tendencies is pure speculation.

---

In order to refute Larry Angel's findings you need to understand what he was saying.

Larry Angel found that the populations that comprised Neolithic Greece were distinct from some other Europeans, and heterogeneous.

He concluded, that these peoples were

- partly descendant from Europeans,
- partly descendant from West Asians,
- and partly descendant from East Africans.

This is what he meant by "Negroid....from Nubia".

Although this finding was widely [if quietly] acknowledged and never refuted in physical anthropology, it was only genetics which provided exacting proof of the essentially correct skeletal findings.

Genetically - less than 50% of Greek Y chromosome [meaning paternal lineage] is actually of European origin - about 1/4 is of West Asian origin, and 1/4 is of Sub-saharan African origin.

So it is disingenous to claim that Angel was engaging in pure speculation.

Rather he developed a scientific hypothesis based on skeletal analysis, which was much later affirmed via genetics.

posted 13 May 2005 07:44 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike the Hellene
Plus, if Angel really thought the Classic Mediterranean type is Negroid in origin, he wouldn't have included it in his table of Caucasoid Morphological Types.

---

Angel actually attributes said traits to a Basic White type, which is also included in his Caucasoid table (obviously). These Afronuts are grasping at straws to credit their barbarian ancestors with Greek/Western civilization. They know this very well, as evidenced by their lack of answers to simple facts that contradict their fantasies. It's sad what envy and self-hatred will make some people do.

=========================

"For [African scholar Valentin] Mudimbe, Afrocentrism is sheer transference of an inferiority complex among today's African Americans." (Source)

posted 13 May 2005 10:08 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by kifaru:
Not trying to start a riot here but I would swear that these pictures are exactly like the ones used in Nazi race classification manuals.

---

lol.

The Ancient Greeks are heterogeneous....

quote:

---

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 predessors of the Badarians - Larry Angel

---

posted 13 May 2005 10:11 AM            

"Barbarians can neither think nor act rationally, theological controversies are Greek to them...Under the assault of their horrible songs the classic meter of the ancient poet goes to pieces...Barbarians are driven by evil spirits; "possessed by demons", who force them to commit the most terrible acts...incapable of living according to written laws and only reluctantly tolerating kings...Their lust for gold is immense, their love of drink boundless. Barbarians are without restraint... they are given to gross personal hygiene...They run dirty and barefoot, even in the winter...They grease their blond hair with butter and care not that it smells rancid...Their reproductive energy is inexhaustible; the Northern climate of their native land, with its long winter nights favors their fantastic urge to procreate...If a barbarian people is driven back or destroyed, another already emerges from the marshes and forests of Germany...Indeed, there are no new barbarian peoples--descendents of the same tribes keep appearing." - Herodotus.

Erroneous Euro and self hate:

Every other ethnic background seems to stand up for itself and demand respect when it is being discriminated against. If we look back over the history of this country we will find group after group that defend their rights. Groups that do not want to be portrayed in a negative light within the culture and groups that insist upon compensation for what Americans and the American society has done to them. Why, then, when we look at Italian Americans, do we tend to see a group of people who in effect renounce who they are and do not embrace their heritage?

There are many reasons for this quite common denouncement. The first is an attempt to assimilate. “By 1930, more than 4.5 million Italians had entered the United States,”; that is, a third of the population left Italy within the fifty years leading up to 1930 (Mangione 33). These Italians immigrated to this country with the hope that they would find food, jobs and financial security. Instead, they found, often times, worse conditions than they had left behind in Italy. This humungous population was the largest immigration from any one country to ever enter the United States. These people were in need and when they arrived they were ready to work and to earn their wages, which could lead to comfort and happiness. They came in hopes of finding “the American dream.” Unfortunately, they were met with opposition.

Irish Americans began to exclude Italian Americans and to state that they were not welcome within the doors of the Irish Catholic churches. The Irish having known English before immigrating to the United States, began to show the Italians that the first thing that made them different was the language barrier. Italians, for the most part spoke very little English and the English they did speak was broken. So, settling Italians started to encourage their children to speak English. Although, a majority of them could not speak English, they began to pride themselves in the knowledge that their children could.

