posted
Sumerians thought that blue eyes were a sign of the gods. This belief was later picked up by the Jews who, interestingly, went as far as to deride dark eyes.
posted
Where is this Ancient Worship of blue eyes? The information in your report betrays the title of this thread. I expected more information rather than a sole group like your Sumerians being represents in support of your thread to say the least.
Posts: 535 | From: From the Darkest of the Abyss | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^You shmuck, can't you see the painstaking effort that the artists made to ignore the color detail of all other aspects to the figure except the eyes? Why did they want to draw attention to the eyes? Why the over-emphasis on the eyes, shmuck?
And now, the ancient Orient acct of the gods and their gem colored eyes...
Book of Noah
1Enoch1 106:2 And his body was white as snow and red as a rose, the hair of his head as white as wool and his demdema beautiful; and as for his eyes, when he opened them the whole house glowed like the sun [...] Methuselah his father; 5 and he said to him, “I have begotten a strange son: He is not like an (ordinary) human being, but he looks like the children of the angels of heaven to me; his form is different, and he is not like us.
Posts: 1340 | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Sumerian nobility were blue eyed and fair haired, as most their busts show. They were Aryans (Indo-Europeans).
''...they (the Sumerians) certainly belong to the same racial division of mankind as the nations of Europe, they are scions of the Caucasian stock’’ - Arthur Keith (quoted in Ur Excavations, C. L. Woolley, 1927).
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is a good thread topic. I have an essay i wrote a while back on eye colours in the Old Testament, though its on a USB stick somewhere. However you can find my works on blue eyes in ancient Greek mythology on the web. Here is my compilation of blue eyed Greek or Trojan mythical figures and Gods:
Blue, Gray or Light Eyed Gods and Figures γλαυκῶπις/Glaukopis/Glaukos/Glauci (gray or blue eyed). Latin: Caelia/Caesii/Caesius (blue or blue-grayish eyed).
Aeneas (Malalas, Chronogr. 5). Andromache (Dares Phrygius. 12). Aphrodite (Collothus. Rape of Helen. 132). Apollo (Philostr. Imag. 14). Athena (Paus. i. 14. 6; Cic. Nat. D. i. 83; Lucr. iv. 1161; Hes. Sh. 343, 471; Hes. Theog. 14, 573, 586, 889, 924; Eur. Her. 754; Collothus. Rape of Helen. 132; Soph. OC. 705; Pind. Nem. vii. 95; x. 7; Homeric Hymn 20 to Hephaestus. 2; Homeric Hymn 5 to Aphrodite. 8, 94; Hom. Od. i. 180; 364; ii. 383; v. 437; Hom. Il. i.92; ii.166; Ant. Lib. Met. 15). Amphitrite (Paus. x. 37. 6; Orphic Hymn 31 to Athena). Charites (Ibycus. fragment 288). Eos (Ap. Rhod. Argon. 1. 519 ff). Glaucopus (Steph. Byz). [2] Helen (Quintus Smyrnaeus, xiv. 140; Eur. Hec. 443). Hera (Collothus. Rape of Helen. 132). Herakles (Paus, ix. 34. 5; Clem. Al. Protr. ii. 30. 7). [3] Hygeia (Licymnius. fragment 769). Muses (Hymn 33 to the Dioscuri. 1). Odysseus (Hom. Od. i. 209; xiii 396 ff). Patroclus (Dares Phrygius. 13). Poseidon (Paus. i. 14. 6; Cic. Nat. D. i. 83). Triton (Paus. ix. 21. 1). Pallas (Arist. Thesm. 317). Nymphs (Anacreon. fragment 35; Orphic Hymn 55 to Aphrodite). Tethys (Orphic Hymn 21 to Tethys). Zeus (Hom. Il. xiv. 236). [4]
--
In sharp contrast virtually no Greek deities were dark eyed (only the pre-Indo-European Pelasgians).
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the Book of the Dead, the eyes of the god Horus are described as "shining," or "brilliant," whilst another passage refers more explicitly to "Horus of the blue eyes". [Budge, op. cit., pp. 421 & 602.] The rubric to the 140th chapter of said book, states that the amulet known as the "Eye of Horus," (used to ward-off the "Evil Eye"), must always be made from lapis-lazuli, a mineral which is blue in colour. [Ibid., p. 427.] It should be noted that the Goddess Wadjet, who symbolised the Divine Eye of Horus, was represented by a snake (a hooded cobra to be precise), and her name, when translated from the original Egyptian, means "blue-green". [A. F. Alford, The Phoenix Solution (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1998), pp. 266-268.] Interestingly, the ancient Scandanavians claimed that anyone who was blue-eyed (and therefore possessed the power of the Evil Eye), had "a snake in the eye," and blue eyes were frequently compared to the eyes of a serpent. [F. B. Gummere, Germanic Origins (London: David Nutt, 1892), pp. 58, 62.]
In the ancient Pyramid Texts, the Gods are said to have blue and green eyes. [Alford, op. cit., p. 232.] The Graeco-Roman author Diodorus Siculus (I, 12), says that the Egyptians thought the goddess Neith had blue eyes. [C. H. Oldfather, Diodorus of Sicily (London: William Heinemann, 1968), p. 45.]
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^So even the Egyptians associated gem colored eyes with the gods. My only question is why were ancient people or even modern people in awe over recessive traits? Is it because such features have an aesthetic appeal, are showy, soft on the eyes and dazzling to look upon?
Posts: 1340 | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Confirming Truth: ^So even the Egyptians associated gem colored eyes with the gods. My only question is why were ancient people or even modern people in awe over recessive traits?
Is it because such features have an aesthetic appeal, are showy, soft on the eyes and dazzling to look upon?
LoL! Recessive traits...
Sean Connery:
Albino Green Snake
Recessive traits [/QB][/QUOTE]
Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Confirming Truth: ^So even the Egyptians associated gem colored eyes with the gods. My only question is why were ancient people or even modern people in awe over recessive traits? Is it because such features have an aesthetic appeal, are showy, soft on the eyes and dazzling to look upon?
