quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Credit to Charlie Bass for sending me the entire manuscript of Brace's new study. Shame on all the others for continuing to distort by treating tentative conclusions as fact and ignoring most of the actual data. Of course, the study does NOT support their Afrocentric fantasies. Here's some of what they conveniently overlooked.


Inadequacy of the Natufian sample:

quote:

---

The Natufian sample from Israel is also problematic because it is so small, being constituted of three males and one female from the Late Pleistocene Epipalaeolithic (33) of Israel, and there was no usable Neolithic sample for the Near East. [...] The generally high D2 values for the Natufian sample in Table 3 are almost certainly a reflection of the very small sample size.

---

Resulting qualifier that nullifies conclusion:

quote:

---

This suggests that there may have been a sub-Saharan African element in the make-up of the Natufians -- the putative ancestors of the subsequent Neolithic -- although in this particular test there is no such evident presence in the North African or Egyptian samples.

---

Niger-Congo Blacks are isolated from the other samples:

quote:

---

The three Niger-Congo speaking groups -- the Congo from Gabon, the Dahomey from Benin, and the Haya from Tanzania -- cluster together away from most of the other samples. [...] When the samples used in Fig. 1 are compared by the use of canonical variate plots as in Fig. 2, the separateness of the Niger-Congo speakers is again quite clear.

---

NE Africans have only minor Sub-Saharan admixture:

quote:

---

They [Niger-Congo speaking groups] do show a somewhat more distant link to the Nubians and the Nubian Bronze Age who are so close to each other that they were combined for subsequent analyses. [...] As shown in Fig. 1, the Somalis and the Egyptian Bronze Age sample from Naqada may also have a hint of a sub-Saharan African component.

---

Unexplained discrepancies between the two mapping systems:

quote:

---

That [sub-Saharan African component] was not borne out in the canonical variate plot (Fig. 2), and there was no evidence of such an involvement in the Algerian Neolithic sample.

---

The maps that the Afronuts tried to hide:

quote:

---

FIG. 1 - Natufians distant from Sub-Saharan Africans:




FIG. 2 - Sub-Saharan Africans distant from all other samples:




FIG. 4 - Pre-historic/Modern samples closely related and distant from Sub-Saharan Africans:

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charles Rigaud:
Brace's overall conclusion at the end is that the Natufian sample despite its small size shows sub-Saharan influence.

---

quote:

---

Evil Euro ever the opportunistic distorter leaves out this quote:

“In dendrograms such as Fig. 1, the little Natufian sample clusters with the Mesolithic of France, the North African Epipalaeolithic and the European Upper Palaeolithic, but the length of each of these twigs shows that the relationships are comparatively remote.”

---

Go ahead and include it, moron. It just further weakens your case that pre-historic peoples had Sub-Saharan affinities.
 

---

Posted by Triple Stage Darkness (Member # 9424) on :
 
>>>>>No, his overall conclusion is INCONCLUSIVE:

No, you just can't read. From the *CONCLUSIONS* section of Brace's paper at the end:


Conclusions

The assessment of prehistoric and recent human craniofacial dimensions supports the picture documented by genetics that the extension of Neolithic agriculture from the Near East westward to Europe and across North Africa was accomplished by a process of demic diffusion (11-15). If the late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, there was clearly a sub-Saharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element.

Thats not inconclusive, thats about as conclusive as it gets. Check your brain for reading comprehension disorder.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Triple Stage Darkness:
>>>>>No, his overall conclusion is INCONCLUSIVE:

No, you just can't read. From the *CONCLUSIONS* section of Brace's paper at the end:


Conclusions

The assessment of prehistoric and recent human craniofacial dimensions supports the picture documented by genetics that the extension of Neolithic agriculture from the Near East westward to Europe and across North Africa was accomplished by a process of demic diffusion (11-15). If the late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, there was clearly a sub-Saharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element.

Thats not inconclusive, thats about as conclusive as it gets. Check your brain for reading comprehension disorder.

---

LOL @ the illiterate canine!
 

---

Posted by Evil Euro (Member # 6383) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Triple Stage Darkness:
No, you just can't read. From the *CONCLUSIONS* section of Brace's paper at the end:

---

quote:

---

The results of a study are located in the data, not in some sweeping statement tacked on to the end.

---

quote:

---

The results of a study are located in the data, not in some sweeping statement tacked on to the end.

---

translation::

Brace has utterly refuted my nonsense so...to h#ll with him.

I will just continue to attribute my ignorance to him. My credibility on Egyptsearch is nil anyway so I have nothing left to lose..

- yours truly

EuroZero
 

---

Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
 
Does anyone have access to the whole article or not? Maybe Euro is correct and that the conclusion is actually inconclusive based on the data (yeah right). I would like to read the whole thing anyways. From what I have read it seems to be in line with what I expect - African admixture in Greeks.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
^ Yes, and this has been answered before, you would have to join Charles African study group.

I'm not sure why Charles allows notorious racist distortion junkies like Erroneous Euro to have access, but it's his group and his call.
 

---

Posted by Evil Euro (Member # 6383) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Babbling Ape:
Brace has utterly refuted my nonsense so...to h#ll with him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
From what I have read it seems to be in line with what I expect - African admixture in Greeks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Triple Stage Darkness:
No, you just can't read. From the *CONCLUSIONS* section of Brace's paper at the end:

---

The results of a study are located in the data, not in some sweeping statement tacked on to the end.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Babbling Ape:
Brace has utterly refuted my nonsense so...to h#ll with him.

---

Indeed he has utterly refuted your nonsense and distortion, which is why you have no answers for anything in the parent post.

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
From what I have read it seems to be in line with what I expect - African admixture in Greeks.