Many Italian Americans began sending their children to Irish churches primarily so they could learn the English language. The Italians wanted to connect with other Catholics and believed that by introducing their children to the religion, they were helping develop moral and kind adults. But, the Irish would not have it. Being bitter at the new Italian immigrant population, they began to discriminate against the Italians. Soon, Italian immigrants believed that the Irish Catholics were simply money groveling, but they continued to attend the Irish Catholic churches. They did not want to, in any way, jeopardize their children’s chances of a relationship with God, so Italian parents continued to be supportive of Irish churches. In Mount Allegro by Jerre Mangione, there is a chapter entitled “God and the Sicilian”. In this chapter he speaks of his Sicilian family and their relationship with God. He talks of how the parents already have an “in “ with God and although they do not attend church, there was no doubt in he and his brother’s mind that his parents were devote Catholics. But, this family struggled with the Irish church their children attended. And, when it came time for the children to go to school, wanting the best for her children, Mrs. Mangione tried to enroll them in a parochial school but was quickly stopped by the racial hatred of the Irish priest who was in charge of the school. “But the Irish priest refused to enroll Joe along with me on the ground that he was not old enough to enter school . . . she [mom] marched us to the nearest public school, where she had no difficulty enrolling us” (Mangione 71). Events like this between the Italians and the Americans were so prevalent, Italians were ready to change to avoid them. Here is where their assimilation began.

Italian Americans began denouncing their culture and changing their culture to match and function within the context of the American society. They began hiding the fact that they were Italian and starting discouraging their children from the Italian ways. But, this rejection of their heritage started to create conflict within the children.

All of this stems from the self-hatred the immigrating population had regarding their culture, customs and roots. It is as though the emigrating generation tried so hard to assimilate, that they have accepted the Italian image as the entertainment world have created it only because they are so disconnected from what it really “could” be to be an Italian America.

This self-hatred is not acceptable and it has to change. The change can start by realizing that to be an Italian American is a privilege not a disgrace. That is not to say that Italian Americans are better than all other Americans, but it is to say that Italian Americans have just as much ability and worth as the next non-Italian American. Italian Americans can find this worth from their fellow Italian Americans who are and continue to succeed and persevere while being proud of being American and having Italian heritage.

One place where self-hatred manifests itself is in politics. Politically, Italian Americans feel embarrassed ( http://www.io.com/~segreta/about/preface.html ). This may come from Mussolini’s involvement with Hitler during World War II. But, this is no longer a reason to be ashamed of one’s heritage. Just like German Americans and Germans should not hate themselves because of the holocaust, neither should Italian Americans.

Instead, all Americans need to see what happened to Jewish people, recognize it is unacceptable and make sure nothing like it ever happens again. Instead, of being embarrassed about the mistakes Italy made politically, Italian Americans need to look at some of the leaders that are Italian American. Right now we have a huge number of politicians in office that are Italian Americans. Here is when Italian Americans need to be proud that their race has persevered through discrimination and is currently being elected to public office by the majority of their American peers.

So, if other people see the worth of Italian Americans, why don’t the Italian Americans themselves? And why don't Italian Americans unite to fight discrimination? This comes from a fear that they will be “discovered” as different. Italians tried to come to America and become one with Americans. So, currently, they do not stand up for what they believe they were and they do not believe that what they were relates to what they are today. Because Italian Americans did not feel as though they would ever be accepted they transformed themselves in order to be accepted. This change, over the last two generations, has caused a strange backlash. That is, instead of fighting against stereotypical and discriminatory actions, they tend to embrace them. As though Italian Americans do not want to reject them for fear that they may then be isolating themselves once again from the dominant culture. Take the show “The Sopranos” for instance. Why did so many Italian Americans try out to portray Italian Mafiosi?

posted 14 May 2005 07:46 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Erroneous Euro and self hate:

---

I'll just repost what I wrote when you first posted that nonsense two months ago. Maybe your inferior negro brain will be able to process it this time:

quote:

---

You reveal your own desperation and lack of critical reading skills with the material you choose to post. The author (an obvious leftist) wants us to believe (which you stupidly do) that Italian-Americans hate themselves simply because 1) they assimilated into American society like all other European immigrants before them, and 2) they think The Sopranos is a quality show and not "ethnic discrimination".

The article is PC tripe, just like everything else you mistake for insightful. Of course, Italians have a rich cultural heritage that they're proud of and secure in, which is why they can embrace America and handle stereotypes. Negroes, on the other hand, sadly don't, which is why they cling desperately to Afrocentrism.

