August 15, 2008 In the Sahara, Stone Age Graves From Greener Days By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD When Paul C. Sereno went hunting dinosaur bones in the Sahara, his career took a sharp turn from paleontology to archaeology. The expedition found what has proved to be the largest known graveyard of Stone Age people who lived there when the desert was green.
The first traces of pottery, stone tools and human skeletons were discovered eight years ago at a site in the southern Sahara, in Niger. After preliminary research, Dr. Sereno, a University of Chicago scientist who had previously uncovered remains of the dinosaur Nigersaurus there, organized an international team of archaeologists to investigate what had been a lakeside hunting and fishing settlement for the better part of 5,000 years, originating some 10,000 years ago.
In its first comprehensive report, published Thursday, the team described finding some 200 graves belonging to two successive populations. Some burials were accompanied by pottery and ivory ornaments. A girl was buried wearing a bracelet carved from a hippo tusk. A man was interred seated on the carapace of a turtle.
The most poignant scene was the triple burial of a petite woman lying on her side, facing two young children. The slender arms of the children reached out to the woman in an everlasting embrace. Pollen indicated that flowers had decorated the grave.
The sun-baked dunes at the site known as Gobero preserve the earliest and largest Stone Age cemetery in the Sahara, Dr. Sereno’s group reported in the current issue of the online journal PLoS One. The findings, the researchers wrote, open “a new window on the funerary practices, distinctive skeletal anatomy, health and diet of early hunter-fisher-gatherers, who expanded into the Sahara when climatic conditions were favorable.”
The research was also described at a news conference in Washington at the National Geographic Society, a supporter of the project.
The initial inhabitants at Gobero, the Kiffian culture, were tall hunters of wild game who also fished with harpoons carved from animal bone. Later, a more lightly built people, the Tenerians, lived there, hunting, fishing and herding cattle. An examination of their fossilized skeletons indicated that both cultures lived and ate relatively well.
Other scientists said the discovery appeared to be spectacular evidence that nothing, not even the arid expanse of the Sahara, is changeless. About 100 million years ago, this land was forested and occupied by dinosaurs and enormous crocodiles. By 50,000 years ago, people moved in and left stone tools and mounds of shells, fish bones and other refuse. The lakes dried up in the last Ice Age.
Then the rains and lakes of a fecund Sahara returned some 12,000 years ago, and remained, except for one 1,000-year interval, until about 4,500 years ago. Geologists have long known that the region’s basins retained mineral residue of former lakes, and other explorers have found scatterings of human artifacts from that time, as Dr. Sereno did at Gobero in 2000.
“Everywhere you turned, there were bones belonging to animals that don’t live in the desert,” he said. “I realized we were in the green Sahara.”
Human skeletons were eroding from the dunes, jawbones with nearly full sets of teeth and finger bones of a tiny hand pointing up from the sand. Dr. Sereno said that the skeptical reaction of archaeologists to his original reports prevented him from securing support for intensive explorations of the site until 2005 and 2006.
From an analysis of the skeletons and pottery in those two seasons, scientists identified the two successive cultures that occupied the settlement. The Kiffians, some of whom stood up to six feet tall, both men and women, lived there during the Sahara’s wettest period, between 10,000 and 8,000 years ago. They were primarily hunter-gatherers who speared huge lake perch with harpoons.
Elena A. A. Garcea, an archaeologist at the University of Cassino in Italy, identified ceramics with wavy lines and zigzag patterns as Kiffian, a culture associated with northern Africa. Pots bearing a pointillistic pattern were linked to the Tenerians, a people named for the Ténéré Desert, a stretch of the Sahara known to Tuareg nomads as a “desert within a desert.”
Christopher M. Stojanowski, an archaeologist at Arizona State University, said the two cultures were “biologically distinct groups.” The bones and teeth showed that in contrast to the robust Kiffians, the Tenerians were typically short and lean and apparently led less rigorous lives. Perhaps, Dr. Stojanowski said, they had developed more advanced hunting technologies for taking smaller fish and game.
The shapes of the Tenerian skulls are puzzling, researchers said, because they resemble those of Mediterranean people, not other groups from the southern Sahara.
Dr. Sereno said in an interview that both cultures, the Tenerians in particular, appeared to have settled into semi-sedentary lives in a more or less year-round community. Families, he said, are not usually part of mobile hunting parties, and yet many of the burials at the site are of juveniles. The abundant refuse mounds also attested to long-term occupation.
Asked if he had adjusted to the transition from dinosaur paleontology to Stone Age archaeology, Dr. Sereno said, “It’s still weird for me to be digging up my own species.”
Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote: "The shapes of the Tenerian skulls are puzzling, researchers said, because they resemble those of Mediterranean people, not other groups from the southern Sahara."
^^^^^As I read, I knew there was going to be some kind of outrageous interpretation of the skulls disconnecting them from Africa.
^^^Here we go again..... I searched Tenerian, and this is what pops up first.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: As I read, I knew there was going to be some kind of outrageous interpretation of the skulls disconnecting them from Africa.
Funny how the description of "Mediterranean" can somehow 'disconnect' them from Africa considering that the Mediterranean sea borders Northern Africa. Then again...
^^^Here we go again..... I searched Tenerian, and this is what pops up first.
Well I tend to ignore anything Dienekes posts as well, just shameless lies. Getting back to the issue, considering the tenacious and ridiculous history of the label "Mediterranean" in past Western physical anthropology applied to peoples from southern Europeans, to East Africans, to Indians, to Polynesians... I don't see how there can be any confusion unless one wishes to continue the psuedo-racial terms of 19th century Western anthropology.
As such, one just has to ask what the heck does this 'expert' mean by "Mediterranean"?? Exactly what features is he speaking of, and how 'unique' are they to Africans??
Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Well I tend to ignore anything Dienekes posts as well, just shameless lies. Getting back to the issue, considering the tenacious and ridiculous history of the label "Mediterranean" in past Western physical anthropology applied to peoples from southern Europeans, to East Africans, to Indians, to Polynesians...
True, thats what I mean, but it's 2008, and anthropologists are still making bogus Mediterranean claims? I mean, when will this nonsense end...
quote:As such, one just has to ask what the heck does this 'expert' mean by "Mediterranean"?? Exactly what features is he speaking of, and how 'unique' are they to Africans??
Exactly, I can't wait to see the actual anthropology results.
Posted by Boofer (Member # 15638) on :
I wonder, if by "Southern Saharan" do they mean folks of the Sahel which is truely Southern Saharan, or do they mean folks south of the Sahara completely? I've heard that many people of the sahel region have skulls that would have been classified as "Caucasiod" under those archaic terms. I also wonder if they anthropologists can distinguish Sahelian peoples from Mediterranean people.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ By 'Southern Sahara' they mean the southern part of the modern day Sahara desert itself specifically around northern Niger.
By the way, this whole "Mediterranean" thing reminds me...
quote:Originally cited by Charlie Bass:
The Cambridge History of Africa (Hardcover) by J. D. Fage (Editor) Cambridge University Press (March 30, 1979) p.69
Skeletal remains from the Kenya Rift previously considered as 'Afro-Mediterranean' or 'Caucasoid' have now been shown to group with African Negro samples. They date within the first millennium BC and, on physical characteristics, it is suggested that they may be of proto-Nilotic stock. But it is necessary to also make comparisons with Cushitic speakers, since burials found recently in association with a Kenya Capsian-like industry from Lake Besaka in the Ethiopian Rift, dating probably to c. 5000 BC, also show negroid features, and linguistic evidence indicates long history for Cushitic in Ethiopia.
One can't help but think this is the same situation here.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
You know its a lie when scientists start throwing around terms like "puzzling" or "startling". That should be an IMMEDIATE alert to anyone that what follows is pure Bull Sh*t. Rather than say we haven't fully analyzed the relationships between such skulls and skulls from other populations in a similar area over the same time period, they are just pulling stuff out their behinds. And they know it, because they did not even NAME what group of so called "mediterranean" skulls they were similar to. Not to mention the fact that they don't even describe why skulls can be classified as "Mediterranean" in the first place, as I doubt that the populations AROUND the Mediterranean have similar skeletal morphologies. So what makes Mediterranean a more significant geographical marker than African, considering that these skulls are found QUITE A LONG WAY from the Mediterranean to begin with? And on top of that, why don't they even identify it with NIGER as opposed to simply "Saharan" as if the Sahara is more significant than the presence of NIGER as a country?
quote: The shapes of the Tenerian skulls are puzzling, researchers said, because they resemble those of Mediterranean people, not other groups from the southern Sahara.
Only a fool would even pretend to believe that the people smack dab in the middle of Niger 10,000 years ago were anything other than black Africans.
And, bottom line, anyone who is still questioning why this is still going on just need to examine their heads. Whites scientists WILL ALWAYS pretend that WHITE SKIN is the MOST SIGNIFICANT development in human evolution ever. They HAVE to because that is what their WHOLE WORLD VIEW is based on.