---

Well then you must be as illiterate as you are stupid, because the paper doesn't say any such thing.

---

Will when I read a statement like this:

"This suggests that there may have been a sub-Saharan African element in the make-up of the Natufians." <- sounds alotlike Angel to me but then Nubians are not Sub-Saharan but thats a minor technicality.

I am somewhat inclined to agree with the Afrocentric position. However, I have not completely ruled your position out. I would just like access to the article and read the whole thing.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
Osirion, you were one of the few to take note with genuine insight, of the fact that the Brace skull-map Erroneous Euro kept spamming showed Neolithic Greek intermediacy between modern East Africans and other modern Europeans.

You correctly noted that this was in complete contradiction to the intended purpose of displaying the graph.

It is really this older finding that Brace is following up on, quite logically, and to the same ends.

Brace is simply being more explicit in noting the obvious.


From Brace latest study:


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 show that they are closely related to each other ranging all the way from Scandinavia to eastern Europe and throughout the Mediterranean to the Middle East. 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. It is a further surprise that the Epipalaeolithic Natufian of Israel from whom the Neolithic realm was assumed to arise has a clear link to sub-Saharan Africa. - CL Brace


So Osirion, in a sense the issue is less about your 'concurring' with 'the afrocentrics', and more that Brace agrees with your assessment, keenly observed from his earlier works.
 

---

Posted by Evil Euro (Member # 6383) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Triple Stage Darkness:
You're just plain old stupid and refuse to accept whats written so I will post it again:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
I am somewhat inclined to agree with the Afrocentric position.

---

quote:

---

EuroLoser: Greeks are not even mentioned.

---

lol. You wish, you pathetic lying troll:

Next the Portuguese Mesolithic, Greek Neolithic, Italy Neolithic, and Swiss Neolithic samples and the Italian and Greek Bronze Age samples were COMBINED to make a “Prehistoric Mediterranean” twig..... When all these are run in a single neighbor-joining dendrogram, the results can be seen in Fig. 3. {shown below}


^^ Providing the CONTEXT^

CL Brace continues:


The assessment of prehistoric and recent human craniofacial dimensions supports the picture documented by genetics that the extension of Neolithic agriculture from the Near East westward to Europe and across North Africa was accomplished by a process of demic diffusion.


If the late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, there was clearly a sub-Saharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element.

At the same time, the failure of the Neolithic and Bronze Age samples in central and northern Europe to tie to the modern inhabitants supports the suggestion that, while a farming mode of subsistence was spread westward and also north to Crimea and east to Mongolia by actual movement of communities of farmers, the indigenous foragers in each of those areas ultimately absorbed both the agricultural subsistence strategy and also the people who had brought it. The interbreeding of the incoming Neolithic people with the in situ foragers diluted the sub-Saharan traces that may have come with the Neolithic spread so that no discoverable element of that remained.

This picture of a MIXTURE between the incoming farmers and the in situ foragers had originally been supported by the archaeological record alone, but this is now reinforced by the analysis of the skeletal morphology of the people of those areas where prehistoric and recent remains can be metrically compared.

Brace speaks for himself.

Do yourself a favor and don't try and "interpret".

Your sheer desperation is obvious.

You sound silly.
 

---

Posted by Evil Euro (Member # 6383) on :
 
Brace et al. 2005 says:

quote:

---

"As shown in Fig. 1, the Somalis and the Egyptian Bronze Age sample from Naqada may also have a hint of a sub-Saharan African component. That was not borne out in the canonical variate plot (Fig. 2), and there was no evidence of such an involvement in the Algerian Neolithic sample."

---

That means that the placement of Somalis, Naqada and Algerians in the plot (green) shows them to LACK Sub-Saharan affinities. Now note that none of the four Greek samples (red) is any farther to the right than those three groups, meaning that Greeks also lack Sub-Saharan affinities:





Brace et al. 2005 says:

quote:

---

"The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants."

---

But it doesn't say that they're not related at all. And in fact, Mesolithic, Neolithic, Bronze Age and Modern Europeans are all more related to one another than any are to Sub-Saharan Africans:





Brace et al. 1993 says:

quote:

---

"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."

[...]

"As our data show, the people of the Horn of Africa are craniofacially less distinct from a spectrum of samples marginally including South Asia and running all the way from the Middle East to northwest Europe than they are to any group in sub-Saharan Africa."

---

Nowhere does Brace assert "Neolithic Greek intermediacy between modern East Africans and other modern Europeans". It's the modern East Africans who are located intermediately between Europeans (including Greeks) and Sub-Saharan Africans:






Conclusion: Afronut fantasies are NOT supported by Brace's data.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
^^Your idiotic babblement is irrelevant to both your lies and Brace's conclusions, which you are trying and failing to run away from.

Keep running....

quote:

---

EuroLoser: Greeks are not even mentioned.

---

Conclusion: You lied, again, and you're busted....again.


Next the Portuguese Mesolithic, Greek Neolithic, Italy Neolithic, and Swiss Neolithic samples and the Italian and Greek Bronze Age samples were COMBINED to make a “Prehistoric Mediterranean” twig..... When all these are run in a single neighbor-joining dendrogram, the results can be seen in Fig. 3. {shown below}


^^ Providing the CONTEXT^

CL Brace continues:


The assessment of prehistoric and recent human craniofacial dimensions supports the picture documented by genetics that the extension of Neolithic agriculture from the Near East westward to Europe and across North Africa was accomplished by a process of demic diffusion.


If the late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, there was clearly a sub-Saharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element.

