“As far back as 1877, Dr. Pruner-Bey analyzed six ancient Egyptian hair samples. Their average index of 64.4 was similar to the Tasmanians who lie at the periphery of the African-haired populations (1).”
So lets visit Dr. Pruner-Bey's scientific study... It states:
“b. Mummies (VI); a. with thick black hair (III). Of these antique specimens of hair one only exactly corresponds with the preceding by the generally elliptical form of its sections and by the thickness of the hair (33:17; 33:20) as well as the well marked central spots. The two other specimens show, in the form of their sections a tendency towards the oval form (30:20; 22:15; 20:15). These are somewhat finer, with more regular contours; the medulla is not always separate from the cortical substance.
B. Two specimens are brown inclining to red, and one is of reddish-yellow colour (III). The hair in these specimens is finer than in the black. The darkest incline towards the enlarged oval form, of which the following are the proportions, 25 and 26:20; 23:17 and 18. Most of the sections have a transparent centre, a few only show a small spot. The two lightest specimens furnished elliptical, mixed with oval sections, of the following dimensions: a, 25:15 and 20; 11 and 12;* b, 25:20; 25:15 and 15:10. We must also notice that a presents the central spots, whilst that of b is perfectly diaphanous…
Negroes (VI) Among the six Negroes there was only one in whom the form of the countours of some of this hairs differend from the usual form. This is elliptic in the great majority of cases. Exceptionally the ellipsis presents an inwardly curved margin, the section is the reniform, or rather the ellipsis presents a depressed spot. As a mean term, the diameters of the Negro hair are 20:12. The finer the hair, the greater the proportion of the small to large diameter; thus, whilst the thickest hairs give 30:15, the finest hair gave 18:10, and even 15:10; and if these three proportions are reduced to hundreds, it will be found that the large diameter being represented by 100, the small diameter is 50 in the thickest hair, 55 in the intermediate, and 66 in the finest hair. From these data it appears that the hair of the Negro is flattened in proportion to its thickness. In the six samples, one of which is of red colour, one-half present the medullary substance perfectly distinct at least in most of the sections. It is distinguished by a small central and circumscribed spot of the same form as that of the hair. In the sections as well as in the other three individuals examined, the medullary substance is absent; some marblings are, however, visible along the whole section. The hair of the Negro is thus elliptical and much flattened. The medullary substance does not always exist; the centre is never empty.” (“On Human Hair As A Race-Character” The Anthropological Review, Anthropological Society of London Pruner-Bey)
There are two sets of Egyptian mummy hair indexes provided, from this we come to the following mathematical conclusions:
Tasmanians are not “African haired” why Wysinger insists on comparing Tasmanians from the other side of the earth to mummified Egyptians is beyond reason and logic. Notice she did not include the negroid index from Dr. Pruner-Bey … she stoped dead in her tracks at comparing it to African negroids...GEE I WONDER WHY!
What does it say about the Tasmanians?
“Two specimens from Van Diemen’s Land, one black, the other yellowish-white, approach the hair of the New Irelanders by their tresses, their diameters, and internal dispositions. Diameters of the black hairs = 25:15; of the light hairs = 25:15 to 27:20. The first has no medullary substance; the second has it much enlarged.”
Notice said site claims that the Egyptian average index is 64.4 and similar to Tasmanians. This is not so, the total Egyptian average index for the six hair types overall (black and light) is 69.41, not 64.4. According to Pruner-Bey, the Tasmanians approach the hair of Irishmen, not negroids. Since the section on Tasmanians mentions the Irish, the numbers for light (1) and dark (2) hair are plugged in here as well for comparison:
Clearly, the Irish figure of 70.47 is closest to the mummies < 68.88; 69.94> more than the negro <57.40> or even the Tasmanian <64.69>. To emphasize:
Irish (1) vs mummies: 70.47 - 69.94 = 0.53 /and/ 70.47 - 68.88 = 1.59. Totals ÷ 2 = average of 1.06
Irish (2) vs mummies: 76.91 - 69.94 = 6.97 /and/ 76.91 - 68.88 = 8.03. Totals ÷ 2 = average of 7.5
Mummies vs negroids: 69.94 - 57.40 = 12.54 /and/ 68.88 - 57.40 = 11.48. Totals ÷ 2 = average of 12.01
Throwing Germans in the mix: 22:15/21:15/25:15 = 68.18 + 71.42 + 60 = 66.53
The Irish and German hair index is much closer to the Egyptian index than the negroids!
To answer the question on the website “Why does their hair look Caucasian?” It’s because it is! And isn’t it odd that for a foot note the site owner then rejects the scientific study and acts as if race doesn’t exist by posting a link to the American Anthropological Associations Statement on Race.
“Hair was predominately used to construct the wigs and false braids which served as items of daily and funerary attire throughout the Pharaonic period (Fletcher 1995). The hair employed for this purpose was specifically human hair, and in almost every case can be identified as cynotrichous (Caucasian) rather than heliotrichous (Negroid) (Hrdy 1978; Titlbachova and Titlbach 1977; Brunton 1937; el-Tatrawi 1935).” (“Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology Paul Nicholson, Ian Shaw 2000)
Looks like Wysinger doesn’t know her math, and thought she could dupe everyone in the process. Too bad for you!
Posts: 58 | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seems like you gotten this through the "arguewithanyone" forum. So how does this contradict the evidence that melanin levels amongst Egyptians, and their body plain, belonged to tropically adapted peoples? It doesn't, and at best, would suggest that African hair diversity is extremely high. Genetic evidence, on top of phenotype, is overwhelmingly pushing towards an African origin.
Saying that, the Irish are not tropically adapted. By the way, what the hell is the "negro index"? You need to post the original paper, or cite the source correctly, at least, because these debates are becoming rather troublesome.
