Une critique des méthodes utilisées pour reconstituer les races et les populations de la vallée du Nil (en anglais) Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société d'anthropologie de Paris, Année 1981, Volume 8, Numéro 3 p. 357 - 365
Two contrasting methodologies have been used to reconstruct the racial history of the Nile Valley or to assess the biological affinities of populations in that area. One of these, the classic typological approach, can be called deductive in nature. It assumes that races exist and that their characteristics are known. The other, including various biométrie approaches and that of Numerical Taxonomy, can be characterized as inductive. It assumes that the biological affinity of populations must be established by careful comparison of characteristics. Using specific cases of the application of the two different methodologies, it is demonstrated that the inductive approach is far more productive, as well as being consistent with the modern theory of population biology. On the other hand, the deductive approach is not at all productive, leading to profound inconsistencies in understanding by simply outmoded, stereotypical assumptions.
Nuff said!
Posted by astenb (Member # 14524) on :
good find
Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
^^ co-sign.
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan: ^^ co-sign.
Anyway you could condense this down like you always do to educate the ignorant who still believe in true Negroes?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: Une critique des méthodes utilisées pour reconstituer les races et les populations de la vallée du Nil (en anglais) Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société d'anthropologie de Paris, Année 1981, Volume 8, Numéro 3 p. 357 - 365
Two contrasting methodologies have been used to reconstruct the racial history of the Nile Valley or to assess the biological affinities of populations in that area. One of these, the classic typological approach, can be called deductive in nature. It assumes that races exist and that their characteristics are known. The other, including various biométrie approaches and that of Numerical Taxonomy, can be characterized as inductive. It assumes that the biological affinity of populations must be established by careful comparison of characteristics. Using specific cases of the application of the two different methodologies, it is demonstrated that the inductive approach is far more productive, as well as being consistent with the modern theory of population biology. On the other hand, the deductive approach is not at all productive, leading to profound inconsistencies in understanding by simply outmoded, stereotypical assumptions.
Nuff said!
I hope you guys realize that such findings were made even decades before this by the likes of Franz Boas, who is considered the 'Father of contemporary (accurate) physical anthropology'. It was Boaz who first pointed out the discrepancies and inconsistencies with typological 'race' classifications, and first began methodologies based on a dynamic evolutionary approach.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
Should be a given, but unfortunately, some of us are fast learners and others are stragglers.
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Should be a given, but unfortunately, some of us are fast learners and others are stragglers.
True indeed and it should be also pointed out that this solder finding of a close clustering of Nile Valley peoples is backed up by the recent study of Goode et al which showed that Nubians and AEs are each others closest kin, not that veteran ES members didn't already know of this.
Posted by The Gaul (Member # 16198) on :
bump
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
bump again for Perahu who believes "True Negroes" could be visually identified objectively.
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
They erroneously added part Hamitic Caucasoids like the Tigreans and possibly northern-Cameroon Fulanis in the true Negroid statistical pool, skewed results!
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Perahu: They erroneously added part Hamitic Caucasoids like the Tigreans and possibly northern-Cameroon Fulanis in the true Negroid pool, skewed results!
You analysis is erroneous. take a hike, you've been debunked.
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
I totally destroyed your hopes that true Negroids are diverse. Ouch!
True Negroids are not diverse at all. The statistical score is heavily skewed due to part Hamitic Caucasoids like the Tigreans being included in the dataset.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
Even IF what you say is true, that effect would have been balanced out by the more broad featured Africans in the Northeast African bracket (Negro Egyptian, Badarian, Meroitic Nubians), and the Maghrebi-like E-series.
You're going against the grain here, no anthropologist denies that Sub Saharan Africans vary the most. Even if the Tigrean sample is more like other Northeast Africans, it still doesn't matter. If they would've omitted their Tigrean sample and included Pygmies, Zulu and Khoisan in the Sub Saharan African bracket the amount of variation would've been even more pronounced.
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
I'd like to see data with ONLY true Negroids.
I sincerely doubt they are measurably phenotypically diverse at all.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
What role does adaptation play in anthropology, according to you?
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
Kalonji
Even with the FACTS staring him in the face, Perahu manages to deny and claim skewed results.
He is all alone on a sinking ship....Like you said Sizzla, no anthropologist denys that Sub Saharan Africans vary the most. It's a Known fact that there is more Diversity in One Village in African then many parts of the world.