---

posted 14 May 2005 09:19 AM            

quote:

---

I'll just repost....

---

Admixture in ancient Greece...

quote:

---

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 predessors of the Badarians - Larry Angel

---

what's taking so long?

posted 15 May 2005 07:57 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
....irrelevant babblings from past threads

---

Irrelevant babblings = factual information for which you had no answer then, and still have no answer now.

You also have yet to answer this:

"For [African scholar Valentin] Mudimbe, Afrocentrism is sheer transference of an inferiority complex among today's African Americans." (Source)

quote:

---

what's taking so long?

---

That's what I'd like to know . . .

• 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 15 May 2005 08:58 AM            

quote:

---

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 predessors of the Badarians - Larry Angel

---

what's taking so long?

posted 16 May 2005 07:34 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

Negroid traits

---

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?

quote:

---

FROM NUBIA

---

Population of Nubia up to the 16th Century BC

Aleksandra Pudlo, Anthropological Review, 1999

"Starting from the Late Neolithic...similarities between the Nubians and the populations of Northeast Africa...and Asia...became even more distinct, which may prove the existence of strong ties derived probably from influx of the Caucasoids from the regions of Levant, Mesopotamia, and India. They were coming to Nubia through the Sinai Peninsula, but probably also through the south Saudi Arabia. The Kerma series from Upper Nubia shows particular similarities to the present-day Indian series.

"From the Neolithic on, or possibly even earlier, the strategic location of Nubia, promoting contacts between various populations, started to bring about effects in the form of the civilizational development of this region. Finally, these two factors led to the Hamitisation process, whereby superimposition of the Caucasoids on the Negroids took place."

posted 16 May 2005 08:24 AM            

quote:

---

Fraud Erroneous quotes fringe Pudlo - "Hamitization process....

---

***************************************

MATED, DATED AND MOOTED ages ago, along with Carleton Coon and the rest of your Neanderthal arguments.

Meanwhile back in the 21st century....

quote:

---

We actually have DNA evidence which fits very well with an intrusion of people from northwestern African into southwestern Asia. The Y-chromosome markers, associated with the male, fade out as you go deeper into the Middle East......the idea of all this Egyptian influence on Greece is threatening to people who fear that it challenges Greek uniqueness and originality. - Ehret

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

---

Still no answers. What's taking so long?

posted 16 May 2005 02:07 PM            

quote:

---

Evil:
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.?

---

These are skeletal remains from the Neolithic. They are not mummies. Use brains for once!

posted 17 May 2005 07:38 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
Of all the ridiculous claims Evil has made, this takes the cake:

Evil:
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.?

These are skeletal remains from the Neolithic. They are not mummies. Use brains for once!

---

Not necessarily in the skeletons, moron. In general. Show me evidence of other "negroid traits" in Neolithics/Greeks that would justify treating those two isolated primitive traits (broad noses and prognathism) as indicators of Negro ancestry. You can't because none exist. Greeks are 100% Caucasoid, as proven by Angel, Coon, Brace etc., and countless genetic maps.

posted 17 May 2005 07:43 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

Meanwhile back in the 21st century....

---

Subracial Types of Neolithic Farmers:

"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."

The Six Morphological Types of Greeks:

1. Basic White (Type A)
2. Classic Mediterranean (Type B)
3. Nordic-Iranian (Type D)
4. Dinaric-Mediterranean (Type F)
5. Mixed Alpine (Type E)
6. Alpine (Type C)

Anthropology:

[ Neolithic Greeks are #7 -- right next to the Neolithic Swiss at #10 ]

Y-chromosomes:

Autosomes:

What's taking so long?

posted 17 May 2005 08:19 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
Of all the ridiculous claims Evil has made, this takes the cake:

These are skeletal remains from the Neolithic. They are not mummies. Use brains for once!

---

lol. He can't use what he doesn't have.

That's why when his obtuse question was answered in a previous thread, he had no response.

Yet like a retarded child, he 'forgets' the answer and repeats the question.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Posts:

HLA genes in Macedonians and the Sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks

A. Arnaiz-Villena et al.
Tissue Antigens
2001: 57: 118-127

"The conclusion is that part of the Greek genetic pool may be Sub-Saharan and that the admixture has occured at an uncertain but ancient time."

Thought Writes:

Semino, Sanchez, Underhill and Crucianni have all demonstrated that (as Rasol first stated) E3b spread FROM Sub-Saharan Africa TO Greece.