I mean the very idea that someone would be SHOCKED by finding stone tools and arrows in Africa, where humans have been practicing a hunter and gathering lifestyle for HUNDREDS of thousands, if not millions of years is absolutely ridiculous.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Apocalypse: Text from above link
August 15, 2008 In the Sahara, Stone Age Graves From Greener Days By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD
"The shapes of the Tenerian skulls are puzzling, researchers said, because they resemble those of Mediterranean people, not other groups from the southern Sahara."
Evergreen Writes:
Below you will find a description of these Mediterraneans from the peer-reviewed paper itself.
Evergreen Posts:
PLoS ONE August 2008 3(8)
Lakeside Cemeteries in the Sahara: 5000 Years of Holocene Population and Environmental Change
Paul C. Sereno et al
"Their crania are long, high and narrow, and their faces are taller with considerable alveolar prognathism."
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Of course, but again we have to remember that even prehistoric skulls found as far south as Kenya and Tanzania have been described as having those same features and also labeled as "Mediterranean". So hopefully, and I do mean placing my hope in today's anthropology that this error would be corrected, and these skulls will be identified as the indigenous Africans that they are.
Speaking of which, this reminds me of past threads where we've discussed the anthropological landscape of prehistoric North Africa, namely those of the 'Oranian' or 'Metchtoid' types.
Hopefully Takruri can dig up one or more of those past threads for us.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
"Their crania are long, high and narrow, and their faces are taller with considerable alveolar prognathism."
^ Speaks for itself.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: "Their crania are long, high and narrow, and their faces are taller with considerable alveolar prognathism."
^ Speaks for itself.
Evergreen Writes:
Indeed. As we read between the lines we see that this clearly African type was common in the Mediterranean during this timeframe. This is consistent with the remains found in Natufian graves as well as the early neolithic of Greece and Anatolia. This is also consistent with the genetic and linguistic record.
Evergreen Posts:
Mitochondrial DNA variation in Jordanians and their genetic relationship to other Middle East populations.
Ann Hum Biol. 2008 Mar-Apr;35(2):212-31
Gonzalez et. al.
BACKGROUND: The Levant is a crucial region in understanding human migrations between Africa and Eurasia. Although some mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) studies have been carried out in this region, they have not included the Jordan area. This paper deals with the mtDNA composition of two Jordan populations. AIM: The main objectives of this article are: first, to report mtDNA sequences of an urban and an isolate sample from Jordan and, second, to compare them with each other and with other nearby populations. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The analyses are based on HVSI and HVSII mtDNA sequences and diagnostic RFLPs to unequivocally classify into haplogroups 101 Amman and 44 Dead Sea unrelated individuals from Jordan. RESULTS: Statistical analysis revealed that, whereas the sample from Amman did not significantly differ from their Levantine neighbours, the Dead Sea sample clearly behaved as a genetic outlier in the region. Its outstanding Eurasian haplogroup U3 frequency (39%) and its south-Saharan Africa lineages (19%) are the highest in the Middle East. On the contrary, the lack ((preHV)1) or comparatively low frequency (J and T) of Neolithic lineages is also striking.
Posted by Ausàrian (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
"Their crania are long, high and narrow, and their faces are taller with considerable alveolar prognathism."
^ Speaks for itself.
And this would still hold true, even if there were no alveolar prognathism.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: "Their crania are long, high and narrow, and their faces are taller with considerable alveolar prognathism."
^ Speaks for itself.
Again such traits were found in prehistoric remains of people as far south as Tanzania and are still common among populations there today. There goes your "Mediterranean" for ya. LOL Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote: Speaking of which, this reminds me of past threads where we've discussed the anthropological landscape of prehistoric North Africa, namely those of the 'Oranian' or 'Metchtoid' types.
Hopefully Takruri can dig up one or more of those past threads for us.
Two out of many threads from Debunked/Evil E making an ass out of himself. Maybe he'll read how dumb he was then, and realize he's still the same idiot today.
^ The majority of the polymorphisms found in our species are found uniquely in Africans.
Europeans, Asians and Native Americans carry only a small amount of the diversity that can be found in any African village. - Geneticist Spencer Wells.
Debunked wishes for and opposite reality in which the AFrican genepool would be mostly non-African.
Again geneticists debunk his backwards thinking.
Posted by Charlie Bass (Member # 10328) on :
Below you will find Carleton Coon's definition of the Mediterranean type.
Evergreen Posts:
Carleton Stevens Coon
Races of Europe
In Europe, the Neolithic is primarily the period of the Mediterranean race, in one form or another. It was, apparently, the Mediterraneans who accomplished the change to a food-producing economy elsewhere, and who expanded into the territory of the food-gatherers.
(1) Mediterranean Proper (hereafter meant when the word "Mediterranean" is used alone): Short stature, about 160 cm.; skull length 183-187 mm. male mean; vault height 132-137 mm. mean; cranial index means 73-75; brow ridges and bone development weak, face short, nose leptorrhine to mesorrhine. Type already met in Portugal and Palestine in Late Mesolithic. Represents the paedomorphic or sexually undifferentiated Mediterranean form, and often carries a slight Negroid tendency.
Posted by Apocalypse (Member # 8587) on :
The Egyptians recognized people with very black skin, flat noses, and thick lips as being native Egyptians. We see depictions representing this phenetic variation in their art including depictions of the most sacred and the most noble. In other words they recognized the array of features and hues among their own coethnics.
This statement is true not only of Egyptians but also of other African societies.
The attempt to isolate and mystify the "negro type" is not science; its Eurocentrism parading as science.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Apocalypse: The attempt to isolate and mystify the "negro type" is not science; its Eurocentrism parading as science.
Evergreen Writes:
Actually this is where we get lost sometimes. There is no "Mystery God". Eurocentrism is a science. It is a science which works in concert across many disciplines to practice economic hegemony.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Correction, Eurocentrism is a pseudo-science NOT a science. Science uses sound and valid logic and reason, Eurocentrism does not but goes by a specific dogma.
To Apocalypse, it's not so much Egyptians as Nile Valley populations that vary in hue and in features. This variation or contrast can be seen as you go north to south up the Nile or east to West across the deserts. Such variation is found in other parts of Africa as well so such diversity is not unique to the Nile Valley or Northeast Africa for that matter.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Correction, Eurocentrism is a pseudo-science NOT a science. Science uses sound and valid logic and reason, Eurocentrism does not but goes by a specific dogma.
Evergreen Writes:
You're not correcting me, you just missed the point. Eurocentrism uses a very prescribed, scientific, logical and reasoned methodology to maintain European hegemony. Eurocentrism is a tool of European hegemony, not vice versa.
Posted by Apocalypse (Member # 8587) on :
^ Evergreen I agree with your staement whole heartedly; but the scientific method, as quaint and old fashioned as it sounds, draws conclusions based upon observation, empirical evidence. With Eurocentrism the conclusion (White superiority and its complement black inferiority)came first followed by many painful and misguided attempts to find facts justifying the conclusion. The hegemonic nature of Eurocentrism draws upon and distorts, science, history, culture, media, you name it.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Apocalypse: With Eurocentrism the conclusion (White superiority and its complement black inferiority)came first followed by many painful and misguided attempts to find facts justifying the conclusion.
Evergreen Writes:
I would agree that as Europeans emerged as a distinct socio-political reality the notion of White Superiority evolved. However, many of the finds during WWII and since have demolished these basic tenants. Eurocentrism is no longer believed by most Eurocentrists. They now **knowingly ** mislead to maintain the status quo. They do so in a concerted effort which is based upon sound management science. This is what makes it so insidious.
The Devil is a liar!
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Apocalypse: With Eurocentrism the conclusion (White superiority and its complement black inferiority)came first followed by many painful and misguided attempts to find facts justifying the conclusion.
Evergreen Writes:
I would agree that as Europeans emerged as a distinct socio-political reality the notion of White Superiority evolved. However, many of the finds during WWII and since have demolished these basic tenants. Eurocentrism is no longer believed by most Eurocentrists. They now **knowingly ** mislead to maintain the status quo. They do so in a concerted effort which is based upon sound management science. This is what makes it so insidious.
The Devil is a liar!
Evergreen Writes:
Does anyone **really** believe that Serano et al. are unfamiliar with Carleton Coon's claim that the "Mediterranean type" was "Negroid-like"? Sereno is a professional paleontologist and Coon was standard reading for his generation. Hence, to play the game that he doesn't know where these "Mediterranean" people came from is bs!
PAUL SERENO: Well, what we did in analyzing the skull shape of this individual and that individual is, first, show how different they are. And then, second, we linked across the Sahara populations from North Africa, the coast of the Mediterranean, all the way over to the Atlantic coast, an ancient population with this kind of skull.
So we see a migration into the Sahara, when it turned green, from those parts. And then they were driven out by a dry period. And when it turned wet again, another kind of person moved in.
Where these people came from, ultimately, and where they became the Tenerians, that's for future research. We're really interested, because the Sahara is inhabited today by some very interesting nomads. And we're wondering, ultimately, are we looking at the roots of that population?
Posted by Apocalypse (Member # 8587) on :
Djehuti wrote:
quote:To Apocalypse, it's not so much Egyptians as Nile Valley populations that vary in hue and in features.