The argument regarding red hair seems rather pointless as well. Hair color and form changes over time resulting to the lightening of hair color. For that reason it isn't considered primary forensic evidence.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Come now, provide evidence (cite a source) that the mummification process straightened out knappy kinky hair. Spewing these lies doesnt make it true. Odd how it managed to skip right over the only demonstrate-able negroid Maiherpri the Nubian. The Egyptian mummy hair was proven to match closer to Irish than negroid or Tasmanian. The mathematical conclusions are proof enough and Wysinger lied about it. Where are your credentials and what authority do you hold over Egyptologists, anthropologists and hair experts?
Posts: 58 | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by J. Philippe Rushton: Come now, provide evidence (cite a source) that the mummification process straightened out knappy kinky hair. Spewing these lies doesnt make it true. Odd how it managed to skip right over the only demonstrate-able negroid Maiherpri the Nubian. The Egyptian mummy hair was proven to match closer to Irish than negroid or Tasmanian. The mathematical conclusions are proof enough and Wysinger lied about it. Where are your credentials and what authority do you hold over Egyptologists, anthropologists and hair experts?
Well, it's pretty obvious that the preservation changes the hair type. That is, 'nappy' hair , is quite brittle and does can't maintain its state. However keep in mind that straight hair is found amongst African peoples as well.
Using one trait hair vs. many others, body plain, melanin levels, genetics, culture, is rather erroneous as well. It's obvious, even in the histological paper that I uploaded, that the hair remains weren't intact.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
it's pretty obvious that the preservation changes the hair type. That is, 'nappy' hair , is quite brittle and does can't maintain its state.
[B]No, I asked you specifically to provide a study proving that knappy kinky hair can straighten out due to the mummification process. You made this claim the onus is on you to provide the proof.
"does can't" which is it? Maiherpri's managed to preserve extremely well, do you deny this?
Posts: 58 | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged |
Red hair can be readily produced by dark-skinned populations- just check out Australia and pheomelanin
The finding of Rameses "red" hair also deserves further scrutiny. The analysis found evidence of dyeing to make the hair yellowish-red, but some elements were untouched by the dye. These elements of yellowish-red hair in Balout's study, were established on the basis of the presence of pheomelanin, a red-brown polymeric pigment in the skin and hair of humans. However, pheomelanin can also be found in persons with dark brown or even black hair as well, which gives it a reddish hue. Most natural melanins contain sulfur, which is typically associated with pheomelanin. In scientific tests of melanin, black hair contained as much as 5% sulfur, 3% lower than the 8.8% found in Irish red hair, but exceeding the 2.3% found in Scandinavian blond hair. (Jolles, et al. 1996) Thus the yellowish-red hair discovered on Rameses is well within the range of human variation for dark haired people, whatever the exact gene combination that led to the condition.
As noted above, such variation began with ancient African populations. Most red hair is found in northern and western Europe, especially in the British Isles, and even then it appears in minor frequencies in Europe- some 4% of the population. It is unlikely such populations had any major contact or influence in the ancient Nile Valley. The analysis on Rameses also did not show classic "European" red hair but hair of a light red to yellowish tinge. Black haired or dark-skinned populations are quite capable of producing such yellowish-red color variants on their own, as can be seen in today's east and northeast Africa (see child's photo above). Nor is such color variation unusual to Africa. Native dark-skinned populations in Australia, routinely produce people witn blond or reddish hair. .
The analysis also found Rameses' hair to be cymotrich or wavy, again a characteristic quite within the range of overall African or Nile valley physical and genetic diversity. A "pure" Nordic type of straight hair was thus not established for Rameses. Hence the notion of white Europeans or red-headed Caucasoids from other areas flowing into ancient Egypt to add hair variation is dubious. Inflows occurred during the Greek and Roman eras but reddish or brown hair is within the range of African variation. Genetic studies (Tishkoff 2009, 2000) show Africans have the highest diversity in the world. Skeletal/cranial studies confirm the pattern. Relethford (2001) shows that ".. methods for estimating regional diversity show sub-Saharan Africa to have the highest levels of phenotypic variation, consistent with many genetic studies." (Relethford, John "Global Analysis of Regional Differences in Craniometric Diversity and Population Substructure". Human Biology - Volume 73, Number 5, October 2001, pp. 629-636) Hanihara 2003 notes that [significant] "..intraregional diversity are present in Subsaharan Africans.." While ancient Egypt had gene flow in various eras, hair variations easily fall under this pattern of built-in, indigenous diversity, as well as the above noted cultural practice of using wigs with hair from different places obtained through trade.
-----------------------
Joann Fletcher, ANCIENT EGYPTIAN HAIR AND WIGS, THE OSTRACON THE JOURNAL OF THE EGYPTIAN STUDY SOCIETY, VOLUME 13, NUMBER 2; SUMMER 2002
The Search for Nefertiti, By Joann Fletcher, HarperCollins, 2004, p. 93-94, 96
Brothwell. D., and R. Spearman 1963 The hair of earlier peoples. In: Science in Archaeology. D. Brothwell and E. Higgs, eds. Thames and Hudeon, London, p. 427-436
Daniel Hrdy 1978- Analysis of Hair Samples of Mummies from Semna South, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, (1978) 49: 277-262)
Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern Africa," American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 83:35-48 (1990
Hair Styles and History, by Cyril Aldred, The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin, New Series, Vol. 15, No. 6 (Feb., 1957), pp. 141-147)
L. Balout, C. Roubet and C. Desroches-Noblecourt, and was titled La Momie de Ramsès II: Contribution Scientifique à l'Égyptologie (1985).
Formation and Structure of Human Hair: Biology and Structure, By Pierre Jollès, Helmut Zahn, H. Höcker, Birkhäuser, 1996, pp. 200-225
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps I can direct the idiot wap Mr. Rushton here.
FACT 1. Black African hair varies among populations and not all have the stereotypical 'kinky' hair.