Thought Posts:

HLA genes in Macedonians and the Sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks

A. Arnaiz-Villena et al.
Tissue Antigens
2001: 57: 118-127

"Both the Oromo and Amharic peoples live in the Ethiopian mountains. They **OBVIOUSLY** have in common a genetic background with the west-African groups...."

Thought Writes:

A) Genetics indicate that E3a and E3b are both subclades of the common East African derived PN2/E3 clade AFTER the OOA Movement and BEFORE the LGM.

B) In that West and East Africans derive from a common source (E3/PN2) East and West Africans have shared derived traits.

Thought Posts:

HLA genes in Macedonians and the Sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks

A. Arnaiz-Villena et al.
Tissue Antigens
2001: 57: 118-127

"Thus, it is hypothesized that there could have been a migration FROM southern **SAHARA** which mixed with ancient Greeks to give rise to a part of the present day Greek genetic background."

Thought Posts:

http://www.geocities.com/juanjosecastillos/english.html

S. di Lernia, M. Cremaschi and F. Merighi,

Hunter-gatherers of the Central Sahara: a reassessment

"The pottery found includes many sherds that were decorated with incised geometrical motifs and is among the oldest in North Africa (9 to 10,000 BC). The few human remains found seem to have affinities (gene pool) with sub-Saharan populations."

---

quote:

---

Rasol writes: Good points.

Erroneous is whipped and behaving accordingly:

* attempt to change subject of this thread.

* tries to run away by starting a different thread in hopes of getting fresh start for his rotty old garbage.

* refuse to reply to on-topic posts, though i can't blame him, what with the beating he's taking.

---

Erroneous flight response:

quote:

---

If Angel's "negroid nose and mouth traits" represent black admixture....

---

quote:

---

Erroneous writes: then where are the other Negroid traits?

---

So why are you asking a question about hypothetical racial archtypes when -

"Racialists models which imply non-overlapping gene pools, are clearly negated by Professor Angel's work." - Keita.

quote:

---

Erroneous writes: Where's the Negroid hair type... pigmentation etc.?

---

Answer: Angel is assessing skeletal remains, not pigment and hair.

"Negroid... from Nubia" (L. Angel)... remains unaddressed via your usual troll-bag of red herrings, non-sequiturs, strawman and race baiting rhetoric, as in...

quote:

---

Erroneous blathers: Funny how these Nomadic Neolithic Niggas

---

quote:

---

Erroneous writes: transmitted only two of their traits to the Levantines and Greeks

---

quote:

---

rasol wrote:
You mean these traits (?)....

Pete Sampras.

Prince Bandar.

Yes, and?

What's really funny is that the way you are implicitly admitting the truth, in spite of yourself.

---

Erroneous had no answer then only deafening silence. Who other than Erroneous is so stupid as to require such repettition?

What's taking so long?

posted 18 May 2005 07:41 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Yet like a retarded child, he 'forgets' the answer and repeats the question.

---

And like a retarded negro (that's redundant), you "forget" to address 95% of the questions and "answer" the rest by reposting old, discredited nonsense.

Unrefuted and awaiting answers:

quote:

---

Angel's Neolithic Types:

"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."

Angel's Greek Types:

1. Basic White (Type A)
2. Classic Mediterranean (Type B)
3. Nordic-Iranian (Type D)
4. Dinaric-Mediterranean (Type F)
5. Mixed Alpine (Type E)
6. Alpine (Type C)

On "negroid traits":

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?

On HLA-DRB1 Fraud:

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.

On Nubians:

"Starting from the Late Neolithic...similarities between the Nubians and the populations of Northeast Africa...and Asia...became even more distinct, which may prove the existence of strong ties derived probably from influx of the Caucasoids from the regions of Levant, Mesopotamia, and India. They were coming to Nubia through the Sinai Peninsula, but probably also through the south Saudi Arabia. The Kerma series from Upper Nubia shows particular similarities to the present-day Indian series.

"From the Neolithic on, or possibly even earlier, the strategic location of Nubia, promoting contacts between various populations, started to bring about effects in the form of the civilizational development of this region. Finally, these two factors led to the Hamitisation process, whereby superimposition of the Caucasoids on the Negroids took place."