All we can do is Hammer the Facts down the Throat of Perahu and hope people who are more reasonable learn and understand where we are coming from....Just gotta keep on keeping on.
Keep the Fire Burning.
Peace
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
Perahu,
You are not thinking logically. You have to understand that in the biological world you have only living organisms subject to the vagaries of evolutionary movement. This applies to humans too.
Humans have evolved from proto-human types according to the well-established principles of genetic drift, assorted, adaptive selection by the environment, adaptive mutations that are randomly generated, etc.
Thus the idea of a pure or true type is just silly because the existing type must have evolved from a previous type.
True or pure types assigned to biological organisms would therefore have to be based on arbitrary value judgments. Your thinking here is pure pre-modern phrenology.
To prove the fallacy in your thinking let us apply such to artifacts created by humans themselves. Take automobiles. Take, say, the Mercedes-Benz. Can you tell us which Benz model is the "pure" or "true" one? You cannot, because even the very earliest Benzes were derived from some "evolved from" mechanical model. Get it?
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
Nobody is saying that Africa isn't diverse. You have Hamitic Caucasoids, Nilo-Hamites, Pygmoids, Khoisan, and True Negroids roaming the place.
The question is whether True Negroids are phenotypically diverse or not. I believe they are not and the presented data does not disprove any of my views.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
Perahu,
You must understand too that science is based on consistency of thought in model-building etc.
So if there are "true negroids" are there also "true blancoids" and "true mongoloids"?
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
True Negroids are easily genetically identifiable. It is not an arbitrary concept.
The vast majority of Sub-Saharan African consists of true Negroids.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by KING: Kalonji
Even with the FACTS staring him in the face, Perahu manages to deny and claim skewed results.
He is all alone on a sinking ship....Like you said Sizzla, no anthropologist denys that Sub Saharan Africans vary the most. It's a Known fact that there is more Diversity in One Village in African then many parts of the world.
Exactly
Perahu, I asked you a question
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
Perahu,
[quote]The question is whether True Negroids are phenotypically diverse or not. I believe they are not and the presented data does not disprove any of my views.[quote].
I am sorry but it doesn't see that you a re grasping what's being said.
You have to first establish what a "true negroid" is. But when you do that you are leaving the realm of objective science. The very idea of designating "trueness" to any living organism would have to be an arbitrary value judgment.
There is a similar problem in physics which physicists themselves have recognised. This is the issue of "ideal gases". The fact is that "ideal gases" don't exist. Only real gases exist. The assumptions about "ideal gases" are just a carryover from 18th century thinking. The key assumption about an "ideal gas" is that its molecules have no volume and they are not in motion. Which, of course, is not the case with real gases.
Similarly for the 18th century biological notion of "pure types". There are no such.
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: What role does adaptation play in anthropology, according to you?
True Negroids are adapted to the conditions of lower West Africa. The true Negroids outside of this region through the Bantu migration haven't adapted to the conditions of their new local environs, hence they resemble each other and West Africans to a great degree.
Overall there is low phenotype diversity in the true Negroid race.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
I ask you what role adaptations plays in anthropology, and you give me a story about what happened in Africa?
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
Adaptation is the evolutionary process whereby a population becomes better suited to its habitat.
True Negroids haven't altered their phenotypes much since they entered most parts of Africa outside their true Negroid homeland in lower West Africa.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
quote:True Negroids are easily genetically identifiable. It is not an arbitrary concept.
The vast majority of Sub-Saharan African consists of true Negroids.
.
Amusing! You just avoided answering the question altogether. Question begging?
Again: if there are "true negroids" then are there "true mongoloids" and "true blancoids"?
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
quote:Originally posted by lamin: Again: if there are "true negroids" then are there "true mongoloids" and "true blancoids"?
Truest Caucasoids:
If one were to choose a single population to serve as a Caucasoid pole according to a criterion of maximal differentiation, then Basques are the obvious candidate, as they are tied for 1st place in having least-African shift, and 2nd in terms of Asian-shift. Indeed, a K=3 ADMIXTURE analysis of this dataset demonstrates that they are in fact the population showing the maximal contribution of the Caucasoid-specific component.
quote:Overall there is low phenotype diversity in the true Negroid race.
.
Again, nonsensical thinking:
"Phenotype" refers to the whole corporeal structure of the biological organism. All over Africa body structures such as height, morphic structure[endo, ecto, meso, etc.] physiognomic, etc. all vary widely. There are very tall Africans, very short ones, some with large ears, some with small ears, some with aquiline facial traits and others not. Some are doliocephalic, some are meso--, and others brachy--.The same for the ABO blood types.