At the same time, the failure of the Neolithic and Bronze Age samples in central and northern Europe to tie to the modern inhabitants supports the suggestion that, while a farming mode of subsistence was spread westward and also north to Crimea and east to Mongolia by actual movement of communities of farmers, the indigenous foragers in each of those areas ultimately absorbed both the agricultural subsistence strategy and also the people who had brought it. The interbreeding of the incoming Neolithic people with the in situ foragers diluted the sub-Saharan traces that may have come with the Neolithic spread so that no discoverable element of that remained.

This picture of a MIXTURE between the incoming farmers and the in situ foragers had originally been supported by the archaeological record alone, but this is now reinforced by the analysis of the skeletal morphology of the people of those areas where prehistoric and recent remains can be metrically compared.

Brace speaks for himself.

You merely squeal like a pig in the slaughterhouse.

Sure sounds silly.

Looks silly too.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Brace hammers home his conclusion: The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants.

---

quote:

---

Desperate Euro meekly grasps at straws:
B, bu, bu......but..... it doesn't say that they're not related at all.

---

Idiot. Of course modern Euros are "related" to their MIXED and African influenced Neolithic ancestors,that's Brace whole point.

there was clearly a sub-Saharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element.

At the same time, the failure of the Neolithic and Bronze Age samples in central and northern Europe to tie to the modern inhabitants supports the suggestion that.....the indigenous foragers in each of those areas ultimately absorbed both the agricultural subsistence strategy and also the people who had brought it.

The I N T E R B R E E D I N G of the incoming Neolithic people with the in situ foragers diluted the sub-Saharan traces.

This picture of a MIXTURE between the incoming farmers and the in situ foragers had originally been supported by the archaeological record alone, but this is now reinforced by the analysis of the skeletal morphology of the people of those areas where prehistoric and recent remains can be metrically compared. - CL Brace.

Brace is very exacting on how modern Europe is related to the sub-saharan influenced Neolithic *introduced* into Europe via admixture. Sorry.

So don't try and dispute or distort Euroloser, and don't start any more threads dedicated to how stupid and pathetic you can be, grasping at straws with your back against the wall.

Instead grow a brain and learn to read.
 

---

Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 
It's time you give up Evil Euro. You lost this one.
 

---

Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
 
No MORE SQUARMING FOR THAT RATE EVIL-E. IT IS
OVER. LOST, DONE, OVER and OUT!!!



 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
No MORE SQUARMING FOR THAT RATE EVIL-E. IT IS
OVER. LOST, DONE, OVER and OUT!!!

---

You obviously don't know the imbecile that well! His stubborness is infinite! He will be back again with more stupidity!! The fool has been going at it for 11 months already, why not a year or 10 years?!! LOL
 

---

Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
 
I don't see how he can possibly recovery from that diagramm. But I am sure it will be entertaining. Come on Evil-E, lets see what you have to say about Natufians being closely related to Niger/Congo (things are just going from Black to Blacker for you).

Put EvilE on suicide watch.
 

---

Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
 
"Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers, probably FROM NUBIA".

And now Brace's diagramm:




And Brace's own words:

If the late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, there was clearly a sub-Saharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element.


Squarm boy Squarm.
 

---

Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
 
I never really thought much of Black Athena but this is rather intriguing stuff.

So Hor and Evil, what on Earth do you guys have to say now?
 

---

Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:

And Brace's own words:

If the late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, there was clearly a sub-Saharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element.


Squarm boy Squarm.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
It went from bad to worse for Evil Euro and hore they have nothing to say.

---

Believe me, the stupid troll is silent now, but he will begin his stupid and insane rant again!

It is like clockwork. Everytime stupid-euro gets humiliated in one thread, he will start another thread or re-open an old thread of his stupidity. There is no end to his madness!
 

---

Posted by Evil Euro (Member # 6383) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Drowning Ape:
Conclusion: You lied, again, and you're busted....again.

---

quote:

---

Brace is very exacting on how modern Europe is related to the sub-saharan influenced Neolithic

---

Too bad his data tells a different story:


 

---

Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 
Yep hes back.
 

---

Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
 
You should pay more attention to him King, might actually learn something. At least he is not selling soap like many on this board.
 

---

Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
 
I just don't get it. Hor, we are talking about the Natufians. Just look at the Diagramm that Evil-E so nicely posted. Where are the Natufians? Rather close to the Niger/Congo group wouldn't you say?

Why don't you go and read something about the Natufians - YOU MIGHT LEARN something about the real origins of Western civilization.
 

---

Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
 
The Natufian culture existed in the Mediterranean region of the Levant. It was an Epipalaeolithic culture, but unusual in that it established permanent settlements even before the introduction of agriculture. The Natufians are likely to have been the ancestors of the builders of the first Neolithic settlements of the region, which may have been the earliest in the world. There is also evidence that the Natufians themselves had already begun deliberate cultivation of cereals. They were certainly making use of wild grasses. The Natufians chose central places to stay so that the wild cereals could be harvested in all three zones. However, due to climate changes, which produced drier climate, the Natufians were forced to stay in areas with permanent water. Evidence for the storage of the grain can also be seen at some sites. The Natufians hunted gazelles as well as wild grasses. They are also responsible for the domestication of dogs.
 

---

Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
 
Osirion, At least I would be able to understand what I was reading. I also would not read it looking for points to back up an already predetermined point of view on Egypt. The origins of western civilization are very well documented already.
 

---

Posted by Mansa Musa (Member # 6800) on :
 
As far as I'm concerned this board needs to get rid of both Evil Euro and Horemheb.

Euro's debates have gone beyond the level of degenerate to the point where he and Rasol make stupid pet names for each other and slur each other.

I'm actually about done with this whole board because of certain idiots it has become overwhlemingly redundant. What good does updating the software do when you keep the morons who degrade dicsussions?