Agreed, the nile valley and indeed all of Africa is a smorgasbord of phenetic variety. My point is that the Ancient Egyptians are north Africans par excellence and unlike modern day europeans were in a better position to decide who is native and who is not. A review of ancient Egyptian art confirms what is oft repeated on this forum: that North Africa and East Africa included all physical types.
Posted by Apocalypse (Member # 8587) on :
Evergreen wrote:
quote:They do so in a concerted effort which is based upon sound management science. This is what makes it so insidious.
Very true. Additionally their control of academia compounds the situation; challenges to the orthodoxy still come with risks, e.g., Bernal.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ It's funny you mention that, but the reason why there was so much controversy with Bernal's books is simply for three reasons: First, it was a widely published seller made open for the general public. Second, it was very overt and straightforward in its claims making bold attacks on the traditional Eurocentrist dogma that is Western Academia. Lastly, some aspects to Bernal's claims was in fact inaccurate, for example some of his linguistic claims that Indo-European is derived from Semitic etc. All this did was give the Eurocentrics the sorry excuse to say therefore Bernal's entire thesis was inaccurate.
It is when you have publications from folks like Keita that the Eurocentrics really worry. Not only is Keita's whole thesis sound in practically every aspect, but he also takes the Eurocentric tactic of passive-aggression where he refutes all the old racist paradigm but in a much more 'polite' way that takes it apart piece by piece instead of overtly smashing it to bits. The only problem is that published works by Keita are only known in the much smaller academic circle. As such Eurocentric scholars take the cowardly route of neither accepting nor refuting his work (as if they can). Now if Keita and others like hime were to make their work more well known to the public. That's when the real fun begins. Posted by astenb (Member # 14524) on :
Here is the full study.
Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
^^^G3B8 is not alone in his stature and robustness. There other burials, both male and female, from this time frame are of similar height. These Early Holocene hunter-gathering fishermen also have characteristic skulls — long and low, with a unique occipital bun and broad nasals. These features aren’t restricted to only adults, in fact, juveniles as young as 4 years exhibit similar traits which are not shared by the later inhabitants of Gobero. These bodies were tightly bound when buried.
^^They’ve got tall, narrow skulls, with long faces. This guy, dubbed G1B11, is a mid-Holocene adult male dating to around 4,645 B.C.E. is a good example of the different morphology:
^^Kiffian (9,500 year old) Skull vs Tenereian (5,800 year old) Skull from Gobero, Niger
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Evergreen Writes: Eurocentrism is no longer believed by most Eurocentrists. They now **knowingly ** mislead to maintain the status quo.
Agreed the least ineffectual Eurocentric rhetoric is rooted in word games, shell games and sometimes clever lies.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Evergreen Writes: Eurocentrism is no longer believed by most Eurocentrists. They now **knowingly ** mislead to maintain the status quo.
Agreed the least ineffectual Eurocentric rhetoric is rooted in word games, shell games and sometimes clever lies.
Evergreen Writes:
Consider Segi's 1901 claim that the "Mediterranean Type" came out of Africa. Consider McCown's work in the 1920's on the "Negroid" Natufians. Consider Dorothy Garrod's work in 1932. Consider Coon in 1939. Consider Brace's work on the Natufians in 2007. These scientists have known for years that Black people are ancestral to what is now known as North Africa, hence to claim that these people are similiar to other "Mediterraneans" of the time should be no big surprise. The Mediterraneans of the time were the descendents of early Holocene migrations out of Africa and around the circum-Mediterranean basin.
They reframe the picture by making Africans non-African and making this technological migration out of Africa a "Middle Eastern" affair.
Posted by argiedude (Member # 13263) on :
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Evergreen Wrote: Consider Segi's 1901 claim that the "Mediterranean Type" came out of Africa. Consider McCown's work in the 1920's on the "Negroid" Natufians. Consider Dorothy Garrod's work in 1932. Consider Coon in 1939. Consider Brace's work on the Natufians in 2007. These scientists have known for years that Black people are ancestral to what is now known as North Africa, hence to claim that these people are similiar to other "Mediterraneans" of the time should be no big surprise. The Mediterraneans of the time were the descendents of early Holocene migrations out of Africa and around the circum-Mediterranean basin.
They reframe the picture by making Africans non-African and making this technological migration out of Africa a "Middle Eastern" affair.
In simple words, they are just repeating the same old nonsense that Dienekes and his braindead minions like Evil-Euro try to sell.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
^^^G3B8 is not alone in his stature and robustness. There other burials, both male and female, from this time frame are of similar height. These Early Holocene hunter-gathering fishermen also have characteristic skulls — long and low, with a unique occipital bun and broad nasals. These features aren’t restricted to only adults, in fact, juveniles as young as 4 years exhibit similar traits which are not shared by the later inhabitants of Gobero. These bodies were tightly bound when buried.
^^They’ve got tall, narrow skulls, with long faces. This guy, dubbed G1B11, is a mid-Holocene adult male dating to around 4,645 B.C.E. is a good example of the different morphology:
^^Kiffian (9,500 year old) Skull vs Tenereian (5,800 year old) Skull from Gobero, Niger
So what is their connection to the Metchtoid or Capsian culture??
Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
^^^G3B8 is not alone in his stature and robustness. There other burials, both male and female, from this time frame are of similar height. These Early Holocene hunter-gathering fishermen also have characteristic skulls — long and low, with a unique occipital bun and broad nasals. These features aren’t restricted to only adults, in fact, juveniles as young as 4 years exhibit similar traits which are not shared by the later inhabitants of Gobero. These bodies were tightly bound when buried.
^^They’ve got tall, narrow skulls, with long faces. This guy, dubbed G1B11, is a mid-Holocene adult male dating to around 4,645 B.C.E. is a good example of the different morphology:
^^Kiffian (9,500 year old) Skull vs Tenereian (5,800 year old) Skull from Gobero, Niger
So what is their connection to the Metchtoid or Capsian culture??
Good question. Not too sure what that connection is yet, but we can see here from Paul Sereno, further investigations have to be done.
JEFFREY BROWN: And just briefly, you said what is coming next, in terms of some of the research. You're going to be involved? What happens?
PAUL SERENO: Oh, we're interested in fine-tuning our understanding.
I mean, basically, we want to know how the recent populations -- everybody wants to know how the recent populations relate to these ancient populations. Are we looking at the roots of the people who are living there today, the Egyptians, the Berbers, the Tuaregs?
And where do they come from? And, ultimately, we're interested in human history. And we have a much better view of the humans today that lived in the center of the Sahara than we did before we ran into that site.
----
As we can see, they are falsely classified into Mediterranean.
quote:Lastly, some aspects to Bernal's claims was in fact inaccurate, for example some of his linguistic claims that Indo-European is derived from Semitic etc. All this did was give the Eurocentrics the sorry excuse to say therefore Bernal's entire thesis was inaccurate.
Bernal does see certain linguistic correspondence between Indo European and Afroasiatic. Ehret also sees such a correspondence. Bernal believes that the lithic culture originating in the nile valley (he specifically mentions Mushabian) and the Natufian culture of the Levant contributed to the development of Proto Indo European. Bernal does not put the case for this linkage forward in a dogmatic manner but tentatively.
The sanctity of the IE language is non negotiable to Eurocentrists. Challenges to this sacred cow is just as unacceptable as saying that their civilization derived from elsewhere; or that modern day Europeans are a hybrid of Africans, Asians, and paleolithic native hunter-gatherers. Bernal's work is dismissed, not because of any sloppiness in his thinking, but precisely because it is so well researched; and because it presents such nightmarish scenarios of the roots of european people.
Kieta's work is of course brilliant. That is beyond dispute.
Posted by Red,White, and Blue + Christian (Member # 10893) on :
These guys were Negroes. This is my speical topic - the graves of our ancestors. The tall robust Negroes were the ancestors of the Mande Speakers and some Fulani. These graves are similar to others from Ethiopia and Sudan to Senegal.
The skeletons are usually oriented along a compass direction.
Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Red,White, and Blue + Christian: These guys were Negroes. This is my speical topic - the graves of our ancestors. The tall robust Negroes were the ancestors of the Mande Speakers and some Fulani. These graves are similar to others from Ethiopia and Sudan to Senegal.
The skeletons are usually oriented along a compass direction.
Feel free to elaborate. Do you have the information on "The tall robust Negroes" being ancestors of Mande and Fulani? It would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
Posted by HistoryFacelift (Member # 14696) on :
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
quote: "The shapes of the Tenerian skulls are puzzling, researchers said, because they resemble those of Mediterranean people, not other groups from the southern Sahara."
^^^^^As I read, I knew there was going to be some kind of outrageous interpretation of the skulls disconnecting them from Africa.
^^^Here we go again..... I searched Tenerian, and this is what pops up first.
HUH????? I just found the article for the first time and the skull photos they show are of black people, they even had a photo of the woodabe and I compared, probably they have this photo because they have similar height very tall slender people.
What is so PUZZLING about their skull types, what is this nonsense????????? Is this from official articles or stupid eurocentric persons like dienkes greek globalization-loving anthropology blog????
