Were Africans the Basques of Prehistoric Spain? ========
The answer is yes they were, the Basques migrated from North Africa.
The Basques (as their modern descendants) belong to the oldest Caucasoid Gracile Meditterenean racial stock.
The Meditterenean race is Caucasoid (white), not Negroid (black).
So you have the geographical origin correct, just the race completely wrong.
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
^The Basques come originally from Africa, yet you imply that they are from Caucasus by calling them Caucasoid or Caucasians?
What's up?
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
quote:Originally posted by IronLion: ^How the the Basques come originally from Africa, yet you imply that they are from Caucasus by calling them Caucasoid or Caucasians?
What's up?
Caucasoids migrated into North Africa in 12,000 BC. The natives there were a small population of Capoids.
Negroids were not in North Africa until 2000 BC, 10k after the Caucasoids.
The Negroid (Black) race is a recent mutation -
'True' Black Africans appear as a recent adaptive radiation in the above dendrograms, apparently branching off from an ancestral Pygmy population -- a line of ancestry also indicated by osteological data (Coon 1962:651-656; Watson et al. 1996). This radiation seems to have occurred somewhere in West Africa. Before the Bantu expansion about 3,000 years ago, true Black Africans were absent from the continent's central, eastern, and southern regions (Cavalli-Sforza 1986:361-362; Oliver 1966). They were also absent from the middle Nile until about 4,000 years ago, at which time they begin to appear in paintings from Pharaonic Egypt and in skeletal remains from Nubia (Junker 1921).
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides:
quote:Originally posted by IronLion: ^How the the Basques come originally from Africa, yet you imply that they are from Caucasus by calling them Caucasoid or Caucasians?
What's up?
Caucasoids migrated into North Africa in 12,000 BC. The natives there were a small population of Capoids.
Negroids were not in North Africa until 2000 BC, 10k after the Caucasoids.
The Negroid (Black) race is a recent mutation -
'True' Black Africans appear as a recent adaptive radiation in the above dendrograms, apparently branching off from an ancestral Pygmy population -- a line of ancestry also indicated by osteological data (Coon 1962:651-656; Watson et al. 1996). This radiation seems to have occurred somewhere in West Africa. Before the Bantu expansion about 3,000 years ago, true Black Africans were absent from the continent's central, eastern, and southern regions (Cavalli-Sforza 1986:361-362; Oliver 1966). They were also absent from the middle Nile until about 4,000 years ago, at which time they begin to appear in paintings from Pharaonic Egypt and in skeletal remains from Nubia (Junker 1921).
You say Negroes evolved 3000 years ago. Do you mean expanded their population or evolved? here read your own source again:
quote: Before the Bantu expansion about 3,000 years ago, true Black Africans were absent from the continent's central, eastern, and southern regions (Cavalli-Sforza 1986:361-362; Oliver 1966)
Cashitty, do you know what they mean by Bantu Expansion?
Your article says Negros branched off from Pygmies. Do you know that Pygmies are the oldest stock of humanity? If Negros branched off from the oldest stock of humanity, where did Pinkoids branch of from? What is your human family branch?
I await your response. Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
During the Bantu expansion the Negroids moved into north, east and central africa. Prior to that they had only been in West Africa.
The natives of Africa are Capoids, not Negroids. There are huge genetic and morphological differences in race between the two.
Also remember blacks have been killing the bushmen for thousands of years as well as the pygmies. Blacks hunt down the pygmies and even cook them.
The ancestors of Caucasoids are proto-Caucasoids like the Cro-Magnon and other Paleolithics.
The entire Homo genus has had racial divergences for hundreds of thousands of millions of years in proto-forms.
I believe the earliest proto-Caucasoid skull is 33,000 B.P and was found somewhere around the Czech Republic.
Cro magnon art head 26,000 years old -
heavy brows, long straight hair. Clearly not negroid.
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: Were Africans the Basques of Prehistoric Spain? ========
The answer is yes they were, the Basques migrated from North Africa....
The Basques (as their modern descendants) belong to the oldest Caucasoid Gracile Meditterenean racial stock.....blah blah..blah..
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: [QB] blah..blah..blah...
The ancestors of Caucasoids are proto-Caucasoids like the Cro-Magnon and other Paleolithics.
...
I believe the earliest proto-Caucasoid skull is 33,000 B.P and was found somewhere around the Czech Republic.
Cro magnon art head 26,000 years old - blah blah blah...
......
Make up your mind boy. Which one is it? Is the Basque African or European?
You answered African!
Now you claim they are Czechs?
Make up your mind...
I am waiting! Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
Some readings for Cashitty:
Hieroglyphics sign for Batu/Bantu:
Where are the Bantus from:
Kenyan Bantu oral traditions recall a southerly migration from Egypt.
The following sources of accounts of migrations of some of the Bantu speakers in Kenya are taken from:
i) Kenya an official handbook
ii) Story of Africa from earliest times, Book one, A.J Willis
iii) Longman GHC, E.S Atieno Odhimbo, John N. B. N. I Were
iv) Studies done by Cheik Anta Diop
Almost all the Bantu people living in Kenya speak of a migration from up North. The people of Marachi location are known to have come from Elgon although other clans of the same group came from Egypt. They came in canoes on the River Nile as far as Juja, Uganda and later moved eastward into lake Victoria. They changed course until Asembo and separated with the Luo who walked along the lake shore but the rest crossed into South Nyanza. They then turned northwards and reached Butere and then moved on to Luanda and to Ekhomo.
The Luo people were behind them right from Egypt.
The people of Samia location came from Egypt on foot.
The Abakhekhe clan too originated from Egypt on foot.
The Abachoni clan originally came from Egypt on foot.
The people of Bukusu originally came from Egypt in canoes.
The Luhya oral literature of origin, suggest a migration into their present-day locations from the north. Virtually all sub-ethnic groups claim to have migrated first south from Misri, or Egypt. In one of the Luhya dialect the word 'Abaluhya' means 'the people of the North', or 'Northerns'
Other sources report that the following Bantu people, the Luhya, Baganda, Nyarwanda, Rundi of Burindi, Kikuyu, and the Zulu all claim a southerly migration from Egypt. Moreover there are many groups of Bantu speakers from Tanzania, Mozambique, Congo, Zambia, Malawi, South Africa, who testify a southerly migration from Egypt. There are even groups of people from West Africa who migrated from Egypt into their present day location.
Note: The settlements of the Bantu in West Africa may have been a result of two streams of Bantu emigrants: one from the Congo basin and the other directly from the Nile valley.
See also:
References:
The Restatement Of Bantu Origin and Meru History. Alfred M M'Imanyara Longman Kenya UNESCO General History Of Africa, Vol1,2 Egypt Before The Pharaohs. Michael A Hoffman The Peopling Of Africa. James L Newman Ancient Egypt and Black Africa. Dr Theophile Obenga Civilisation or Barbarism. Cheikh Anta Diop The Children Of Woot. A history of the Kuba People. Jan Vansina Indaba My Children. VusamaZulu Credo. Mutwa Wikipidia Languages Of Africa. Joseph H. Greenberg
Caucasoids did not originate in Africa, they migrated there in 12,000 BC. Races excluding the Capoid and Australoid only date the the Holcene, yet they have proto-forms. The Proto-Caucasoids are the Cro-Magnon's.
White skin in Caucasoids is a recent mutation, from 10,000 - 7,000 years ago.
The original branch of the Caucasoid, were the Meditterenean race - olive skinned, dark haired and slender. Absolutely nothing to do with Negroids.
Exameple of Meditterenean race -
Catherine Zeta Jones - olive or brunette-white skin, dark hair, darkish eyes.
This is how the earliest Caucasoids looked, and proto-Caucasoids ten's of thousands of years ago.
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: Caucasoids did not originate in Africa, they migrated there in 12,000 BC. ..
LoL...they arrived from where? Czechosolvakia?
quote: Originally posted by Cashitty; Races excluding the Capoid and Australoid only date the the Holcene, yet they have proto-forms. The Proto-Caucasoids are the Cro-Magnon's.
White skin in Caucasoids is a recent mutation, from 10,000 - 7,000 years ago.
The original branch of the Caucasoid, were the Meditterenean race - olive-skin, dark haired and slender. Absolutely nothing to do with Negroids....
Olive skin is black:
Aha. You are admitting Mike111 has been teaching you a lot. Now you know why we call you an albino:
But then where can one find artefacts and skeletal evidence of those "Mediterranean" races in Neolithic Europe? Here?:
and here from Central Europe, Bratislava Medieval period:
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
LoL...they arrived from where? Czechosolvakia? ========
The cradle was in south-west asia.
''The Mediterranean race, then, is indigenous to, and the principal element in, the Southwest Asia, and the greatest concentration of a highly evolved Mediterranean type falls among two of the most ancient Semitic-speaking peoples, notably the Arabs and the Jews (Although it may please neither party, this is the truth.). The Mediterraneans occupy the center of the stage; their areas of greatest concentration are precisely those where civilization is the oldest. This is to be expected, since it was they who produced it and it, in a sense, that produced them." - Carleton Coon, the Story of the Middle East, 1958, pp. 154-157
I only said Proto-Caucasoids were in Europe as Cro-Magnon Paleolithic types, not Caucasoids in their [b]modern[b] form.
Modern races excluding the capoid and australoid only have their origins at the beginning of the Holocene.
Olive skinned (Caucsoid):
Black skinned (Negroid):
--
Since all blacks are self-haters and hate very dark skin they claim olive skinned meds are ''black'' as they crave those lighter features and straight hair.
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cashitty: ========
The cradle was in south-west asia.
''The Mediterranean race, then, is indigenous to, and the principal element in, the Southwest Asia, and the greatest concentration of a highly evolved Mediterranean type falls among two of the most ancient Semitic-speaking peoples, notably the Arabs and the Jews (Although it may please neither party, this is the truth.). The Mediterraneans occupy the center of the stage; their areas of greatest concentration are precisely those where civilization is the oldest. This is to be expected, since it was they who produced it and it, in a sense, that produced them." - Carleton Coon, the Story of the Middle East, 1958, pp. 154-157
baa...baa...baaaaaaa
--
Since all blacks are self-haters and hate very dark skin they claim olive skinned meds are ''black'' as they crave those lighter features and straight hair. [/QB]
Explain this:
“So striking” writes Professor Elliot Smith, “is the family likeness between the early Neolithic peoples of the British Isles and the Mediterranean and the bulk of the population, both ancient and modern, of Egypt and East Africa, that the description of the bones of an Early Briton of that remote epoch might apply in all essential details to an inhabitant of Somaliland.¯ (The Ancient Egyptians, p. 58.)
and this one from Central Europe, Bratislava Medieval period:
[/qb][/QUOTE]
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
Explain this:
“So striking” writes Professor Elliot Smith, “is the family likeness between the early Neolithic peoples of the British Isles and the Mediterranean and the bulk of the population, both ancient and modern, of Egypt and East Africa, that the description of the bones of an Early Briton of that remote epoch might apply in all essential details to an inhabitant of Somaliland.¯ (The Ancient Egyptians, p. 58.) ======
I own this work in original print.
Grafton Elliot Smith believed the egyptians were CAUCASOID, not negroid.
You are making a fool of yourself by quoting works you clearly have never read.
p.50 from the same work -
''The hair of the Proto-Egyptians was precisely similar to that of the brunet South European or Iberian People of present day''
continued p. 51 -
''it presented no resemblance whatever to the so- called ''woolly'' appearance...of the negro's hair''
pp.55-65 clarify that Elliot believed the egyptians were the same race as South Europeans or the Meditterenean race.
Thoughout his work, Elliot sharply maintained the ancient egyptians were never negroid.
Please read works properly before making a fool of yourself. You clearly are no book reader. You just have two or three quotes from works you don't understand and have never read.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
and this one from Central Europe, Bratislava Medieval period: =======
what about it?
Its shows white men and woman. If you look closely you can see some of the woman are also blonde with long flowing hair.
Stop the self-hatred and embrace your own history.
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: and this one from Central Europe, Bratislava Medieval period: =======
what about it?
Its shows white men and woman. If you look closely you can see some of the woman are also blonde with long flowing hair.
Stop the self-hatred and embrace your own history.
You must be on meth. But I gonna help you here:
THIS IS SO-CALLED WHITE:
Whereas an Albino Green snake is pink:
An Albino Brown baby is pink: Psoraisis already?