Malian
Somalians
Ethiopian
Egyptians
FACT 2. Chemical changes does happen to preserved or mummified hair:
Mummies of ancient Peruvians
^ So unless you want to argue that ancient Native Americans of South America also had auburn or red hair, I suggest you give it up. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Egyptian hair variation just like their crania and body proportions are well within the range of African diversity. As Keita notes:
"Strouhal (1971) microscopically examined some hair which had been preserved on a Badrarian skull. The analysis was interpreted as suggesting a stereotypical tropical African-European hybrid (mulatto). However this hair is grossly no different from that of Fulani, some Kanuri, or Somali and does not require a gene flow explanation any more than curly hair in Greece necessarily does. Extremely "wooly" hair is not the only kind native to tropical Africa. This is not to say that gene flow (admixture) never occurred, but only to reiterate that natural variation should be considered the first line of explanation." (S. O. Y. Keita. (1993). "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History in Africa 20 (1993) 129-54)
Hair type in Africa is quite variable. As the American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race" 1998 notes: "Physical variations in any given trait tend to occur gradually rather than abruptly over geographic areas. And because physical traits are inherited independently of one another, knowing the range of one trait does not predict the presence of others. For example, skin color varies largely from light in the temperate areas in the north to dark in the tropical areas in the south; its intensity is not related to nose shape or hair texture. Dark skin may be associated with frizzy or kinky hair or curly or wavy or straight hair, all of which are found among different indigenous peoples in tropical regions. These facts render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective."
Egyptians usually shaved completely and wore wigs and false beards. hair for these was secured hair from a wide variety of sources- including Asiatic war captives, and indeed hair was a major item of trade in some ancient Egyptian cities, such as Kahnun. Excavations often discovered locks of hair from different sources placed with burials. A. Rosalie David. The Pyramid Builders of Ancient Egypt; The Experience of Egypt 2000) Thus much touted "white Egyptian" hair retrieved from tombs could quite possibly be hair from various sources including East Africa, the Levant, Maghreb and elsewhere, and not an indication of incoming white "Mediterranean," "Nordic" or "Middle Eastern" hordes.
Since the Nubians were ethnically the closest to the Egyptians, attempts to segregate out "black" hair as foreign fall flat. And that's just the Nubians, The indigenous Egyptians themselves show that dark skin is a routine part of built in native variation. Dar skin is not "foreign" to Egypt.
So as far as Mahiperi the Nubian, the "negro" hair "point" on this score is thus entirely irrelevant. Since Nubians are ethnically the closest people to the Egyptians, his "hair" is quite within the range of variation of both Egyptians and Nubians.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Beware the beast Troll, for he is the Devil's pawn. Alone among God's primates, he kills for sport or lust or greed. Yea, he will murder his brother to possess his brother's web-site. Let him not breed in great numbers, for he will make a desert of his web-site and yours. Shun him; drive him back into his cave lair, for he is the harbinger of EgyptSearch death. Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Modern technology has clearly shown that many Egyptians were red heads and only the Nubians living in Egypt had anything resembling african hair. The loons on this site are fond of passing Nubians off as Egyptians.
Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Of course you just happened to ignore all the scientific evidence we provided concerning Egyptian hair based on the latest technology and continue to spout your ridiculous claims, eh Hammered? At least Rushton was smart enough to keep silent. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You haven't, as usual, presented any evidence concerning Egyptian hair outside of speculation. Ion microscope data in not refutable. More ignorant gibberish from uneducated loons who are more interested in their blackness that actual scholarship.
Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: You haven't, as usual, presented any evidence concerning Egyptian hair outside of speculation. Ion microscope data in not refutable. More ignorant gibberish from uneducated loons who are more interested in their blackness that actual scholarship.
Yawn. The modern evidence he provides is centuries old. I don't remember 1877 being recent in my world.
That source depends on classical racial nonsense where Blacks, especially, are thrown in a very restricted group. To suggest that Blacks cannot have straight/wavy hair severely restricts throws even significant West African populations such as Hausa-Fulani peoples outside of the "Negroid" population.
Suggesting that would be nonsense, because African diversity genetic and phenotypic is the greatest in the damn world. There is NO evidence that those traits are European-specific, nor do we see supporting evidence from other disciplines suggesting the same.
You continue to make short replies and never cite actual sources. That really just limits your standings on this forum.
PS: I think we should ignore new threads this fool creates and instead stick them into established threads.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hammered: You haven't, as usual, presented any evidence concerning Egyptian hair outside of speculation. Ion microscope data in not refutable. More ignorant gibberish from uneducated loons who are more interested in their blackness that actual scholarship.
Hey professor, are you drunk again or what?! what is so speculative about the evidence below??...
FACT 1. Black African hair varies among populations and not all have the stereotypical 'kinky' hair.
Malian
Somalians
Ethiopian
Egyptians
FACT 2. Chemical changes does happen to preserved or mummified hair:
Mummies of ancient Peruvians
^ So unless you want to argue that ancient Native Americans of South America also had auburn or red hair, I suggest you give it up.
You speak of the results of the ion microscopy study which was discussed many times before! The results were that natural phaelomelanin pigments found in Ramses hair as well as in the hair of some other mummies. But it was explained to you in all those other threads that traces of phaelomelanin are also found among the hairs of some black African peoples giving them a slightly lighter tinge or hue than jet-black. The presence of phaelomelanin does NOT mean they were blonde or red-heads, dummy!! Even mainstream Egyptologists whom you love to evoke scoff at the notion of 'blonde' or 'red-headed' ancient Egyptians, and as Dr. Marniche pointed out in another thread, even Hawass and his team get irritated when people always bring up Ramses being a red-head!!!
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
...Since microscopic analysis shows ancient Egyptian hair to be completely African, why does the hair look Caucasoid? Research has given us the answers.
Hair is made of keratin protein. Keratin is composed of amino acid chains called polypeptides. In a hair, two such chains are called cross-chain polypeptides. These are held together by disulphide bonds. The bulk of the hair, the source of its strength and curl, is called the cortex. The hair shafts are made of a protective outer layer called the cuticle.