Sensible, civil debates on internet message boards can only exist where there are enough guidelines, moderation and security to make it so. We should all move to Nile Valley Forums or some place more reliable where discussion can advance and low class trolls will not be tolerated.
 

---

Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
 
Or in other word Mansa , when the posters will conceed to your positions. Why don't you leave?
 

---

Posted by Triple Stage Darkness (Member # 9424) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mansa Musa:
As far as I'm concerned this board needs to get rid of both Evil Euro and Horemheb.

Euro's debates have gone beyond the level of degenerate to the point where he and Rasol make stupid pet names for each other and slur each other.

I'm actually about done with this whole board because of certain idiots it has become overwhlemingly redundant. What good does updating the software do when you keep the morons who degrade dicsussions?

Sensible, civil debates on internet message boards can only exist where there are enough guidelines, moderation and security to make it so. We should all move to Nile Valley Forums or some place more reliable where discussion can advance and low class trolls will not be tolerated.

---

quote:

---

EmabarrassedEuro recants: I said they weren't mentioned in the specific passage about Natufians that I quoted.

---

quote:

---

Frustrated Euro writes: Reposting your bullsh*t

---

quote:

---

Brace is very exacting on how modern Europe is related to the sub-saharan influenced Neolithic

---

quote:

---

EuroMonkey writes: Too bad his data tells a different story

---

^^ You retarded clown, that map shows the same Natufian/African affiliations and lack of continuity between Neolithic and modern Europe as the one below. It's just a different layout.


CL Brace himself, and not EuroMonkey sums up either or both maps, take your pick:

If the late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, there was clearly a sub-Saharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element.

Brace conclusions = Larry Angel's earlier conclusions: “ one can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers (Angel, 1972), probably from Nubia via the predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians"

lol. Scholars like Brace and Angel interpret their own data.

Bitter monkeys like Erroneous Euro, just make incoherent noises and provide the comedy.

 

---

Posted by David Manning (Member # 8879) on :
 
This board is becoming something of a headache, from Horemheb's stupidity in denying the existence of Eurocentrism to Evil Euro dismissing the words of Wilson et tal that were held through personal communication. This forum would be far better off without those two.
 

---

Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 
I think Horemheb should not be banned. Even though most people don't agree with what he says he is needed for a different view point. As for Evil Euro, he just needs to stop the racial attacks. What he says does not make much sense but it is good to have a different view point just to compare the truth to garbage.
 

---

Posted by Mansa Musa (Member # 6800) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Or in other word Mansa , when the posters will coceed to your positions. Why don't you leave?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Osirion, At least I would be able to understand what I was reading. I also would not read it looking for points to back up an already predetermined point of view on Egypt. The origins of western civilization are very well documented already.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
I think Horemheb should not be banned. Even though most people don't agree with what he says he is needed for a different view point. As for Evil Euro, he just needs to stop the racial attacks. What he says does not make much sense but it is good to have a different view point just to compare the truth to garbage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
I think Horemheb should not be banned. Even though most people don't agree with what he says he is needed for a different view point. As for Evil Euro, he just needs to stop the racial attacks. What he says does not make much sense but it is good to have a different view point just to compare the truth to garbage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
I think Horemheb should not be banned. Even though most people don't agree with what he says he is needed for a different view point. As for Evil Euro, he just needs to stop the racial attacks. What he says does not make much sense but it is good to have a different view point just to compare the truth to garbage.

---

Evil-E has actually moderated his tone quite a bit in the last few months. Besides, I occassionally see reverse-racist statements being made.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mansa Musa:
As far as I'm concerned this board needs to get rid of both Evil Euro and Horemheb.

I'm actually about done with this whole board because of certain idiots it has become overwhlemingly redundant. What good does updating the software do when you keep the morons who degrade dicsussions?

We should all move to Nile Valley Forums or some place more reliable where discussion can advance and low class trolls will not be tolerated.

---

I agree with you. But know this: The reason why Evil Euro resorts to racist slurs and profanities is because he cannot succeed in spreading his lies as long as people such as yourself and Charlie Bass and Thought are around.

Since he cannot succeed in civil debate, his goal is precisely to drive you away with racist rantings.

Then distortionists are free to spread lies among ill informed folks who simply don't know any better.

The parallell to this strategy can be found on forums like stormfront or dodona, wherein knowledgeable posters who threaten their racist agenda are simply banned.

I believe Charlie Bass and Thought have said they were banned on Dodona for example, and they are usually the only civil and knowledeable disccusants on those forums to begin with.

The point is, that racist losers fight dirty because it's the only way they can hope to 'succeed'.

It is a strategy on their part, and as long as the forum moderators on Egyptsearch tolerate it, they are complicit in it. {I'm sorry Ausar, but it's the truth}.

Ignoring them does not work. They still get response from folks who simply do not have access to good information until the forum becomes a dialog of the daft between liars and fools.

I have always regarded the Egyptsearch moderators as complicit in the conduct of Horemheb and Evil Euro. And that's why I don't bother complaining to them any more, because I know it is a waste of time.

My choice is to simply correct the "Erroneous" babblement and move on.

m2c.
 

---

Posted by Triple Stage Darkness (Member # 9424) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Mansa, It may not have dawned on you yet but you do not own this board, nor is it reserved for people who agree with you. I have never seen you post any documented hirorical position that would convince anyone of anything. Don't mind rasol, he is an unhappy man. He is black and he hates it everyday of his life. That is what causes all of this black radicalism.
I will always consider any valid scholarship you post.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Triple Stage Darkness:

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
I think Horemheb should not be banned. Even though most people don't agree with what he says he is needed for a different view point. As for Evil Euro, he just needs to stop the racial attacks. What he says does not make much sense but it is good to have a different view point just to compare the truth to garbage.