An albino Dravidian:
AND THESE ARE MUURS, THE ORIGINAL PEOPLE OF EUROPE: YOUR SO-CALLED BLACK AFRICANS :
Explain this:
“So striking” writes Professor Elliot Smith, “is the family likeness between the early Neolithic peoples of the British Isles and the Mediterranean and the bulk of the population, both ancient and modern, of Egypt and East Africa, that the description of the bones of an Early Briton of that remote epoch might apply in all essential details to an inhabitant of Somaliland.¯ (The Ancient Egyptians, p. 58.)
HAHA! cosmetic dread! You are one funny dude! There is not one Black person in that image save this!
What the icon really proves is that the devils are Black. Had you claim that, I doubt you would have gotten an argument from anyone.
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
^Funk
Show me the albino there?
Be brave. Face your albino fake history and ugly reality:
Whereas an Albino Green snake is pink:
An Albino Brown baby is pink: Psoraisis already?
Posted by Confirming Truth (Member # 17678) on :
Cosmetic dread, you are a fool who does not even know how to apply basic art interpretation to iconography. Notice the naked WHITE MAN weighed against the scale of judgment. The scale tilts in his favor to the Saints (while tilting away from the nigger-devils) --they therefore petition on his behalf and he triumps over the BLACK DEVILS who seek to chastise him (LOL)!!! Christianity was born out of the caucasian race, and non-caucasoids are graced by it. Humble yourself my dude.
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
quote:Originally posted by Confirming Truth: HAHA! cosmetic dread! You are one funny dude! There is not one Black person in that image save this!
What the icon really proves is that the devils are Black. Had you claim that, I doubt you would have gotten an argument from anyone.
As always, you are such a brainless meth junkie:
Posted by Confirming Truth (Member # 17678) on :
^No dread-clown, deal with the original icon you presented. Dont run from it. Now... explain why the devils are depicted as Niggers and why the man who is proffered salvation in the scene is depicted white?
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
^Dummy
I guess that shut down your albino lying ass!
Now, about the picture I put up, you mean your albino blue eyes are dysfunctional as well?
I will assist you one last time:
THIS IS SO-CALLED WHITE:
Whereas an Albino Green snake is pink:
An Albino Brown baby is pink: Psoraisis already?
An albino Dravidian's pink face:
AND THESE ARE MUURS, THE ORIGINAL PEOPLE OF EUROPE: YOUR SO-CALLED BLACK AFRICANS :
Explain this:
“So striking” writes Professor Elliot Smith, “is the family likeness between the early Neolithic peoples of the British Isles and the Mediterranean and the bulk of the population, both ancient and modern, of Egypt and East Africa, that the description of the bones of an Early Briton of that remote epoch might apply in all essential details to an inhabitant of Somaliland.¯ (The Ancient Egyptians, p. 58.)
^No, cosmetic wanna-be-dread, address my points I made regarding your original icon. I await thee!
Cosmetic dread, you are a fool who does not even know how to apply basic art interpretation to iconography. Notice the naked WHITE MAN weighed against the scale of judgment. The scale tilts in his favor to the Saints (while tilting away from the nigger-devils) --they therefore petition on his behalf and he triumps over the BLACK DEVILS who seek to chastise him (LOL)!!! Christianity was born out of the caucasian race, and non-caucasoids are graced by it. Humble yourself my dude.
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
^Pink Reptiles are not smart as Muurs. This thread is about the Africans who created Europe.
Heavy topic, and we are dropping citations, images and pictures.
The sun of knowledge is shinning. If you cannot take the heat, crawl back into your cave, little albino snake.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
Explain this:
“So striking” writes Professor Elliot Smith, “is the family likeness between the early Neolithic peoples of the British Isles and the Mediterranean and the bulk of the population, both ancient and modern, of Egypt and East Africa, that the description of the bones of an Early Briton of that remote epoch might apply in all essential details to an inhabitant of Somaliland.¯ (The Ancient Egyptians, p. 58.) ===========
I already have.
p.50 from the same work -
''The hair of the Proto-Egyptians was precisely similar to that of the brunet South European or Iberian People of present day''
continued p. 51 -
''it presented no resemblance whatever to the so- called ''woolly'' appearance...of the negro's hair''
According to Grafton Elliot Smith, the egyptians were CAUCASOID, straight haired Meeditterenean's like southern europeans.
You basically owned yourself when you quote from a book - you clearly have never read.
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: Explain this:
“So striking” writes Professor Elliot Smith, “is the family likeness between the early Neolithic peoples of the British Isles and the Mediterranean and the bulk of the population, both ancient and modern, of Egypt and East Africa, that the description of the bones of an Early Briton of that remote epoch might apply in all essential details to an inhabitant of Somaliland.¯ (The Ancient Egyptians, p. 58.) ===========
I already have.
p.50 from the same work -
''The hair of the Proto-Egyptians was precisely similar to that of the brunet South European or Iberian People of present day''
continued p. 51 -
''it presented no resemblance whatever to the so- called ''woolly'' appearance...of the negro's hair''
According to Grafton Elliot Smith, the egyptians were CAUCASOID, straight haired Meeditterenean's like southern europeans.
You basically owned yourself when you quote from a book - you clearly have never read.
Oh shut your distraction and start fessing up, little wannabe Europoid, Central Asian albino!
This passage here talks about East Africans being similar to Neolithic peoples of the British Isle. I asked you to explain it and you started whinning about negro. Gosh, are you that dumb?
Show me a picture of those East Africans Professor Elliot was talking about?:
quote:“So striking” writes Professor Elliot Smith, “is the family likeness between the early Neolithic peoples of the British Isles and the Mediterranean and the bulk of the population, both ancient and modern, of Egypt and East Africa , that the description of the bones of an Early Briton of that remote epoch might apply in all essential details to an inhabitant of Somaliland.¯ (The Ancient Egyptians, p. 58.)
East Africans:
Cashitty, we are waiting... Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
quote:(while tilting away from the nigger-devils) --they therefore petition on his behalf and he triumps over the BLACK DEVILS who seek to chastise him (LOL)!!! Christianity was born out of the caucasian race, and non-caucasoids are graced by it. Humble yourself my dude.
According to the Epistle of Barnabas (c. 70-100), the Devil was known as ''the black one'' and appears as a black ethiopian.
In the Acts of Peter (xx11), Peter sees the Devil in the shape of a foul-looking woman who was all 'black and filthy like an Ethiopian''
white = good, pure, beauty black = evil, not pure, ugly
Throughout medieval art in europe, the devil or satan is found portrayed as a black ethiopian.
A modern academic work which discusses these Saracens, demons, & Jews: making monsters in medieval art 2003.
The ''monsters'' of medieval folklore were black people - because whites when they first encountered them found them ugly and strange looking.
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
^Topic Thread: Neolithic Basques were Africans
Keep it to the topic. Dont have a melt down yet.
Show me the East Africans that Professor Elliot was saying looked like the original Europeans.
I have shown mine.
There will be no hiding place for you...
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
Show me a picture of those East Africans Professor Elliot was talking about?: =======
When the nonadaptive aspects of craniofacial configuration are the basis for assessment, the Somalis cluster with Europeans before showing a tie with the people of West Africa or the Congo Basin.
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: Show me a picture of those East Africans Professor Elliot was talking about?: =======
When the nonadaptive aspects of craniofacial configuration are the basis for assessment, the Somalis cluster with Europeans before showing a tie with the people of West Africa or the Congo Basin.
Clearer picture please. Colour picture preferable. Just google an East African that would look like what Prof Elliot was talking about. Post someone with hair too...
Thanks Posted by Confirming Truth (Member # 17678) on :
As well, we find the devil depicted black in Moslem art.
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: According to the Epistle of Barnabas (c. 70-100), the Devil was known as ''the black one'' and appears as a black ethiopian.
In the Acts of Peter (xx11), Peter sees the Devil in the shape of a foul-looking woman who was all 'black and filthy like an Ethiopian''
white = good, pure, beauty black = evil, not pure, ugly
Throughout medieval art in europe, the devil or satan is found portrayed as a black ethiopian.
A modern academic work which discusses these Saracens, demons, & Jews: making monsters in medieval art 2003.
The ''monsters'' of medieval folklore were black people - because whites when they first encountered them found them ugly and strange looking.
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
quote:Originally posted by Confirming Truth: As well, we find the devil depicted black in Moslem art.
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: According to the Epistle of Barnabas (c. 70-100), the Devil was known as ''the black one'' and appears as a black ethiopian.
In the Acts of Peter (xx11), Peter sees the Devil in the shape of a foul-looking woman who was all 'black and filthy like an Ethiopian''
white = good, pure, beauty black = evil, not pure, ugly
Throughout medieval art in europe, the devil or satan is found portrayed as a black ethiopian.
A modern academic work which discusses these Saracens, demons, & Jews: making monsters in medieval art 2003.
The ''monsters'' of medieval folklore were black people - because whites when they first encountered them found them ugly and strange looking.
Pink Serpent
Behold the Black Mother of God:
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
Prof Elliot is talking of a race now extinct in East Africa in pure form. The Meditterenean race there has intermixed with blacks, however this is why some East Africans have thin noses and other Caucasoid facial features still visible -
Compare to negroids:
Both are different races.
Th Caucasoid element in east africans has also been proven via genetics. If you want a study i can show.
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
quote:Prof Elliot is talking of a race now extinct in East Africa in pure form.
Prof Elliot said Modern East Africans! Read the statement again!
Point out where he said anything about "pure east African race"
Point out in that statement where he said that race was extinct.
Then don't forget to address Professors Boule and Vallois' citation just below.
We are waiting:
quote: Explain this:
“So striking” writes Professor Elliot Smith, “is the family likeness between the early Neolithic peoples of the British Isles and the Mediterranean and the bulk of the population, both ancient and modern, of Egypt and East Africa, that the description of the bones of an Early Briton of that remote epoch might apply in all essential details to an inhabitant of Somaliland.¯ (The Ancient Egyptians, p. 58.)
This is from Bratislava in Slovakia. Shows Byzantine stylistic influences derived from Constantinople. Some of the figures are clearly blonde.
This is from Ethiopia. The figure is St George imagined as a brown East African. Also shows Byzantine stylistic influences, probably derived via Egypt.
Unidentified members of a modern Ethiopian church, including some Jamaicans by the look of it.
quote: Explain this:
“So striking” writes Professor Elliot Smith, “is the family likeness between the early Neolithic peoples of the British Isles and the Mediterranean and the bulk of the population, both ancient and modern, of Egypt and East Africa, that the description of the bones of an Early Briton of that remote epoch might apply in all essential details to an inhabitant of Somaliland.¯ (The Ancient Egyptians, p. 58.)
It is a fact that the ancient Britons were relations of the Basque people, and also of North Africans (Certain Berber tribes in Morocco can be understood by Gaelic speaking Scots). The Berbers are in turn related to certain East Africans, sharing the E haplotype. However neither have much to do with negroids or bantu speakers. A northern Ethiopian or an Eritraean will not infrequently look more like a Briton or a Spaniard (notwithstanding the darker skin colour and curlier hair) than they will like one of the negroids of the tribes inhabit the south.
Observe: Basque woman (Mediterranean caucasoid)
Kabeyle Berber woman (Mediterranean caucasoid):
Eritraean and Ethiopian women (Mediterranean caucasoid):
Southern Ethiopian (Mursi) woman (negroid).
This re-enforces the point that has already been made. Anyone who wants to portray the original Basques or Britons as negroids is barking mand. Ethiopians may be black but many of them are not at all negroid, and British and Spanish people have if anything more claim to connection with the race of the Ancient Egyptians than do the descendants of tropical West Africans, whose ancestors, being from the region between Sierra Leone and Ghana, come from almost further away geographically!
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101:
This is from Bratislava. Shows Byzantine stylistic influences derived from Constantinople. Some of the figures are blonde.
This is from Ethiopia. The figure is St George imagined as a brown East African. Also shows Byzantine stylistic influences, probably derived via Egypt.
Unidentified members of a modern Ethiopian church, including some Jamaicans by the look of it.
quote: Explain this:
“So striking” writes Professor Elliot Smith, “is the family likeness between the early Neolithic peoples of the British Isles and the Mediterranean and the bulk of the population, both ancient and modern, of Egypt and East Africa, that the description of the bones of an Early Briton of that remote epoch might apply in all essential details to an inhabitant of Somaliland.¯ (The Ancient Egyptians, p. 58.)
It is a fact that the ancient Britons were relations of the Basque people, and also of North Africans (Certain Berber tribes in Morocco can be understood by Gaelic speaking Scots). The Berbers are in turn related to certain East Africans, sharing the E haplotype. However neither have much to do with negroids or bantu speakers. A northern Ethiopian or an Eritraean will not infrequently look more like a Briton or a Spaniard (notwithstanding the darker skin colour and curlier hair) than they will like one of the negroids of the tribes inhabit the south.