This is reinforced by the fact that African populations display the greatest genetic diversity. And where does an organism's phenotype derive from: its genotype of course.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
Truest Caucasoids:
quote:If one were to choose a single population to serve as a Caucasoid pole according to a criterion of maximal differentiation, then Basques are the obvious candidate, as they are tied for 1st place in having least-African shift, and 2nd in terms of Asian-shift. Indeed, a K=3 ADMIXTURE analysis of this dataset demonstrates that they are in fact the population showing the maximal contribution of the Caucasoid-specific component.
Nice try, you are really trying, but wrong again.
Easy reply: so what are the biological antecedents of the Basques? And "true mongoloids"?
Again, it seems that you are not following: you just cannot impose arbitrary non-empirical values on empirical phenomena and stay within the realm of objective science. Get it?
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
lamin
What you have to understand about Perahu Lamin, is that he is a person who thinks ALL narrow faced Africans are "Mixed".....He has no proof of this but he will claim this then duck and run when pressed for sources.
All you gotta know is that he has dodged Mind718's post to him asking him about his ideas...He could not back up what he said so he just ignored the thread. This is the kind of person your dealing with.
Anyone who knows ANYTHING about Africa, knows Africans are the most diverse and that there is more diversity in one village in Africa then the rest of the world. He also claims that Fulani, Tuareg, Hima, Tutsis etc are all mixed Africans. of course he has no proof of this so he runs when pressed to post the studies that state this. He truly is a Sad person.
Peace
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
And Dienekes? Not to be taken seriously. Has he studied even basic science? I don't think so. He is an amateur. Nothing wrong with that, but he will never ever have an article published in a serious scientific journal. Sorry.
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
This guy is trolling and hasn't provided any evidence to back his claims, but anyways, Relethford found sub-Saharans to be the more diverse than any population in the world:
Hum Biol. 2001 Oct;73(5):629-36. Global analysis of regional differences in craniometric diversity and population substructure. Relethford JH. Source Department of Anthropology, State University of New York College at Oneonta, USA. Abstract
Estimates of genetic diversity in major geographic regions are frequently made by pooling all individuals into regional aggregates. This method can potentially bias results if there are differences in population substructure within regions, since increased variation among local populations could inflate regional diversity. A preferred method of estimating regional diversity is to compute the mean diversity within local populations. Both methods are applied to a global sample of craniometric data consisting of 57 measurements taken on 1734 crania from 18 local populations in six geographic regions: sub-Saharan Africa, Europe, East Asia, Australasia, Polynesia, and the Americas. Each region is represented by three local populations. Both methods for estimating regional diversity show sub-Saharan Africa to have the highest levels of phenotypic variation, consistent with many genetic studies. Polynesia and the Americas both show high levels of regional diversity when regional aggregates are used, but the lowest mean local population diversity. Regional estimates of F(ST) made using quantitative genetic methods show that both Polynesia and the Americas also have the highest levels of differentiation among local populations, which inflates regional diversity. Regional differences in F(ST) are directly related to the geographic dispersion of samples within each region; higher F(ST) values occur when the local populations are geographically dispersed. These results show that geographic sampling can affect results, and suggest caution in making inferences regarding regional diversity when population substructure is ignored.
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
Relethford put it perfectly in that study:
quote:Not all African populations are alike, anymore than all Asian or European populations. The tendency in recent genetic studies to analyze human genetic history based on individuals from diverse local populations could be problematic. Estimates of regional diversity should be based on the unweighted average across local populations to ensure a more accurate estimate of within-population variation. Additional populations of adequate sample size should also be sampled within regions wherever possible.
And the samples used in this study would be what Perahu would call "True Negroids."
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Perahu: Adaptation is the evolutionary process whereby a population becomes better suited to its habitat.
So what role does local adaptation play in the evolutionary history of (North)east Africans eg, Kermatians and the Masai?
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
Charlie Bass.