On the Oromo:

"The genetic distance analysis showed the separation between African and non-African populations, with the Amhara and Oromo located in an intermediate position."

"...the Oromo and Amhara appear quite similar to Europoids (particularly to the South Arabians) and considerably different from the Negritic peoples."

Anthropology:

[ Neolithic Greeks are #7 -- right next to the Neolithic Swiss at #10 ]

Y-chromosomes:

Autosomes:

---

posted 18 May 2005 07:47 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

[b]What - is - taking - so - long - ape?[/B]

---

LOL at you again idiot, almost four years in posting and you still can't a coherent debate? You're spamming studies continually and the sad part about it is that they conflict with each other in a number cases. Spamming studies and graphs and continually begging the question isn't a debate its trolling. I always wondered why you rarely made an appearance on your own message board and I see why, your lame attempts at debate are laughable.

posted 19 May 2005 07:53 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:
LOL at you again idiot, almost four years in posting and you still can't a coherent debate? You're spamming studies continually and the sad part about it is that they conflict with each other in a number cases. Spamming studies and graphs and continually begging the question isn't a debate its trolling. I always wondered why you rarely made an appearance on your own message board and I see why, your lame attempts at debate are laughable.

---

posted 19 May 2005 08:44 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Errronoues E:
[b]Translation......

---

What's taking so long?

posted 19 May 2005 04:38 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike the Hellene:
I respect J.L. Angel, but the idea that the Classic Mediterraneans who migrated to Europe were Negroids just because they had a few negroid tendencies is pure speculation. I mean, if Negroids can have thin noses and Caucasian features and still be Negroid like you guys almost religiously are more than happy to state, then why can't Caucasians have some prognathy and broader noses and still be Caucasian? That's a double standard. You could say that the Irish Brunn, a type that is known for being slightly prognathous, is Negroid, too, but I seriously hope you wouldn't go that far.

Plus, if Angel really thought the Classic Mediterranean type is Negroid in origin, he wouldn't have included it in his table of Caucasoid Morphological Types.

[This message has been edited by Mike the Hellene (edited 12 May 2005).]

[This message has been edited by Mike the Hellene (edited 12 May 2005).]

---

The point is that the curent racial classification system is not workable. Apparently racist cro-magnon people want it to work both ways. They readily claim Black people who have one or two White features as White because of those features, but then want to claim Europeans who have black features as white as well.

The same arguement that Evil E is making I could make for Ancient Egyptians. Besides the European nose (which plenty of Ethiopians and Somalians have) which is probably just a throwback to primitive phenotypes, what other features does the reconstruction of Tut have in common with Caucausians? Apparently it has an African cranial shape, etc, etc. Seems to me it has more features related to Black Africans than White Europeans. So good point Mike. The original Greeks were actually Negroid and the original Egyptians were actually White. Makes perfect sense to me!

posted 19 May 2005 04:54 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:

They readily claim Black people who have one or two White features as White because of those features, but then want to claim Europeans who have black features as white as well.

---

Thought Writes:

Which Black people have "White Features"?

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:

Besides the European nose (which plenty of Ethiopians and Somalians have) which is probably just a throwback to primitive phenotypes

---

Thought Writes:

Huh?

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:

I say let the Europeans keep their black Greeks white and Africans keep white Egyptians black.

---

Thought Writes:

Your missing the point. The issue is PRIMARY origins. Most humans have some degree of exotic gene flow.

posted 19 May 2005 05:28 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

Your missing the point. The issue is PRIMARY origins. Most humans have some degree of exotic gene flow.

---

I am being sarcastic and cynical! Don't take me serious.

posted 19 May 2005 05:50 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:

My point is that several Cro-magnons in this forum have refused to accept Negroid features in Greeks to be proof of admixture but readily accept traces of similarities of Cro-magnon features with that of advance societies in Africa.

---

Thought Writes:

Osirion, I believe that your intentions are in the right place. However, the term 'Negroid' predates modern thinking in biological anthropology. The term 'Negroid' is a racial construct, hence it is based upon the fallacious premise that how one looks unequivocally establishes lineage and hence 'race'. I am not certain that there is one Cro-magnon phenotype are you?

posted 19 May 2005 09:26 PM            

Isnt e3b east african in origin....???

posted 19 May 2005 10:33 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by mali:

Isnt e3b east african in origin....???

i dont see what Evil Euro..trying to connect here ???