ALL OF THESE SKULLS ARE ETHNIC INDIGENOUS BLACK POPULATION. They have the same traits Eurocentrics will say are not found on caucasian skull, now in this case like they did in natufians they will say Oh they are "Mediterraneans with negroid affinities!!" A JOKE! Sometimes I think they publish this just to make blacks mad and try to exude some power over them because they want to prove something that they still control this area of study or something. More non whites need to aim to be in these areas of research!!
Posted by HistoryFacelift (Member # 14696) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: You know its a lie when scientists start throwing around terms like "puzzling" or "startling". That should be an IMMEDIATE alert to anyone that what follows is pure Bull Sh*t. Rather than say we haven't fully analyzed the relationships between such skulls and skulls from other populations in a similar area over the same time period, they are just pulling stuff out their behinds. And they know it, because they did not even NAME what group of so called "mediterranean" skulls they were similar to. Not to mention the fact that they don't even describe why skulls can be classified as "Mediterranean" in the first place, as I doubt that the populations AROUND the Mediterranean have similar skeletal morphologies. So what makes Mediterranean a more significant geographical marker than African, considering that these skulls are found QUITE A LONG WAY from the Mediterranean to begin with? And on top of that, why don't they even identify it with NIGER as opposed to simply "Saharan" as if the Sahara is more significant than the presence of NIGER as a country?
quote: The shapes of the Tenerian skulls are puzzling, researchers said, because they resemble those of Mediterranean people, not other groups from the southern Sahara.
Only a fool would even pretend to believe that the people smack dab in the middle of Niger 10,000 years ago were anything other than black Africans.
And, bottom line, anyone who is still questioning why this is still going on just need to examine their heads. Whites scientists WILL ALWAYS pretend that WHITE SKIN is the MOST SIGNIFICANT development in human evolution ever. They HAVE to because that is what their WHOLE WORLD VIEW is based on.
I mean the very idea that someone would be SHOCKED by finding stone tools and arrows in Africa, where humans have been practicing a hunter and gathering lifestyle for HUNDREDS of thousands, if not millions of years is absolutely ridiculous.
Agree with you completely.
Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by HistoryFacelift:
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
quote: "The shapes of the Tenerian skulls are puzzling, researchers said, because they resemble those of Mediterranean people, not other groups from the southern Sahara."
^^^^^As I read, I knew there was going to be some kind of outrageous interpretation of the skulls disconnecting them from Africa.
^^^Here we go again..... I searched Tenerian, and this is what pops up first.
HUH????? I just found the article for the first time and the skull photos they show are of black people, they even had a photo of the woodabe and I compared, probably they have this photo because they have similar height very tall slender people.
What is so PUZZLING about their skull types, what is this nonsense????????? Is this from official articles or stupid eurocentric persons like dienkes greek globalization-loving anthropology blog????
ALL OF THESE SKULLS ARE ETHNIC INDIGENOUS BLACK POPULATION. They have the same traits Eurocentrics will say are not found on caucasian skull, now in this case like they did in natufians they will say Oh they are "Mediterraneans with negroid affinities!!" A JOKE! Sometimes I think they publish this just to make blacks mad and try to exude some power over them because they want to prove something that they still control this area of study or something. More non whites need to aim to be in these areas of research!!
Yea they already erroneously tried, with the false classification as a Mediterranean.
"The shapes of the Ténérian skulls are puzzling, researchers said, because they resemble those of Mediterranean people, not other nearby groups."
^^^^Quote from article
Posted by Boofer (Member # 15638) on :
Is it so unlikely that these might be people from the North (ie Mediterraneans)? North Africa has "Mediterranean" looking people. It's almost as if everyone is opposed to the mere possibility that these folks could be of Mediterranean origin.
However, I understand why you guys question their terminology, as I've heard of other "black" African's having "caucasoid" skulls. I'm interested in seeing how these "Mediterranean" skulls supposedly differ (or relate) from nearby modern day populations (including the Fula and the Tuareg).
In my honest opinion, I would guess that the modern day populations have origins in both of these distinct groups. I wouldn't doubt that there was a Mediterranean influence considering the Tuareg, who are a berber group.
Posted by Hori (Member # 11484) on :
^ This is Charlie Bass. Allix, you know that picture suits you .
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Mediterranean is meaningless in terms of skeletal morphology as no humans live in the ocean and oceans are not the basis of biological adaption which leads to variation in skeletal traits. Mediterranean is a code word for mixed, specifically mixed with Eurasian whites from outside Africa. The idea is that the people in Africa near the mediterranean are different from other Africans because of thousands of years of Eurasian white migrations into Africa from around the Mediterranean. However, that still does not make Mediterranean an accurate description of the variation found in populations across North Africa. African populations in North Africa DO NOT have the exact same skeletal morphology as Europeans who live near the Mediterranean or populations in the Levant who live on the Mediterranean and so forth. In order for there to be a true Mediterranean morphology in skeletal traits there would have to be a common set of features found in all populations around the Mediterranean from Africa to the Levant and into Europe. But there aren't, which therefore makes the term Mediterranean meaningless in terms of a 6,000 year old population which was somewhere between 1,000 and 1,500 miles from away from the Mediterranean sea.
So I guess this guy has Mediterranean features:
Or this boy:
But the funny thing is I have even confused African features for white. One day, not too long ago, I was walking up to a group of black young adults in a parking lot and I coulda sworn there was a white girl in the middle of them. When I got closer I realized she was completely black African Ethiopian with so-called "white" features. I had to laugh at myself.
quote: Is it so unlikely that these might be people from the North (ie Mediterraneans)? North Africa has "Mediterranean" looking people. It's almost as if everyone is opposed to the mere possibility that these folks could be of Mediterranean origin.
However, I understand why you guys question their terminology, as I've heard of other "black" African's having "caucasoid" skulls. I'm interested in seeing how these "Mediterranean" skulls supposedly differ (or relate) from nearby modern day populations (including the Fula and the Tuareg).
In my honest opinion, I would guess that the modern day populations have origins in both of these distinct groups. I wouldn't doubt that there was a Mediterranean influence considering the Tuareg, who are a berber group.
Also Notice the Occipital region
(A)-Top view of mid-Holocene adult male (G1B11; ~4645 B.C.E.) buried in a recumbent hyperflexed posture. (B)-Bottom view of burial in A showing a mud turtle carapace (Pelusios adansonii) in contact with the ventral aspect of the pelvic girdle. (C)-Skull from burial in A and B showing high calvarium, narrow zygomatic width and more prognathous face. --Paul C. Sereno
The occipital bone, a saucer-shaped membrane bone situated at the back and lower part of the cranium, is trapezoid in shape and curved on itself. It is pierced by a large oval aperture, the foramen magnum, through which the cranial cavity communicates with the vertebral canal.
The male cranium below is from Wadi al-Halfa on the Sudan-Egypt border. Dating from the Mesolithic-Holocene period, it is typical of crania in Sudan and surrounding regions from that time frame.
Queen Ahmes-Nefertary
The Elder Lady(First identified as Queen Tiye) possesses an occipital bun comparable to Mesolithic Nubians.
Thutmose II displays the globular cranium common among more recent Nubians.
Posted by HistoryFacelift (Member # 14696) on :
You know what I think is going to happen? Eurocentric will be so desperate, so very desperate to claim black discoveries that when the find they have no juice to go on anymore they will either start to claim elongated african blacks as whites like the mediteranean whites, try to divide blacks more so sub sahara blacks will somehow be a completely different RACE from Northern blacks.
Suddenly whites who are one of the least diverse groups in the world will make up 1/3 of the world population and span all across northern europe into the middle east and into africa as all whites but the MOST diverse group, blacks, will be designated as only one small group of people known as the "true blacks" called the "sub saharans" only found in WEST africa!
I think the reason actually for them saying race doesn't exist though I see the practicality is it, is that they are having hard time hanging unto things like "white egypt" without blurring the lines a bit.
RIDICULOUS.
Posted by Lord Sauron (Member # 6729) on :
Grim.
Posted by Boofer (Member # 15638) on :
Knowledgeiskey, what is the significance of your post? Are you simply showing me "black" Africans that have Mediterranean skulls?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by HistoryFacelift: You know what I think is going to happen? Eurocentric will be so desperate, so very desperate to claim black discoveries that when the find they have no juice to go on anymore they will either start to claim elongated african blacks as whites like the mediteranean whites, try to divide blacks more so sub sahara blacks will somehow be a completely different RACE from Northern blacks.
Suddenly whites who are one of the least diverse groups in the world will make up 1/3 of the world population and span all across northern europe into the middle east and into africa as all whites but the MOST diverse group, blacks, will be designated as only one small group of people known as the "true blacks" called the "sub saharans" only found in WEST africa!
I think the reason actually for them saying race doesn't exist though I see the practicality is it, is that they are having hard time hanging unto things like "white egypt" without blurring the lines a bit.
RIDICULOUS.
But it has already been done and is continuing to be done. That is what the article represents.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boofer: Knowledgeiskey, what is the significance of your post? Are you simply showing me "black" Africans that have Mediterranean skulls?