Credit you for coming through with a study that Perahu cannot refute Want to repost so I can highlight the part that Perahu should take note of.:
Hum Biol. 2001 Oct;73(5):629-36. Global analysis of regional differences in craniometric diversity and population substructure. Relethford JH. Source Department of Anthropology, State University of New York College at Oneonta, USA. Abstract
Estimates of genetic diversity in major geographic regions are frequently made by pooling all individuals into regional aggregates. This method can potentially bias results if there are differences in population substructure within regions, since increased variation among local populations could inflate regional diversity. A preferred method of estimating regional diversity is to compute the mean diversity within local populations. Both methods are applied to a global sample of craniometric data consisting of 57 measurements taken on 1734 crania from 18 local populations in six geographic regions: sub-Saharan Africa, Europe, East Asia, Australasia, Polynesia, and the Americas. Each region is represented by three local populations. Both methods for estimating regional diversity show sub-Saharan Africa to have the highest levels of phenotypic variation, consistent with many genetic studies. Polynesia and the Americas both show high levels of regional diversity when regional aggregates are used, but the lowest mean local population diversity. Regional estimates of F(ST) made using quantitative genetic methods show that both Polynesia and the Americas also have the highest levels of differentiation among local populations, which inflates regional diversity. Regional differences in F(ST) are directly related to the geographic dispersion of samples within each region; higher F(ST) values occur when the local populations are geographically dispersed. These results show that geographic sampling can affect results, and suggest caution in making inferences regarding regional diversity when population substructure is ignored.
So Perahu, reading the highlighted bits, you are out on your own sinking ship....The studie even claims that it is well in line with other genetic studies done on Africans.
So the question is Perahu, Why should ANYONE take your words and dienekes words over people who studied Africans and claim them as the most diverse??? Who are you?
Peace
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
. Charlie enlightens us to the fact that Negroes exist but there isn't a sub division that are more genuine or "true Negro" than the rest. The Eastern Negroes are just as Negro as the Western Negroes.
We are all Negroes none "truer" than the other except we use the word "black" now instead of Negro
.thank you Charlie
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
King, great post. Here is also another article that says human diversity decreases the further away you get from sub-Saharan Africa:
Distance from Africa, not climate, explains within-population phenotypic diversity in humans
1. Lia Betti et al. 2009
Our direct test of what determines worldwide human within-population phenotypic variation clearly indicates that distance from Africa, and not climate, plays a role. These results might at first seem at odds with evidence that several traits have been influenced by climate. However, it is important to realize two things. First, selection can change the mean size of traits **without affecting their variances**. Second, while it is possible to find links between climate and individual traits (Manica et al. 2007), a single multivariate measure of phenotypic diversity should show little relation to climate unless the same climatic variables were affecting a large number of traits in a similar way. Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
Calabooz'
Great Post.
This study is just another death blow to the "Dreams" of Perahu...who thinks he can divide Africans and put Narrow Faced Africans in a Mixed box while claiming only the Broad Faced Africans as Unmixed.
So distance from Africa affects phenotype...Bahahahaha man Perahu has gone in to hiding. He has not posted since he tried to claim his "true" caucasoid nonsense from that hack dienekes. Africans will ALWAYS be the most diverse people on God's green Earth and we should stop trying to divide Africans...Unity is Better.
Keep the fire burning Calabooz, Perahu may end up to embarassed to show his face for quite some time.
Peace
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Point in fact, you are playing a fool's game if you think this is about facts or reality. White Supremacy is based on neither. It is based on power. They KNOW that what they believe is nonsense but they spout it anyway. Why? Because that is the definition of white supremacy. Being able to spread lies that even those spreading the lies know are lies is the epitome of power. White supremacy by definition is the ability of whites to enforce their power and control over everyone else. Therefore, this also extends to the institutions of history and anthropology which were created for the explicit purpose of promoting white culture and biology as the basis of world history. It is a prerequisite that those who conquered the world have always been the key to civilization and history.
So no, these facts are not the issue. The issue is white supremacy which is not about facts but lies and the power to spread lies and force people to accept those lies as facts. Why on earth do you think so much Egyptian, African and Asian history is in Europe's museums? They have more on Egypt and more full color images and artifacts than anyone. They know what the facts are more than many of us do. No. We need to stop playing this game of pretending these people don't know better. They know exactly what they are doing and are doing it on purpose.
It makes no sense to argue with racists whose whole identity and their purpose in life is to show off how they can force their views and agenda on everyone else.
Europe didn't even know about most of the world until 500 years ago or ancient Egypt until the 1800s. But now they want to pretend that they always were everywhere? Please. Anyone who believes that is stupid.