---

Evil-E has actually moderated his tone quite a bit in the last few months. Besides, I occassionally see reverse-racist statements being made.

---

No such thing as reverse racism, but I see where you're coming from but maybe the anti-Italian slurs are due to Evil Euro's constant anti-black slurs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Mansa, It may not have dawned on you yet but you do not own this board, nor is it reserved for people who agree with you. I have never seen you post any documented hirorical position that would convince anyone of anything. Don't mind rasol, he is an unhappy man. He is black and he hates it everyday of his life. That is what causes all of this black radicalism.
I will always consider any valid scholarship you post.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
^^ You think you are tired of it. You have been here a few months. "The Professor" has run through the same limited range of specious tactics for over two years.

Not once has he ever posted anything of substance or value. Even giving him attention as you [we] are, is probably self defeating.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Mansa, I have said from the very beginning that I am not going to get sucked into a debate with Afrocentrics on historical issues, I have never wavered from that position. It is like having an argument with someone who believes in UFO's.
Most of my comments have dealt with the way we approcah historical subjects. That is why I talk so much about modern politics. this has always been a political board, first and foremost.
Now and then some interesting stuff gets posted. Any reasonable person would consider vaild historical arguments.

---

The funny part is that Eurocentrism has been used in politics but you're too damn stubborn to see anything.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
Homey's practised strategy is to intrude on a conversation, usually on a topic he knows nothing about - mdw ntr, anthropology -> Ancient Egypt in general, and change the subject into his pet peeves usually relating to American geopolitics.


I've seen him single handidly destroy any number of threads in this fashion.

Notice he has nothing to say about Brace's work.

He can't refute Brace's findings of African influence in the Eurasian Neolithic.

He probably doesn't even comprehend what that means.

He simply seeks attention and if in the process he can ruin the thread by changing the subject, all the better.

I just diss/"Homey" on the quick, and return to the topic:

CL BRACE 2005:

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 show that they are closely related to each other ranging all the way from Scandinavia to eastern Europe and throughout the Mediterranean to the Middle East. 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. It is a further surprise that the Epipalaeolithic Natufian of Israel from whom the Neolithic realm was assumed to arise has a clear link to sub-Saharan Africa.

Brace stands unrefuted and un-avoided, despite the best efforts of trolls, distortion junkies and other losers.
 

---

Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Mansa, I have said from the very beginning that I am not going to get sucked into a debate with Afrocentrics on historical issues, I have never wavered from that position. It is like having an argument with someone who believes in UFO's.
Most of my comments have dealt with the way we approcah historical subjects. That is why I talk so much about modern politics. this has always been a political board, first and foremost.
Now and then some interesting stuff gets posted. Any reasonable person would consider vaild historical arguments.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
You should pay more attention to him King, might actually learn something. At least he is not selling soap like many on this board.

---

ROTFL So Hore, I assume YOU are learning a lot from Stupid-Euro like East Africans really being 'caucasoid'!!
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Mansa, It may not have dawned on you yet but you do not own this board, nor is it reserved for people who agree with you. I have never seen you post any documented hirorical position that would convince anyone of anything. Don't mind rasol, he is an unhappy man. He is black and he hates it everyday of his life. That is what causes all of this black radicalism.
I will always consider any valid scholarship you post.

---

The guys on here have been presenting PEER-REVIEWED sources yet you NEVER consider any of it!! Why is this?!
 

---

Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
 
Well, first I would say how do you determine that these people, Natufians, were ideed black Africans? How do we know they were in Greece? How many of them were in Greece? How long were they there and where did they go? If they were there 10,000 years ago how does that impact western civilization, i.e. classical Greece.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Mansa, I have said from the very beginning that I am not going to get sucked into a debate with Afrocentrics on historical issues, I have never wavered from that position. It is like having an argument with someone who believes in UFO's.
Most of my comments have dealt with the way we approcah historical subjects. That is why I talk so much about modern politics. this has always been a political board, first and foremost.
Now and then some interesting stuff gets posted. Any reasonable person would consider vaild historical arguments.

---

But unlike UFO fanatics, we already have FACTUAL PROOF! Where is yours?! You even deny the existence of Eurocentrism when everyone in Europe knows it exist!! You are a lost cause.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Well, first I would say how do you determine that these people, Natufians, were ideed black Africans? How do we know they were in Greece? How many of them were in Greece? How long were they there and where did they go? If they were there 10,000 years ago how does that impact western civilization, i.e. classical Greece.

---

Angel observed "characteristics of nose and prognathism which suggest ancestry from Nubia" in Natufians, as well as Anatolian and Macedonian agriculturalists.

And judging by Braces new and improved map (below), he also makes the same conclusions.



sorry Hore.
 

---

Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
 
he mentioned one source from 1939? Was that source conclusive? Brace does not list them as Modern Med.? My point is that we are drawing conclusions when we have more questions than answers. We have people here wanting to JUMP from a 1939 study to creation of western civilization.
This happens all the time on this board and the people who squeal the loudest are the worst offenders.
 

---

Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
 
I didn't say anything about Natufians creating Western Civilization. I said that they seem to be a part of the larger picture. I am not Afrocentric remember and the concept of Blacks being the founder of civilization is not at all my position. However, if you read Brace's work and did not come to the conclusion that Natufians must be Black or have a significant amount of Black admixutre, you are as dense as lead.

The point is that EvilE has been trying to argue that Natufian DID NOT have Black admixuture well before I came to this board. That debate has now been closed with Brace's support of the exact same findings that other scholars, including Afrocentrics, have found going way back.