Observe:
.....
Eritraean and Ethiopian women (Mediterranean caucasoid):
Southern Ethiopian (Mursi) woman (negroid).
Anyone who wants to portray the original Basques or Britons as negroids is barking mand. Ethiopians may be black but many of them are not at all negroid. [/QB]
Rahotep
Are you trying to say that neolithic Basques looked like the Ethiopians Amhara or Oromos? Please expatiate further...
Thanks
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
Neolithic Basques probably looked the similar to how modern Basques invariably do, although they may have absorbed a bit of Frankish and Visigothic blood. Modern Amhars and Oromos meanwhile have probably absorbed blood from surrounding African populations. You can get a general idea from comparing modern peoples but it is only a valid exercise up to a point. It's not rocket science to surmising the likely effects of geography and history.
By the way I have trouble believing that the second extract you quoted (without citation) belongs with the first. It sounds like afrocentric propaganda to me.
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
By the way, also, this statue from Empuries (originally a Greek colony in Spain) is a Roman woman, not a Celt (or a negro, and not with an 'afro').
The hair is piled up at the fromt as per a particular style that was briefly popular.
Here are some other examples of the style:
The curls only form a sort of crest, as stated, it is not a ball of fuzz.
This is a Roman hair curler:
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: Neolithic Basques probably looked the similar to how modern Basques invariably do, although they may have absorbed a bit of Frankish and Visigothic blood. ......
What is your authority for saying so? Are you smarter than Prof. Elliot? Do you have more expertise in this area than Prof. Boule or Prof Valloir? They all are pink people like you, and very well educated. Authorities in their field.
Read what they said
quote: Explain this:
“So striking” writes Professor Elliot Smith, “is the family likeness between the early Neolithic peoples of the British Isles and the Mediterranean and the bulk of the population, both ancient and modern, of Egypt and East Africa, that the description of the bones of an Early Briton of that remote epoch might apply in all essential details to an inhabitant of Somaliland.¯ (The Ancient Egyptians, p. 58.)
“Spain is shaped like a gigantic bull’s hide stretching in the sun between Europe and Africa. Spain’s large area of 195,379 square miles (506,030 square kilometers) covers about five sixths of the Iberian Peninsula. In Western Europe, only France is larger. At its widest Spain stretches some 635 miles (1,022 kilometers) from east to west. From north to south the country is about 550 miles (885 kilometers) long.”
Spain has a coastline which stretches in some parts for 1,700 miles (2,740 kilometers) along the Mediterranean Sea from the eastern end of the Pyrenees mountain chain to the Strait of Gibraltar. Spain shares with Portugal the peninsula’s coast which borders the Atlantic.
Since ancient times Spain has been physically and culturally a part of Africa because both land mass used to share a common land bridge across what is now the Strait of Gibraltar. Whereas Spain was physically connected with Africa in the ancient times and was only separated by an earth quake in relatively near antiquity, it was always separated physically and culturally from Europe by the Pyrenees Mountain.
According to the Encyclopedia Britannica:
“Of all Europe’s mountain ranges, the jagged and often snowcapped Pyrenees, 270 miles (435 kilometers) long, have functioned most effectively as a barrier to human movement. Unlike the Alps, the Pyrenees have no low foothills or hospitable valleys to ease access into and through their heights. Rather, the Pyrenees rise abruptly from the flanking plains of France and Spain with only steep gorges and steep-walled natural amphitheaters that lead to almost impassable lofty summits. The French peasant’s adage, Africa begins with the Pyrenees, is not without a large measure of truth in emphasizing the historic significance of the Pyrenees as a barrier in the development of Spain. In the words of the U.S. historian Will Durant, Spain’s mountains, particularly the Pyrenees, ā€were her protection and tragedy: they gave her comparative security from external attack, but hindered her economic advance, her political unity, and her participation in European thought.¯ The continued political independence of the tiny principality of Andorra is largely a result of its remote location amid the Pyrenees between France and Spain.” (Encyclopedia Britannica )
The Moorish Story:
The ancient Maghreb which spanned Morrocco and Algeria has been populated for longer than most of the rest of the world. There is evidence of people living there as far back as 200,000 BC, and cave paintings depict a fairly vibrant Neolithic culture living thriving around 6000 BC, when the climate of the Sahara was very different.
Then the area that is now Sahara had giant lakes, and lush savannah land teeming with wild life. Cultural complex were developed in that area and extended to nearby Iberia, onward across Southern Europe as far as Black sea. These people have been called various confusing names (such as Cro-Magnons, Aurignacians, Grimaldi, Celto-Iberians, etc) by European anthropologists to hide their African cultural roots. Eventually the various peoples who lived in the Central Sahara area formed the people now known as the Touaregs/Moors/Berbers.
At its shortest point to Africa, Spain is separated by a strait of water about 8 kilometers in width. It is possible to stand on one end of Africa and observe actions on the Spanish side of the coast. Racist Euro-centric scholars would want us to believe that for 100, 000 years, the Africans who lived on the opposite side of the Mediterranean coast were so incurious and incapable that they could not cross an 8 mile water strait, whereas the Cro-Magnon man could do a 10,000 kilometers trek crossing the impassable Mount Pyrenees, a mountain of barrier against ingress from Europe and successfully established themselves successfully in Spain. But the ridiculousness of such a thesis is self-evident. In full recognition of the fact that Africans were the first to establish communities on both side of the Mediterranean coast, classical scholars have used such moniker as ā€Ibero-maurisianā€¯ culture to describe the early inhabitants of Spain. Maurisian stands for Maures…Africans.
Since the earliest periods, the Moors(including the Berbers) had spread out from Central Sahara, Northern Africa, into Portugal Southern Spain, and Southern France. Those in North Africa are described as the Berber/Moors of North Africa while those in Spain are described as the ancient Iberians (Ibero-Maurisians). Those in the Mediterranean are called the pre-Hellenistic Aegean or Creteans. (See: Arnaiz-Villena A, Iliakis P, Gonzalez-Regueiro Hevilla M et al. The origin of Cretan populations as determined by characterization of HLA alleles. Tissue Antigens 1999 53:213-26. See further, E. Gomez-Casado, P. del Moral, J. MartiĀ´nez-Laso, A. Garcia-Gomez, L. Allende, C. Silvera-Redondo, J. Longas, M. Gonzalez-Hevilla, M. Kandil, J. Zamora, A. Arnaiz-Villena; HLA genes in Arabic-speaking Moroccans: Close relatedness to Berbers and Iberians; Tissue Antigens 2000: 55: 239249.)
Berbers of Libya North Africa and the Mediterranean had in later antiquity fallen under the influence of the Black Carthaginians/Phoenicians sailors. Originally from the Horn of Africa, the Carthaginian/Phoenicians a sea faring migratory people, had settled in Canaan/Palestine and Syria. A group of them later journeyed back again to their original motherland Africa, but this time they settled along the coast of Tunisia.
The Phoenicians had arrived around 800 BC. They formed an alliance with the Berber groups which enabled them to gained power rapidly. They eventually became the most influential and strongest power in the Mediterranean partly due to their largely Berber-staffed army. They controlled the Northwest coast of Africa as well as the Iberia the regions where the Berbers have lived in since the earliest human records. They founded the Iberian city of Cadiz among many others.
Carthage and Roman were soon colliding since it was that the Romans had tried to muscle in on the lucrative maritime routes controlled exclusively by the Carthaginian Empire. The trade competition led to armed conflict known in history as the Punic wars. Carthage lost both of the Punic wars to regional upstart Rome.
After losing the first Punic War to Rome, many Berbers became disaffected with the regional power Carthage and thus rebelled and gained a large amount of independence. In modern-day Algeria, then called Numidia, two main kingdoms emerged. These eventually united under Masinissa, who teamed up with Rome (and especially with Scipio Africanus) to launch devastating attacks on Carthage.
It was also in the course of the second Punic wars that the great African General Hannibal mobilized in North Africa and Iberia and then marched into the Roman Empire and ceased most of its European territories. Hannibal actually ruled western European section of the Roman Empire with the exception of the city of Rome itself which gates he had reached several times before being fought off.
Eventually Carthage lost the Punic wars and Hannibal committed suicide after having been betrayed and disappointed by high-ranking officials of Carthage. Rome thereupon destroyed Carthage, took over possession of its territories including the Iberian Peninsula and shared out to its vassals and client states.....
The Elliot Smith quote has already been explained. Morphologically and genetically most East Africans are closer European (Caucasoid) than Sub-Saharan African (Negroid).
Elliot Smith on the hair of the ancient egyptians:
p.50 from the same work -
''The hair of the Proto-Egyptians was precisely similar to that of the brunet South European or Iberian People of present day''
continued p. 51 -
''it presented no resemblance whatever to the so- called ''woolly'' appearance...of the negro's hair''
- The ancient egyptians were straight haired, not wooly - which is clear anthropological evidence they were not Negroid since blacks aren't straight haired.
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
quote:Originally posted by IronLion:
quote:Prof Elliot is talking of a race now extinct in East Africa in pure form.
Prof Elliot referred to Modern East Africans! Read his statement again! Dunce!
Point out where he said anything about "pure east African race"?
Point out in that statement where he said that race was extinct?
Then don't forget to address Professors Boule and Vallois' citation just below.
We are waiting:
quote: Explain this:
“So striking” writes Professor Elliot Smith, “is the family likeness between the early Neolithic peoples of the British Isles and the Mediterranean and the bulk of the population, both ancient and modern, of Egypt and East Africa, that the description of the bones of an Early Briton of that remote epoch might apply in all essential details to an inhabitant of Somaliland.¯ (The Ancient Egyptians, p. 58.)
I have not forgotten this. I am sure you have not forgotten either.
We been waiting for you...
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
quote:Originally posted by IronLion: [QB] [What is your authority for saying so? Are you smarter than Prof. Elliot? Do you have more expertise in this area than Prof. Boule or Prof Valloir? They all are pink people like you, and very well educated. Authorities in their field.
Where does the prof. say they looked vastly different?
quote: “So striking” writes Professor Elliot Smith, “is the family likeness between the early Neolithic peoples of the British Isles and the Mediterranean and the bulk of the population, both ancient and modern, of Egypt and East Africa, that the description of the bones of an Early Briton of that remote epoch might apply in all essential details to an inhabitant of Somaliland.¯ (The Ancient Egyptians, p. 58.)
They still look similar in many cases.
Compare Ramesses II to the English composer Edward Elgar:
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: The Elliot Smith quote has already been explained. Morphologically and genetically most East Africans are closer European (Caucasoid) than Sub-Saharan African (Negroid).
Elliot Smith on the hair of the ancient egyptians:
p.50 from the same work -
''The hair of the Proto-Egyptians was precisely similar to that of the brunet South European or Iberian People of present day''
continued p. 51 -
''it presented no resemblance whatever to the so- called ''woolly'' appearance...of the negro's hair''
- The ancient egyptians were straight haired, not wooly - which is clear anthropological evidence they were not Negroid since blacks aren't straight haired.
Well found! Nothing like seeing an afrocentric clown debunked by their own chosen sources.
Posted by GBOLA KING (Member # 6729) on :
You're such a fucking idiot.
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
quote: Originally posted by rahotep101: Neolithic Basques probably looked the similar to how modern Basques invariably do, although they may have absorbed a bit of Frankish and Visigothic blood. ......
quote:Originally posted by IronLion: [QB] [What is your authority for saying so? Are you smarter than Prof. Elliot? Do you have more expertise in this area than Prof. Boule or Prof Valloir? They all are pink people like you, and very well educated. Authorities in their field.
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: [QB] Where does the prof. say they looked vastly different? [QUOTE]
[QUOTE] Originally posted by IronLion: “So striking” writes Professor Elliot Smith, “is the family likeness between the early Neolithic peoples of the British Isles and the Mediterranean and the bulk of the population, both ancient and modern, of Egypt and East Africa, that the description of the bones of an Early Briton of that remote epoch might apply in all essential details to an inhabitant of Somaliland.¯ (The Ancient Egyptians, p. 58.)
quote: Originally posted by Rahotep: They still look similar in many cases.
What are you rambling Rahotep?
I said provide me your authority that ancient Mediterraneans like Basques did not look like the BULK OF THE POPULATION OF MODERN EAST AFRICA, but rather look like the Visigoths, and the Franks, like you implied.
I am still waiting for your authority. Photospamming and eyeballing by a novice does not impress me.
quote:
Compare Ramesses II to the English composer Edward Elgar:
......