The purpose behind the creation of all the various "races" of mankind 150 year ago was in order to reinforce and support white supremacy on a biological level. Of course it is nonsense, but that isn't the point. The point is that these people were on a wholesale quest to make the world into their image both now and in the past. This quest meant not only making over populations currently inhabiting the globe into minions of white rule or honorary whites, but also extending this vision into remote antiquity. That would make it easier to bring up new generations of brainwashed peoples all over the world who would look kindly at their white conquerors as being representative of an ancient white legacy that never existed. And more importantly they would view themselves as part of this legacy even though much of that legacy was only 100 years or so old. Creating new races from the mixing of populations, new racial categories and promoting these into the past has always been part and parcel of the white supremacist agenda. That agenda basically strives to make the world into the image and reflection of white power and has nothing to do with any facts. Facts are to be exploited, twisted and subverted in order to reinforce the primary agenda. That is why most of Africa and the rest of the world's history has to be controlled by them and they know it.
Most museums and institutions of archaeology are direct descendants of the Anglo-British colonial system. This system was built on the plunder of artifacts by the British in their colonies around the world. Most of it was controlled by wealthy individuals and families, but there was so much loot that at some point they decided to create institutions to go through and organize it all. That is the beginning of the modern system of Museums around the world. The mission of these institutions is to promote the heritage of the "western world" which means to incorporate all the stolen history and loot into a historical narrative of "the west" as the focus and basis of all history. Again, white supremacy no more and no less.
But that isn't the sad part. The sad part is that people around the world actually believe this stuff. People in the Americas actually believe the countries(colonial companies) there were actually built for freedom and democracy. They actually believe that whites came there to promote the betterment of the lives of the natives. They actually believe that whites brought progress to Africa. And that is precisely the purpose and intent behind these institutions. That is why Iraq's heritage now can be usurped and fit into a history of "Western" civilization even though at no point in time was Iraq or Mesopotamia part of "the West". Not to mention that at no time have the natives of the Americas, India, Asia or Africa been anything other than peon working class slaves or middle management pawns for the white industrialist elites. But these people believe in that historical narrative and therefore view their oppression as being something good and decent when it isn't. I mean you got thousands upon thousands of Natives in the Americas still being killed by European backed governments, white driven drug wars and immigration/kidnapping financed by white drug kingpins, yet people claim this is peace and progress. In South Africa you got blacks going to the white National Democratic party, the party of apartheid. I mean come on now give me a break. So I guess these people represent freedom and progress in South Africa? Or even better, America and Britain really want peace and progress in the Middle East? Aren't they currently killing and raping millions in the Middle East? Don't they fund and arm dictators and tyrants in the Middle East? Who on earth do you think you are kidding?
To white globalist industrialists the world population is simply a labor pool to be moved and shifted as necessary for profit. Once one group gets to uppity, train some other bunch of folks to do the job, once they get too comfy, move the jobs somewhere else. These people are not interested one bit in peace and democracy. They only care about profit and controlling the land, resources, labor, manufacturing and distribution of raw materials and finished goods for their own profit. That is why you are starting to see Europeans rise up because they see the gains in wealth that they enjoyed for the last few hundred years start to erode as their globalist elites move jobs and wealth offshore. They thought that they could support these crooks since they at least finally had a shot at wealth stolen from everywhere else after all the years being peons and serfs under the boots of the elites but now they see that things are reverting to what they used to be before colonialism.
I don't know who is worse, white supremacy or the victims who believe in them.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Doug wrote:
quote: It makes no sense to argue with racists whose whole identity and their purpose in life is to show off how they can force their views and agenda on everyone else.
The "blacks" who do this, do it because they believe the white propaganda, myths, fantasies, and hierarchies. That is why they spend all of their time doing exactly what you said above.
Because they believe (subconciously or conciously) what whites say and write about "blacks", then in their minds they feel they have to prove their worth to the very people who they claim are racist.
The "non-blacks" who do this, KING, Djehuti, ect do so because:
1. They have this liberal oriented need to paternalize people.
and
2. They believe in the delusional western race hierarchy with "blacks" as the lowest rung.
Which when you combine these two equates the need to feed the racists with the attention they don't deserve in order to paternalize the lowest rung of humanity, the "blacks".
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
I dare Perahu to say that these Nile Valley Africans from Upper Egypt and Northern Sudan don't overlap with so called "True Negroids". Of course these types have been in the Nile Valley for thousands of years.