If you refuse to concede faced with an ever increasing amount of fact then I am afraid your bigotry is far too deepseated. True, there are questions left unanswered but if I was a Judge in a civil trial I was say that the preponderance of the evidence clearly indicates a Sub-Saharan element in the Levant which made its way into Greece during the Neolithic period. We have physical and genetic evidence as well as oral tradition. It all fits together except it counters a racist Aryan model that frankly was always for of S#$T anyways.
 

---

Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
 
Lets leave the racial argument aside for the moment. How did it make its way to Greece? Oral tradition can be excluded as well, 10,000 years is far too long for that to be valid. What physical evidence do we have? how are these people connected to later invaders from Europe?
Are you saying they merged with indo european invaders?
Osirion, You have a lot of work to do here before you can arrive at any meaningful conclusion. So far I have seen nothing close to a preponderance of proof.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

How did it make its way to Greece?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Yes I do but it does not make the point osirion was trying to make.

---

quote:

---

It is unclear what the ramifications of that movement was?

---

quote:

---

In other words, where is the Beef?

---

quote:

---

How can we take information like that and do something with it?

---

quote:

---

I also note that Brace used the word 'if.'

---

quote:

---

This is a huge word in historical research and should not be dismissed lightly.

---

quote:

---

For the purpose of discussion lets say these people existed.

---

quote:

---

Where did they go? Who were they? Did they move to another area or were they killed off? Did they go extinct?

---

quote:

---

What physical evidence do we have that ties them in any way with bronze age Greece MUCH LESS classical Greece?

---

Already answered by Brace:

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.

Previous assessments of the Neolithic spread from the Middle East westwards have been based on a consideration of tools and pottery on the one hand and genetically controlled aspects of living human populations on the other. Here we offer an assessment based on comparing a set of metric dimensions of both prehistoric and more recent human craniofacial morphology.

Portuguese Mesolithic, Greek Neolithic, Italy Eneolithic, and Swiss Neolithic samples and the Italian and Greek Bronze Age samples were combined to make a “Prehistoric Mediterranean” twig. Then Naqada Bronze Age Egyptian, the Nubian, Nubia Bronze Age, Israeli Fellaheen (Arabic farmers) and Somali samples were lumped as “Prehistoric/Recent Northeast Africa.” The Natufians and the Algerian Neolithic samples were run as separate twigs, and there were separate twigs for Basques and Canary Islanders. When all these are run in a single neighbor-joining dendrogram, the results can be seen in Fig. 3



The failure of the Neolithic and Bronze Age samples in central and northern Europe to tie to the modern inhabitants supports the suggestion that, while a farming mode of subsistence was spread westward and also north to Crimea and east to Mongolia by actual movement of communities of farmers, the indigenous foragers in each of those areas ultimately absorbed both the agricultural subsistence strategy and also the people who had brought it.

quote:

---

Often when you look at data you open up two new questions for every one you answer.

---

That's generally true of *all* science so the obvsersation is trite, and in no way refutes Brace conclusions.


Unfortuntately you demonstrate a different principal altogether, the principal of denial, wherein you ask questions that have already been answered, because you don't like the answer you received the first time.

It's what small children do when they ask for ice-cream and their parents tell them -> NO.

They pretend not to hear the answer, and repeat the question.

It is just such childish antics that Erroneous Euro has been reduced to.

It's up to you to decide whether or not to reduce yourself to such a juvenile level.
 

---

Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
 
Thanks, this has all been a rather informative thread all thanks to EvilE.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Or were they Hebrews who had intermixed with Sub-Saharan Africans? (hebrew = nomadic Semites)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
The point is that EvilE has been trying to argue that Natufian DID NOT have Black admixuture well before I came to this board. That debate has now been closed with Brace's support of the exact same findings that other scholars, including Afrocentrics, have found going way back.

---

Actually, Stupid-Euro's original debate is that Northeast Africans from Egyptians to Somalians are caucasoid! LOL
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
One thing that mainstream academia has long accepted was that Greek civilization was founed by Neolithic peoples from the Near-East!! This much was known for decades now. But unfortunately it is another one of the FACTS that most people are unaware of.

Ironically, people have long taken for granted that Egypt is Middle-Eastern even though it is really African, yet Greece has long been taken for granted as being European, despite that Greece is the one that is Middle-Eastern in origin!!

Hore argues the 'Aryanist' view that Indo-European Hellas (Greeks) started civilization when we all know this is partially the case. It was Neolithic people from the Near-East that started Greek civilization, but interestingly by the time the peninsula became overrun by Indo-Europeans there was a 'Dark Age' and from this Dark Age arose "Classical" Greek civilization that has been so glorified.

We see this same pattern in other areas where Indo-European speaking peoples arose as powers. The Elamites for example were the originators of civilization in Iran. Their civilization fell and Indo-European Persia took its place. In India there was the Indus, it too fell and in its place was the Indo-European Bharata civilization.

So you see, Western scholarship has long proven that the Aryanist view that Hore speaks of is is just a silly supremacist dream.

The new issue now however, is that the neolithic Near-Eastern people who brought civilization had some black African ancestry.
 

---

Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 
This is what mainstream scholars are going to try to not let get out of the bag. The fact that early greeks have some black admixture.
 

---

Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 
This is what mainstream scholars are going to try to not let get out of the bag. The fact that early greeks have some black admixture.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
[QB] One thing that mainstream academia has long accepted was that Greek civilization was founed by Neolithic peoples from the Near-East!! This much was known for decades now. But unfortunately it is another one of the FACTS that most people are unaware of.