Because they were possessed only by those of the higher classes (there was an ancient physique difference in class). Blue eyes in the ancient world denoted the venerated or nobility, just as did blonde or fair hair. In sharp contrast the lower class masses were always dark haired and dark eyed. Blue eyes and fair hair because of their rarity certianly became the aesthetic appeal of most ancient civilizations (Greece, Rome, Egypt, Mesopotamia etc). Most Gods of ancient myths are deified kings or royal members and so blue eyed Gods actually represent a historic population. Most antrhopologists and historians know that the ancients modeled their Gods on a section of their own population. This is why afrocentrism is wrong on every civilization. Virtually all the Gods of all European and Near Eastern myths are blonde and blue eyed. This even extends to India where the Aryans (Indo-Europeans) penetrated. The Rig-Veda describes the main Indian God Indra as yellow haired and blue eyed.
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by IronLion: LoL! Recessive traits...
Yes, recessive traits. These make the white race special and unique. We have blonde, red, auburn and brown hair and all eye shades.
Non-white races however have virtually zero hair or eye diversity. All black people look the same, as do all asians. A typical white family however will have blondes, redheads and all different eye shades.
This is why race mixing is the most destructive to the white race. Any other race will not loose as much phenotype diversity. Whites however will loose the blondes and redheads, as well as all eye shades.
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sahel (Siptah): Where is this Ancient Worship of blue eyes? The information in your report betrays the title of this thread. I expected more information....
Indeed, where is the scholarly background for this claim. I'm guessing CT is promoting his own theory based on eyeball speculation. Sounds similar to Mike111 whom he distressingly complains about daily.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Confirming Truth: Sumerians thought that blue eyes were a sign of the gods. This belief was later picked up by the Jews who, interestingly, went as far as to deride dark eyes.
These people were from the Diyala plains and I'm pretty certain were called Guti and not the Sag gigga of Sumer. Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
The first blue eyed sitting female is Ur-Nanshe, a noble singer for the royal Sumerian court. These blue eyes busts and statues are of Sumerians from the early or mid 3rd millenium BC.
The Guti overran parts of Akkad in the late 3rd millenium BC and only ruled a very short dnyasty. They were also blue eyed and fair haired.
Sumerian sculpture of Ebih-il (c. 2500 BC) an important Sumerian ‘Inspector-General’:
Ebih-il was Sumerian of higher class extraction. He is clearly Caucasoid, with blue eyes.
Afrocentrics have nothing on Sumeria apart from the ''black headed'' term, which refers to nothing more than black hair, not negroids or people with black faces. The bulk of Sumerians were always dark haired Caucasoids, they were only ruled by a fair haired, blue eyed Aryan nobility - hence the blue eyed statues etc that appear are always of Sumerian royals or nobles.
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Confirming Truth: Sumerians thought that blue eyes were a sign of the gods. This belief was later picked up by the Jews who, interestingly, went as far as to deride dark eyes.
These people were from the Diyala plains and I'm pretty certain were called Guti and not the Sag gigga of Sumer.
Right on point Dana.
They are the Gutis:
quote:According to the historian Henry Hoyle Howorth (1901), Assyriologist Theophilus Pinches (1908), renowned archaeologist Leonard Woolley (1929) and Assyriologist Ignace Gelb (1944) the Gutians were pale skinned and blonde haired.
This identification of the Gutians as fair haired first came to light when Julius Oppert (1877) published a set of tablets he had discovered which described Gutian (and Subarian) slaves as "namrum" or "namrûtum", meaning "light colored" or "fair-skinned" .
This racial character of the Gutians as blondes or being light skinned was also taken up by Georges Vacher de Lapouge in 1899 and later by historian Sidney Smith in his Early history of Assyria (1928) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutian_people#Physical_Appearance
Pink skin, blond hair...
Prolly some Cagots:
quote: The Gutians (also Guteans or Guti) were a tribe that overran southern Mesopotamia when the Akkadian empire collapsed in approximately 2154 BC. Sumerian sources portray the Gutians as a barbarous, ravenous people from Gutium or Qutium (Sumerian: Gu-tu-umki or Gu-ti-umki) in the mountains, presumably the central Zagros in the Kurdish area of Iraq. The Sumerian king list represents them as ruling over Sumer for a short time after the fall of the Akkadian Empire, and paints a picture of chaos within the Gutian administration.
Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: ^ Completely incorrect.
The first blue eyed sitting female is Ur-Nanshe, a noble singer for the royal Sumerian court. These blue eyes busts and statues are of Sumerians from the early or mid 3rd millenium BC.
The Guti overran parts of Akkad in the late 3rd millenium BC and only ruled a very short dnyasty. They were also blue eyed and fair haired.
Sumerian sculpture of Ebih-il (c. 2500 BC) an important Sumerian ‘Inspector-General’:
Ebih-il was Sumerian of higher class extraction. He is clearly Caucasoid, with blue eyes.
Afrocentrics have nothing on Sumeria apart from the ''black headed'' term, which refers to nothing more than black hair, not negroids or people with black faces. The bulk of Sumerians were always dark haired Caucasoids, they were only ruled by a fair haired, blue eyed Aryan nobility - hence the blue eyed statues etc that appear are always of Sumerian royals or nobles.
These are broadheaded (brachycephalic) hairsute people from the Diyala plains and not the Sag gigga whose skeletons predominated in ancient Sumer and whose religious mythology is almost completely Dravidian even today.
These were NOT the Sumerians according to scholars, but people who adopted Mesopotamian dialect. The original Sumerians were long-headed, gracile very dark-skinned people similar to those small gracile types that occupied the horn and proto-Egypt, Nubia and India. IF the white brachycephals people were the Sumerians than they didn't come from the south - from Magan - like they said they did, and neither were they the earlier large bodied NEGROID population of southern Mesopotamia that built the Ziggurats of Eridu.