Egypt: 1 – 3 from the oasis Charga 4 – 6 from the Kenuzi, Nubia 7 – 9 from the Fadija, Nubia
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
Charlie goes to war with white supremacists
argyle and Doug stay at home bitching and moaning, respectively
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
Only 1,5,9 are significantly Negroid. The others (2,3,4,6,7,8) not at all and are even predominantly Caucasoid.
1,5,9 probably were affected by the recent slave trade.
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: This guy is trolling and hasn't provided any evidence to back his claims, but anyways, Relethford found sub-Saharans to be the more diverse than any population in the world:
Hum Biol. 2001 Oct;73(5):629-36. Global analysis of regional differences in craniometric diversity and population substructure. Relethford JH. Source Department of Anthropology, State University of New York College at Oneonta, USA. Abstract
Estimates of genetic diversity in major geographic regions are frequently made by pooling all individuals into regional aggregates. This method can potentially bias results if there are differences in population substructure within regions, since increased variation among local populations could inflate regional diversity. A preferred method of estimating regional diversity is to compute the mean diversity within local populations. Both methods are applied to a global sample of craniometric data consisting of 57 measurements taken on 1734 crania from 18 local populations in six geographic regions: sub-Saharan Africa, Europe, East Asia, Australasia, Polynesia, and the Americas. Each region is represented by three local populations. Both methods for estimating regional diversity show sub-Saharan Africa to have the highest levels of phenotypic variation, consistent with many genetic studies. Polynesia and the Americas both show high levels of regional diversity when regional aggregates are used, but the lowest mean local population diversity. Regional estimates of F(ST) made using quantitative genetic methods show that both Polynesia and the Americas also have the highest levels of differentiation among local populations, which inflates regional diversity. Regional differences in F(ST) are directly related to the geographic dispersion of samples within each region; higher F(ST) values occur when the local populations are geographically dispersed. These results show that geographic sampling can affect results, and suggest caution in making inferences regarding regional diversity when population substructure is ignored.
None of this proves that TRUE NEGROIDS are diverse in phenotype. They all look the same from Senegal to Mozambique!
Show me a study which only examined TRUE NEGROIDS and did not include Hamites and Paleo-Africans.
These groups increase phenotype diversity in the stats, but are separate races from true Negroids.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Perahu: Only 1,5,9 are significantly Negroid. The others (2,3,4,6,7,8) not at all and are even predominantly Caucasoid.
1,5,9 probably were affected by the recent slave trade.
It could be argued that any dark skinned person with tightly curled afro type hair is a Negro. The word "Caucasoid" refers to the Caucus mountains or regions near it. People do not have that kind of hair in that area.
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
I never said any of those men are 100% Caucasoid, they all carry Negroid admixture like all North Africans do to some extent. Even the whitest North Africans have some levels of Negroid in them. However, many of those men are more Caucasoid in their facial characteristics than Negroid (excluding the few who probably carry additional Negroid mixture related to the recent Trans-Saharan Slave trade).
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
True Negroid? Then what is a true Caucasoid? How is it possible to have one without the other...
"First, selection can change the mean size of traits **without affecting their variances**."
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Perahu:
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: This guy is trolling and hasn't provided any evidence to back his claims, but anyways, Relethford found sub-Saharans to be the more diverse than any population in the world:
Hum Biol. 2001 Oct;73(5):629-36. Global analysis of regional differences in craniometric diversity and population substructure. Relethford JH. Source Department of Anthropology, State University of New York College at Oneonta, USA. Abstract
Estimates of genetic diversity in major geographic regions are frequently made by pooling all individuals into regional aggregates. This method can potentially bias results if there are differences in population substructure within regions, since increased variation among local populations could inflate regional diversity. A preferred method of estimating regional diversity is to compute the mean diversity within local populations. Both methods are applied to a global sample of craniometric data consisting of 57 measurements taken on 1734 crania from 18 local populations in six geographic regions: sub-Saharan Africa, Europe, East Asia, Australasia, Polynesia, and the Americas. Each region is represented by three local populations. Both methods for estimating regional diversity show sub-Saharan Africa to have the highest levels of phenotypic variation, consistent with many genetic studies. Polynesia and the Americas both show high levels of regional diversity when regional aggregates are used, but the lowest mean local population diversity. Regional estimates of F(ST) made using quantitative genetic methods show that both Polynesia and the Americas also have the highest levels of differentiation among local populations, which inflates regional diversity. Regional differences in F(ST) are directly related to the geographic dispersion of samples within each region; higher F(ST) values occur when the local populations are geographically dispersed. These results show that geographic sampling can affect results, and suggest caution in making inferences regarding regional diversity when population substructure is ignored.