---

quote:

---

Ironically, people have long taken for granted that Egyptian is Middle-Eastern even though it is really African, yet Greece has long been taken for granted as being European, despite it is the one that Middle-Eastern in origin!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Babbling Ape:
the whole study and its passages, are about the African affinities of neolithic Europe including Greece

---

quote:

---

that map shows the same Natufian/African affiliations and lack of continuity between Neolithic and modern Europe as the one below

---

quote:

---

Brace himself...sums up either or both maps

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Don't mind rasol, he is an unhappy man. He is black and he hates it everyday of his life. That is what causes all of this black radicalism.

---

So true.

"For [African scholar Valentin] Mudimbe, Afrocentrism is sheer transference of an inferiority complex among today's African Americans." (Source)
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
^ Euro-translation: Gosh it's all gone wrong, perhaps I can save myself from Brace with an off-topic rant on afrocentrism.

Perhaps not.

Your thread merely reflects your obsessions and your fears.

Your lies reflect your self delusions and your self hatred.

All of which are as clear as the African ancestry in Southern Europeans, which you know as well as Brace to be true, and have no answers for, and therefore *NO CHOICE* but to sit there and lie about, day after day.

To what purpose?

Who are trying to fool?

Brace??

Yourself???

Perhaps, but even that doesn't seem to be working.

Back on topic:

quote:

---

Sour grapes and whining from EuroLoser: The alleged affinities (which are not supported by the actual data)

---

Lol, Sorry, no.

Should read: Your stupifying-inanity vs. proven affinites from actual scholars Angel,
Negroid traits appearing in Natufian, Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers, probably from Nubia,

as well as McCown, Bar Yosef, Garrod and now....


CL Brace 2005:
there was clearly a sub-Saharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element

To which you respond with the usual Eurobabble, but actually......no answers.

quote:

---

Charlie Bass writes: Evil Euro, why don't you write Brace yourself?

---

quote:

---

Because he's terrified

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
Rasol you must get tired of beating up on Evil Euro. I have been reading old threads and all I see is Rasol or charlie bass beating up on Evil Euro. This guy needs help.

---

And you just now figured that out, King?!

I don't know what it is with the trolls that come to Egyptsearch!! It seems like each and every troll has some kind of pyschological affliction:

*Horemheb has denial that the Egyptians are black Africans and is proposes "North African caucasoids"...

*Abozo, a crazy Arangi Egyptian who also denies the African roots of the civilization he claims...

*AMR1 an Arabized fool who cannot deal with the fact that 'pure' Africans can accomplish things even civilization without "mixing" with non Africans...

*Leba, the so-claimed "East African" who tries to make East Africans a seperate 'race' from other Africans because of difference in certain features and calls other blacks monkeys and n-word!...

*and of course, last but not least, Evil(Stupid) Eruo who continues to preach that not only are Mediterranean Europeans are 'pure' non-Africans, but that his Mediterranean "caucasoids" range from southern Europe to East Africa, and that East Africans were originally caucasoid!!!

Yup, every troll we've had here in Egypt search is messed up in the head in some way. We even had another troll here once calle Akobago- something or other who is an adamant white-supremacist that insists every civilization was started by white people period, and trolls on other threads. Yet in real life the guy is some looser who makes a living cleaning bedpans in hospitals!! ROTFLMAO

Yup, come to Egyptsearch-- the asylum for trolls with problems!
 

---

Posted by leba (Member # 8668) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

*Leba, the so-claimed "East African" who tries to make East Africans a seperate 'race' from other Africans because of difference in certain features and calls other blacks monkeys and n-word!...

---

...How many white Europeans speak East African languages and know so much about it?
 

---

Posted by Mansa Musa (Member # 6800) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by leba:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

*Leba, the so-claimed "East African" who tries to make East Africans a seperate 'race' from other Africans because of difference in certain features and calls other blacks monkeys and n-word!...

---

...How many white Europeans speak East African languages and know so much about it?

---

I haven't seen you speak any East African languages. Lets see that. Ausar seems convinced you are who you say you are so I'll give you the benefit of a doubt, but as far as everything else Djehuti says, he is spot on.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
^ It's a mistake to encourage distortion junkies like Leba by playing into their little games.

The fact is he lied about his identity. No guessing is necessary. He is a liar and should be dismissed as such.

One of the reasons why we bother to expose these frauds [over and again] is that some well intended discussants are frankly, and with no disrespect intended....a bit gullible.


It gets to be like baby-sitting.

Mansa Musa: Just think about how easily he dragged you off topic and baited you into chasing his decoys.

I, for one had originally ignored this thread - whose premise is self-evidently ludicrous:

EE, a complete idiot who thinks women carry y chromosome, and post pictures of Australian Lesbians to 'prove' that East Africans are not Black.

Nonetheless, he attempts to convince others that he can correct anthropologist CL Brace conclusions regarding his own study, even as he in fact, runs away from Brace.

The coward can't even face his own nemesis, just as he can't face the truth of African blood lienages in Europe.

But on Egyptsearch, some people apparently actually believe that Leba is a Somali;

Professor Horemheb (It was I who actually tagged him "the professor" as a way of mocking his daftness), is a 'real' Professor.

and Evil Euro is anything other than an embittered racist loser who hates his own mixed heritage.

Leba and EE are both driven in part by the conviction that you can fool some people, all the time.

Oh well, at least the comedy's "legit".
 

---

Posted by Underpants Man (Member # 3735) on :
 

quote:

---

EE, a complete idiot who thinks women carry y chromosome

---

I'd like to see the post where he said that.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
Egyptsearch official Erroneous Euro - pathetic lies thread.


Back on Topic:

More support for Brace 2005 conclusion on African admixture in neolithic Europe:

Paleopathology at the Origins of Agriculture
Edited by Cohen and Armelagos
1984

Health as a crucial factor in changes from Hunting to developed Farming in the Eastern Mediterranean


By J.L. Angel

"During the latter part of the Middle Bronze Age in Greece, the 'Royalty' at Mycenae differ so greatly from the general population that we exclude them from the overall statistics....