We are informed by Afro Hair - A Salon Book, that chemicals for bleaching, penning and straightening hair must reach the cortex to be effective. For hair to be permed or straightened the disulphide bonds in the cortex must be broken. The anthropologist Daniel Hardy writing in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, tells us that keratin is stable owing to disulphide bonds. However, when hair is exposed to harsh conditions it can lead to oxidation of protein molecules in the cortex, which leads to the alteration of hair texture, such as straightening.
Two British anthropologists, Brothwell and Spearman, have found evidence of cortex keratin oxidation in ancient Egyptian hair. They held that the mummification process was responsible, because of the strong alkaline substance used. This resulted in the yellowing and browning of hair as well as the straightening effect...Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ion microscope examination is not hampered by that process. It looks at the hair at a deeper level. Stop spinning guys. You are making an ignorant argument and offer not a scrap of acceptable evidence to back it up. All we get here is cut and paste, cut and paste. The same old articles over and over and o ver again from the same people.
Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: Ion microscope examination is not hampered by that process. It looks at the hair at a deeper level. Stop spinning guys. You are making an ignorant argument and offer not a scrap of acceptable evidence to back it up. All we get here is cut and paste, cut and paste. The same old articles over and over and o ver again from the same people.
Idiot. No one here is arguing the process. It's downright foolish to align hair type to race. The specificity is downright limited.
Africans have varied hair types, including straight, hell even blue-black variants. The suggestion that fossils can straighten up and lighten up is attested in the Peruvian remains as well.
You continue to not provide any evidence. That includes that Rushtom drone as well. He doesn't cite the flawed methodology in a hundred-year old study that is clearly erroneous.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are a typically stupid nigger. You havent cited a SINGLE SOUCE to support any of your bullshit beliefs. You have ZERO credentials, unlike the Egyptologists that have made this their life long passion. When are you going to stob bitching and disprove what the study below says?
On Wysingers Afrocentric racist site she said:
“As far back as 1877, Dr. Pruner-Bey analyzed six ancient Egyptian hair samples. Their average index of 64.4 was similar to the Tasmanians who lie at the periphery of the African-haired populations (1).”
So lets visit Dr. Pruner-Bey's scientific study... It states:
“b. Mummies (VI); a. with thick black hair (III). Of these antique specimens of hair one only exactly corresponds with the preceding by the generally elliptical form of its sections and by the thickness of the hair (33:17; 33:20) as well as the well marked central spots. The two other specimens show, in the form of their sections a tendency towards the oval form (30:20; 22:15; 20:15). These are somewhat finer, with more regular contours; the medulla is not always separate from the cortical substance.
B. Two specimens are brown inclining to red, and one is of reddish-yellow colour (III). The hair in these specimens is finer than in the black. The darkest incline towards the enlarged oval form, of which the following are the proportions, 25 and 26:20; 23:17 and 18. Most of the sections have a transparent centre, a few only show a small spot. The two lightest specimens furnished elliptical, mixed with oval sections, of the following dimensions: a, 25:15 and 20; 11 and 12;* b, 25:20; 25:15 and 15:10. We must also notice that a presents the central spots, whilst that of b is perfectly diaphanous…
Negroes (VI) Among the six Negroes there was only one in whom the form of the countours of some of this hairs differend from the usual form. This is elliptic in the great majority of cases. Exceptionally the ellipsis presents an inwardly curved margin, the section is the reniform, or rather the ellipsis presents a depressed spot. As a mean term, the diameters of the Negro hair are 20:12. The finer the hair, the greater the proportion of the small to large diameter; thus, whilst the thickest hairs give 30:15, the finest hair gave 18:10, and even 15:10; and if these three proportions are reduced to hundreds, it will be found that the large diameter being represented by 100, the small diameter is 50 in the thickest hair, 55 in the intermediate, and 66 in the finest hair. From these data it appears that the hair of the Negro is flattened in proportion to its thickness. In the six samples, one of which is of red colour, one-half present the medullary substance perfectly distinct at least in most of the sections. It is distinguished by a small central and circumscribed spot of the same form as that of the hair. In the sections as well as in the other three individuals examined, the medullary substance is absent; some marblings are, however, visible along the whole section. The hair of the Negro is thus elliptical and much flattened. The medullary substance does not always exist; the centre is never empty.” (“On Human Hair As A Race-Character” The Anthropological Review, Anthropological Society of London Pruner-Bey)
There are two sets of Egyptian mummy hair indexes provided, from this we come to the following mathematical conclusions:
Tasmanians are not “African haired” why Wysinger insists on comparing Tasmanians from the other side of the earth to mummified Egyptians is beyond reason and logic. Notice she did not include the negroid index from Dr. Pruner-Bey … she stoped dead in her tracks at comparing it to African negroids...GEE I WONDER WHY!
What does it say about the Tasmanians?
“Two specimens from Van Diemen’s Land, one black, the other yellowish-white, approach the hair of the New Irelanders by their tresses, their diameters, and internal dispositions. Diameters of the black hairs = 25:15; of the light hairs = 25:15 to 27:20. The first has no medullary substance; the second has it much enlarged.”
Notice said site claims that the Egyptian average index is 64.4 and similar to Tasmanians. This is not so, the total Egyptian average index for the six hair types overall (black and light) is 69.41, not 64.4. According to Pruner-Bey, the Tasmanians approach the hair of Irishmen, not negroids. Since the section on Tasmanians mentions the Irish, the numbers for light (1) and dark (2) hair are plugged in here as well for comparison:
Clearly, the Irish figure of 70.47 is closest to the mummies < 68.88; 69.94> more than the negro <57.40> or even the Tasmanian <64.69>. To emphasize:
Irish (1) vs mummies: 70.47 - 69.94 = 0.53 /and/ 70.47 - 68.88 = 1.59. Totals ÷ 2 = average of 1.06
Irish (2) vs mummies: 76.91 - 69.94 = 6.97 /and/ 76.91 - 68.88 = 8.03. Totals ÷ 2 = average of 7.5
Mummies vs negroids: 69.94 - 57.40 = 12.54 /and/ 68.88 - 57.40 = 11.48. Totals ÷ 2 = average of 12.01
Throwing Germans in the mix: 22:15/21:15/25:15 = 68.18 + 71.42 + 60 = 66.53
The Irish and German hair index is much closer to the Egyptian index than the negroids!