There is grand difference in the external occiptal bone protuberance measurement between modern Africans and modern Europeans. Africans have medium to extreme occipital bones protuberance. Europoids-Pinkoids today have none. In the past, the occipital measurement of ancient Europeans looked like that of today's Africans. Do you get the flow? Goosh, are you that fresh in this area?
Your so-called Ramses has medium to extreme occipit:
Compare
This is Akhenaten's skull, observe the extreme external occipital bone protuberance:
The pink modern European you put up there, like most Europeans of today has virtually minimal to no occipital bone:
compare
Posted by GBOLA KING (Member # 6729) on :
Akhenaten has no "opolo ori"/frontal lobe, that's whay he was the fucking cunt pharaoh who got kicked out of Egypt for being a menace.
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101:
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: The Elliot Smith quote has already been explained. Morphologically and genetically most East Africans are closer European (Caucasoid) than Sub-Saharan African (Negroid).
Elliot Smith on the hair of the ancient egyptians:
p.50 from the same work -
''The hair of the Proto-Egyptians was precisely similar to that of the brunet South European or Iberian People of present day''
continued p. 51 -
''it presented no resemblance whatever to the so- called ''woolly'' appearance...of the negro's hair''
- The ancient egyptians were straight haired, not wooly - which is clear anthropological evidence they were not Negroid since blacks aren't straight haired.
Well found! Nothing like seeing an afrocentric clown debunked by their own chosen sources.
Cashitty is a liar who has never the Elliot Smith's book. You are so silly you cannot see he refused to explain the simple quote of Prof Elliot respecting skeletal similarities and went off on a flight of fancy about negro hair?
You sound like you are out of air yourself. Are you feeling overwhelmed?
Read below:
quote:Originally posted by IronLion:
quote:Originally posted by IronLion:
quote:Originally posted by Cashitty: Prof Elliot is talking of a race now extinct in East Africa in pure form.
Prof Elliot referred to Modern East Africans! Read his statement again! Dunce!
Point out where he said anything about "pure east African race"?
Point out in that statement where he said that race was extinct?
Then don't forget to address Professors Boule and Vallois' citation just below.
We are waiting:
quote: Explain this:
“So striking” writes Professor Elliot Smith, “is the family likeness between the early Neolithic peoples of the British Isles and the Mediterranean and the bulk of the population, both ancient and modern, of Egypt and East Africa, that the description of the bones of an Early Briton of that remote epoch might apply in all essential details to an inhabitant of Somaliland.¯ (The Ancient Egyptians, p. 58.)
I have not forgotten this. I am sure you have not forgotten either.
We been waiting for you...
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
The Nigri Latinis
“The Nigri Latinis
Morlachs (Mauro-Vlachs or Mavrovlachi, also Nigri Latini in Latin sources, meaning “Black Vlachs”; in Greek: mauros-valchio, in Serbian and Croatian Mor-laci [mor-latsi]) were a population of Vlachs. In another version their name comes from the slavic terms of “mor – ski-Vlasi” or Sea Vlachs.
The morlachs were shepherds that lived in the Dinaric Alps (western Balkans in modern use), seasonally migrating in search for better pastures for their sheep flocks (between mountains, in the summertime, and the sea shores, in the wintertime). They were a blend of previously Romanized indigenous peoples and new settled Roman army veterans and Roman colonists.
The adjective “black” may be used here with the meaning of “northern”, this metaphor probably deriving from the Turkish practice of indicating cardinal directions by colors.
Reports from the mid-11th century tell how the Morlachs lived in the mountainous regions of Montenegro, Bosnia, Stari Vlah, and Herzegovina …”
Clearly Europeans have become lighter skinned, but they have not become subject to morphological shift since prehistoric times. The similarity to fine-featured, proto-caucasian East Africans is quite striking still, in many cases. By the way Cassiterides is not a liar. G. Elliot Smith's book is on googlebooks, and the relevant quotes (about early Egyptian hair being the same as S. European hair today, and not like negroid hair) can be found here (actually on page 58):
G. Elliot Smith calls the proto-Egyptian a kinsman of all the Mediterranean peoples. Furthermore a long head was a feature of Mediterranean caucasians.
From Wikipedia:
quote:The Mediterranean race was thought to be prevalent in southern Europe, parts of Eastern Europe, most of North Africa, Northeast Africa, West Asia and parts of South Asia, Parts of Wales, Southern Scotland,[1] as well as parts of southwestern Ireland and western Great Britain,[2] and was characterized by moderate to short stature, long (dolichocephalic) or moderate (mesocephalic) skull, aquiline nose, dark hair, dark eyes and olive complexion.
Somalis are still to be found who more-or-less fit this description, despite centuries of mixing with other African populations.
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
quote:Originally posted by IronLion: (Irrelevant Afro-wibble.) [/qb]
Fool, the only blacks in that picture have horns and wings and tails!
Posted by Confirming Truth (Member # 17678) on :
^He was told that yesterday LOL!! He did not even realize that until I brought it to his attention.
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101:
quote:Originally posted by IronLion: (Irrelevant Afro-wibble.)
Fool, the only blacks in that picture have horns and wings and tails! [/QB]
You must be on fucking meth! Leave the drugs alone
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
quote: Originally posted by rahotep101: Clearly Europeans have become lighter skinned, but they have not become subject to morphological shift since prehistoric times.
The similarity to fine-featured, proto-caucasian East Africans is quite striking still, in many cases.
No, I am sorry you are wrong again. Cite an authority that supports you.
Meanwhile, here is what another pink man, Prof. Loring Brace, very well educated, an authority in his field stated:
quote:When 24 craniofacial measurements of a series of human populations are used to generate neighbor-joining dendrograms, it is no surprise that all modern European groups, ranging all of the way from Scandinavia to eastern Europe and throughout the Mediterranean to the Middle East, show that they are closely related to each other.
The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants, although the prehistoric/modern ties are somewhat more apparent in southern Europe. See: C. Loring Brace: The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form; PNAS | January 3, 2006 | vol. 103 | no. 1 | 242-247
Prof Elliot supports Prof. Loring Brace's assessment and talks about a striking similarity between early neolithic people of Europe and modern Africans, one not found in modern Europoid Central Asiatic pinks.
Read again:
“So striking” writes Professor Elliot Smith, “is the family likeness between the early Neolithic peoples of the British Isles and the Mediterranean and the bulk of the population, both ancient and modern , of Egypt and East Africa , that the description of the bones of an Early Briton of that remote epoch might apply in all essential details to an inhabitant of Somaliland.¯ (The Ancient Egyptians, p. 58.)
quote: Originally posted by rahotep101: ......... From Wikipedia:
quote:The Mediterranean race was thought to be prevalent in southern Europe, parts of Eastern Europe, most of North Africa, Northeast Africa, West Asia and parts of South Asia, Parts of Wales, Southern Scotland,[1] as well as parts of southwestern Ireland and western Great Britain,[2] and was characterized by moderate to short stature, long (dolichocephalic) or moderate (mesocephalic) skull, aquiline nose, dark hair, dark eyes and olive complexion.
Somalis are still to be found who more-or-less fit this description, despite centuries of mixing with other African populations. [/qb]
I shut down your Cagotic ass!
So ancient Basques look like modern Somalis, LOL!!!
Fess up, pink boy, nothing wrong with learning something new.
You have been schooled! Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
So, IronLion, are you going to apologize to Casssiterides for the 'liar' accusation which has been disproved? His familiarity with the work in question, after all, seems to be superior to your own.
C. Loring-Brace's statement about the southern Europeans showing continuity is consistent with the Basque people resembling the prehistoric population. (Their isolated language is older than that of such later arrivals as Latins, Celts or Franks. Scottish Gaelic is basically Celtic, but contains elements of more ancient languages, not found in continental Celtic tongues, but linked to the Afro-Asiatic family, hence the ability of Gaelic speakers to communicate with Berbers.)
Speaking of Brace, he also affirms the racial continuity seen in Egypt: 'Egyptians have been in place since back in the Pleistocene and have been largely unaffected by either invasions or migrations'. Quite a blow to those who fantasize about a black/negroid ancient Egypt.
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: So, IronLion, are you going to apologize to Casssiterides for the 'liar' accusation which has been disproved? His familiarity with the work in question, after all, seems to be superior to your own.
quote:Originally posted by Rahotep: C. Loring-Brace's statement about the southern Europeans showing continuity is consistent with the Basque people resembling the prehistoric population. (Their isolated language is older than that of such later arrivals as Latins, Celts or Franks. Scottish Gaelic is basically Celtic, but contains elements of more ancient languages, not found in continental Celtic tongues, but linked to the Afro-Asiatic family, hence the ability of Gaelic speakers to communicate with Berbers.)
Speaking of Brace, he also affirms the racial continuity seen in Egypt: 'Egyptians have been in place since back in the Pleistocene and have been largely unaffected by either invasions or migrations'. Quite a blow to those who fantasize about a black/negroid ancient Egypt.
Rahotep
Are you prepared to fess up and accept that you have been beaten to the point where you have admitted my arguments.
I have no time to debate the racial affinities of Somalis, and East African with a lying Albino holding on to a fantasy world and fake history crumbling around him.
You see what I did with you, Cashitty, and Afroholic? That is my style. Ultimate beat down.
Now we move to the next level:
What happened to those Black East Africans of the Mediterranean? How did they turn pink? Or did they ever? Were they murdered and eaten up?
Why were they replaced with a people that show pigment, skeletal, and genetic discontinuity? A different people...How come black people were replace with albinos?
quote: Originally posted by rahotep101: ......... From Wikipedia:
quote:The Mediterranean race was thought to be prevalent in southern Europe, parts of Eastern Europe, most of North Africa, Northeast Africa, West Asia and parts of South Asia, Parts of Wales, Southern Scotland,[1] as well as parts of southwestern Ireland and western Great Britain,[2] and was characterized by moderate to short stature, long (dolichocephalic) or moderate (mesocephalic) skull, aquiline nose, dark hair, dark eyes and olive complexion.
Somalis are still to be found who more-or-less fit this description, despite centuries of mixing with other African populations. [/qb]
I shut down your Cagotic ass!
So ancient Basques look like modern Somalis, LOL!!!
Fess up, pink boy, nothing wrong with learning something new.
You have been schooled! [/QB][/QUOTE]
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: [QB] Clearly Europeans have become lighter skinned, but they have not become subject to morphological shift since prehistoric times. The similarity to fine-featured, proto-caucasian East Africans is quite striking still, in many cases. By the way Cassiterides is not a liar. G. Elliot Smith's book is on googlebooks, and the relevant quotes (about early Egyptian hair being the same as S. European hair today, and not like negroid hair) can be found here (actually on page 58):
[url= [url= [url= http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GH_gEkx688sC&pg=PA58&lpg=PA58&dq=''The+hair+of+the+Proto-Egyptians+was+precisely+similar+to+that+of+the+brunet+South+European+or+Iberian+People+o ]http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GH_gEkx688sC&pg=PA58&lpg=PA58&dq=''The+hair+of+the+Proto-Egyptians+was+precisely+similar+to+that+of+the+brunet+South+European+or+Iberian+People+ o [/url] ]http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GH_gEkx688sC&pg=PA58&lpg=PA58&dq=''The+hair+of+the+Proto-Egyptians+was+precisely+similar+to+that+of+the+brunet+South+European+or+Iberian+People+ o [/url] %20f+present+day''&source=bl&ots=Rk5tQm6-pM&sig=ufWDpuAh7-qpLWzTqqKJ-XQVIQA&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=true]http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GH_gEkx688sC&pg=PA58&lpg=PA58&dq=''The+hair+ of+the+Proto-Egyptians+was+precisely+similar+to+that+of+the+brunet+South+European+or+Iberian+People+o %20f+present+day''&source=bl&ots=Rk5tQm6-pM&sig=ufWDpuAh7-qpLWzTqqKJ-XQVIQA&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=true[/url]
Who hasn't read the book?
G. Elliot Smith calls the proto-Egyptian a kinsman of all the Mediterranean peoples. Furthermore a long head was a feature of Mediterranean caucasians.
I own an older edition. The work was originally published as ''The Ancient Egyptians and Their Influence Upon the Civilization of Europe'' (1911). As you correctly said (and as the original title suggests) Smith was linking the racial identity of the egyptians to southern europeans (the meditterenean race).
Elliot Smith was one of the first diffusionists who linked the spread of agricultural development from Egypt into the Meditteranean. This theory today does not have much academic support, however Elliot's work on the ethnology of the ancient egyptians is still highly valuable.