Afro-Americans rule in certain cities in America because of their numbers. That doesn't mean they were ever the bulk of the U.S. population or original purveyors of Anglo culture.
The bulk of the population of Sumer in most places were the dolichocephalic African-affiliated populations similar to those occupying modern east Africa or the Horn whom Grafton Elliot Smith called the BROWN RACE i.e. Beja Somali, Tigre etc..
All early historians and physical anthropologists mentioned that.
“Anthropolometrically the evidence is ambiguous and confused… The consensus would seem to be with all reservations that the basic population of the whole region consisted of Mediterranean longheads who were joined in the course of time and relatively late by several groups of Alpine roundheads… In this connection it should be stressed that there IS A MARKED DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE EVIDENCE OF THE CEMETARIES UNCOVERED IN SUMER AND THE APPEARANCE OF THE HISTORIC SUMERIANS DEPICTED ON THE MONUMENTS. For it has been repeatedly observed that the monumental representations of the Sumerians point for the most part to pronounced roundheads.” Ephraim Speiser, Oriental and Biblical Studies collected writings of E.A. Speiser 1967.p. 217
Historian William Langer wrote - “The population of both Upper and Lower Mesopotamia in prehistoric times BELONGED TO THE BROWN or Mediterranean race. While this basic stock persisted in historical, times especially in the south, it became increasingly, mixed especially with broad-headed Armenoid peoples from the northeastern mountains owing to the recurrent incursions of mountain tribes into the plain.” Encyclopedia of World History, Houghton Mifflin Company Boston 1972
These prominent nosed brachycephalic (round-headed) people of the Diyala plains dressed like people who spoke Semitic and came into Ebla and other places. They were not the original Sumerians nor the original Semitic speaker. They were probable ancestors of the Kurds and Guti.
“Syria, Arabia, Mesopotamia and Sumer were parts of the original domain of the Brown Race” Grafton Elliot Smith in The Ancient Egyptians and the Origins of Civilization 2007 pp. 161.
Dravidian scholars think Sumerian is an ancient form of the Dravidian dialect, and they still have much the same cosmology as the Sumerians.
These people came to occupy a large part of Anatolia and Greece after the late Bronze Age.
I believe the scholars, not Wikipedia!
BTW - there is no "Aryan" race in the sense you wish it to be.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: The Sumerian nobility were blue eyed and fair haired, as most their busts show. They were Aryans (Indo-Europeans).
''...they (the Sumerians) certainly belong to the same racial division of mankind as the nations of Europe, they are scions of the Caucasian stock’’ - Arthur Keith (quoted in Ur Excavations, C. L. Woolley, 1927).
They were Caucasian looking but not Arayan blue eyed blonds. They call themsleves the "black headed people" Their languguage seems to have been Uralic and shows some distant relation to Hungarian.
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: [These are broadheaded (brachycephalic) hairsute people from the Diyala plains and not the Sag gigga whose skeletons predominated in ancient Sumer and whose religious mythology is almost completely Dravidian even today.
These were NOT the Sumerians according to scholars, but people who adopted Mesopotamian dialect. The original Sumerians were long-headed, gracile very dark-skinned people similar to those small gracile types that occupied the horn and proto-Egypt, Nubia and India. IF the white brachycephals people were the Sumerians than they didn't come from the south - from Magan - like they said they did, and neither were they the earlier large bodied NEGROID population of southern Mesopotamia that built the Ziggurats of Eridu.
Afro-Americans rule in certain cities in America because of their numbers. That doesn't mean they were ever the bulk of the U.S. population or original purveyors of Anglo culture.
The bulk of the population of Sumer in most places were the dolichocephalic African-affiliated populations similar to those occupying modern east Africa or the Horn whom Grafton Elliot Smith called the BROWN RACE i.e. Beja Somali, Tigre etc..
All early historians and physical anthropologists mentioned that.
“Anthropolometrically the evidence is ambiguous and confused… The consensus would seem to be with all reservations that the basic population of the whole region consisted of Mediterranean longheads who were joined in the course of time and relatively late by several groups of Alpine roundheads… In this connection it should be stressed that there IS A MARKED DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE EVIDENCE OF THE CEMETARIES UNCOVERED IN SUMER AND THE APPEARANCE OF THE HISTORIC SUMERIANS DEPICTED ON THE MONUMENTS. For it has been repeatedly observed that the monumental representations of the Sumerians point for the most part to pronounced roundheads.” Ephraim Speiser, Oriental and Biblical Studies collected writings of E.A. Speiser 1967.p. 217
Historian William Langer wrote - “The population of both Upper and Lower Mesopotamia in prehistoric times BELONGED TO THE BROWN or Mediterranean race. While this basic stock persisted in historical, times especially in the south, it became increasingly, mixed especially with broad-headed Armenoid peoples from the northeastern mountains owing to the recurrent incursions of mountain tribes into the plain.” Encyclopedia of World History, Houghton Mifflin Company Boston 1972
These prominent nosed brachycephalic (round-headed) people of the Diyala plains dressed like people who spoke Semitic and came into Ebla and other places. They were not the original Sumerians nor the original Semitic speaker. They were probable ancestors of the Kurds and Guti.
“Syria, Arabia, Mesopotamia and Sumer were parts of the original domain of the Brown Race” Grafton Elliot Smith in The Ancient Egyptians and the Origins of Civilization 2007 pp. 161.
Dravidian scholars think Sumerian is an ancient form of the Dravidian dialect, and they still have much the same cosmology as the Sumerians.
These people came to occupy a large part of Anatolia and Greece after the late Bronze Age.
I believe the scholars, not Wikipedia!
BTW - there is no "Aryan" race in the sense you wish it to be. [/QB]
From what I understand the Sumerians were a mixture of two people brown Dravidian indigenous types of Southern Mesopotamia and Caucasian types who came from central Asia. The later invaders were the elite, and a major force in shaping Sumerian language and culture. Suemerian remians reflects this mixture of people.