No. The point is to show you that "Mediterranean" as a single distinct population DOES NOT EXIST!! Peoples from North Africans, East Africans, Southwest Asians, and South Asians have in the past been all classified as "Mediterranean". Ironically, the features they used the most are features associated with black Africans. Hence Sergi's "brown mediterranean race" is nothing more than an expansian of Africans into Southwest Asia and Europe during Neolithic times!!
Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
Originally posted by Boofer
quote:Knowledgeiskey, what is the significance of your post? Are you simply showing me "black" Africans that have Mediterranean skulls?
Actually, if you did read what I posted. You would've realized, I was showing how Africans are falsely classified as Mediterranean. The skull possesses a prominent occipital bun and is prognathous among others.. Is this somehow Mediterranean to you? If so, which group, please elaborate... nitwit??
(A)-Top view of mid-Holocene adult male (G1B11; ~4645 B.C.E.) buried in a recumbent hyperflexed posture. (B)-Bottom view of burial in A showing a mud turtle carapace (Pelusios adansonii) in contact with the ventral aspect of the pelvic girdle. (C)-Skull from burial in A and B showing high calvarium, narrow zygomatic width and more prognathous face. --Paul C. Sereno Posted by HistoryFacelift (Member # 14696) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by HistoryFacelift: You know what I think is going to happen? Eurocentric will be so desperate, so very desperate to claim black discoveries that when the find they have no juice to go on anymore they will either start to claim elongated african blacks as whites like the mediteranean whites, try to divide blacks more so sub sahara blacks will somehow be a completely different RACE from Northern blacks.
Suddenly whites who are one of the least diverse groups in the world will make up 1/3 of the world population and span all across northern europe into the middle east and into africa as all whites but the MOST diverse group, blacks, will be designated as only one small group of people known as the "true blacks" called the "sub saharans" only found in WEST africa!
I think the reason actually for them saying race doesn't exist though I see the practicality is it, is that they are having hard time hanging unto things like "white egypt" without blurring the lines a bit.
RIDICULOUS.
But it has already been done and is continuing to be done. That is what the article represents.
SO STUPID. How can one of the LEAST diverse groups in the world claim the features of multiple groups of people spanning past Europe INTO Africa AND the Middle East?????
Does no one use logic anymore??
I cannot wait until the DNA testing, when they see it proves they are African maybe they will try to make some excuse that it is a "LOST EUROPEAN LINEAGE" that may have been intermixed with Africans OR not publish the results at all because like Egypt their findings could change all documented history as we know it.
Posted by Boofer (Member # 15638) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Boofer: Knowledgeiskey, what is the significance of your post? Are you simply showing me "black" Africans that have Mediterranean skulls?
No. The point is to show you that "Mediterranean" as a single distinct population DOES NOT EXIST!! Peoples from North Africans, East Africans, Southwest Asians, and South Asians have in the past been all classified as "Mediterranean". Ironically, the features they used the most are features associated with black Africans. Hence Sergi's "brown mediterranean race" is nothing more than an expansian of Africans into Southwest Asia and Europe during Neolithic times!!
Understood. Thanks for being kind instead of resorting to insults.
Posted by Boofer (Member # 15638) on :
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: Originally posted by Boofer
quote:Knowledgeiskey, what is the significance of your post? Are you simply showing me "black" Africans that have Mediterranean skulls?
Actually, if you did read what I posted. You would've realized, I was showing how Africans are falsely classified as Mediterranean. The skull possesses a prominent occipital bun and is prognathous among others.. Is this somehow Mediterranean to you? If so, which group, please elaborate... nitwit??
(A)-Top view of mid-Holocene adult male (G1B11; ~4645 B.C.E.) buried in a recumbent hyperflexed posture. (B)-Bottom view of burial in A showing a mud turtle carapace (Pelusios adansonii) in contact with the ventral aspect of the pelvic girdle. (C)-Skull from burial in A and B showing high calvarium, narrow zygomatic width and more prognathous face. --Paul C. Sereno
It seems you assumed that I knew what features of the skull were considered "Mediterranean" in the first place. I do not.
Posted by Hori (Member # 11484) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boofer:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Boofer: Knowledgeiskey, what is the significance of your post? Are you simply showing me "black" Africans that have Mediterranean skulls?
No. The point is to show you that "Mediterranean" as a single distinct population DOES NOT EXIST!! Peoples from North Africans, East Africans, Southwest Asians, and South Asians have in the past been all classified as "Mediterranean". Ironically, the features they used the most are features associated with black Africans. Hence Sergi's "brown mediterranean race" is nothing more than an expansian of Africans into Southwest Asia and Europe during Neolithic times!!
Understood. Thanks for being kind instead of resorting to insults.
^ Dude. You need to recommend the Book to me, where you guys learnt your manipulation techniques. I must learn.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Boofer, sorry if some folks were rude to you I too am guilty of being rude to new people in the forum but it's only because of the irritation that some new trolls in here have been causing.
But concerning craniofacial features here's the deal:
First, cranio-facial features are the most diverse trait occuring among the human species, and that such features not only vary between different populations but even among members of the same population.
One of the fallacies of 'racial' typology and classification is that one set of features is assigned to a certain racial group even though such features are only not unique to that group but occur widely in other groups. (Just one of the things that prove 'racial' groups do not exist).
Since the human species originated in Africa, it not surprising that populations indigenous to Africa possess the greatest genetic diversity. As such, why is it hard to comprehend that they possess among the greatest phenotypic diversity as well.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti (various times before):
Cranial features: The human phenotypic trait that holds the greatest diversity is cranial morphology. Because of this fact, cranial features can at times be misleading if not taken into proper context. For example, for a long time features like long narrow faces and narrow noses have been associated with “caucasian” or “caucasoid” people even though such features are present in populations throughout the globe from Africa to the Americas. The same can be said about so-called “negroid” features such as broad faces and noses which are also not just confined to Africans but various peoples in Asia, the Pacific etc.
Which is why we have studies like this:
J. Edwards, A. Leathers, et al. ...based on Howell’s sampling Fordisc 2.0 authors state that "there are no races, only populations," yet it is clear that Howell was intent on providing known groups that would be distributed among the continental "racial" groups. We tested the accuracy and effectiveness of Fordisc 2.0 using twelve cranial measurements from a homogeneous population from the X-Group period of Sudanese Nubia (350CE-550CE). When the Fordisc program classified the adult X-Group crania, only 51 (57.3%) of 89 individuals were classified within groups from Africa. Others were placed in such diverse groups as Polynesian (11.24%), European (7.86%), Japanese (4.49%), Native American (3.37%), Peruvian (3.36%), Australian (1.12), Tasmanian (1.12%), and Melanesian (1.12%). The implications of these findings suggest that classifying populations, whether by geography or by "race", is not morphologically or biologically accurate because of the wide variation even in homogeneous populations.
And...
Forensic Misclassification of Ancient Nubian Crania: Implications for Assumptions about Human Variation -April 2005, Current Anthropology:
It is well known that human biological variation is principally clinal (i.e., structured as gradients) and not racial (i.e., structured as a small number of fairly discrete groups). We have shown that for a temporally and geographically homogeneous East African population, the most widely used “racial” program fails to identify the skeletal material accurately. The assignment of skeletal racial origin is based principally upon stereotypical features found most frequently in the most geographically distant populations. While this is useful in some contexts (for example, sorting skeletal material of largely West African ancestry from skeletal material of largely Western European ancestry), it fails to identify populations that originate elsewhere and misrepresents fundamental patterns of human biological diversity.
These exact same mistakes were made in classifying Egyptian skulls and is also the reason you hear these old studies speak of a percentage of “Caucasoid” and even a percentage of “mongoloid” skulls!
Jean Hiernaux The People of Africa(Peoples of the World Series) 1975 The oldest remains of Homo sapiens sapiens found in East Africa were associated with an industry having similarities with the Capsian. It has been called Upper Kenyan Capsian, although its derivation from the North African Capsian is far from certain. At Gamble's Cave in Kenya, five human skeletons were associated with a late phase of the industry, Upper Kenya Capsian C, which contains pottery. A similar associationis presumed for a skeleton found at Olduvai, which resembles those from Gamble's Cave. The date of Upper Kenya Capsian C is not precisely known (an earlier phase from Prospect Farm on Eburru Mountain close to Gamble's Cave has been dated to about 8000 BC); but the presence of pottery indicates a rather later date, perhaps around 400 BC. The skeletons are of very tall people. They had long, narrow heads, and relatively long, narrow faces. The nose was of medium width; and prognathism, when present, was restricted to the alveolar, or tooth-bearing, region......all their features can be found in several living populations of East Africa, like the Tutsi of Rwanda and Burundi, who are very dark skinned and differ greatly from Europeans in a number of body proportions............. From the foregoing, it is tempting to locate the area of differentiation of these people in the interior of East Africa. There is every reason to believe that they are ancestral to the living 'Elongated East Africans'. Neither of these populations, fossil and modern, should be considered to be closely related to the populations of Europe and western Asia.
claims that Caucasoid peoples once lived in eastern Africa have been shown to be wrong, - JO Vogel, Precolonial Africa.