This is certianly not an afrocentric text. Elliot Smith regarded the egyptians to be straight haired Caucasoid Meditterenean's.
p. 51 (of my edition) -
''Like all kinsmen of the Mediterranean group of peoples, the Proto-Egyptian, when free from alien admixture, had a very scanty endowment of beard and almost no moustache''
Ironlion has never read the work and is just wasting our time.
If this was an afrocentric text it wouldn't be in my personal collection.
Elliot Smith' student also wrote on the race of the egyptians as Meditterenean Caucasoids.
Come now 'Iron Lion'... Cassiterides accurately quoted from the book, yet you called him a liar and suggested that he had never read it [edit: it transpires that he owns it], implying that he was making it up. I think that calls for an apology, not a deflection or more lame insults.
White Europeans are not albinos. Anyone who says they are shows themself up as ignorant. A gradual loss pigment as a beneficial adaptation to a cloudier climate- and/or as a result of sexual selection- cannot be compared with a congenital abnormality that is most common among black populations. Not that there would be any shame in being an albino, so to use the word as an insult is rather silly, bringing more disgrace on the user than the target.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
^ According to most anthropological studies of Europe (Coon, Lundmen & more recent) the majority of white europeans are brunette: ''medium'' brown haired or dark brown.
One would have to ask how did europeans aquire brown hair if they are albinos?
Albinos are only ever blonde or white haired.
Also note: Black Africans do not have brown hair.
Many people confuse brown with black hair. Both are very different.
Brown hair can range from medium, to light to dark with tinges e.g. chestnut. Black Africans do not have these hair shades, only black.
A typical white woman with brown hair -
Impossible to have derived from an albino.
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
Not quite typical, but the point remains...
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: So, IronLion, are you going to apologize to Casssiterides for the 'liar' accusation which has been disproved? His familiarity with the work in question, after all, seems to be superior to your own.
C. Loring-Brace's statement about the southern Europeans showing continuity is consistent with the Basque people resembling the prehistoric population. (Their isolated language is older than that of such later arrivals as Latins, Celts or Franks. Scottish Gaelic is basically Celtic, but contains elements of more ancient languages, not found in continental Celtic tongues, but linked to the Afro-Asiatic family, hence the ability of Gaelic speakers to communicate with Berbers.)
Speaking of Brace, he also affirms the racial continuity seen in Egypt: 'Egyptians have been in place since back in the Pleistocene and have been largely unaffected by either invasions or migrations'. Quite a blow to those who fantasize about a black/negroid ancient Egypt.
Yes, there is a continuity of ancient and modern Egyptians. As I have shown many times. And more amazing is that they continue from the native African perspective. As original Africans.
Yes, Black!!!!
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: Come now 'Iron Lion'... Cassiterides accurately quoted from the book, yet you called him a liar and suggested that he had never read it [edit: it transpires that he owns it], implying that he was making it up. I think that calls for an apology, not a deflection or more lame insults.
White Europeans are not albinos. Anyone who says they are shows themself up as ignorant. A gradual loss pigment as a beneficial adaptation to a cloudier climate- and/or as a result of sexual selection- cannot be compared with a congenital abnormality that is most common among black populations. Not that there would be any shame in being an albino, so to use the word as an insult is rather silly, bringing more disgrace on the user than the target.
"White Europeans, gradual loss pigment as a beneficial adaptation to a cloudier climate- and/or as a result of sexual selection".
"cannot be compared with a congenital abnormality that is most common among black populations"
Double standards, by a major racist and narcissist. Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: During the Bantu expansion the Negroids moved into north, east and central africa. Prior to that they had only been in West Africa.
The natives of Africa are Capoids, not Negroids. There are huge genetic and morphological differences in race between the two.
Also remember blacks have been killing the bushmen for thousands of years as well as the pygmies. Blacks hunt down the pygmies and even cook them.
The ancestors of Caucasoids are proto-Caucasoids like the Cro-Magnon and other Paleolithics.
The entire Homo genus has had racial divergences for hundreds of thousands of millions of years in proto-forms.
I believe the earliest proto-Caucasoid skull is 33,000 B.P and was found somewhere around the Czech Republic.
Cro magnon art head 26,000 years old -
heavy brows, long straight hair. Clearly not negroid.
Lol, hilarious nonsense based on lies and hoax! Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides:
Cro magnon art head 26,000 years old -
heavy brows, long straight hair. Clearly not negroid. [/qb]
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cashitty: p. 51 (of my edition) -
''Like all kinsmen of the Mediterranean group of peoples, the Proto-Egyptian, when free from alien admixture, had a very scanty endowment of beard and almost no moustache''
Pink people as you will doubtlessly know by personal experience are vairy hairy...
Its just not you. Reconcile with it Albino:
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides:
Cro magnon art head 26,000 years old -
heavy brows, long straight hair. Clearly not negroid.
[/QB]
That cro magnon hoax was found by an occultist named Blavatsky, who was part of a secret society named rose-crucian. The hoax is based on the hype of Atlantis.
There are some truly funny pictures circling around on this cro magnon crap. And it appears they just can't/ don't want to stop.....
In other words, if the beginning is a lie, how can the end be true? Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by IronLion:
quote:Originally posted by Cashitty: p. 51 (of my edition) -
''Like all kinsmen of the Mediterranean group of peoples, the Proto-Egyptian, when free from alien admixture, had a very scanty endowment of beard and almost no moustache''
Pink people as you will doubtlessly know by personal experience are vairy hairy...
Its just not you. Reconcile with it Albino:
"White Europeans, ....... as a beneficial adaptation to a cloudier climate- and/or as a result of sexual selection".
"cannot be compared with a congenital abnormality that is most common among black populations"
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides:
quote:O.....
I own an older edition. The work was originally published as ''The Ancient Egyptians and Their Influence Upon the Civilization of Europe'' (1911). As you correctly said (and as the original title suggests) Smith was linking the racial identity of the egyptians to southern europeans (the meditterenean race).
You admitted that Neolithic Basques and modern Africans were similar.
You are just on a meaning word "Black Caucasiods".
But you are already owned!
Why then are you still nagging..
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: Come now 'Iron Lion'... Cassiterides accurately quoted from the book, yet you called him a liar and suggested that he had never read it [edit: it transpires that he owns it], implying that he was making it up. I think that calls for an apology, not a deflection or more lame insults.
White Europeans are not albinos. Anyone who says they are shows themself up as ignorant. A gradual loss pigment as a beneficial adaptation to a cloudier climate- and/or as a result of sexual selection- cannot be compared with a congenital abnormality that is most common among black populations. Not that there would be any shame in being an albino, so to use the word as an insult is rather silly, bringing more disgrace on the user than the target.
I called Cashitty a liar cause he claimed that Prof Elliot was talking about an EXTINCT race of East African Caucasiods.
He may have seen the book on ebay, but Cashitty your boy is semi-illiterate!
In the meantime, see below:
quote: Originally posted by rahotep101: ......... From Wikipedia:
quote:The Mediterranean race was thought to be prevalent in southern Europe, parts of Eastern Europe, most of North Africa, Northeast Africa, West Asia and parts of South Asia, Parts of Wales, Southern Scotland,[1] as well as parts of southwestern Ireland and western Great Britain,[2] and was characterized by moderate to short stature, long (dolichocephalic) or moderate (mesocephalic) skull, aquiline nose, dark hair, dark eyes and olive complexion.
Somalis are still to be found who more-or-less fit this description, despite centuries of mixing with other African populations. [/qb]
I shut down your Cagotic ass!
So ancient Basques look like modern Somalis, LOL!!!
Fess up, pink boy, nothing wrong with learning something new.
You have been schooled! [/QB][/QUOTE] [/QB][/QUOTE]
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides:
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: [QB] Clearly Europeans have become lighter skinned, but they have not become subject to morphological shift since prehistoric times. The similarity to fine-featured, proto-caucasian East Africans is quite striking still, in many cases. By the way Cassiterides is not a liar. G. Elliot Smith's book is on googlebooks, and the relevant quotes (about early Egyptian hair being the same as S. European hair today, and not like negroid hair) can be found here (actually on page 58):
[url= [url= [url= [url= http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GH_gEkx688sC&pg=PA58&lpg=PA58&dq=''The+hair+of+the+Proto-Egyptians+was+precisely+similar+to+that+of+the+brunet+South+European+or+Iberian+People+o ]http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GH_gEkx688sC&pg=PA58&lpg=PA58&dq=''The+hair+of+the+Proto-Egyptians+was+precisely+similar+to+that+of+the+brunet+South+European+or+Iberian+People+ o [/url] ]http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GH_gEkx688sC&pg=PA58&lpg=PA58&dq=''The+hair+of+the+Proto-Egyptians+was+precisely+similar+to+that+of+the+brunet+South+European+or+Iberian+People+ o [/url] ]http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GH_gEkx688sC&pg=PA58&lpg=PA58&dq=''The+hair+of+the+Proto-Egyptians+was+precisely+similar+to+that+of+the+brunet+South+European+or+Iberian+People+ o [/url] %20f+present+day''&source=bl&ots=Rk5tQm6-pM&sig=ufWDpuAh7-qpLWzTqqKJ-XQVIQA&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=true]http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GH_gEkx688sC&pg=PA58&lpg=PA58&dq=''The+hair+ of+the+Proto-Egyptians+was+precisely+similar+to+that+of+the+brunet+South+European+or+Iberian+People+o %20f+present+day''&source=bl&ots=Rk5tQm6-pM&sig=ufWDpuAh7-qpLWzTqqKJ-XQVIQA&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=true[/url]
Who hasn't read the book?
G. Elliot Smith calls the proto-Egyptian a kinsman of all the Mediterranean peoples. Furthermore a long head was a feature of Mediterranean caucasians.
I own an older edition. The work was originally published as ''The Ancient Egyptians and Their Influence Upon the Civilization of Europe'' (1911). As you correctly said (and as the original title suggests) Smith was linking the racial identity of the egyptians to southern europeans (the meditterenean race).
Elliot Smith was one of the first diffusionists who linked the spread of agricultural development from Egypt into the Meditteranean. This theory today does not have much academic support, however Elliot's work on the ethnology of the ancient egyptians is still highly valuable.
This is certianly not an afrocentric text. Elliot Smith regarded the egyptians to be straight haired Caucasoid Meditterenean's.
p. 51 (of my edition) -
''Like all kinsmen of the Mediterranean group of peoples, the Proto-Egyptian, when free from alien admixture, had a very scanty endowment of beard and almost no moustache''
Ironlion has never read the work and is just wasting our time.
If this was an afrocentric text it wouldn't be in my personal collection.
Elliot Smith' student also wrote on the race of the egyptians as Meditterenean Caucasoids.
Proto Egyptians are/ were Africans from the Sahara. Not from lala land.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by IronLion:
quote:Originally posted by Cashitty: p. 51 (of my edition) -
''Like all kinsmen of the Mediterranean group of peoples, the Proto-Egyptian, when free from alien admixture, had a very scanty endowment of beard and almost no moustache''
Pink people as you will doubtlessly know by personal experience are vairy hairy...
Its just not you. Reconcile with it Albino:
an adaptation to cold climate, like skin, good point
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
G. Elliot Smith may have been a bit wide of the mark in claiming that Egyptians, proto-or-otherwise, couldn't grow much facial hair, as there are several predynastic and dynastic images clearly showing full beards. Beards went out of fashion except for a while during the Middle Kingdom. Moustaches were also in vogue during the 4th dynasty.
He was quite correct about Egyptians having brunette hair the same as southern Europeans, however. Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: G. Elliot Smith may have been a bit wide of the mark in claiming that Egyptians, proto-or-otherwise, couldn't grow much facial hair, as there are several predynastic and dynastic images clearly showing full beards. Beards went out of fashion except for a while during the Middle Kingdom. Moustaches were also in vogue during the 4th dynasty.
He was quite correct about Egyptians having brunette hair the same as southern Europeans, however.
You keep spinning in your little crazy worldview. Which is becoming funny. Even when you have been debunked on the same issue multiple accounts. Next week you will come back with the same pictures, same theory, same lies, same fantasies, same rubbish....so so boring.
Plus facial hair and body hair should be distinct. Crazy xenophobe.
Fact is, as has been shown many times already that the ancient Egyptains have their root in Africa and came from the South. The founders of KMT are from the Sahara, known as the Badarians.
I feel sorry for you that you aren't capable of grasping any of the sources and studies we have provided and addressed.
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
Ish Gabor, thank you for that non contribution.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: Ish Gabor, thank you for that non contribution.
First of all you don't have to thank me for anything. Second you post mostly non-contributive stuff, like 90% of what you write is waste of bit and bites, unnasecery keystrokes.