None of this proves that TRUE NEGROIDS are diverse in phenotype. They all look the same from Senegal to Mozambique!
Show me a study which only examined TRUE NEGROIDS and did not include Hamites and Paleo-Africans.
These groups increase phenotype diversity in the stats, but are separate races from true Negroids.
Once again, no answers and no sources, I'm not going to waste my time refuting stupidity you haven't proved, True Negroids don't exist and don't constitute a taxon.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Perahu: I never said any of those men are 100% Caucasoid, they all carry Negroid admixture like all North Africans do to some extent. Even the whitest North Africans have some levels of Negroid in them. However, many of those men are more Caucasoid in their facial characteristics than Negroid (excluding the few who probably carry additional Negroid mixture related to the recent Trans-Saharan Slave trade).
what about the idea that narrower noses came about in East Africa before white people evolved. How do you know that's not true?
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: what about the idea that narrower noses came about in East Africa before white people evolved. How do you know that's not true?
Problem with this statement is:
1) There are no Caucasoid-like skulls in East Africa prior to the Neolithic age. The Caucasoid phenotype originated in West Eurasia, not East Africa.
2) Practically all narrow featured East Africans carry significant levels of West Eurasian mixture.
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Perahu: Only 1,5,9 are significantly Negroid. The others (2,3,4,6,7,8) not at all and are even predominantly Caucasoid.
1,5,9 probably were affected by the recent slave trade.
Retard did you read the caption? 1-3 are all Kharga Oasis Upper Egyptians, 4-6 are Kenuzi Nubians and 7-9 are Fedidja Nubians, there is diversity within the groups themselves, thats how retarded you are.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
Why do you bombard him with (new) material?
You have now let him off the hook in conceding that his perception was skewed when it comes to African diversity after you and Calabooz posted those abstracts. You should know by now how ES Eurocentrics operate; when presented with five devastating arguments, they'll choose the easiest one and respond in a half ass way, and ignore the rest of the four arguments.
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Perahu:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: what about the idea that narrower noses came about in East Africa before white people evolved. How do you know that's not true?
Problem with this statement is:
1) There are no Caucasoid-like skulls in East Africa prior to the Neolithic age. The Caucasoid phenotype originated in West Eurasia, not East Africa.
2) Practically all narrow featured East Africans carry significant levels of West Eurasian mixture.
The Cambridge history of Africa: From the earliest times to c. 500 BC, Volume 1 By John D. Fage p.69
"In fact, in spite of the poor preservation of bone in many parts of Africa, in the last twenty years archaeologists, including myself, have unearthed remains of negroid types from much earlier contexts: from West Africa dating back 11,000 years (Brothwell & Shaw 1971), and from East Africa dating back 17,000 years (Gramly and Rightmire 1973). In addition, prehistoric skeletal remains from East Africa, whose 'caucasoid' affinities were formerly stressed, have more recently been shown to have definite negro cranial features (Wolpoff 1980, pp. 331-9; Howell 1982, p. 147)."
The African Archaeological Review, 6 (1988), pp. 57 72 Who were the later Pleistocene eastern Africans? L . A . SCHEPARTZ
”The role of tall, linearly built populations in eastern Africa’s prehistory has always been debated. Traditionally, they are viewed as late migrants into the area. But as there is better palaeoanthropological and linguistic documentation for the earlier presence of these populations than for any other group in eastern Africa, it is far more likely that they are indigenous eastern Africans. I have argued elsewhere (Schepartz 1985) that these prehistoric linear populations show resemblances to both Upper Pleistocene eastern African fossils and present-day, non-Bantu-speaking groups in eastern Africa, with minor differences stemming from changes in overall robusticity of the dentition and skeleton. This suggests a longstanding tradition of linear populations in eastern Africa, contributing to the indigenous development of cultural and biological diversity from the Pleistocene up to the present.”
Getting Here: The Story of Human Evolution (New Edition) (Paperback) by William Howells (Author), Ann Meagher-Cook (Illustrator) p.201
“Older analysts of “race” constantly noted a less “African” appearance of people, however dark, reaching from the Horn of Africa northward and were given to talk of a “Hamitic strain,” that is, admixture from Caucasoids from the North. Perhaps these scholars had it backwards.”