Fulani (West African)
Somali (East African)
Tutsi (Central African)
Ironically, another trait all of these people above share in common besides facial features is skeletal structure of their bodies. Their body structure has been called “super-negroid” indicating their extra-tropical adapted bodies compared to stereotypical blacks of West Africa who only have plain “negroid” builds. This is another indication that these people definitely have NO non-African ancestry!
Also, just because someone happens to have the same features as those you consider ‘true blacks (negroes)’ does not mean they are even African. As seen by this Andamanese person below.
Southeast Asian
Jean Hiernaux The People of Africa 1975 p.53, 54
"In sub-Saharan Africa, many anthropological characters show a wide range of population means or frequencies. In some of them, the whole world range is covered in the sub-continent. Here live the shortest and the tallest human populations, the one with the highest and the one with the lowest nose, the one with the thickest and the one with the thinnest lips in the world. In this area, the range of the average nose widths covers 92 per cent of the world range:
only a narrow range of extremely low means are absent from the African record. Means for head diameters cover about 80 per cent of the world range; 60 per cent is the corresponding value for a variable once cherished by physical anthropologists, the cephalic index, or ratio of the head width to head length expressed as a percentage....."
Which is why talk of "Mediterranean" features is silly.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
So going by these outdated notions of anthropology, the African supermodel below would be "Mediterranean" also!
Getting back to the subject of Egypt, note how her appearance is strikingly similar to that of the reconstruction of the royal mummy identified by Fletcher to be Nefertiti.
So you could easily see how Westerners have for decades been getting away with calling the Egyptians "mediterranean" as if that means they were not black Africans. Posted by HistoryFacelift (Member # 14696) on :
* Since the human species originated in Africa, it not surprising that populations indigenous to Africa possess the greatest genetic diversity. As such, why is it hard to comprehend that they possess among the greatest phenotypic diversity as well.
Exactly what I keep saying, WHAT THE HELL????? You don't lump together groups of Middle East and North Africa as part of an extensive white race when the white race is one of the LEAST genetically diverse populations on this Earth! You lump them with BLACK AFRICANS that are THE most diverse population on this Earth! WHAT IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THIS?
Posted by HistoryFacelift (Member # 14696) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] So going by these outdated notions of anthropology, the African supermodel below would be "Mediterranean" also!
EXACTLY. It seems continuous Eurocentric fallacies they desperately dish out to claim history, which feeds their biased supremacist egos are dragging them further and further SOUTH into the black Africa by the skin of their lying teeth to call the very people they believe incapable as one of their own!
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Doug wrote:
quote: But the funny thing is I have even confused African features for white. One day, not too long ago, I was walking up to a group of black young adults in a parking lot and I coulda sworn there was a white girl in the middle of them. When I got closer I realized she was completely black African Ethiopian with so-called "white" features. I had to laugh at myself.
What Ethiopians are there that look like white people? LOL
Seriously, what planet do you live on?
Is it planet "Beatdown"? Because its amazing how often that you spout off white propaganda that you mindlessly repeat from your white owners.
Po Doug, he's always caterwauling about the y man, but he's the first to buy into his racial pseudoscience because he suffers from an immense inferiority complex.
Posted by Wolofi (Member # 14892) on :
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: Originally posted by Boofer
quote:Knowledgeiskey, what is the significance of your post? Are you simply showing me "black" Africans that have Mediterranean skulls?
Actually, if you did read what I posted. You would've realized, I was showing how Africans are falsely classified as Mediterranean. The skull possesses a prominent occipital bun and is prognathous among others.. Is this somehow Mediterranean to you? If so, which group, please elaborate... nitwit??
(A)-Top view of mid-Holocene adult male (G1B11; ~4645 B.C.E.) buried in a recumbent hyperflexed posture. (B)-Bottom view of burial in A showing a mud turtle carapace (Pelusios adansonii) in contact with the ventral aspect of the pelvic girdle. (C)-Skull from burial in A and B showing high calvarium, narrow zygomatic width and more prognathous face. --Paul C. Sereno
what is an occipital bun?
Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:what is an occipital bun?
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: Originally posted by Boofer
quote: Is it so unlikely that these might be people from the North (ie Mediterraneans)? North Africa has "Mediterranean" looking people. It's almost as if everyone is opposed to the mere possibility that these folks could be of Mediterranean origin.
However, I understand why you guys question their terminology, as I've heard of other "black" African's having "caucasoid" skulls. I'm interested in seeing how these "Mediterranean" skulls supposedly differ (or relate) from nearby modern day populations (including the Fula and the Tuareg).
In my honest opinion, I would guess that the modern day populations have origins in both of these distinct groups. I wouldn't doubt that there was a Mediterranean influence considering the Tuareg, who are a berber group.
Also Notice the Occipital region
(A)-Top view of mid-Holocene adult male (G1B11; ~4645 B.C.E.) buried in a recumbent hyperflexed posture. (B)-Bottom view of burial in A showing a mud turtle carapace (Pelusios adansonii) in contact with the ventral aspect of the pelvic girdle. (C)-Skull from burial in A and B showing high calvarium, narrow zygomatic width and more prognathous face. --Paul C. Sereno
The occipital bone, a saucer-shaped membrane bone situated at the back and lower part of the cranium, is trapezoid in shape and curved on itself. It is pierced by a large oval aperture, the foramen magnum, through which the cranial cavity communicates with the vertebral canal.
The male cranium below is from Wadi al-Halfa on the Sudan-Egypt border. Dating from the Mesolithic-Holocene period, it is typical of crania in Sudan and surrounding regions from that time frame.
Queen Ahmes-Nefertary
The Elder Lady(First identified as Queen Tiye) possesses an occipital bun comparable to Mesolithic Nubians.
Thutmose II displays the globular cranium common among more recent Nubians.
See what happens again, since you didn't read the thread, your question was already answered.
Posted by Bettyboo (Member # 12987) on :
This shyt is a hoax and made-up. I saw an interview with that idiot on PBS and something just don't seem right. I don't know how they go out searching for dinosaur bones and trip across a graveyard and become experts at human archeology. Why it always take some outsider to find such things. Why the indigenous and natives never tripped across such thing. Basically, they are saying that the skull with the 'aquiline' features were ancestors of the egyptians and middle easterners and the skull with the 'broad' features are ancestors of the west africans. This bullshyt is nothing other than "lest continue to prove that ancient egyptians are not a 'negroid' race."
Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote: Basically, they are saying that the skull with the 'aquiline' features were ancestors of the egyptians and middle easterners and the skull with the 'broad' features are ancestors of the west africans.
Where did get that idea Betty? The skull below is the one with so called surprising Mediterranean features, but note the prognathous characteristics. Many skulls are erroneously classified as Mediterranean because they don't want to admit the skulls found in the Mediterranean in Europe and the near East that they are actually African. So the falsely applied made up Mediterranean skull becomes implicated.
Also Notice the Occipital region
(A)-Top view of mid-Holocene adult male (G1B11; ~4645 B.C.E.) buried in a recumbent hyperflexed posture. (B)-Bottom view of burial in A showing a mud turtle carapace (Pelusios adansonii) in contact with the ventral aspect of the pelvic girdle. (C)-Skull from burial in A and B showing high calvarium, narrow zygomatic width and more prognathous face. --Paul C. Sereno
The occipital bone, a saucer-shaped membrane bone situated at the back and lower part of the cranium, is trapezoid in shape and curved on itself. It is pierced by a large oval aperture, the foramen magnum, through which the cranial cavity communicates with the vertebral canal.
The male cranium below is from Wadi al-Halfa on the Sudan-Egypt border. Dating from the Mesolithic-Holocene period, it is typical of crania in Sudan and surrounding regions from that time frame.
Queen Ahmes-Nefertary
The Elder Lady(First identified as Queen Tiye) possesses an occipital bun comparable to Mesolithic Nubians.
Thutmose II displays the globular cranium common among more recent Nubians.
[/qb][/QUOTE]See what happens again, since you didn't read the thread, your question was already answered. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
When using the word Mediterranean we must remember and begin to emphasize the fact that Mediterranean does not exclude Africa.
Extreme North Africa is the southern littoral of the Mediterranean Sea. Assuming Mediterranean to be only Italy and Greece is the Medicentrics' game. I refuse to play by their rules. There are too many Med types to use the word in any kind of homologous fashion. But since it's not going to be abandoned I will make the rules and define it to my purposes instead of being ruled and leting others set their definition for me to kowtow to.
Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote: When using the word Mediterranean we must remember and begin to emphasize the fact that Mediterranean does not exclude Africa.
Extreme North Africa is the southern littoral of the Mediterranean Sea. Assuming Mediterranean to be only Italy and Greece is the Medicentrics' game.
Indeed, and the way I see it, is basically for the simple fact the same skulls being found in Africa's Mediterranean and now Niger are the same type of skulls that are found in Europe's Mediterranean. Therefore for them now to admit that these are actual African people, they would also be admitting the skulls found in Greece and Italy etc.. Are actually African. These are death blows to the Euro-centric ideology, and they know it.