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: Ish Gabor, thank you for that non contribution.
First of all you don't have to thank me for anything. Second you post mostly non-contributive stuff, like 90% of what you write is waste of bit and bites, unnasecery keystrokes.
If you can't see the relevance of a bunch of pictures of Egyptians with full beards to counter the notion that Egyptians were handicapped in the beard-growing department, then that's your problem. Similarly the relevance of a mummy with straight brown hair to support the contention that they had straight brown hair. (That the Egyptians also appear to be white and that this really annoys you, is just a bonus.)
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: Ish Gabor, thank you for that non contribution. If you can't see the relevance of a bunch of pictures of Egyptians with full beards to counter the notion that Egyptians were handicapped in the beard-growing department the that's your problem. Similarly the relevance of a mummy with straight brown hair to support the contention that they had straight brown hair. (That the Egyptians also appear to be white and that this really annoys you, is just a bonus.)
Hilarious, how many times one needs to tell you that not all art is literally.
The summations of multiple studies in several disciplines is evidence that ancient Egyptians came from the South, Sahara, something you can't grasp it seems. Also, others have explained that people in the North became mixed over time. Especially those in Nile delta region.
Plus the Egyptians don't appear white. You lie so much it becomes hilarious. You lie just like your ancestors, you are no better, only a better liar, at that.
The same lies, same fantasies, same pictures etc...lalalalala crap.
Biodiversity goes for Europeans but not for Africans, right xenophobic narcissist?
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: Ish Gabor, thank you for that non contribution.
First of all you don't have to thank me for anything. Second you post mostly non-contributive stuff, like 90% of what you write is waste of bit and bites, unnasecery keystrokes.
If you can't see the relevance of a bunch of pictures of Egyptians with full beards to counter the notion that Egyptians were handicapped in the beard-growing department, then that's your problem. Similarly the relevance of a mummy with straight brown hair to support the contention that they had straight brown hair. (That the Egyptians also appear to be white and that this really annoys you, is just a bonus.)
Speaking of handicapped.....You've been debunked so many times on the same issues. Only a retard whould still be without shame.
What about all the studies we have provided from different disciplines, clown?
Incredible. Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by IronLion:
quote:Originally posted by Cashitty: p. 51 (of my edition) -
''Like all kinsmen of the Mediterranean group of peoples, the Proto-Egyptian, when free from alien admixture, had a very scanty endowment of beard and almost no moustache''
Pink people as you will doubtlessly know by personal experience are vairy hairy...
Its just not you. Reconcile with it Albino:
an adaptation to cold climate, like skin, good point
And fur, of course. Which is not uncommon, right?
How typical, imposter.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
We only posess two Paleolithic art depictions of Cro-Magnon's. They are around 30,000 years old. However both shows the Cro-Magnon's to be straight haired. Clearly they weren't negroid, their skulls are Caucasoid or proto-Caucasoid.
''If Upper Paleolithic people were "European" from about 35,000 B.P., then such population distinctions are at least that old. And the Cro-Magnons were already racially European, i.e., Caucasoid. This has always been accepted because of the general appearance of the skulls: straight faces, narrow noses, and so forth. It is also possible to test this arithmetically. [...] Except for Predmosti 4, which is distant from every present and past population, all of these skulls show themselves to be closer to "Europeans" than to other peoples'' Howells (1997)
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
quote:
quote:Originally posted by IronLion:
quote:Originally Posted by Cashitty: Prof Elliot is talking of a race now extinct in East Africa in pure form.
Prof Elliot referred to Modern East Africans! Read his statement again! Dunce!
Point out where he said anything about "pure east African race"?
Point out in that statement where he said that race was extinct?
Then don't forget to address Professors Boule and Vallois' citation just below.
We are waiting:
quote: Explain this:
“So striking” writes Professor Elliot Smith, “is the family likeness between the early Neolithic peoples of the British Isles and the Mediterranean and the bulk of the population, both ancient and modern, of Egypt and East Africa, that the description of the bones of an Early Briton of that remote epoch might apply in all essential details to an inhabitant of Somaliland.¯ (The Ancient Egyptians, p. 58.)
Cashitty I bin waiting for two days now....
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: Ish Gabor, thank you for that non contribution. If you can't see the relevance of a bunch of pictures of Egyptians with full beards to counter the notion that Egyptians were handicapped in the beard-growing department the that's your problem. Similarly the relevance of a mummy with straight brown hair to support the contention that they had straight brown hair. (That the Egyptians also appear to be white and that this really annoys you, is just a bonus.)
Hilarious, how many times one needs to tell you that not all art is literally.
The summations of multiple studies in several disciplines is evidence that ancient Egyptians came from the South, Sahara, something you can't grasp it seems. Also, others have explained that people in the North became mixed over time. Especially those in Nile delta region.
Plus the Egyptians don't appear white. You lie so much it becomes hilarious. You lie just like your ancestors, you are no better, only a better liar, at that.
The same lies, same fantasies, same pictures etc...lalalalala crap.
Biodiversity goes for Europeans but not for Africans, right xenophobic narcissist?
The very point is that the peoples immediately to the south of Egypt were proto-caucasoids/Europeanoids anyway, supposedly of the type which originally inhabited Europe. Try to keep up. You are the one who continually ignores data that groups Egyptians and ancient Nubians (before the influx of negro types) with other Mediterranean populations, such as Anatolians and Greeks and Iberians. You are deep in denail. The indigenous Saharan people were Berber types. Your pan-African race fantasy has no mileage.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: Ish Gabor, thank you for that non contribution. If you can't see the relevance of a bunch of pictures of Egyptians with full beards to counter the notion that Egyptians were handicapped in the beard-growing department the that's your problem. Similarly the relevance of a mummy with straight brown hair to support the contention that they had straight brown hair. (That the Egyptians also appear to be white and that this really annoys you, is just a bonus.)
Hilarious, how many times one needs to tell you that not all art is literally.
The summations of multiple studies in several disciplines is evidence that ancient Egyptians came from the South, Sahara, something you can't grasp it seems. Also, others have explained that people in the North became mixed over time. Especially those in Nile delta region.
Plus the Egyptians don't appear white. You lie so much it becomes hilarious. You lie just like your ancestors, you are no better, only a better liar, at that.
The same lies, same fantasies, same pictures etc...lalalalala crap.
Biodiversity goes for Europeans but not for Africans, right xenophobic narcissist?
The very point is that the peoples immediately to the south of Egypt were proto-caucasoids/Europeanoids anyway, supposedly of the type which originally inhabited Europe. Try to keep up. You are the one who continually ignores data that groups Egyptians and ancient Nubians (before the influx of negro types) with other Mediterranean populations, such as Anatolians and Greeks and Iberians. You are deep in denail. The indigenous Saharan people were Berber types. Your pan-African race fantasy has no mileage.
The people came from the South are and cluster with groups from North East Africa's Sahara, Southwards. Not with Europeans or whatever caucasiod rubbish you come up with.
You are beyond hilarious. The more you post the stupider you become. I mean really. Influx?
Unless you mean the influx was there tens and tens of thousands of years ago, "you're right", right there. Other than that it's a no no....
Nothing you post is based off on facts, only delusional Eurocentric bull crap. Which is quite funny, and a good laugh for a Sunday morning.
So thanks for the laugh, hideous liar.
And remember the founders, the original builders came from the South! Let it marinate, deep! Euros have nothing to do with ancient Egypt and you dis not live in the Sahara either. I understand your fascination, but your history is at Europe. It's caves and forests. Not the hot African desert. Known as the Sahara.
Plus you are so clueless when it comes to the history of the Sahara and nomadic tribes of the Sahara. I am literary rolling here from laughter. Typical dumb white racist, living in a delusional world of white superiority. Thinking it knows more than the original inhabiters.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: We only posess two Paleolithic art depictions of Cro-Magnon's.
Yes, because it's all based on lies from the start. By your occult spin off.
So how can the end be true? lol Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by IronLion:
quote:
quote:Originally posted by IronLion:
quote:Originally Posted by Cashitty: Prof Elliot is talking of a race now extinct in East Africa in pure form.
Prof Elliot referred to Modern East Africans! Read his statement again! Dunce!
Point out where he said anything about "pure east African race"?
Point out in that statement where he said that race was extinct?
Then don't forget to address Professors Boule and Vallois' citation just below.
We are waiting:
quote: Explain this:
“So striking” writes Professor Elliot Smith, “is the family likeness between the early Neolithic peoples of the British Isles and the Mediterranean and the bulk of the population, both ancient and modern, of Egypt and East Africa, that the description of the bones of an Early Briton of that remote epoch might apply in all essential details to an inhabitant of Somaliland.¯ (The Ancient Egyptians, p. 58.)
You're expecting too much from that xenophobic clown.
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
IshGabor
Dynastic Egyptians cluster with Europeans and West Asians, and all the sub Saharans on an entirely different branch. Funny that...
If you are a black (usually American) Afrocentrist then your life is the pursuit of a a vain delusion. You devote yourself to a snobbish quest to associate your people with a culture that they had no connection to. By being obsessed with Egypt and your fantasy that they belong to a common pan-African race, you flaunt your unreasonable shame in your own true, sub-Saharan, West African heritage. You flaunt your envy of the civilized, literate peoples who actually made some impact on the world. Your actual race is not good enough for you, so you seek to usurp the achievements of the Egyptians. That is both tragic and comical at the same time. It is also odious because for in the course of constructing your ego-massaging false history, people like you would deprive the real Egyptians of their cultural heritage and slander them as 'invaders'. All that while not having an ancestor of your own who ever set foot anywhere near Egypt. You want to see an inadequate, pathetic ass, look in the mirror!
Some of you don't just want Egypt, you want blacks founding every decent civilization on the planet, yet somehow not managing to achieve too much in their own heartland. Priceless! You want black Roman Emperors and Holy Roman Emperors!
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: IshGabor
Dynastic Egyptians cluster with Europeans and West Asians, and all the sub Saharans on an entirely different branch. Funny that...
If you are a black (usually American) Afrocentrist then your life is the pursuit of a a vain delusion. You devote yourself to a snobbish quest to associate your people with a culture that they had no connection to. By being obsessed with Egypt and your fantasy that they belong to a common pan-African race, you flaunt your unreasonable shame in your own true, sub-Saharan, West African heritage. You flaunt your envy of the civilized, literate peoples who actually made some impact on the world. Your actual race is not good enough for you, so you seek to usurp the achievements of the Egyptians. That is both tragic and comical at the same time. It is also odious because for in the course of constructing your ego-massaging false history, people like you would deprive the real Egyptians of their cultural heritage and slander them as 'invaders'. All that while not having an ancestor of your own who ever set foot anywhere near Egypt. You want to see an inadequate, pathetic ass, look in the mirror!
Dimwit, this has been debunked already multiple times, by other posters. Can't you just get it???
Why you keep posting the same chart is beyond me.
This here is truly hilarious.
I think you are either senile or suffer from some other sort of brain damage like elsheimer. Since you seem to forget stuff often. Especially your critical beat downs.
As I stated prior, you keep spinning in circles on the same crappy lies. Thinking it will change all of a sudden. lol
White delusions. In another post, you claimed that Egyptians always remained the same.....lol
You are so sick in the head....lol.
"You this you that....lol", such idiot you are....go seek professional help at a mental institution, dimwit.
Posted by Ish Gebor AKA Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101:
quote:Originally posted by IronLion: [QB] [What is your authority for saying so? Are you smarter than Prof. Elliot? Do you have more expertise in this area than Prof. Boule or Prof Valloir? They all are pink people like you, and very well educated. Authorities in their field.
Where does the prof. say they looked vastly different?
quote: “So striking” writes Professor Elliot Smith, “is the family likeness between the early Neolithic peoples of the British Isles and the Mediterranean and the bulk of the population, both ancient and modern, of Egypt and East Africa, that the description of the bones of an Early Briton of that remote epoch might apply in all essential details to an inhabitant of Somaliland.¯ (The Ancient Egyptians, p. 58.)
They still look similar in many cases.
Compare Ramesses II to the English composer Edward Elgar:
Debunked a billion times. Yet the senile idiot posts as if it was never ever.....smh...scmh.
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
If you can show me where I posted that particular chart before you will be doing well, since this is the first time I have. You can mock away but your whole ideology is a sad joke that shows how pathetic you are, and how lacking you find your real ancestors and true history. The obvious truth is that Egypt was a Meditteranean civilization that moved among others in the Med and the Near East, that it had little association with Black Africa, and that it viewed Kush as an enemy to be crushed. Black negroids depicted in Ancient Egyptian art appear fairly late on. They are usually on their knees, either as captives or tribute-payers, and you know it's true. You say I lie but the pictues on the walls, and the on the soles of the pharaoh's sandals, are clear enough. Talk about sick in the head? The Egyptians would have had little enough sympathy for arrogant buffoons such as you!