"The second study concerns physical examination of Sumerian skulls. Buxton and Rice have found that of 26 Sumerian crania they examined 22 were Australoid or Austrics. Further According to Penniman who studied skulls from other Sumerian sites, the Australoid Eurafrican, Austric and Armenoid were the "racial" types associated with the Sumerians." http://ezinearticles.com/?Tracing-the-Origin-of-Ancient-Sumerians&id=311587
The Armenoids types are the ones represented in much of their art work. To say the picture in your post does not represent a true Sumerian is just more racially fueled biased. The Sumerians did not come into existence as a culture before the arrival of these Armenoid Uralic speaking folk. The culture before that were the Ubaidians.
Posts: 682 | From: East Coast | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: [These are broadheaded (brachycephalic) hairsute people from the Diyala plains and not the Sag gigga whose skeletons predominated in ancient Sumer and whose religious mythology is almost completely Dravidian even today.
These were NOT the Sumerians according to scholars, but people who adopted Mesopotamian dialect. The original Sumerians were long-headed, gracile very dark-skinned people similar to those small gracile types that occupied the horn and proto-Egypt, Nubia and India. IF the white brachycephals people were the Sumerians than they didn't come from the south - from Magan - like they said they did, and neither were they the earlier large bodied NEGROID population of southern Mesopotamia that built the Ziggurats of Eridu.
Afro-Americans rule in certain cities in America because of their numbers. That doesn't mean they were ever the bulk of the U.S. population or original purveyors of Anglo culture.
The bulk of the population of Sumer in most places were the dolichocephalic African-affiliated populations similar to those occupying modern east Africa or the Horn whom Grafton Elliot Smith called the BROWN RACE i.e. Beja Somali, Tigre etc..
All early historians and physical anthropologists mentioned that.
“Anthropolometrically the evidence is ambiguous and confused… The consensus would seem to be with all reservations that the basic population of the whole region consisted of Mediterranean longheads who were joined in the course of time and relatively late by several groups of Alpine roundheads… In this connection it should be stressed that there IS A MARKED DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE EVIDENCE OF THE CEMETARIES UNCOVERED IN SUMER AND THE APPEARANCE OF THE HISTORIC SUMERIANS DEPICTED ON THE MONUMENTS. For it has been repeatedly observed that the monumental representations of the Sumerians point for the most part to pronounced roundheads.” Ephraim Speiser, Oriental and Biblical Studies collected writings of E.A. Speiser 1967.p. 217
Historian William Langer wrote - “The population of both Upper and Lower Mesopotamia in prehistoric times BELONGED TO THE BROWN or Mediterranean race. While this basic stock persisted in historical, times especially in the south, it became increasingly, mixed especially with broad-headed Armenoid peoples from the northeastern mountains owing to the recurrent incursions of mountain tribes into the plain.” Encyclopedia of World History, Houghton Mifflin Company Boston 1972
These prominent nosed brachycephalic (round-headed) people of the Diyala plains dressed like people who spoke Semitic and came into Ebla and other places. They were not the original Sumerians nor the original Semitic speaker. They were probable ancestors of the Kurds and Guti.
“Syria, Arabia, Mesopotamia and Sumer were parts of the original domain of the Brown Race” Grafton Elliot Smith in The Ancient Egyptians and the Origins of Civilization 2007 pp. 161.
Dravidian scholars think Sumerian is an ancient form of the Dravidian dialect, and they still have much the same cosmology as the Sumerians.
These people came to occupy a large part of Anatolia and Greece after the late Bronze Age.
I believe the scholars, not Wikipedia!
BTW - there is no "Aryan" race in the sense you wish it to be.
From what I understand the Sumerians were a mixture of two people brown Dravidian indigenous types of Southern Mesopotamia and Caucasian types who came from central Asia. The later invaders were the elite, and a major force in shaping Sumerian language and culture. Suemerian remians reflects this mixture of people.
"The second study concerns physical examination of Sumerian skulls. Buxton and Rice have found that of 26 Sumerian crania they examined 22 were Australoid or Austrics. Further According to Penniman who studied skulls from other Sumerian sites, the Australoid Eurafrican, Austric and Armenoid were the "racial" types associated with the Sumerians." http://ezinearticles.com/?Tracing-the-Origin-of-Ancient-Sumerians&id=311587
The Armenoids types are the ones represented in much of their art work. To say the picture in your post does not represent a true Sumerian is just more racially fueled biased. The Sumerians did not come into existence as a culture before the arrival of these Armenoid Uralic speaking folk. The culture before that were the Ubaidians. [/QB]
"In this connection it should be stressed that there IS A MARKED DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE EVIDENCE OF THE CEMETARIES UNCOVERED IN SUMER AND THE APPEARANCE OF THE HISTORIC SUMERIANS DEPICTED ON THE MONUMENTS. For it has been repeatedly observed that the monumental representations of the Sumerians point for the most part to pronounced roundheads.” Ephraim Speiser, Oriental and Biblical Studies collected writings of E.A. Speiser 1967.p. 217
Then tell the European scholars to racially uncharge it!
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
dana why are you bumping up old dumb threads? Is that some kind of strategy of yours?
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dana said: From what I understand the Sumerians were a mixture of two people brown Dravidian indigenous types of Southern Mesopotamia and Caucasian types who came from central Asia. The later invaders were the elite, and a major force in shaping Sumerian language and culture. Suemerian remians reflects this mixture of people.