Posted by Bettyboo (Member # 12987) on :
I saw the interview with the idiot that found the bones on PBS. The two skulls he had looked very fresh and new. It looked like some substance was applied to the skulls to try to give it an ancient, "graveyard" look. The man was saying that one of the skulls (the one with the aquiline features) became the ancestors of the egyptians and middle easterners and the skull with the broad features went to west africa and other parts of africa. I want to know how long this was in the making. They've been putting together some sophisicated looking skeletons. It's funny that they found the grave yard in the exact spot where they was looking for dinosaur bones. Are they still looking for dinosaur bones or are they going to get back to it later.
Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: When using the word Mediterranean we must remember and begin to emphasize the fact that Mediterranean does not exclude Africa.
Extreme North Africa is the southern littoral of the Mediterranean Sea. Assuming Mediterranean to be only Italy and Greece is the Medicentrics' game. I refuse to play by their rules. There are too many Med types to use the word in any kind of homologous fashion. But since it's not going to be abandoned I will make the rules and define it to my purposes instead of being ruled and leting others set their definition for me to kowtow to.
Excellently said.
Posted by Bettyboo (Member # 12987) on :
Yes, that is the interview. It wasn't a long interview only about 7-10 minutes. He brought the TWO skulls to show that the Sahara had TWO distinct populations. This is why I am so skeptical. Why is there only 'TWO' distinct populations? As large as the Sahara is there had to be more than just "two" distinct groups. They [national geographics, smithsonian, and the other higer educational cronies] are out to prove a 'true negro' race and a black race that is not negro. Why don't they focus on the true whites (Nordics/germanics/scandinavians) and the mixed race whites (Serbs, Croats, Greeks, Italians, Armenians, etc...). Not that I believe these white people are non-white, but we can use the same analogy agaisnt them.
Posted by Lord Sauron (Member # 6729) on :
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
quote: When using the word Mediterranean we must remember and begin to emphasize the fact that Mediterranean does not exclude Africa.
Extreme North Africa is the southern littoral of the Mediterranean Sea. Assuming Mediterranean to be only Italy and Greece is the Medicentrics' game.
Indeed, and the way I see it, is basically for the simple fact the same skulls being found in Africa's Mediterranean and now Niger are the same type of skulls that are found in Europe's Mediterranean. Therefore for them now to admit that these are actual African people, they would also be admitting the skulls found in Greece and Italy etc.. Are actually African. These are death blows to the Euro-centric ideology, and they know it.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: Yes, that is the interview. It wasn't a long interview only about 7-10 minutes. He brought the TWO skulls to show that the Sahara had TWO distinct populations. This is why I am so skeptical. Why is there only 'TWO' distinct populations? As large as the Sahara is there had to be more than just "two" distinct groups.
You are right on this point.
All outdated theories of cranial race rely on the same fallacy.
Almost anywhere in modern Africa it is possible to find skulls with markededly different appearances, even within individual ethnic groups.
When race-craniometrists find such skulls they envariably treat them as if they are exemplifiers of juxtaposed 'races', when they may just be a part of natural variations within regions.
This sets up the bases for the kind of tortured tautology that Howells engaged in, when he suggested that 'early african crania were not *african*'.
When intelligent persons like Howells make disingenuous arguments they are relying on lazy-thinking audiences, who don't recognize contradictions, and won't ask intelligent questions.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: When using the word Mediterranean we must remember and begin to emphasize the fact that Mediterranean does not exclude Africa.
Extreme North Africa is the southern littoral of the Mediterranean Sea. Assuming Mediterranean to be only Italy and Greece is the Medicentrics' game. I refuse to play by their rules. There are too many Med types to use the word in any kind of homologous fashion. But since it's not going to be abandoned I will make the rules and define it to my purposes instead of being ruled and leting others set their definition for me to kowtow to.
^ Good thoughts.
I would caution though that any term 'Mediterranean', when used to discuss paleolithic skeleton from Rift Valley Kenya, or Central African Tutsi is intentionally misleading.
Mediterranean is also misleading as culture construct - what languages are Mediterranean? Italian? Hebrew? Italian and Hebrew, Latin and Semitic, are now related?
Knowledge718 is right. The Mediterranean of course exists.....it's a sea, and nothing more.
No people, languages or skeletype originate there.
When it is conflated into and anthropology or race, or culture, then something is askew.
Danya Reynolds has it exactly right.
The purpose of Mediterranean 'anthropology' is to hide the impact of Africa, on Europe and SouthWest Asia.
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
rofl @ "planet beatdown", but:
Doug wrote
quote: But the funny thing is I have even confused African features for white. One day, not too long ago, I was walking up to a group of black young adults in a parking lot and I coulda sworn there was a white girl in the middle of them. When I got closer I realized she was completely black African Ethiopian with so-called "white" features. I had to laugh at myself.
It's not just Ethiopians - more and more I'm noticing certain features that seem to be more common in African Americans or as common in them compared to Euro/white Americans.
And then, when I look at West Africans and see the same in them it suggests to me that these aren't 'white' or 'mixed' traits. These rather just go un noticed or less noticed as we mentally pass them off by assuming "it's just an exception to a rule" and then ignoring it (that's the way bias works) because our learned racialised worldview engenders bias and [which is psychological].
There are many distinct looks I am noticing
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: When using the word Mediterranean we must remember and begin to emphasize the fact that Mediterranean does not exclude Africa.
Extreme North Africa is the southern littoral of the Mediterranean Sea. Assuming Mediterranean to be only Italy and Greece is the Medicentrics' game. I refuse to play by their rules. There are too many Med types to use the word in any kind of homologous fashion. But since it's not going to be abandoned I will make the rules and define it to my purposes instead of being ruled and leting others set their definition for me to kowtow to.
On point!!
Greeks and other Mid Easterners do have Mediterranean features and ancestry from North Africans ya know. Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:The purpose of Mediterranean 'anthropology' is to hide the impact of Africa, on Europe and SouthWest Asia.
^^^^^Exactly
Originally posted by Knowledge
quote:Indeed, and the way I see it, is basically for the simple fact the same skulls being found in Africa's 'Mediterranean' and now Niger are the same type of skulls that are found in Europe's 'Mediterranean'. Therefore for them now to admit that these are actual African people, they would also be admitting the skulls found in Greece and Italy etc.. Are actually African. These are death blows to the Euro-centric ideology, and they know it.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box): rofl @ "planet beatdown", but:
Doug wrote
quote: But the funny thing is I have even confused African features for white. One day, not too long ago, I was walking up to a group of black young adults in a parking lot and I coulda sworn there was a white girl in the middle of them. When I got closer I realized she was completely black African Ethiopian with so-called "white" features. I had to laugh at myself.
It's not just Ethiopians - more and more I'm noticing certain features that seem to be more common in African Americans or as common in them compared to Euro/white Americans.
And then, when I look at West Africans and see the same in them it suggests to me that these aren't 'white' or 'mixed' traits. These rather just go un noticed or less noticed as we mentally pass them off by assuming "it's just an exception to a rule" and then ignoring it (that's the way bias works) because our learned racialised worldview engenders bias and [which is psychological].
There are many distinct looks I am noticing
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: When using the word Mediterranean we must remember and begin to emphasize the fact that Mediterranean does not exclude Africa.
Extreme North Africa is the southern littoral of the Mediterranean Sea. Assuming Mediterranean to be only Italy and Greece is the Medicentrics' game. I refuse to play by their rules. There are too many Med types to use the word in any kind of homologous fashion. But since it's not going to be abandoned I will make the rules and define it to my purposes instead of being ruled and leting others set their definition for me to kowtow to.
On point!!
Greeks and other Mid Easterners do have Mediterranean features and ancestry from North Africans ya know.
Yes. I have come to the point that most whites I see today look more like white skinned blacks than anything else, as the features originate among blacks and the only differences are the skin complexion.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
rasol caterwauled: ----------------------------------- When intelligent persons like Howells make disingenuous arguments they are relying on lazy-thinking audiences, who don't recognize contradictions, and won't ask intelligent questions. -----------------------------------
Look at this fool. : )
He can't make up his mind. In one sentence its "Heeeee'ssss intelligent and briiiiiiliaaant" then in the next its "they be racists".
Oh the minds of keyboard scholars. LOL
Posted by Bettyboo (Member # 12987) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: Yes, that is the interview. It wasn't a long interview only about 7-10 minutes. He brought the TWO skulls to show that the Sahara had TWO distinct populations. This is why I am so skeptical. Why is there only 'TWO' distinct populations? As large as the Sahara is there had to be more than just "two" distinct groups.
You are right on this point.
All outdated theories of cranial race rely on the same fallacy.
Almost anywhere in modern Africa it is possible to find skulls with markededly different appearances, even within individual ethnic groups.
When race-craniometrists find such skulls they envariably treat them as if they are exemplifiers of juxtaposed 'races', when they may just be a part of natural variations within regions.