This you may have seen before, it won't harm you to see it again: The guards look as Egyptian still look. The captives look like the average afrocentric crackpot looks.
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
quote: [/qb]
Debunked a billion times. Yet the senile idiot posts as if it was never ever.....smh...scmh. [/QB][/QUOTE]
How has it been debunked? Can you find a Nigerian whose profile matches that of Ramesses so well?
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
^ debunked a million time s already, shameless Dummy.
You have been shown the difference in the External Occipital protuberance.
You have seen the baseline skull differences.
The forehead bones are different.
Are you on Meth or what?
Your so-called Ramses has medium to extreme external occipit (likely an African descendant):
Compare
This is Akhenaten's skull, observe the extreme external occipital bone protuberance:
The pink modern European you put up there, like most Europeans of today has virtually minimal to no occipital bone:
compare
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
^ Rameses had straight hair as you can see therefore clearly he wasn't negroid.
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
That is hardly valid, as I have pointed out, a/ because of the withered nature of the mummy's neck which exaggerates the appearence, and b/because it is an acknowledged fact that Caucasoids of the Mediterranean race tended to have longer skulls. Look it up. (Elgar, as a typical Englisman, had other blood besifes Mediterranean- mamely Celtic (Alpine) and Germanic (Nordic).) The shape of the back of the head is a relatively minor difference in the above contrast. The facial profile is identical, much as you might hate the fact, and if you find a Nigerian negro who looks like that you'll be doing well.
Moreover, where is this man's long head or External Occipital protuberance?
If you compare his cranial dimensions and proportions, they are identical to this man's (the main difference is the facial profile)...
So basically you're hanging everything on a minor difference on the back of the head which isn't a definitive indicator of ethnicity anyway, and ignoring the blazingly obvious. Nice work!
PS. Akhenaten's blood type (A) and genetic haplotype (R1b1b) seem to link him to western Europe rather than black Africa.
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
R1b has its highest density in northern Spain, western France and the British Isles, incidentally. It confirms the relationship between the ancient Britons and the Basque people, and its presence in ancient Egypt is interesting (especially in the light of the Scota myth).
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
And look at this fellow, Ka Aper:
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
And Muur:
From the New York Times Science Section:
............
From a new analysis of a human skull discovered in South Africa more than 50 years ago, scientists say they have obtained the first fossil evidence establishing the relatively recent time for the dispersal of modern Homo sapiens out of Africa.
.......
Late Pleistocene Human Skull from Hofmeyr, South Africa, and Modern Human Origins (Science)
The migrants appeared to have arrived at their new homes in Asia and Europe with the distinct and unmodified heads of Africans .
An international team of researchers reported yesterday that the age of the South African skull, which they dated at about 36,000 years old, coincided with the age of the skulls of humans then living in Europe and the far eastern parts of Asia, even Australia.
The skull also closely resembled skulls of those humans.
“So striking” writes Professor Elliot Smith, “is the family likeness between the early Neolithic peoples of the British Isles and the Mediterranean and the bulk of the population, both ancient and modern, of Egypt and East Africa, that the description of the bones of an Early Briton of that remote epoch might apply in all essential details to an inhabitant of Somaliland.¯ (The Ancient Egyptians, p. 58.)
[/qb][/QUOTE]... [/qb][/QUOTE]Cashitty I bin waiting for two days now.... [/qb][/QUOTE]
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
If you read that article you'll notice that the thing about the skull found in South Africa is that it exhibited Eurasian characteristics. The skull precisely shows that Eurasians don't come from negroids, as a proto-caucasoid type existed in Africa in remote antiquity. The skull was remarkable for resembling ancient remains found outside of Africa, not for resembling other Africsn human finds.
I quote again: 'Dr. Grine and his colleagues said in an announcement by Stony Brook that the skull was the first fossil evidence “in agreement with the out-of-Africa theory, which predicts that humans like those that inhabited Eurasia should be found in sub-Saharan Africa around 36,000 years ago.”'
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
quote:Originally posted by IronLion: Explain this:
“So striking” writes Professor Elliot Smith, “is the family likeness between the early Neolithic peoples of the British Isles and the Mediterranean and the bulk of the population, both ancient and modern, of Egypt and East Africa, that the description of the bones of an Early Briton of that remote epoch might apply in all essential details to an inhabitant of Somaliland.¯ (The Ancient Egyptians, p. 58.)
This is from an out-of-date book, by Grafton Elliot Smith who died in 1937. It makes a link between Egyptians and Europeans but doesn't bring negroids into the equation at any point. It discusses only Caucasoids. It's no help to you, therefore, matie. I doubt anyone but an expert could differentiate the bones of a Briton and a Somali. Nowhere was it stated that the original Europeans were the same colour as Somalis, however.
[/qb][/QUOTE]... [/qb][/QUOTE]Cashitty I bin waiting for two days now.... [/qb][/QUOTE] [/QB][/QUOTE]
This is not from the same source, and you are disingenuous to lump them together. There is no evidence whatsoever that the palaeolithic Europeans were 'blacks'. It's funny how Afrocentric douchebags like you love to claim that the founders of all the great ancient civilizations (none of which are to be found in sub-saharan Africa, exculding the Horn) were founded by sub-saharan Africans! Curious how members of this refined, melenated master-race never managed to come up with literacy or the wheel or dressed-stone architecture in their homeland! Funny how they managed to found all these advanced civilizations elsewhere, yet everywhere managed to lose them to hairy albino neanderthal vampires (who presumably used some kind of satanic/typhonian magic in order to achieve this)!
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: If you read that article you'll notice that the thing about the skull found in South Africa is that it exhibited Eurasian characteristics. The skull precisely shows that Eurasians don't come from negroids, as a proto-caucasoid type existed in Africa in remote antiquity. The skull was remarkable for resembling ancient remains found outside of Africa, not for resembling other Africsn human finds.
I quote again: 'Dr. Grine and his colleagues said in an announcement by Stony Brook that the skull was the first fossil evidence “in agreement with the out-of-Africa theory, which predicts that humans like those that inhabited Eurasia should be found in sub-Saharan Africa around 36,000 years ago.”'
Dummy
The essence of the find is that your Cro-Magnon caucasoid theory is blown to smithereens. The first Europeans were Sub-saharans Africans.
The skull is clearly non-caucasoid, even Mathilda conceeds this one. It is not a Caucasian skull, it is not a caucasian skull.
Africans have the greatest genetic, and physiological diversity of all continents. The older the African stock the greater the diversity.
The skull is obviously African. It is the skull of a 36000 year old African from South Africa.
Except you want to claim that Caucasoids now evolved in Africa, instead of Caucasus, then the only conclusion is that:
Pleistocene Europeans came from sub-saharan Afriica.
Paleolithic Europeans came from sub-saharan Africa and looked like Tropical Africans.
Neolithic Europeans came from East Africa and Egypt to join their African brethrens from South Africa and Tropical Africa.
That is the story of the bones.
When did Albinoids come into the picture? Just less than 1500 years ago when you migrated from Central Asia into Europe. The last of these migrations ended 500 years ago!
You are new in Europe. Don't fight for what is not yours.
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
Obviously that's not the case, is it? Analysis of the ancient skull found in S. Africa found it less like the negroid inhabitants of the region and more akin to specimens that had been found in Eurasia. As Mathilda puts it: 'Its strongest morphometric affinities are with Upper Paleolithic (UP) Eurasians rather than recent, geographically proximate people.'
Now why should that be? The Hofmeyr skull indicates an African prototype for the European cro-magnon type. Mathilda speculates about a prehistoric movement from East Africa to S. Africa as an expanation for the skull's presence. As E. Africans are often called 'Caucasoid' (or proto~) it seems reasonable to apply that term to this skull, but I will not niggle about semantics.
Hofmeyr skull
Cro Magnon:
The similarities, apart from the cranial measurements, include the squareish eye sockets and the triangular nasal aperture, although it is obviously wider on the Hofmeyr skull.
A negroid skull has a much rounder nasal opening: Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: ...Mathilda speculates about a prehistoric movement from East Africa to S. Africa as an expanation for the skull's presence. ...
Are you then admitting that "Caucasoids" evolved in South Africa, in Zulu country?????? hmmmm Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
Obviously the idea is that they would have evolved in East Africa and moved south while their cousins went north and left the continent. They died out in the south but thrived in Eurasia. Admittedly the oldest primitive homo sapien bones yet found in Ethiopia do not conform to this type, but look more negroid.
Modern Caucasian skull has different nose bridge, different crown, different facial brow, different jaw bones than all the other skulls below, which appear more similar to each other:
Modern Caucasian - the outlier
Hofmeyr skull
Cro Magnon:
Central African:
East African Notice the difference?
The modern Caucasian is the stranger. Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
I propose that proto-caucasoids evolved somewhere in the region of Ethiopia, and that some strayed down to what would become Zulu country, but died out long before the coming of Zulus.
Zulus were the greatest of Bantu peoples, but even their king in the 19th century AD lived in a round hut with a dirt floor. Although the ancestors of Europeans came from Africa, the ancestors of Negros stayed put. In various places they did not progress at all.
Lets get back on track. Basques were white people, part of European civilization. They remained white people, the people who built things like this:
Bilbao is a modest city, for Europe, but show me anything like this in negro Africa, which was not built by the white man or the Muslims:
or like this:
You have nothing to do with the people who built such things. You should be looking into your own culture:
From Nigeria
To southern parts of Ethiopia:
To Namibia
To Tanzania
It's like several thousand years BC but with Russian rifles!
If you think blacks founded all these great civilizations outside of this, their homeland, then will you please explain why some of them are still in the stone age within it? Where are the fine buildings* of dressed stone? Why the lack of literacy or technology pre colonialism?
Obviously you are ashamed and appalled by all things African, while at the same time desperate to usurp as much glory as possible for 'black people'. You're a bit screwed up.
*(There's the singluar exception of Great Zimbabwe- still no grander than an Iron Age Scottish broch!)
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
^^Loser, you lost several times over. Hear yourself surrender over again:
quote:Originally posted by IronLion:
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: There's some justification for this it seems to me. Horn Africans have affinity to Egptians who are lighter, and Berbers, who are lighter still and often look identical to southern Europeans. The highest concentration of E1b1b in Somalia tends to indicate a movement from there towards the Med rather than the reverse. If horn Africans are included in the Mediterranean race then one is forced to conclude that it started off 'black' (but caucasoid in terms of skull shape) and lost pigment as it moved north as an adaptation to climate. ...
This seems to vindicate the theory of anthropologist Guiseppe Sergi (d. 1936), who attributed the Mediterranean Race with African origins, and that Europeans were related to Horn Africans, which he called Hamitic. Sergi also grouped the Britons as Mediterraneans, but denigrated nordic aryans as less creative and civilized incomers originally from the Hindu Kush (north of India).
A bitchy editor of 'Essence' once said that Somali model Iman resembled a white woman dipped in chocolate, and the same thing could easily be said for Liya Kebede.
Horn Africans have picked up some Arabian infulence since antiquity but if Egyptians are anything to go by the general 'caucasoid' type of feature seems to go back a long way in East Africa. Sergi grouped the Egyptians with the Libyans.
Decoded: This is my face saving way of saying Early Europeans were black Africans!
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: [QB] I propose that proto-caucasoids evolved somewhere in the region of Ethiopia, and that some strayed down to what would become Zulu country, but died out long before the coming of Zulus.
At what age? Cro-Magnon's were proto-Caucasoid in Europe as early as 30,000 B.P.
Prior to the out of africa theory becomming popularised, it was actually the ''out of europe'' theory that was most popular.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
Obviously you are ashamed and appalled by all things African, while at the same time desperate to usurp as much glory as possible for 'black people'. You're a bit screwed up. =======
Ironlion is a self-hating black. He's admitted this over and over and like most black males hates black woman. Most blacks on this forum admit they hate the true negroid type and prefer straight haired East Africans (who have Caucasoid admixture).
You will never find an afrocentric or black embracing their real heritage, they are all self-haters.
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: ======= ... Most blacks on this forum admit they hate the true negroid type and prefer straight haired East Africans (who have Caucasoid admixture). ...
Cashitty
East Africans are the oldest Africans. Africans evolved in Ethiopia.
You are the self hater. An Albino from Central Asia, seeking to claim my Ethiopian Muurish heritage!