That they SUmerians were their own unique blend no one doubts, but I would question any claim that leaves out the Nile Valley as at least one possible source of that blend. NOte- not the only source, but one clear possible one. Data:
The Sumerians had a range of physical variation with clear resemblances to tropical Africans on 4 counts. They do not have to be 100% identical. Several scholars shows some resemblances.:
Count 1- Linkages to other tropically adapted peoples and Upper Egypt: Sir Arthur Keith (1934 - Al-'Ybaid: 216,240) also held that the Sumerians were related to Englishmen. [Quote:] "The Neolithic people of English long barrows are also related to them- perhaps distantly" Such resemblances between older tropically adapted Europeans and peoples outside Europe, such as in Africa, has been noted by Brace 2005 (The Questionable Contribution of the Neolithic) and by Hanihara (1996) as to the resemblance of other peoples in the greater Mesopotamian area to tropical Africans (Hanihara 1996- Comparison of craniofacial..') Keith speculates as to links between the Sumerians and Afghanistan and Baluchistan, but in actual comparison of data, Keith notes that Sumerian specimens he examined showed some resemblance to specimens from tropical Upper Egypt (described by researcher Dr. Fouquet in Vol II of Morgan's 'Sur les Origines de l'Egypt- 1896) but had no resemblance to other Egyptian specimens. [Quote:] "They were akin to the predynastic people of Egypt described by Dr. Foquet, but differed from all other predynastic and dynastic Egyptians." (Keith 1934, in Al-'Ubaid, pp. 216,240)
Count 2- Dolichocephalic crania of the negroid "EurAfrican" type: Dolichocephalic crania in older analyses are often seen as a marker of "negroid" or African variants, not "Nordics." Buxton and Rice (1931- 'Excavations at Kish') examined 26 Sumerian crania and calculated 17 as Eurafrians, five Mediterraneans/Australoid, and four Armenoid, showing that long-headed people were the dominant element in Sumeria. Penniman (1923-33) excavated 14 crania at Kish, describing 2 as brachycephalic and eight dolichocephalic or EuraAfrican type adn 4 miscellaneous.
Dolichocephalic crania in older analyses are generally considered a marker of "negroid", mulatto or sub-Saharan variants. [quote:] "The peoples in north-western Europe.. are medium-headed, on the average.. Head shapes vary outside the "White Race" too. Most members of the "Black Race" are long or medium-headed and most members of the "Yellow-Brown Race' are short-headed." (Boyd, W. races and People. 1955).
The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913- "Human Race") also notes dolichocephaly as a marker of "blacks", asserting as to "the Ethiopian race" that: "the skull is dolichocephalic, the forehead full, the cheek-bones prominent, the nostrils wide, the alveolar arch narrow and prominent, the jaws prognathous, and the lower jaw large and strong."
Count 3 - Sumerian specimens likened to Egyptians of the Western Desert. [quote by Penniman at Kish excavations:] "First there is the Eurafrican.. In ancient times, this type is found in Mesopotamia and Egypt and may be compared with the Ombe Capelle skull. It is possibly identical with men who lived in the high desert west of the Nile in paleolithic times.." (-Penniman, T.K. "A Note on the Inhabitants of Kish.." Excavations at Kish, 1923-33 Vol 4. pp 65-72)
Comparison of Sumerians to people of the western Desert - One recent (2008) study notes: "..the Qarunian (Faiyum) early Neolithic crania (Henneberg et al. 1989; Midant-Reynes 2000), and the Nabta specimen from the Neolithic Nabta Playa site in the western desert of Egypt (Henneberg et al. 1980) - show, with regard to the great African biological diversity, similarities with some of the sub-Saharan middle Paleolithic and modern sub-Saharan specimens.This affinity pattern between ancient Egyptians and sub-Saharans has also been noticed by several other investigators.." --Ricaut and Walekens (2008) 'Cranial Discrete traits..' Human Biology, 80:5, pp. 535-564
Quote on Qarunian (Faiyum) desert area remains (c. 7000 BC) "The body was that of a forty-year old woman with a height of about 1.6 meters, who was of a more modern racial type than the classic 'Mechtoid' of the Fakhurian culture (see pp. 65-6), being generally more gracile, having large teeth and thick jaws bearing some resemblance to the modern 'negroid' type." (Beatrix Midant-Reynes, Ian Shaw (2000). The Prehistory of Egypt. Wiley-Blackwell. pg. 82)
Count 4 - Link of Mesopotamian U'baid culture with tropical African phenotype: (quote) "Another impression that arose on the first examination was that the Eridu skulls showed a marked prognathism .. ." --Cambridge Ancient Hist, Vol 1, Part I, 1970, p. 348; 358.
The Sumerians called themselves "the black headed people." They had nothing do do with any blond "Nordics", as shown in their song: "Lament for Urim"
Quote: "Sumerian literature itself refers more often to 'the Land' that it does to 'Sumer', and to its inhabitants as 'the black-headed people.' (Black, Cunningham and Robson, 2006. pg- 1)
Lament For Urim "The scorching potsherds made the dust glow (?) -- the people groan. He swept the winds over the black-headed people -- the people groan. Sumer was overturned by a snare -- the people groan. It attacked (?) the Land and devoured it completely. Tears cannot influence the bitter storm -- the people groan.
The Land's judgment disappeared -- the people groan. The Land's counsel was swallowed by a swamp -- the people groan. The mother absconded before her child's eyes -- the people groan. The father turned away from his child -- the people groan. In the city the wife was abandoned, the child was abandoned, possessions were scattered about. The black-headed people were carried off from their strongholds. " Forkm: --Jeremy Black, Graham Cunningham, Eleanor Robson. The Literature of Ancient Sumer. (2006) Oxford University Press. 250,12,309,
Count 5- Modern research comparisons of Sumerians with Mediterraneans dismiss any close affinity. Osteological remains from "48 local populations from Southern Europe and the Middle East, ranging in time from 3100 B.C. to 200 A.D.," disconfirms the two regions "as a single interbreeding group of populations. " -- (Finkel D. 1978. Spatial and temporal dimensions of Middle Eastern skeletal populations. JR Hum Evo, 7:3. 217-229)
Keita 1992 also dismisses notions of a "Mediterranean race": “Mediterranean,” connoting a “race,” “one interbreeding population,” at the craniometric level, is questionable as defining the “Middle East” during the Bronze Age (Finkel, 1974,1978), invalid as a term linking geography to a uniform external phenotype (see Snowden, 1970; MacGaffey, 1966; Keita, 1990), inaccurate as a metric taxon for many groups previously assigned to it (Rightmire, 1975a,b), and problematic as a bony craniofacial morphotype denoting a “race” or mendelian population because of its varied soft-part trait associations and wide geographical distribution (see “Hamitic” in Coon et al., 1950; Gabel, 1966; MacGaffey, 1966; Hiernaux, 1975; Rightmire, 1975a).