To answer the question on the website “Why does their hair look Caucasian?” It’s because it is! And isn’t it odd that for a foot note the site owner then rejects the scientific study and acts as if race doesn’t exist by posting a link to the American Anthropological Associations Statement on Race.
“Hair was predominately used to construct the wigs and false braids which served as items of daily and funerary attire throughout the Pharaonic period (Fletcher 1995). The hair employed for this purpose was specifically human hair, and in almost every case can be identified as cynotrichous (Caucasian) rather than heliotrichous (Negroid) (Hrdy 1978; Titlbachova and Titlbach 1977; Brunton 1937; el-Tatrawi 1935).” (“Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology Paul Nicholson, Ian Shaw 2000)
Looks like Wysinger doesn’t know her math, and thought she could dupe everyone in the process. Too bad for you, nigger. Thanks for your perfect regurgitation of the standard black racist Afrocentrist dogma that has been fed to, and willingly absorbed by you. At some point, maybe you will develop enough intellectual independence to question what has been spoon fed to you, but unless and until that day occurs, I expect you to continue your belief in this racist mythology.
Posts: 58 | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Niggers still dont bathe, and they never invented the wheel, written language, calendar, government, technology, discovery, etc...
Almost everything around you was invented by, created by, or conceived by white people, including the computer you're using to type your racism onto, the language you're using, the mathematics that drive the computer, the screen you're looking at, the electricity that powers it, the alphabet you're using, the light in the room you're in, the manufacturing process for the clothes you're wearing, the glasses you're probably wearing, and so on and so on ad infinitum. Pretending that it isn't so only establishes you as a liar; it does nothing to change history.
Posts: 58 | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even if every last Kemite turned out to be lanked haired they would not be able to join your local KKK organization or join your Nazi BBQ..so really what the fu!k do you care??
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
Even that old liar Wysinger managed to slip up on Maiherpri...
Maiherpri, a Nubian prince educated at court with the royal princes, one of which became Amenhotep II. Subsequently Maiherpri held office under that king. http://wysinger.homestead.com/maiherperi.html
Why is he the ONLY one painted jet black and sporting knappy hair in the BOTD while all the others are painted red? Thats right, you've got it niggers, he was a Nubian, as all the Egyptologists and anthropologists have stated. LMAO!!!!
Posts: 58 | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh Boy. Gulp! shiver! shiver! Think we pissed the white man off. let me get out of here
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ignoring Rushton, the angry dumb Neo-Nazi...
Getting back to the closeted Kluxer from Texas...
quote:Originally posted by Hammered: Ion microscope examination is not hampered by that process. It looks at the hair at a deeper level. Stop spinning guys. You are making an ignorant argument and offer not a scrap of acceptable evidence to back it up. All we get here is cut and paste, cut and paste. The same old articles over and over and o ver again from the same people.
Moron! Did you not read my previous post?? The purpose of the ion microscopy was to determine whether Ramses had any natural light pigment in the form of phaelomelanin present!
But here is my response again if you missed it!
quote:Djehuti specifically wrote: You speak of the results of the ion microscopy study which was discussed many times before! The results were that natural phaelomelanin pigments found in Ramses hair as well as in the hair of some other mummies. But it was explained to you in all those other threads that traces of phaelomelanin are also found among the hairs of some black African peoples giving them a slightly lighter tinge or hue than jet-black. The presence of phaelomelanin does NOT mean they were blonde or red-heads, dummy!! Even mainstream Egyptologists whom you love to evoke scoff at the notion of 'blonde' or 'red-headed' ancient Egyptians, and as Dr. Marniche pointed out in another thread, even Hawass and his team get irritated when people always bring up Ramses being a red-head!!!
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by J. Philippe Rushton: You are a typically stupid nigger. You havent cited a SINGLE SOUCE to support any of your bullshit beliefs. You have ZERO credentials, unlike the Egyptologists that have made this their life long passion. When are you going to stob bitching and disprove what the study below says?
On Wysingers Afrocentric racist site she said:
“As far back as 1877, Dr. Pruner-Bey analyzed six ancient Egyptian hair samples. Their average index of 64.4 was similar to the Tasmanians who lie at the periphery of the African-haired populations (1).”
So lets visit Dr. Pruner-Bey's scientific study... It states:
“b. Mummies (VI); a. with thick black hair (III). Of these antique specimens of hair one only exactly corresponds with the preceding by the generally elliptical form of its sections and by the thickness of the hair (33:17; 33:20) as well as the well marked central spots. The two other specimens show, in the form of their sections a tendency towards the oval form (30:20; 22:15; 20:15). These are somewhat finer, with more regular contours; the medulla is not always separate from the cortical substance.
B. Two specimens are brown inclining to red, and one is of reddish-yellow colour (III). The hair in these specimens is finer than in the black. The darkest incline towards the enlarged oval form, of which the following are the proportions, 25 and 26:20; 23:17 and 18. Most of the sections have a transparent centre, a few only show a small spot. The two lightest specimens furnished elliptical, mixed with oval sections, of the following dimensions: a, 25:15 and 20; 11 and 12;* b, 25:20; 25:15 and 15:10. We must also notice that a presents the central spots, whilst that of b is perfectly diaphanous…
Negroes (VI) Among the six Negroes there was only one in whom the form of the countours of some of this hairs differend from the usual form. This is elliptic in the great majority of cases. Exceptionally the ellipsis presents an inwardly curved margin, the section is the reniform, or rather the ellipsis presents a depressed spot. As a mean term, the diameters of the Negro hair are 20:12. The finer the hair, the greater the proportion of the small to large diameter; thus, whilst the thickest hairs give 30:15, the finest hair gave 18:10, and even 15:10; and if these three proportions are reduced to hundreds, it will be found that the large diameter being represented by 100, the small diameter is 50 in the thickest hair, 55 in the intermediate, and 66 in the finest hair. From these data it appears that the hair of the Negro is flattened in proportion to its thickness. In the six samples, one of which is of red colour, one-half present the medullary substance perfectly distinct at least in most of the sections. It is distinguished by a small central and circumscribed spot of the same form as that of the hair. In the sections as well as in the other three individuals examined, the medullary substance is absent; some marblings are, however, visible along the whole section. The hair of the Negro is thus elliptical and much flattened. The medullary substance does not always exist; the centre is never empty.” (“On Human Hair As A Race-Character” The Anthropological Review, Anthropological Society of London Pruner-Bey)
There are two sets of Egyptian mummy hair indexes provided, from this we come to the following mathematical conclusions:
Tasmanians are not “African haired” why Wysinger insists on comparing Tasmanians from the other side of the earth to mummified Egyptians is beyond reason and logic. Notice she did not include the negroid index from Dr. Pruner-Bey … she stoped dead in her tracks at comparing it to African negroids...GEE I WONDER WHY!