---

Mr Evil is trying hard to convinve himself that E3b is of "Middle Eastern" origin so that he can have "pure" Greeks without gene flow from Africa. Tsk...tsk... he huffs and puffs and makes a pathetic attempt at "ethnic slurs" but still no substance! Where are those 'Late Stone Age' Caucasoids of East Africa you mentioned? His tactic is to use Ehtiopians and other E3b-haplogroup related populations as Trojan horses for his 'ancient Caucasoid' presence in Africa.
In a study that analyses DNA of the modern Israeli population including Ethiopian Jews, posted by Topdog on another thread, Mr Evil has been thrashed once again. Basically you can't separate E3b Africans from other Africans.

quote:

---

Africans and non-Africans form two distinct clusters.
This is consistent with a small number of Africans having
founded the expansion into Eurasia. Sub-Saharan Africans belong generally to Y-haplogroups A, B, and E (Emphasis mine)
[Cruciani et al., 2002; Semino et al., 2002], and mtDNA
haplogroups L0–L3 [Salas et al., 2002; Mishmar et al.,
2003].

---

Needless to say E3b is a subhaplogroup of E and it (E3b) is thought to be of Eastern African origin.

[This message has been edited by YuhiVII (edited 19 May 2005).]

posted 20 May 2005 12:07 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

Osirion, I believe that your intentions are in the right place. However, the term 'Negroid' predates modern thinking in biological anthropology. The term 'Negroid' is a racial construct, hence it is based upon the fallacious premise that how one looks unequivocally establishes lineage and hence 'race'. I am not certain that there is one Cro-magnon phenotype are you?

[This message has been edited by Thought2 (edited 19 May 2005).]

---

Actually, this thread was about Negroid features in Bushman-like Basic Whites. Which by the way, the picture used by Erroneous is of modern day Basic Whites and not reconstructions or pictures of the Bushman-like Basic Whites. So to use the pictures of modern Whites is just a Red Herring. Besides, Angel qualified Basic White with Bushman-like and the pictures are not of "Bushman-like" Basic Whites (if he can argue that negroid doesn't mean Negroid because the 'n' isn't capatilized, I will certainly stand firm on the lack of the modifier "Bushman-like" in his examples). Besides, none of the pictures shown are examples of anyone who has a broad tropically adapted nose or a protrusive mouth.

However, with that said, I do think the term Cro-magnoid is valid since it denotes lineage to Cro-magnon man which is a Northern European "Adam". But as you know, phenotypes overlap and thus it is confusing to discuss features.

posted 20 May 2005 08:05 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
Angel qualified Basic White with Bushman-like and the pictures are not of "Bushman-like" Basic Whites [...] none of the pictures shown are examples of anyone who has a broad tropically adapted nose or a protrusive mouth.

---

Here are Angel's full descriptions and plates of the various Basic White types (probable "negroid nose and mouth traits" are in bold):

"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 20 May 2005 11:38 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Here are Angel's full descriptions and plates of the various Basic White types (probable "negroid nose and mouth traits" are in bold):

"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."

Where's the "Black African" racial influence? I don't see it, and neither does Angel.[/B]

---

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.
http://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html

posted 20 May 2005 11:57 AM            

quote:

---

Actually, this thread was about Negroid features in Bushman-like Basic Whites. Which by the way, the picture used by Erroneous is of modern day Basic Whites and not reconstructions

---

Osirion, yes, we know all this.

fyi: Erroneous has been spamming the same garbage for 4 months. He's had a couple dozen people correct his garbage by now.

He just reposts and waits for someone new [like yourself] to come by and start the same boring conversation over and over again.

This thread: http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/001288.html alone has several hundred replies dedicated to this issue.

posted 20 May 2005 01:01 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Osirion, yes, we know all this.

fyi: Erroneous has been spamming the same garbage for 4 months. He's had a couple dozen people correct his garbage by now.

He just reposts and waits for someone new [like yourself] to come by and start the same boring conversation over and over again.

This thread: http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/001288.html alone has several hundred replies dedicated to this issue.

I'm just trying to save you some time.

---

Yes but without him this forum would be rather boring. He does force those that present a more African origin of civilization to do more research and backup their claims. However, if I was going to argue against a Black origin of civilization, I could do a way better job than bias racist idealism.