Sorghum (Tropical Agriculture) (Hardcover) by Hugh Doggett (Author) Blackwell Publishers; Rev Ed edition (January 1995) p.35-36
“There is no evidence to support old theories of incursions of Hamites, Caucasians, or ‘Long-headed Mediterranean types’ into North-East Africa. Long-headed, long-faced people with narrow, high-nosed skulls- ‘Elongated Africans’- have been present in the Sudan-Ethiopia-eastern Africa region since the later Pleistocene (Howells 1960: Hiernaux 1974).
Perahu-tard wrote:
quote:There are no Caucasoid-like skulls in East Africa prior to the Neolithic age.
Lets see your evidence for this claim. I've posted mine that refutes it so now where is yours? Time is ticking........
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Really?? You might as well just flat out ask him to scurry back to his Daft Lord Dienekes for any fake or distorted works.
By the way, notice he ignored this:
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz': True Negroid? Then what is a true Caucasoid? How is it possible to have one without the other...
Indeed notice how Euronuts love to speak of a "true negroe" as if there are false ones but NEVER a "true caca-soid". Obviously flawed logic there.
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Folks,
Djehuti spends all of his waking hours on Egyptsearch and he says he's not African or black.
He can't get a woman and no woman wants or needs him, so he has to come here everyday in order to make believe that "blacks" need him to defend their interests from whites.
This chump needs a life reeeeeeaaaaaaaal bad.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
Keita's follow up to his '93 article. A quote in addition to the article posted by Bass:
International Journal of Anthropology Volume 10, Numbers 2-3, 107-123
A brief review of studies and comments on ancient Egyptian biological relationships S. O. Y. Keita
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Indeed. Though by and large most anthropologists stated outright that the predominant Egyptian type was "Abyssinian" (Ethiopian); it just so happened that they considered Abyssinian types to be "Mediterranean caucasoids" also.
Interesting reference to Vere Gordon Childe. Childe by the way was not a physical anthropologist but a cultural anthropologist whose field was archaeology though he implemented comparisons to living cultures. Childe was one of those few white Western men who was able to see the bias of his peers. I remember reading in one of his writings how he distrusted the works of physical anthropologists especially when it came to Egypt, and that however one defines the race of the Egyptians their culture was obviously African and NOT Near Eastern. I know he compared the Egyptians to the Shilluk when it came to culture but this is the first I've heard of him compare them in looks as well.
By the way, here is how early anthropologists stereotyped a proto-Egyptian man.
Not much different from a Somali man.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
^^^^this is arbitrary you can easily find so called blacks and whites who have similar features.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Precisely why "negroid" and "caucasoid" racial types don't exist. Racial typology is based solely on arbitrariness and not objectivity. Also, you miss the point that the Egyptians were AFRICANS closely related to and just like that Somali man and thus NOT white.
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: By the way, here is how early anthropologists stereotyped a proto-Egyptian man.
Not much different from a Somali man.
The proto-Egyptian depiction and the Somali man are probably 80% Caucasoid genetically.
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
Yes, we can easily find so-called whites that could easily represent *proto-Egyptians* in *3400 bc* Africa. lol
like this?
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Precisely why "negroid" and "caucasoid" racial types don't exist. Racial typology is based solely on arbitrariness and not objectivity. Also, you miss the point that the Egyptians were AFRICANS closely related to and just like that Somali man and thus NOT white.
If "negroid" and "caucasoid" racial types don't exist, they do exist as social constructs as much as "whites" exist to the extent you stated "thus not white".
In America, for example, if you go into a grocery store an there is a dark skinned Pakistani man behind the register similar to the man below, people do not say he is "black" because he does not fit the criteria for the social construct "black". As well, not all light skinned persons would be considered "white". There are other factors involved and thus your term "white" is just as arbitrary, not objective and racially typographic as the term "Caucasoid". Anyone can see the naked contradiction in your above statement, stating at the end, emphatically that someone is "NOT white". Mr. Djehuti you are clearly a confused idividual
photo courtesy of lioness productions
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ The only confused is YOU! Of course racial typology is arbitrary which is why races don't exist but that doesn't mean an Indian man is the same as an African you fool!
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Perahu:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: By the way, here is how early anthropologists stereotyped a proto-Egyptian man.
Not much different from a Somali man.
The proto-Egyptian depiction and the Somali man are probably 80% Caucasoid genetically.
Where on the Asian branch would Proto-Egyptians position themselves, among the Chinese, Indonesians or Germans? You do know that Europeans are mongoloids, right?
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