What does it say about the Tasmanians?
“Two specimens from Van Diemen’s Land, one black, the other yellowish-white, approach the hair of the New Irelanders by their tresses, their diameters, and internal dispositions. Diameters of the black hairs = 25:15; of the light hairs = 25:15 to 27:20. The first has no medullary substance; the second has it much enlarged.”
Notice said site claims that the Egyptian average index is 64.4 and similar to Tasmanians. This is not so, the total Egyptian average index for the six hair types overall (black and light) is 69.41, not 64.4. According to Pruner-Bey, the Tasmanians approach the hair of Irishmen, not negroids. Since the section on Tasmanians mentions the Irish, the numbers for light (1) and dark (2) hair are plugged in here as well for comparison:
Clearly, the Irish figure of 70.47 is closest to the mummies < 68.88; 69.94> more than the negro <57.40> or even the Tasmanian <64.69>. To emphasize:
Irish (1) vs mummies: 70.47 - 69.94 = 0.53 /and/ 70.47 - 68.88 = 1.59. Totals ÷ 2 = average of 1.06
Irish (2) vs mummies: 76.91 - 69.94 = 6.97 /and/ 76.91 - 68.88 = 8.03. Totals ÷ 2 = average of 7.5
Mummies vs negroids: 69.94 - 57.40 = 12.54 /and/ 68.88 - 57.40 = 11.48. Totals ÷ 2 = average of 12.01
Throwing Germans in the mix: 22:15/21:15/25:15 = 68.18 + 71.42 + 60 = 66.53
The Irish and German hair index is much closer to the Egyptian index than the negroids!
To answer the question on the website “Why does their hair look Caucasian?” It’s because it is! And isn’t it odd that for a foot note the site owner then rejects the scientific study and acts as if race doesn’t exist by posting a link to the American Anthropological Associations Statement on Race.
“Hair was predominately used to construct the wigs and false braids which served as items of daily and funerary attire throughout the Pharaonic period (Fletcher 1995). The hair employed for this purpose was specifically human hair, and in almost every case can be identified as cynotrichous (Caucasian) rather than heliotrichous (Negroid) (Hrdy 1978; Titlbachova and Titlbach 1977; Brunton 1937; el-Tatrawi 1935).” (“Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology Paul Nicholson, Ian Shaw 2000)
Looks like Wysinger doesn’t know her math, and thought she could dupe everyone in the process. Too bad for you, nigger. Thanks for your perfect regurgitation of the standard black racist Afrocentrist dogma that has been fed to, and willingly absorbed by you. At some point, maybe you will develop enough intellectual independence to question what has been spoon fed to you, but unless and until that day occurs, I expect you to continue your belief in this racist mythology.
Yawn. These "sources" you cite are not from bio-anthropologists. For one, we know that race doesn't exist.
You could go to AAA's statement.
Second, there is no "negroid" hair type. It is pretty obvious that East Africans would likely have an intermediate position. I don't know about African-Americans, but hair type amongst Africans are not identical.
For that reason, your "sources" do not follow. I wouldn't claim that I do not provide sources. Hell I uploaded your sources. I got more access to the sources you use, uneducated fool. The fact is, I was one of the few users who actually went out of the way to look at primary data, post the methodology used and the result.
You just depend on white supremacist forums such as Arguewithanyidiot and Stormfront. Hell, you directly copy and paste the nonsense. That post's above value is equivalent to horse manure and does not invalidate our claims.
Using hair specificity is a foolish way to assess anything. We have genetics, the general body plain of the Egyptians (exaggerated "Super Negroid", by the way), melanin-levels, all suggesting that the population were tropically adapted Africans.
Now somehow, just because you (or those fools on the forums say so), hair is the most important indicator in the debate. Get the **** out of here. It is one indicator and since you're posting the methodology used to determine "Negroid" hair, the source really doesn't matter at all. We work with evidence that can be validated even today.
posted
^ Well they say a picture is worth a thousand words but in that portrayal of Rushton, there is one ONE word-- sh*tbrains.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_01: Yawn. These "sources" you cite are not from bio-anthropologists. For one, we know that race doesn't exist.
You could go to AAA's statement.
Second, there is no "negroid" hair type. It is pretty obvious that East Africans would likely have an intermediate position. I don't know about African-Americans, but hair type amongst Africans are not identical.
For that reason, your "sources" do not follow. I wouldn't claim that I do not provide sources. Hell I uploaded your sources. I got more access to the sources you use, uneducated fool. The fact is, I was one of the few users who actually went out of the way to look at primary data, post the methodology used and the result.
You just depend on white supremacist forums such as Arguewithanyidiot and Stormfront. Hell, you directly copy and paste the nonsense. That post's above value is equivalent to horse manure and does not invalidate our claims.
Using hair specificity is a foolish way to assess anything. We have genetics, the general body plain of the Egyptians (exaggerated "Super Negroid", by the way), melanin-levels, all suggesting that the population were tropically adapted Africans.