You are such a fughing ass... LMBAO
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
. .
[Cass writes]
Ironlion is a self-hating black. He's admitted this over and over.
[Marc writes]
Really? Show us once he wrote this and I will believe you.
. .
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
You are the self hater. An Albino from Central Asia, seeking to claim my Ethiopian Muurish heritage! ==========
Never have done so. All i said is that Ethiopians are 40% Caucasoid, which is what the genetics has repeatedly confirmed.Hence there are pockets of East Africans population who have straight hair.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
quote:Really? Show us once he wrote this and I will believe you.
Every black on this forum is a self-hater.
Why in the ''beautiful black woman'' thread are the only women posted straight haired East Africans who have Caucasoid genes?
Why never the true negroid types?
Blacks hate the true negroid type (afro's, thick lips etc) because as everyone agrees those features are hideous.
The only african females blacks find attractive just happen to be those with Caucasoid genes - and therefore straight hair.
This also goes a long way to explain why there is a 4 billion dollar american industry for black woman to straighten their wooly hair or afro's to look like white woman.
Blacks have an identity crisis.
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
If you think blacks founded all these great civilizations outside of this, their homeland, (see above) then will you please explain why some of them are still in the stone age within it? Where are the fine buildings of dressed stone? Why the lack of literacy or technology pre (European or Arabian) colonialism?
Posted by kikuyu2 (Member # 19316) on :
I've read all this,merely to confirm what I suggested on my thread (can't find it!) about the deeply pathological nature of certain posters. Denial,red herrings and vituperation are their stock in trade. When their redundant pseudoscience is finally debunked they go silent,only to resurface with emotional feel good assertions about the uselessness of blackman-YET THEY SPEND DAYS IN HERE:WHY?? Truly,these people deserve our prayers not contempt.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
Another negro who fails to answer.
Rahotep's question reposted:
If you think blacks founded all these great civilizations outside of this, their homeland, (see above) then will you please explain why some of them are still in the stone age within it? Where are the fine buildings of dressed stone? Why the lack of literacy or technology pre (European or Arabian) colonialism?
===
I would also add to this:
Why are blacks typing here a WHITE language?
English is not a sub-saharan african tongue to state the obvious.
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
Why is the black side this your representative Greek? Are you mad?
Clearly the white female face on the other side represents Greeks. Herodotus called the Egyptians dark compared to Greeks...
Egyptians:
Why have you put a picture of a satyr with goat ears as your representative Etruscan? Satyrs with pug noses and fleshy lips and such ears were mythological figures of ridicule.
This is an actual Etruscan:
And this:
and this:
and this:
Who are you trying to fool?
Nubian hieroglyphics are based on Egyptian ones. Nubia was a colony of Egypt for centuries before it became a civilization in its own right. Phoenician letters also had Egyptian precursors which in turn influenced Classical Greek and Latin. (The Greeks had an older, indigenous writing system called Linear B). The Greeks and Phoenicians invented vowels and made the whole alphabet phonetic, such a functional improvement that the Egyptians themselves adopted the Greek alphabet in preference to their old hieroglyphics, giving rise to the Coptic script.
English uses the related Latin alphabet, though it was probably first written in runes. Its prevalence around the world now owes to two factors: the dropping of the unnecessary practice of assigning genders to words, and the victories of British armies.
From what I read, Clyde Winters is not a 'Dr'. Like 'Professor' Manu Ampim he is another sufferer from delusions of academic credibility. Neither Mr Winters nor Mr Ampim have qualifications relevant to the field they pretend expertise in either. The latter did a masters degree on Martin Luther King, which he thinks qualifies him to assess the authenticity of ancient Egyptian statues! If you please! Mr Winters has done Social Science. (My own MA is at least on a subject related to middle eastern history, albeit medieval.)
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
. .
Greeks, you say? Let’s go back before Alexander arrived as late on the scene as he did. Some of these predate him by 7,000 years.
These were the days the African / black / Negro was found throughout Greece and the Grecian islands and surrounding lands.
Would any of you, (if you are not one and the same) care to answer the question I posed earlier? If you think blacks founded all these great civilizations outside of this, their homeland, (see above) then will you please explain why some of them are still in the stone age within it? Where are the fine buildings of dressed stone? Why the lack of literacy or technology pre (European or Arabian) colonialism?
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
The bulk jumping connection is bullshit! The oldest evidence is in Asia Minor and the Minoan islands. Tell-el Dab'a was the Hyksos city of Avaris, in the Nile Delta, which had a Minoan trading colony, hence the Minoan murals found there, featuring their national sport. The Egyptians did not leap over bulls. There are no Egyptian images like this done by Egyptians, and there is no evidence for it anywhere before you find the Ethiopians doing it. Similarly pointless is comparing an African head from 1500AD with facial scarification to a supposedly analogous image from archaic Greece. Stupid boy.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
^ Note marc#s diagram above which says:
''flowing hair feature of whites''
''straight haired whites''
Yet in the other thread he claims negroids are ''flowing straight haired''.
Marc claims whites are only straight haired in one post, but in the other that black people are physicall diverse and have straight hair. Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
Marc Washington's incompetence:
Marc lists Memnon, one of the SLAVE pupils of Herodes Atticus as a ''great leader''.
LOL.
Memnon was nothing more than a slave tutored by Herodes Atticus.
I would also point out that virtually none of Marc's busts etc look black. Plato who marc shows a bust of, looks fully typically white with straight hair and thin nose.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
Marc's bust of plato (300 bc) he claims looks black -
Would someone like the point out what is negro about this bust?
ALSO note: In the SAME diagram Marc lists this bust, he claims ''flowing hair'' or straight hair is a feature of whites. The bust above shows plato as straight haired, yet marc then claims he looks black. Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
Things look different through afrocentric goggles.
Posted by Ish Gebor AKA Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides:
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: [QB] I propose that proto-caucasoids evolved somewhere in the region of Ethiopia, and that some strayed down to what would become Zulu country, but died out long before the coming of Zulus.
At what age? Cro-Magnon's were proto-Caucasoid in Europe as early as 30,000 B.P.
Prior to the out of africa theory becomming popularised, it was actually the ''out of europe'' theory that was most popular.
And since it was incorrect it was rectified!lol
Posted by Ish Gebor AKA Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: Things look different through afrocentric goggles.
Yes they look reasonable, whereas you are blinded by hate!lol
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: Akhenaten's blood type (A) and genetic haplotype (R1b1b) seem to link him to western Europe rather than black Africa.
@ those white supremacy fantasies. And blunted lies.
Can you explain why not more than "half of European men" suffer from sickle cell. Just like Tuts family did, the Khamuns?
King Tut died from sickle-cell disease, not malaria Just like his ancestors! Thanks in advance, for you time and effort.
King Tutankhamun died from sickle-cell disease, not malaria, say experts. A team from Hamburg's Bernhard Noct Institute for Tropical Medicine (BNI) claim the disease is a far likelier cause of death than the combination of bone disorders and malaria put forward by Egyptian experts earlier this year.
The BNI team argues that theories offered by Egyptian experts, led by antiquities tsar Zahi Hawass, are based on data that can be interpreted otherwise. They say further analysis of the data will confirm or deny their work. Hawass' claim, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association this February, and followed by a swarm of accompanying television shows, claimed King Tut suffered from Kohler's disease, a bone disorder prohibiting blood flow, before succumbing to malaria.
Multiple bone disorders, including one in Tutankhamun's left foot, led to the Kohler's diagnosis, while segments of a malarial parasite were found via DNA testing. Yet the BNI team claims the latter results are incorrect. “Malaria in combination with Köhler's disease causing Tutankhamun's early death seems unlikely to us,” say Prof Christian Meyer and Dr Christian Timmann.
Instead the BNI team feels sickle-cell disease (SCD), a genetic blood disorder, is a more likely reason for the Pharaoh's death aged just 19. The disease occurs in 9 to 22 per cent of people living in the Egyptian oases, and gives a better chance of surviving malaria; the infestation halted by sickled cells.
They say the disease occurs frequently in malarial regions like the River Nile, and that it would account for the bone defects found on his body.
“The genetic predisposition for (SCD) can be found in regions where malaria frequently occurs, including ancient and modern Egypt.” says Meyer. “The disease can only manifest itself when a sickle cell trait is inherited from both parents: it is a so-called 'recessive inheritance'.” A family tree for the Pharaoh suggested by Hawass himself appears to back the BNI team's case.
The relatively old age of Tutankhamun's parents and relatives – up to 50 years – means they could very well have carried sickle-cell traits, and could therefore have been highly resistant to malaria. The high likelihood that King Tut's parents were siblings means he could have inherited the sickle cell trait from both and suffered from SCD.
“Sickle-cell disease is an important differential diagnosis: one that existing DNA material can probably confirm or rule out,” conclude Timmann and Meyer. They suggest that further testing of ancient Egyptian royal mummies should bear their conclusions in mind.
“Sickle-cell disease is an important differential diagnosis: one that existing DNA material can probably confirm or rule out,” conclude Timmann and Meyer. They suggest that further testing of ancient Egyptian royal mummies should bear their conclusions in mind.
King Tut's young demise has long been a source of speculation. As well as malaria, recent decades have seen scholars argue that he was murdered, and that he died from infection caused by a broken leg.
While I am not in agreement with everything on Marc's positions on Greeks and other Euros.. I think he spends waay too much time on them in M.H.O Blacks/Africans were present in large enough numbers to be recognized as Slaves, ordinary people, founders,heroes,gods and goddesses http://www.asiaminorcoins.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=60 klik^ here if you dare.
Posted by Ish Gebor AKA Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: ==========
Never have done so. All i said is that Ethiopians are 40% Caucasoid, which is what the genetics has repeatedly confirmed.Hence there are pockets of East Africans population who have straight hair.
It was also repeatedly debunked.lol
It was a lie from the start, eons ago, so now you have to cover up a lie with a lie.....lol
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
Cassis Never have done so. All i said is that Ethiopians are 40% Caucasoid, which is what the genetics has repeatedly confirmed.Hence there are pockets of East Africans population who have straight hair. Ish Gebor It was also repeatedly debunked.lol But not debunked is this below HLA genes allele distribution has been studied in Mediterranean and sub-Saharan populations. Their relatedness has been tested by genetic distances, neighbour-joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses.
The population genetic relationships have been compared with the history of the classical populations living in the area. A revision of the historic postulates would have to be undertaken, particularly in the cases when genetics and history are overtly discordant. HLA genomics shows that: 1) Greeks share an important part of their genetic pool with sub-Saharan Africans (Ethiopians and west Africans) also supported by Chr 7 Markers.
Posted by Ish Gebor AKA Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides:
Would someone like the point out what is negro about this bust?
... claims ''flowing hair'' or straight hair is a feature of whites. The bust above shows plato as straight haired, yet...
Right on! lol
Biotechnic & Histochemistry 2005, 80(1): 7_/13
"Materials and methods In 1997, the German Institute for Archaeology headed an excavation of the tombs of the nobles in Thebes-West, Upper Egypt. At this time, three types of tissues were sampled from different mummies: meniscus (fibrocartilage), skin, and placenta. Archaeological findings suggest that the mummies dated from the New Kingdom (approximately 1550_/1080 BC)...... The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of negroid origin."
DNA analysis shows that Egyptians group with African peoples from the Sudan, Ethiopia, East Africa and parts of Cameroon, not with Europe or the Middle East.
Notes on E-M78 and Rosa DNA study linking Egyptians with East and Central Africans. DNA study (Rosa et al. 2007) groups Egyptians with East and Central Africans. Other DNA studies link these peoples together. Quote:“the majority of Y chromosomes found in populations in Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia and Oromos in Somalia and North Kenya (Boranas) belong to haplogroup E3b1 defined by the Y chromosome marker M78“(Sanchez 2005). Codes: Egy=Egypt. Or= Oromo, Ethiopia. Am=Amahara, Ethiopia. Sud=Sudan. FCA=Cameroon. Maa= Massai, Kenya. Note: Eighty (80)% or more of the haplotypes in Cameroon are of West African origin (Rosa et al. 2007, Cerny et al. 2006). Ethiopia, Cameroon and most of the Sudan is located below the Sahara, and thus sub-Saharan.-- Rosa, et al.(2007) Y-chromosomal diversity in the population of Guinea-Bissau. BMC Evolutionary Biology. 7:124
You just can't help yourself rid your fascist behavior. lol
You are like the typical wimp, I beat up for fun. And by no means am I a violent man. lol
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
. .
[Cass writes] In the SAME diagram Marc lists this bust.
[Marc writes] It is not that bust.
. .
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