This sets up the bases for the kind of tortured tautology that Howells engaged in, when he suggested that 'early african crania were not *african*'.
When intelligent persons like Howells make disingenuous arguments they are relying on lazy-thinking audiences, who don't recognize contradictions, and won't ask intelligent questions.
Thank you! At least someone get what I am saying. Something about is just fishy. It is not that there are only 'TWO' distinct skulls that were found; it is that the 'TWO' skulls shows features that are commonly argued of a "true negro" or "black African" and "not-a-true-negro" or "black African". And of course, the "not-a-true-negro" skull has a possibility of being the ancestors of the Egyptians and modern day North African and the "true Negro" skull have a possiblity of being the ancestors of the rest of Africa. Give me a break. They just can't believe Egyptians were indeed a black African race. They are just being persistent.
Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo:
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: Yes, that is the interview. It wasn't a long interview only about 7-10 minutes. He brought the TWO skulls to show that the Sahara had TWO distinct populations. This is why I am so skeptical. Why is there only 'TWO' distinct populations? As large as the Sahara is there had to be more than just "two" distinct groups.
You are right on this point.
All outdated theories of cranial race rely on the same fallacy.
Almost anywhere in modern Africa it is possible to find skulls with markededly different appearances, even within individual ethnic groups.
When race-craniometrists find such skulls they envariably treat them as if they are exemplifiers of juxtaposed 'races', when they may just be a part of natural variations within regions.
This sets up the bases for the kind of tortured tautology that Howells engaged in, when he suggested that 'early african crania were not *african*'.
When intelligent persons like Howells make disingenuous arguments they are relying on lazy-thinking audiences, who don't recognize contradictions, and won't ask intelligent questions.
Thank you! At least someone get what I am saying. Something about is just fishy. It is not that there are only 'TWO' distinct skulls that were found; it is that the 'TWO' skulls shows features that are commonly argued of a "true negro" or "black African" and "not-a-true-negro" or "black African". And of course, the "not-a-true-negro" skull has a possibility of being the ancestors of the Egyptians and modern day North African and the "true Negro" skull have a possiblity of being the ancestors of the rest of Africa. Give me a break. They just can't believe Egyptians were indeed a black African race. They are just being persistent.
Yea, but Betty all Paul Sereno mentioned is he wanted to know who these people were, I.e, the ancestors of the Tauregs, Berbers, Egyptians etc... he didn't actually say they were their ancestors. But as I did reply to you, you have to understand to the simple laymen who believes everything they read and here, wouldn't know this Mediterranean implication is actually a Euro-centric ruse, and a way to hide the African influence in Southern Europe and West Asia.
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
quote: Basically, they are saying that the skull with the 'aquiline' features were ancestors of the egyptians and middle easterners and the skull with the 'broad' features are ancestors of the west africans.
Where did get that idea Betty? The skull below is the one with so called surprising Mediterranean features, but note the prognathous characteristics. Many skulls are erroneously classified as Mediterranean because they don't want to admit the skulls found in the Mediterranean in Europe and the near East that they are actually African. So the falsely applied made up Mediterranean skull becomes implicated.
Also Notice the Occipital region
(A)-Top view of mid-Holocene adult male (G1B11; ~4645 B.C.E.) buried in a recumbent hyperflexed posture. (B)-Bottom view of burial in A showing a mud turtle carapace (Pelusios adansonii) in contact with the ventral aspect of the pelvic girdle. (C)-Skull from burial in A and B showing high calvarium, narrow zygomatic width and more prognathous face. --Paul C. Sereno
The occipital bone, a saucer-shaped membrane bone situated at the back and lower part of the cranium, is trapezoid in shape and curved on itself. It is pierced by a large oval aperture, the foramen magnum, through which the cranial cavity communicates with the vertebral canal.
The male cranium below is from Wadi al-Halfa on the Sudan-Egypt border. Dating from the Mesolithic-Holocene period, it is typical of crania in Sudan and surrounding regions from that time frame.
Queen Ahmes-Nefertary
The Elder Lady(First identified as Queen Tiye) possesses an occipital bun comparable to Mesolithic Nubians.
Thutmose II displays the globular cranium common among more recent Nubians.
[/QB][/QUOTE] [/QB][/QUOTE]
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Knowledgeiskey718 wrote:
----------------------------- But as I did reply to you, you have to understand to the simple laymen who believes everything they read and here, wouldn't know this Mediterranean implication is actually a Euro-centric ruse -----------------------------
LOL! This is from someone who posted that Africans don't vary in skin complexions.
And here he is trying to pull a front job, when in fact he recites Eurocentric beliefs in every other post.
People it would be wise to take what this guy writes with a grain of salt AAAANNNNNND pepper. LOL.
Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Knowledgeiskey718 wrote:
----------------------------- But as I did reply to you, you have to understand to the simple laymen who believes everything they read and here, wouldn't know this Mediterranean implication is actually a Euro-centric ruse -----------------------------
LOL! This is from someone who posted that Africans don't vary in skin complexions.
People it would be wise to take what this guy writes with a grain of salt AAAANNNNNND pepper. LOL.
When did I say Africans don't vary in skin color? Stop your lying troll nonsense. Actually it's the total opposite and I argue against people (LIKE YOU)who actually do believe all Africans are one complexion.
quote: And here he is trying to pull a front job, when in fact he recites Eurocentric beliefs in every other post.
Name one Euro-centric thing I believe?
Posted by Bettyboo (Member # 12987) on :
"Knowledge" you missed my point. I never said he said that one of the skulls ARE the ancestors of the Egyptians, so-called berber, tuareg. I watch the interview and [he] pretended to use uncertainty to confuse people into believing [they] are unaware of such differences so [they] must find out more information about the so-called skulls. The agenda is already laid out. He already knows what the outcome and analyses will be. My question is... what is so odd about two skulls incongruent with one another. Why do that pull such amazement? Why do the skulls 'suppose' to look or be the same? Why shouldn't anyone find different skulls that comprise of different facial features? What is so interesting about that? Why does it need studies? Certain regions or land areas in Europe houses different groups with different phenotype. Why can't it be possible in Africa? If it is possible, why do it wound up with a "true negro" and "not-negro" concept?
Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
^^^ I understood what you were saying, and this erroneous distinction is made simply to hide the African influence in the near east and Southern Europe, because as mentioned, there is no homogeneous Mediterranean group of people, it's all a ruse. They try to explain the elongation of the skull and certain features as "Caucasoid" which to anyone who knows better, will know it's nonsense.
This has already been discussed here so we know the deal when they speak of erroneous "Caucasoid" pre-historic Africans, which is an oxymoron in itself, which was dealt with accordingly and debunked a long time ago on ES.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:rasol wrote: ----------------------------------- When intelligent persons like Howells make disingenuous arguments they are relying on lazy-thinking audiences, who don't recognize contradictions, and won't ask intelligent questions.
-----------------------------------
quote:Gargoyle write: He can't make up his mind. In one sentence its "Heeeee'ssss intelligent and briiiiiiliaaant" then in the next its "they be racists".
^ Gargoyle be stupid.
Intelligent thangs be goin right over his head.
When he try to think...he getta headache.
Then he start mewlin' like and old women haven menapause. Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Its obvious that you are quite upset about the Intellectual Thrashing you received from me.
hahahahahahahahahaha
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ It's obvious that you laugh at your own jokes because no one else will.
You poor thing. Must hurt waking up every day, and still having to be you.
Keep laughing at yourself. Maybe the pain will go away.
Or, maybe not. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ That's not true! I laugh at his jokes all the time!! Take the sh*t he just wrote for instance...
quote:Gargoyle699 wrote to Rasol: Its obvious that you are quite upset about the Intellectual Thrashing you received from me.
hahahahahahahahahaha
ROTFLMAO indeed! Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
rofl rasol
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
OK, enough with Gaygoyle and the other trolls!..
Next stop, the 'mediterranean' types of Nigeria.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Djehuti `_` the phillopeeeno
HA HA HA HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!
He's got a real racial obsession with Africans doesn't he? I guess when you're a phillopeeeeno its better than obsessing his own worthless people. LOL
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
bump
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
why bump stuff without adding a comment or saying why you are bumping it?
I say this because when I see people do it, it almost never rekindles the thread. It's more like "I don't like the current threads, let me put up some old threads I do like".
or
"this old thread on this topic was good, I don't like the new one, let's go dig up an old thread and continue our 2008 opinions"
The thing is, it doesn't work Nobody replies unless you bring some new information to the old thread Otherwise it's - been there done that
Djehuti often refers to old threads but he does so in current threads of the same topic by putting up the URLS of the old threads in a post in the new thread. "we already discussed that here...." he usually says
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
I agree with Lioness. Why bump this ancient thread for no reason? In fact Im now entertaining locking it.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
I bumped it because the topic is something we continually rehash here over and over. If topics were addressed in running threads or those threads referred to instead of new ones it would be a different issue.
And it puts these newer threads in context of stuff that has gone before, given that they aren't "new" topics.
But I forgot there is a policy thread on this forum and bumping old threads was called out there.... my mistake.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
scenarios of the roots of european people.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