Now somehow, just because you (or those fools on the forums say so), hair is the most important indicator in the debate. Get the **** out of here. It is one indicator and since you're posting the methodology used to determine "Negroid" hair, the source really doesn't matter at all. We work with evidence that can be validated even today.
NEXT
LOL Indeed. The only time the fool actually cites scholarly source, those sources are outdated and use debunk racial terms like "negroid", "caucasoid" etc. All recent bio-anthropology never uses such phrases as the notion of 'race' is refuted! As you say, African hair varies and is not just the stereotypical 'kinky' kind, but even those Africans with looser wavy textured hair, the hair is still much thicker compared to so-called "caucasoid" peoples of Europe and Southwest Asia, and nothing he says can change that.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Ignoring Rushton, the angry dumb Neo-Nazi...
Hilarious picture. Hahahaha [/QUOTE]
^ lol.. His bogus "hair" claims don't stand up to closer examination. He is careful to skip mention of some other key points raised on the Wysinger site. The Wysinger site lists 2 recent credible examinations of Egyptian hair using not the crude 1877 instruments of Pruner-bey but modern electronic microscopes. Overall Egyptian hair was closer to Africans or mixed negro types than to Europeans. A team of Italian anthropologists published their research in the Journal of Human Evolution in 1972 and 1980 - Conti-Fuhrman and Massa (1972) and Massa and Masali (1980). They used modern electron microscopes not 1877 technology. They measured two samples consisting of 26 individuals from pre-dynastic, 12th dynasty and 18th dynasty mummies. The overall average of all four sets of ancient Egyptian hair samples was 60.02. The 60.02 average puts the Egyptians much closer to his so-called "negroid" index of 57.40, than his beloved white Irish averages of 70.47 or 76.91. Read it and weep. Egyptians 60.02- Africans at 57.40 = 2.62. Egyptians 60.02 - White Irish at 70.47 = 10.45. If we add his other Irish sample the distance is even greater. If we use his Germans the Africans are still much closer to the Egyptians. He has failed again.
Curses! the Fuehrer lisped.... Debunked again!Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ LMAO Apparently Rushton and his idiotic ilk missed that!-- that recent studies usinc electronic microscopy prove African type hair! Add that to the findings of ion microscopy that Hammered keeps bringing up that traces of phaelomelanin were present does NOT refute the African nature since even black Africans can still possess traces of light pigment in the hair! Apparently these twits don't know that regardles, mainstream Egyptology does NOT entertain the notion that red or blonde hair is native to Egypt!!
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^ lol.. their last line of bogus defence which they are spamming all over the web is the purported 1977 study of Titlbachova, conducted under the auspices of Eugene Strouhal's 1979 "Multidisciplinary Research on Egyptian Mummies in Czechoslovakia". This is the same Strouhal wo in his 1971 study quanitly asserts that there were few "negroes" in Egypt until the New Kingdom and that the "negroes" displaced a 'Europid" population in Nubia. It is claimed that this Czech study found an all Caucasia hair thang in Egypt, and the claim is constantly spammed in blogs.
However upon closer examination the claim does not hold up. Hrdy 1978 examined the Czech report and notes that said study did not find the bogus Caucasoid purity claimed as fact, but a dreaded negroid mix instead, one with (quote) "with significant African admixture."
Right off the bat this kills the Caucasian claim. The Czech report shows a "mixed" population up front, but this fact is usually concealed. Of course we know that African hair is so variable that we fundamentally do not need any "mix" concept to explain indigenous variability. late comers to Egypt would add to the native variability already in place.
Nevertheless even giving them the benefit of the doubt, we come to something very interesting about the dataset used by said "hair" study. It is weighted towards late period New Kingdom samples, a time of increasing foreign involvement in Egypt. For example The Third Intermediate Period saw several Libyan derived rulers and increasing foreign intrusions, and the Saite period, a time of increasing foreign involvement in Egypt. Indeed the dynasty founder Psammetichus was himself half Libyan, and he used substantial numbers of Greek mercenaries to help fight against Delta rivals. Indeed Egyptology writer J. Fletcher 1995 surmises that some of the lighter hair types found in Egypt may have been influenced by the presence of Libyans and Greeks in ancient Egypt. Note- not natives but foreign Libyans and Greeks. Fletcher elsewhere notes the prevalence of New Kingdom hair samples in terms of significance and volume - (quote) "there are relatively few “hair finds” from the Old Kingdom.." The best surviving examples are from the New Kingdom.
The late period Greek and Libyan interludes explain the presence of "foreign" hair in the Nile Valley, but only in part. Another very significant factor is the trade in hair. Hair for wigs was a major commodity and was one of the major trade items for example in the city of Kahun for example. (Fletcher 2002). Thus hair was in much demand and was freely traded and purchased in Egypt, undermining claims of wispy "Caucasian" blonds and redheads flitting about ancient Egypt. Such hair was easily obtained from Asiatic war captives or trade with the Levant and Maghreb or the Sudan. Indeed bundles of hair from different sources is a common occurrence in Egyptian tombs according to Fletcher, further undermining "wandering Caucasoid" theories. Such indeed may have arrived with the late-coming Greeks, whether as conquerors or mercenaries (as in the Saite period) or even the late-coming Libyan foreigners and dynasts, but they do not characterize the fundamental ancient Nile Valley stock.
As regards hair color, Brothwell and Spearman (‘63) point out that reddish-brown ancient hair is usually the result of partial oxidation of the melanin pigment.
So there we have it. The much spammed 'Caucasian hair' study turns out to be nothing of the sort. It shows a "mixed race" pattern, (shaky as that concept is in bio-anthropological terms) and the dataset used is weighted towards late period samples when Egypt experienced foreign involvement. We also have the testimony of Egyptology writer Fletcher that lighter types of hair are associated not with natives, but with foreigners- Libyans and Greeks. We have the fact of the significant trade the Egyptians carried out in hair, and the practice of burying bundles of hair from different sources in tombs. We also have the analysis of Brothwell showing that the much touted "Caucasian red hair color" usually turns out to be oxidation of the melanin pigment.