“Hamitic”, a label once used for some African groups (Fulani, Galla, Beja, southern ancient Egyptian), is seen by some as equivalent to “Mediterranean White” (e.g., Vercoutter, 1978), but Hiernaux (1975) points out that it is incorrect to view fossil and living groups once so designated as being “closely related to Caucasoids of Europe and western Asia.” The term “Hamitic” has been dropped by linguists and historians as well as by anthropologists because of its contradictions, its inadequacies, and the theory of race and race history to which it was attached (McGaffey, 1966; Sanders, 1969; Hiernaux, 1975). Likewise “Brown Race” is sometimes used as a synonym for Mediterranean White, though this interpretation is historically somewhat inaccurate (MacGaffey, 1966). Sergi (1901), perhaps the father of the original Mediterranean Race concept (Angel, 1983, personal communication), saw this taxon as being “autonomous” in origin, not of the Black or White “races.” Physical anthropologists express divergent views on the characteristic bony craniofacial morphology which is to define the “Mediterranean type” (personal correspondence from the late J.L. Angel, M-C. Chamla, and A. Wiercinski)."
-- Keita S. 1992. Further Studies of ancient crania from North Africa. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 87:245-254 (1992)
COint 6- Modern CAT SCAN analysis of early Iranians shows a population with dolichcephaly and broad noses. "it has been suggested based on archeological data that the population of Mesopotamia began to be influenced by Persians after the Achaemenean domination.. this study depicts the dolichocranic population as tending to have a relatively lower orbit and broader (lower) nose, and vice versa in the brachycranic population." -- Naomichi O, et al. 2009. Geometric morphometric study.. An Sci 117
GREATER MESOPOTAMIA - OTHER PLACES- IRAN- still show links to tropical Africans
In addition to the Palestinian data, data from Iran show that early West Asians looked like today’s sub-Saharan Africans.
quote: "Distance analysis and factor analysis, based on Q-mode correlation coefficients, were applied to 23 craniofacial measurements in 1,802 recent and prehistoric crania from major geographical areas of the Old World. The major findings are as follows: 1) Australians show closer similarities to African populations than to Melanesians. 2) Recent Europeans align with East Asians, and early West Asians resemble Africans. 3) The Asian population complex with regional difference between northern and southern members is manifest. 4) Clinal variations of craniofacial features can be detected in the Afro-European region on the one hand, and Australasian and East Asian region on the other hand. 5) The craniofacial variations of major geographical groups are not necessarily consistent with their geographical distribution pattern. This may be a sign that the evolutionary divergence in craniofacial shape among recent populations of different geographical areas is of a highly limited degree. Taking all of these into account, a single origin for anatomically modern humans is the most parsimonious interpretation of the craniofacial variations presented in this study." (Hanihara T. Comparison of craniofacial features of major human groups. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1996 Mar;99(3):389-412.)
7. Keita's studies show that what were clearly "negroid" remains were deliberately reclassified as "Mediterranean" by some white archaeology operations. African remains on the ground were also EXCLUDED from excavation write-ups by white archaeologists, presenting a skewed picture. - QUOTE:
"Analyses of Egyptian crania are numerous. Vercoutter (1978) notes that ancient Egyptian crania have frequently all been lumped (implicitly or explicitly) as Mediterranean, although Negroid remains are recorded in substantial numbers by many workers... "Nutter (1958), using the Penrose statistic, demonstrated that Nagada I and Badari crania, both regarded as Negroid, were almost identical and that these were most similar to the Negroid Nubian series from Kerma studied by Collett (1933). [Collett, not accepting variability, excluded "clear negro" crania found in the Kerma series from her analysis, as did Morant (1925), implying that they were foreign..." --(S. Keita (1990) Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern Africa. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 83:35-48)
Conclusion: Sumerian summary: While they were their own variant and not absolutely 100% identical to other tropicals, several excavations and analyses link the Sumerians with tropical African types much more than Europeans in terms of (1) resemblance to Upper Egypt predynastic specimens, (1) dolichocephalic features, and (3) resemblance to tropical peoples of the Western Desert, (4) similarities of the Mesopotamian U'baid specimens to other tropicals in terms of prognathism, wide noses and other features. This is consistent with the pattern shown in items a, b and c above, and (5) Similar pattern of tropical affinities in ancient populations of Greater Mesopotamia
The Penniman excavation of Sumerians found 8 out of 14, or 57% to be dolichocephalic, suggesting again the range of variation in the ancient Sumerians including tropical African features. Buxton and Rice found 17 out of 26 crania or 65% to be a similar tropical variant. This links again with the observations of Keith and the resemblance between Sumerian skulls and those of tropical Upper Egypt. Modern reanalyses of the data find both the Rice-Buxton and the Peniman data falling within the range for Saharao-tropical variant Africans (Van Sertima and Rashidi, 1987, p.23), confirming the Upper Egyptian matches with the Upper Egypt data of Fouquet reported by Keith (1934), and Penniman's Egyptian linkage. Ricaut and Walekens show that data in the Western Desert points once again to linkages with an African tropical variant, and the Cambridge History shows the Mesopotamian U'baids, precurors of the Sumerians to have a similar tropical affinity. Similarity to other places in the greater region such as Iran show affinities to tropical Africans (Hanihara 1996).