They show the same striking DIVERSITY of morphology (and implied origins) as the general population...... then in the process of absorbing Indo-European and other new settlers, including SOME FROM AFRICA."

Angel, Brace, Keita, McCown, Bar Yosef, Garrod...they're all ganging up on poor BabyEuro.
 

---

Posted by Black Athena (Member # 7763) on :
 
Sub-Saharan influenced skeltal material has indeed been found in Tunisia at least.

Both at Kef-el-Agab and around Oran we find certain negroid traits, notably mid-facial and alveolar proganthism and dullness or absence of the nasal sills, cropping up in a minority of our material, but this tendency does not seem to exceed what one might expect if the negroid element already noted in the Mesolithic African Mediterranean group were reinforced somewhat by occasional contact with Negro or strongly negroid southern groups coming from somewhere in or beyond the Sahara; and it is entirely possible that this is just what happened.

L. Cabot Briggs, Stone Age Races of Northwest Africa page 76
 

---

Posted by Evil Euro (Member # 6383) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Babbling Ape continuing to ignore the data:
All of which are as clear as the African ancestry in Southern Europeans, which you know as well as Brace to be true

---

Yaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwn . . .




* No evidence that Natufians were Negroid, or associated with E3b in Neolithic Greece:

"The Natufian sample from Israel is also problematic because it is so small, being constituted of three males and one female from the Late Pleistocene Epipalaeolithic (33) of Israel, and there was no usable Neolithic sample for the Near East.

[...]

"This suggests that there may have been a sub-Saharan African element in the make-up of the Natufians -- the putative ancestors of the subsequent Neolithic -- although in this particular test there is no such evident presence in the North African or Egyptian samples."

[...]

"In that run, the Natufian of Israel ties to the French Mesolithic and then to the Afalou/Taforalt sample from North Africa. These then link with the European Upper Palaeolithic sample and, somewhat surprisingly, with the Chandman -- the Mongolian Bronze Age sample -- and finally, at the next step, with the Danish Neolithic."




* No evidence of Sub-Saharan affinities in any Greek population, prehistoric or modern:

"As shown in Fig. 1, the Somalis and the Egyptian Bronze Age sample from Naqada may also have a hint of a sub-Saharan African component. That was not borne out in the canonical variate plot (Fig. 2), and there was no evidence of such an involvement in the Algerian Neolithic sample."

That means that the placement of Somalis, Naqada and Algerians in the plot (green) shows them to LACK Sub-Saharan affinities. Now note that none of the four Greek samples (red) is any farther to the right than those three groups, meaning that Greeks also lack Sub-Saharan affinities:







* Prehistoric and modern Europeans/Mediterraneans cluster together, away from Sub-Saharan Africans:

"The three Niger-Congo speaking groups -- the Congo from Gabon, the Dahomey from Benin, and the Haya from Tanzania -- cluster together away from most of the other samples. [...] When the samples used in Fig. 1 are compared by the use of canonical variate plots as in Fig. 2, the separateness of the Niger-Congo speakers is again quite clear."




 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Defeated Euro writes: Yawn

---

quote:

---

Charlie Bass writes: Evil Euro, why don't you write Brace yourself?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by [b]Babbling Ape

---

quote:

---

Distorting Euro writes: No evidence that Natufians were Negroid,

---

That is a Non-sequitor, as Brace, like most modern bioanthropologists...has rightly rejected oudated race-typology terms that were used by an older generation of anthropologists, such as Larry Angel.

From Brace: terms like caucasoid, mongoloid and negroid are worse than useless.

The one who falsely attributes race typology terms to Brace, is you....

Of course, lying is all you can do, having no answers....

CL Brace 2005:
there was clearly a sub-Saharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element



Larry Angel on the Natufians: Negroid traits appearing in Natufian, Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers, probably from Nubia


Larry Angel on Bronze Age Greeks: They show the same striking DIVERSITY of morphology (and implied origins) as the general population...... then in the process of absorbing Indo-European and other new settlers, including SOME FROM AFRICA.

Thus studies by Angel and Brace...like McCown, and Keita, and Garrod and Bar Yosef, and Ehret and others have ALL independantly reached similar conclusions, to which you have no answers.

Keep running.....
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Matrix Reloaded: Sub-Saharan influenced skeltal material has indeed been found in Tunisia .

---

quote:

---

Both at Kef-el-Agab and around Oran we find certain negroid traits, notably mid-facial and alveolar proganthism and dullness or absence of the nasal sills, cropping up in a minority of our material, but this tendency does not seem to exceed what one might expect if the negroid element already noted in the Mesolithic African Mediterranean group were reinforced somewhat by occasional contact with Negro or strongly negroid southern groups coming from somewhere in or beyond the Sahara; and it is entirely possible that this is just what happened.

L. Cabot Briggs, Stone Age Races of Northwest Africa page 76 [/QB]

---

Good find.
 

---

Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 
Evil Euro is a loser who just is a racist. He does need to be banned.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
Evil Euro is a loser who just is a racist. He does need to be banned.

---

What he really needs is to be put in a mental ward and get therapy!
 

---

Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
 
Actually there's no point in talking about EvilE. He knows quite well he has lost. You cannot look at this diagramm and claim that the Natufians were Caucasians unless you are in flat out denial. He might claim that there are unanswered questions in the data, however, those gaps are filled with plenty of other research. When we put it all together we get a clear picture.

The issue of the Natufians has been answered resoundingly well.

What part the Natufians played in Western Civilization is now the question letf unanswered.


 

---