Personally, I think we owe the origins of Western Civilization to a more obscure, oppressed, and often overlooked source that is right in front of our eyes: The Jews. One of those overlap people (neither truly White or Black: ha ha ha - look at the Lembas).

Nope, I like Erroneous's input. It is refreshing to see the direction RACISM is going and how it is having to adapt to new evidence.

posted 20 May 2005 04:57 PM            

quote:

---

House of Cards (and its all falling down).

---

No, actually it was destroyed long ago.

In spite of your good intentions, you are only helping him resurrect a dead horse, under the guise of beating it.

He is just cutting and pasting old junk, and waiting for a 'sucker' to come along and entertain his ridiculous arguments.

However, as long as you know that's the case....feel free.

posted 20 May 2005 05:29 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
No, actually it was destroyed long ago.

In spite of your good intentions, you are only helping him resurrect a dead horse, under the guise of beating it.

He is just cutting and pasting old junk, and waiting for a 'sucker' to come along and entertain his ridiculous arguments.

However, as long as you know that's the case....feel free.

Personally, if I see any more pics of Erroneous Greek prison pinups, I'm going to barf.

---

posted 21 May 2005 07:40 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
I have shown these pictures to my Korean wife

---

Yes, I'm sure her opinion is very valuable.

quote:

---

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.

---

According to the text, the individual in Plate 'u' exhibits what Angel considers to be a "wide nose":

quote:

---

Picture X actually likes non-White but has a thin nose, if the nose was wider I would certainly say he was Negroid.

---

You think this looks Negroid?

quote:

---

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".

---

The plates represent ALL of the Basic White types. Their "negroid" and "Bushman-like" features are present, as I demonstrated. Not quite what you had in mind, huh?

quote:

---

In otherwards, you show me someone classifying Viking skelatal remains as Bushman-like with some negroid features and I concede the debate to you.

---

posted 21 May 2005 07:44 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
He is just cutting and pasting...

---

...scientific material for which you had no answers then, and still have no answers now.

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 21 May 2005 05:44 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Coon described certain Paleolithic Northern Europeans as "mongoloid", simply because they had broad faces, and not because of any Mongoloid admixture.

---

No one in any of these pictures are described as having "negroid features probably from Nubia". To say that these pictures represent "ALL" of the Basic Whites is very unscientific statistically.

Actually, a negroid Basic White is much more like Babe Ruth:
http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/hofer_bios/images/ruth_babe_4.jpg

So is Babe Ruth's features represented by any of these pictures you keep spamming the forum with.

Some how Angel failed to classify the features of Mick Jagger:
http://www.altmanphoto.com/mick.jpeg

And lets not forget about our good buddy Gene Simmons:
http://www.smgfan.com/promo/sd_images/16gsimmons.jpg

Damn, I just don't see these guys represented by your great sample of the White Race.

Silly Rabbit, tricks are for kids!

posted 21 May 2005 08:53 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
In order to refute Larry Angel's findings you need to understand what he was saying.

---

A person with the most basic english comprehension, will not be confused by this:

This is what he meant by "Negroid....from Nubia".

Angel:
"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 predecessors of the Badarians and Tasians.…".

Or this, from yet another observer:

The caves of Erg-el-Ahmar......produced 132 individuals for Miss Garrod. All these Natufians share the same physical type, completely different from that of earlier Palestinians. They are short, about 160 cm. and dolichocephalic. They were probably Cro-Magnoid Mediterraneans, presenting certain Negroid characteristics attributable to crossbreeding... - Courtesy of Raymond Furon.

Mr. Angel didn't simply mention the so-called “Basic whites”, but in fact, a hybrid or a crossbred group! Another description Angel gave to these hybrids, was Bushman-like Basic-Whites. Now of course, some distorters might have tried to dismiss Angel and others’ claim (unsuccessful attempts at this, has already taken place here and elsewhere) about these cross-bred folks, had it not been for overwhelming 'in-your-face' evidence of recent sub-Saharan lineages in southern Europe, particularly as one goes eastward, where Greece lies.

posted 22 May 2005 04:30 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:

A person with the most basic english comprehension, will not be confused by this:

This is what he meant by "[b]Negroid....from Nubia".

Angel:
"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 predecessors of the Badarians and Tasians.…".