The "Mediterranean" alternative to Nordics is in turn debunked by (a) detailed analysis (Finkel 1978, Keita 1992), (b) modern CatScan data again showing a range falling within tropical variants ((Naomichi Ogihara 2008), and (c) a clear history of bogus "Mediterranean" classifications or "Mediterranean" classifications that included "negroid" characteristics that according to the claimants own internal logic- should not have been present.
. -----------------------------------
misc info:
Carleton Coon debunked
Nordic Mesopotamia? Across the web Neo-Nazis and Human Biodiversity proponents (HBD) wage an arcane war of “racial science” built around claimed superiority of cold-climate “Nordic” peoples. Tropical areas it is claimed produced little civilization until the coming of cold-climate Asiatics and Europeans? But is this “the truth” as claimed? HBD proponents reference US anthropologist Carelton Coon heavily, a supporter of the southern segregationist cause during the 1960s (Caspari 2003). Coon and other of his ilk make 3 claims:
--The Sumerians may have been vaguely "Mediterranean" but part Negroid --The Sumerians were identical to Englishmen --the Sumerians were of "Aryan" or "Nordic" stock
--Natufians negroids who may be mediterraneans or quasi negroids claimed:
As to the Palestinian area of Greater Mesopotamia, Coon (1939 ‘Races of Europe) held that skulls indicate a vague "Mediterranean type" with minor negro admixture, although contradictorily noting the prognathism of the specimens gives “a somewhat negroid cast to the face.”
--"English" Sumerians and European' stock claimed in Mesopotamia: As to the Sumerians, Coon asserted that "Sumerians who lived over five thousand years ago in Mesopotamia are almost identical in skull and face form with living Englishmen."
---- Blue-eyed "Nordics" for the Mesopotamian Sumerians: L. A. Waddell (1930- Egyptian Civilization Its Sumerian Origin..) held that the Nile Valley civilization was due to the Sumerians and that t he first dynastic Pharaoh of Egypt, Menes, was identical to the son of Sargon the Great of Sumeria, and that a great empire extended from India in the east to Britain in the west and that it was ruled over by Sargon I and later by his son Manis Tusu, whom he equates with the Menes of the Egyptian kingdom. The actual Sumerians who controlled this world-girdling empire, Waddell maintained, were of blue-eyed Nordic Aryan stock. [quote:] "The unity as regards type and source of the ancient civilizations of Sumerian Mesopotamia, India, Egypt is in keeping with the physique of the ruling people in all countries, which is shown by their portraits, sculptures and skeletal remains to have been of the long-headed, fair, grey or blue-eyed type recognized by moderns as marking the Aryan section of the caucasian race." (Waddell 1930)
carelton coon debunked. He was forced to admit that his "Mediterranean" classification did have so-called "negroid" traits.
The only thing wrong with the three "HBD" or "biodiversity" approaches above is that they are nonsense. If anything the peoples of greater Mesopotamia more closely resemble the tropical variants of Africa than any reputed Europeans or "Nordics" as shown below.
==================================
Debunking 1: Greater Mesopotamia (Palestine, Iraq, Syria, southwestern Iran) falls within the Subtropic/Tropic Arid Zone, NOT the cold-climate zones of Europe or Asia. The subtropics are the geographical and climatic zone of the Earth immediately north and south of the tropical zone, at latitudes 23.5°N and 23.5°S. The Greater Mesopotamian area is assigned to the subtropics or the arid tropics by modern climatologists. (See: Troll and Pfaffen, 1964. ‘Seasonal patterns of the earth and Thompson, A. (1997) Applied climatology: pg 179;
Debunking 2: Peoples of the Palestine area, and the Sumerians did NOT look like cold-clime “white Nordics” or Asiatics. Modern data shows a wide range with more links to African sub-Saharan elements.
===================================
DETAILS: THE NATUFIANS
Modern scholars dismiss Coons “racial” analysis but confirm the sub-Saharan elements in the Natufians. [quote:]
“A late Pleistocene-early Holocene northward migration (from Africa to the Levant and to Anatolia) of these populations has been hypothesized from skeletal data (Angel 1972, 1973; Brace 2005) and from archaeological data, as indicated by the probable Nile Valley origin of the "Mesolithic" (epi-Paleolithic) Mushabi culture found in the Levant (Bar Yosef 1987). This migration finds some support in the presence in Mediterranean populations (Sicily, Greece, southern Turkey, etc.; Patrinos et al.; Schiliro et al. 1990) of the Benin sickle cell haplotype. This haplotype originated in West Africa and is probably associated with the spread of malaria to southern Europe through an eastern Mediterranean route (Salares et al. 2004) following the expansion of both human and mosquito populations brought about by the advent of the Neolithic transition (Hume et al 2003; Joy et al. 2003; Rich et al 1998).
"This northward migration of northeastern African populations carrying sub-Saharan biological elements is concordant with the morphological homogeneity of the Natufian populations (Bocquentin 2003), which present morphological affinity with sub-Saharan populations (Angel 1972; Brace et al. 2005). In addition, the Neolithic revolution was assumed to arise in the late Pleistocene Natufians and subsequently spread into Anatolia and Europe (Bar-Yosef 2002), and the first Anatolian farmers, Neolithic to Bronze Age Mediterraneans and to some degree other Neolithic-Bronze Age Europeans, show morphological affinities with the Natufians (and indirectly with sub-Saharan populations; Angel 1972; Brace et al 2005)..” --F. X. Ricaut, M. Waelkens. (2008). Cranial Discrete Traits in a Byzantine Population and Eastern Mediterranean Population Movements Human Biology. 80:5, pp. 535-564
Other scholars on the Natufians:
Larry Angel (1972): "one can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters.(McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers, probably from Nubia via the predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians..."
C.L. Brace (2005): "If the late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, there was clearly a sub-Saharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element."
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: dana why are you bumping up old dumb threads? Is that some kind of strategy of yours?