We also have modern scanning electron microscope studies showing that the hair from ancient mummies are quite within the range of African populations. Indeed in comparison to obsolete 1877 technology used by Pruner-Bay so beloved of assorted "Aryans" we have a team of Italian anthropologists, who published their research in the Journal of Human Evolution in 1972 and 1980 - Conti-Fuhrman and Massa (1972) and Massa and Masali (1980). They used modern electron microscopes not 1877 technology. They measured two samples consisting of 26 individuals from pre-dynastic, 12th dynasty and 18th dynasty mummies. The overall average of all four sets of ancient Egyptian hair samples was 60.02. The 60.02 average puts the Egyptians much closer to Pruner-Bey's the so-called "negroid" index of 57.40, than to white populations such as the Irish (70.47 or 76.91 on Pruner's scale).
So if we are gonna run their "hair math":
Egyptians 60.02 - Africans at 57.40 = 2.62. Egyptians 60.02 - White Irish at 70.47 = 10.45. African range is substantially closer than the 'Europids"
We also of course could throw out the above and note that the pattern of physical variability of the Nile Valley peoples makes all sorts of hair variation possible. Assorted "Nordic" supporters are madly spamming their "hair research" all over the web but when even a cursory look is taken at their claims, and even giving them the benefit of the doubt, such bogus claims don't hold up.
Indeed the more you look into it the more you can see how bogus their methods are. In contrast to the credible academic sources cited above, several spammed pieces refers to the work of "archaeologist" Lisa Parks who purportedly in 2000 write on the website egyptrevealed.com about Egyptian hair. Turns out that "archaeologist" Lisa Parks is not that at all but a film professor in California, and her resume which has a detailed list of her writings has nothing at all on the claimed "hair research." The "referenced" website egyptrevealed.com is an empty shell without content. "Archaelogist" Lisa Parks is nowhere to be found. This is the way our "Aryan" "scholars" operate.
Looks like once again:
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
As regards the much touted study of the hair of Egyptian mummies by Czech anthropologists Titlbachova and Titllbach (1977) (scholarly collaborators of E. Strouhal and reported in Strouhal 1977) it used only LATE PERIOD New Kingdom samples, finding a wide range of hair in mummies, but drew classification boundaries as narrowly as possible.
Of the 14 samples, only 4 were from the south of Egypt, and none of the 14 samples were earlier than the 18th Dynasty. Essentially the previous 2,000 years + of Egyptian civilization and peopling are not represented, even though samples from earlier periods were available, such as that examined by Strouhal 1971 where he found a mixed pattern of some 80% stereotypically negroid-mulatto mix. Only the narrowest definition is used to identify 'true negro' types. All other intermediate types were deemed 'non-negroid.' Inconsistently, one of the samples deemed as Negroid (#5) had light to medium brown color hair, yet another (#45) with a THICKER hair measurement than #5 and a darker color was deemed "non-negroid". The thickest hair sample of all (#44) is classified as 'non-negroid.' These inconsistencies parallel many other studies of the Nile Valley peoples, where a double standard prevails. No attempt is made by researchers to define a similar 'true white' or 'Caucasoid'. If a similar procedure is used in reverse and designates only straight hair as a marker of Caucasians, then only 4 out of 14 or 29% of the samples can be deemed "Caucasoid." Below is a breakdown of the Czech data:
Sample# 5- 18th-21st dynasties- Deir el Medina- curly Sample# 8- 21st-25th dynasties- hair looks straight Sample# 11- Late to Greek Period- hair partly wavy Sample# 18- Late period Egypt- hair fine diameter Sample# 19- Greek period- wavy hair Sample# 29- 18-21st Dynasties- Deir El Medina- hair shape unascertainable - south Sample# 31- 18-21st dynasties- Deir El Medina- wavy to curly - south Sample# 33- 21st-25th dynasties- appears straight Sample# 34- 21st-25th dynasties- shape difficult to determine Sample# 35- 21st-25th dynasties- wavy shape Sample# 40- 21-25th Dynasties- hair curly, Sample# 44- 21-25th Dynasties- appears straight Sample# 45- 21-25th Dynasties- appears wavy Sample# 46- Kharga Oasis- 4th-5th centuries AD
The scanning electron microscope data by Massa and Masali further undercut such "race" analyis using hair, but as one forensic expert notes:
"The reader must assume, as apparently do the authors, that the "coarseness" or "fineness" of hair can readily distinguish races and that hair is dichotomized into these categories. Problematically, however, virtually all who have studied hair morphology in relation to race since the 1920’s to the present have rejected such a characterization .. Hausman, as early as 1925, stated that it is "not possible to identify individuals from samples of their hair, basing identification upon histological similarities in the structure of scales and medullas, since these may differ in hairs from the same head or in different parts of the same hair". Rook (1975) pointed out nearly 50 years later out that "Negroid and Caucasoid hair" are "chemically indistinguishable". --Tom Mieczkowsk, T. (2000). The Further Mismeasure: The Curious Use of Racial Categorizations in the Interpretation of Hair Analyses. Intl J Drug Testing 2000;vol 2
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
hair doesn't determine race well atleast in africa, if you ever been to egypt you'd know plently of them have kinky(super curly) hair, including former president Anwar el-Sadat.
here is stright haired african, i guess if they found her mummy they would say she is not african right?
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Of course. It should be noted that wavy type hair is found as far south as Uganda and as far west as Mali. Also such hair need not be associated with 'fine' facial features as that is what Eurocentrics incessantly do to claim "caucasian" admixture, but there are in fact blacks with typically broad or "negroid" features with such hair as well. I remember Ausar mentioning a people, I believe the Bilma of Uganda or the Congo that are stereotypically "negroid" in terms of looks except they have wavy hair. The same is said with kinky hair which is also found among Africans with fine features.
Thus another reason why 'race' is debunked as is Phillipe Rushdumass!
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
LOL
Printer-friendly view of this topic