Or this, from yet another observer:

The caves of Erg-el-Ahmar......produced 132 individuals for Miss Garrod. All these Natufians share the same physical type, completely different from that of earlier Palestinians. They are short, about 160 cm. and dolichocephalic. They were probably Cro-Magnoid Mediterraneans, presenting certain Negroid characteristics attributable to crossbreeding... - Courtesy of Raymond Furon.

Mr. Angel didn't simply mention the so-called “Basic whites”, but in fact, a hybrid or a crossbred group! Another description Angel gave to these hybrids, was Bushman-like Basic-Whites. Now of course, some distorters might have tried to dismiss Angel and others’ claim (unsuccessful attempts at this, has already taken place here and elsewhere) about these cross-bred folks, had it not been for overwhelming 'in-your-face' evidence of recent sub-Saharan lineages in southern Europe, particularly as one goes eastward, where Greece lies.

[/B]

---

Thought Writes:

And of course the skeletal data Angel presented and the genetic data Underhill, Luis, Crucianni and Sanchez have recently presented are supported by the archaeological data of Ofer Bar-Yosef:

Pleistocene connexions between Africa and Southwest Asia: an archaeological perspective

The African Archaeological Review
5(1987) pg 29-38

"An abrubt climatic change around 13,000 - 12,500 B.P. caused considerable shifts in territories and the emergence of the Natufian culture; this was the result of population pressure and the need to re-orient adaptive strategies. The presence of the Mushabian in the deserts around the Mediterranean Levant may have been a prime factor in creating this situation. Thus the population overflow FROM Northeast Africa played a definite role in the establishment of the natufian adaptation, which in turn led to the emergence of agriculture as a new subsistence system."

posted 22 May 2005 09:58 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

And of course the skeletal data Angel presented and the genetic data Underhill, Luis, Crucianni and Sanchez have recently presented are supported by the archaeological data of Ofer Bar-Yosef:

Pleistocene connexions between Africa and Southwest Asia: an archaeological perspective

The African Archaeological Review
5(1987) pg 29-38

"An abrubt climatic change around 13,000 - 12,500 B.P. caused considerable shifts in territories and the emergence of the Natufian culture; this was the result of population pressure and the need to re-orient adaptive strategies. The presence of the Mushabian in the deserts around the Mediterranean Levant may have been a prime factor in creating this situation. Thus the population overflow FROM Northeast Africa played a definite role in the establishment of the natufian adaptation, which in turn led to the emergence of agriculture as a new subsistence system."

---

Where are Erroneous E's answers? Notice how he carefully avoided these last two posts, what an idiot.

posted 23 May 2005 08:13 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
Mr. Angel didn't simply mention the so-called “Basic whites”, but in fact, a hybrid or a crossbred group! Another description Angel gave to these hybrids, was Bushman-like Basic-Whites.

---

Here is the exact quote from Angel:

"...the eastern end of this belt (McGown, 1939; Vallois, 1936), shows some 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.

posted 23 May 2005 01:07 PM            

I call that "Bigotry". Bigotry is a mental disorder and what you need is someone with far more expertise than I to help remedy your dislusional ideas. Though I do agree with you on some points, such as the Afrocentrics do appear to have the same kind of dislusional ideas as you: for example, some say that Beethoven is black! However, the Afrocentric mindset comes from racism being applied to them; such as the 1 drop rule of black blood. So, Afrocentrics are using racist concepts as an arguement against racist (fight fire with fire). Basically the result is more insanity.

We get: black Cleopetras, black Hannibals, black Beethovens, and etc. Consequently we have Afro-nuts, as you so nicely put it. However, this is based on the same idealogies you have: that RACE can be clearly defined by some clear line. Problem is that its a gradient where one has to make an arbitrary social distinction that often is more political than reasonable.

This is why Egypt's race is such a hotly debated subject, its because it doesn't fall into our social construct of RACE as it is defined in America. Egypt is a geographical region and those that live there are called Egyption. They cannot be described as a race any more than Mexican or American is a race. It wasn't a homogenous domain like Northern European Cro-magnon descendants were. So to say that people from North Africa are Caucausian is plain wrong and is based on racist ideas that are unfortunately political in nature.

Draw the race line whereever you want, you will not be able to exclude Black people from the origins of Western Civilization. The same is true the other way around.

posted 24 May 2005 02:03 AM            

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 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.

---

I hereby re-open the case with this, which is no doubt written in plane english:

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 predessors of the Badarians and Tasians - Larry Angel

Now, we can close the case!