I had to answer this but hadn't noticed how old it was. Strategy is something YOU focus on LYing One, not I. Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Dana said: From what I understand the Sumerians were a mixture of two people brown Dravidian indigenous types of Southern Mesopotamia and Caucasian types who came from central Asia. The later invaders were the elite, and a major force in shaping Sumerian language and culture. Suemerian remians reflects this mixture of people. NOte- not the only source, but one clear possible one. Data:
Umm ... I didn't say this Zarahan. never in my life would something as Neanderdumb as that ever come out of my mouth.
You confused me with the Neanderdimwit, very insulting!lol!
This is what I posted: "In this connection it should be stressed that there IS A MARKED DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE EVIDENCE OF THE CEMETARIES UNCOVERED IN SUMER AND THE APPEARANCE OF THE HISTORIC SUMERIANS DEPICTED ON THE MONUMENTS. For it has been repeatedly observed that the monumental representations of the Sumerians point for the most part to pronounced roundheads.” Ephraim Speiser, Oriental and Biblical Studies collected writings of E.A. Speiser 1967.p. 217
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- 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
Any claim that the Sumerians were not blonde and blue eyed is irrelevant. Yes, most ethnicities that worshipped blonde and blue eyed people were not if that ethnicity themselves. But this is because the nobility, the ruling classes, were these people. Why, because the blonde blue eyed warriors, who came from Caucasian hunter gatherer nomadic tribes, enslaved pre-existing civilisations 4,000 years ago and established a colonial empire. They retained their skin, eyes, and hair because they were the slavers, not the enslaved. Hence all the stuff that Social Justice activists complain about actually have been occurring since the dawn of civilisation itself, and developed naturally. Colonialism is very, very old. The natives of different nations thought that the British, Spanish, Portuguese, and French were gods. All kings are gods in the ancient world, hence these cultures recognised in the British, the people who used to rule them millennia ago, which make their colonisation easier to accomplish. Exceptions to this include South Africa, and Japan.
Posts: 2 | From: Canada | Registered: Apr 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
Climate also does not determine phenotypes as much as exposure to solar radiation. Just look at the Berbers or the Parsis.
Posts: 2 | From: Canada | Registered: Apr 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Robert Gervais: Any claim that the Sumerians were not blonde and blue eyed is irrelevant. Yes, most ethnicities that worshipped blonde and blue eyed people were not if that ethnicity themselves. But this is because the nobility, the ruling classes, were these people. Why, because the blonde blue eyed warriors, who came from Caucasian hunter gatherer nomadic tribes, enslaved pre-existing civilisations 4,000 years ago and established a colonial empire. They retained their skin, eyes, and hair because they were the slavers, not the enslaved. Hence all the stuff that Social Justice activists complain about actually have been occurring since the dawn of civilisation itself, and developed naturally. Colonialism is very, very old. The natives of different nations thought that the British, Spanish, Portuguese, and French were gods. All kings are gods in the ancient world, hence these cultures recognised in the British, the people who used to rule them millennia ago, which make their colonisation easier to accomplish. Exceptions to this include South Africa, and Japan.
I think you need to restock on your meds. You're losing me with this Nordic supremacy nonsense.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
I am posting this for those interested in Old Kingdom statuary rock crystal inlaid eyes. Let me add I acknowledge the obvious phenotypic diversity of Egypt from the Badarian down to today.
Indigenous dark skinned African phenotypes are the overwhelming majority. The other, minority, phenotypes can be Egyptian too. Their types range from indigenous lighter skinned coastal Africans to very dark skinned middle Nile Valley, Horn, and Saharo-Sahel Africans to Arabian plate and overseas naturalized foreigners dressed in Egyptian style and visiting foreigners sporting home fashion who are not Egyptian.
The foreign skin colour scale swings from very dark to very light and everything in between. Egypt since the predynastic attracted people looking for opportunities. All contributed to make the cosmopolitan first world power Egypt founded by indigenous lower Nile Valley Africans.
Non-brown inlaid eye irises are production faults. When eye coloring brown resin doesn't perfectly contact the crystal the result is partial to fully grey eyes. Crystal to resin contact can change with time. The eye color we see now may not be the eye color the sculptor intended.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
From a standard reference on AE materials and industry we learn the crystal was transparent having no color and that the intended eye color was brown effected by resin.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
In this thread I'm not talking about paint nor am I talking about fading.
I'm talking about rock crystal, brown resin, and their degree of contact.
All inlaid clear rock crystal eyes were backed with a brown resin disk to impart eye color. Where contact is not perfect or where the resin has shrunk the intended eye color is lost and what's left is a more or less greyish eye color.
That's precisely what the quoted reference says on inlaid eye color. Nothing else is implied. Skin colour is not the topic or subject of this thread.
Careful perusal of the reference is in order for pyramidiots who erect "painted eye colour," "painted skin colour," and imaginary what "alTakruri accepts as genuine," strawmen.
Discerning folk can read what I wrote on skin colours and what I cited about statues' crystal eye color to easily see through wilful misrepresentations by those not here to learn but to twist technical facts, as laid down by professionals.
They only affect the slow to comprehend, skim readers, or those who feel the last word is the best word. Those last two kind are not my primary audience.
I see no need to answer misrepresenters or distractors or have others explain what I mean. I'm right here for any sensible questioning which pyramidiots and the like fit neither sensible nor questioning much less the wanting to learn category.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
This is a perfect example of the effects of imperfect brown resin disk contact. Anyone can detect where the resin is not sealed completely intact to the crystal mat by the grey color. Likewise intact perfectly sealed disk onto crystal is revealed by the brown areas.
It's all precisely explained in the technical reference.
Any alternative speculations as to the cause of eye color must be backed by citation to technical sources about inlaid rock crystal eyes in Egyptian statuary.
quote:Originally posted by Confirming Truth: Sumerians thought that blue eyes were a sign of the gods. This belief was later picked up by the Jews who, interestingly, went as far as to deride dark eyes.
All these ridiculous photoshopped images on the internet. smh
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
[/QB][/QUOTE]
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic