posted
You know someone brought up a good point on another forum I here alot about this study's finding that Egyptians had a "super negroid body plan", Yet seems to be no trace of the study and Afrocentrics instead rely on this study
The nature of the body plan was also investigated by comparing the intermembral, brachial, and crural indices for these samples with values obtained from the literature. No significant differences were found in either index through time for either sex. The raw values in Table 6 suggest that Egyptians had the “super-Negroid” body plan described by Robins (1983). The values for the brachial and crural indices show that the distal segments of each limb are longer relative to the proximal segments than in many “African” populations (data from Aiello and Dean, 1990). This pattern is supported by Figure 7 a plot of population mean femoral and tibial lengths; (data from Ruff, 1994), which indicates that the Egyptians generally have tropical body plans. Of the Egyptian samples, only the Badarian and Early Dynastic period populations have shorter tibiae than predicted from femoral length. Despite these differences, all samples lie relatively clustered together as compared to the other populations. - Sonia Zakrzewski (2003)
^So much for this "hotair", since again, the air you speak of is from the wrong study! LOL...
If this thread is merely a contentious bait, I propose that a mod go ahead and lock it already, since this "White Nord" character is obviously just a meddling troll, like the other Euro quacks before him.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
The study that 'White Nord' presented is a much more recent study by Sonia Zakrzewski which only verified what Robins found. The label once called "super-negroid" is today more accurately called an extra-tropically adapted body plan i.e. very long limb to trunk ratio as according to the biological principle of Allen's rule. Thus the Egyptians are a population adapted to tropical climates of intense heat, which is not all surprising since they are a population indigenous to Africa.
Then again we are talking about the same guy who claims African haplogroup L3E as being a 'white' lineage! LMAOPosts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ White nord is an Afrocentric doubleagent, brought here to make self proclaimed "white-nords" look stupid. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ So then I take it Marc Washington is a white supremacist double-agent brought here to make Afrocentrics look stupid. Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
White Nord, where are you? Don't you have any replies to the answers provided to you from the intelligent minds of these white experts? Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ So then I take it Marc Washington is a white supremacist double-agent brought here to make Afrocentrics look stupid.
Almost....actually both are the same person. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
White Nord
A banned big lipped primate
Member # 14093
posted
No one's hinding I've just been busy number two I find it fishy that no one can post any information from that actual study and instead only rely a simple statement made in it. We all know that you Afrocentrics tend to take those statements out of context.
Posts: 219 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by White Nord: No one's hinding I've just been busy number two I find it fishy that no one can post any information from that actual study and instead only rely a simple statement made in it. We all know that you Afrocentrics tend to take those statements out of context.
Apparently White Nord is not only slow, but blind as well..
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Of course, not physically blind but mentally.
I have provided a link to the original Robins study, and either way the more recent Zakrzewski study is quite clear. There is nothing to take out of context:
The raw values in Table 6 suggest that Egyptians had the “super-Negroid” body plan described by Robins (1983). The values for the brachial and crural indices show that the distal segments of each limb are longer relative to the proximal segments than in many “African” populations (data from Aiello and Dean, 1990). This pattern is supported by Figure 7 a plot of population mean femoral and tibial lengths; (data from Ruff, 1994), which indicates that the Egyptians generally have tropical body plans.
White peoples, especially 'Nords' do not have tropically adapted bodies because they are not indigenous to tropical areas (like Africa). Only an idiot can take such a blatantly clear statement "out of context". And well the one who created this thread only asked for it. Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Correct, the tropically adapted osteology of Ancient Egyptians directly relates basic facts:
* these people were indigenous to Africa, and not migrants from the north.
* they were related to other tropically adapted Africans, who have similarly body structures which are generally unlike *native* Levantine and European.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
**** Note **** White Nord's link still doesn't help him. It also proves the AE were indigenous Black Africans.
page 502 The earliest sample, the Badarian, frequently appears to be relatively distinct.
page 503 A series of six time-period groups were studied, dating from the Badarian (c. 4000 BC) to the MK (c. 1900 BC). The periods studied were the Badarian, the Early Predynastic (EPD), the LPD, the EDyn, the OK, and MK.
page 505 The Badarian generally exhibit the greatest facial prognathism of the samples studied (demonstrated by their relatively high position on PC2).
page 506 the Badarian sample has been described as forming a morphological cluster with Nubian, Tigrean, and other southern (or \Negroid") groups (Morant, 1935, 1937; Mukherjee et al., 1955; Nutter, 1958, Strouhal, 1971; Angel, 1972; Keita, 1990). Cranial nonmetric trait studies have found this group to be similar to other Egyptians, including much later material, (Berry and Berry, 1967, 1972),
page 507 Instead, the results suggest that the Egyptian state was not the product of mass movement of populations into the Egyptian Nile region, but rather that it was the result of primarily indigenous development combined with prolonged small-scale migration, potentially from trade, military, or other contacts.
**** In Conclusion **** Page 502 states the earlist sample/oldest samples were the Badarian. They predate the Dynastic peroid. Page 506 also states the Badarian were Negroid/Native Black Africans. So, we have a preDynastic people as Native Black Africans. Also page 506 states the Badarian cluster with Nubian and Egyptians.
Page 507 states the Egyptian state was indigenous. No migration from the Near East/Mideast/Europe or outer space. No white people (Mediterrain/Caucasian/Tanned people) preDynastic times or in Egyptian Dynastic times. No white people founding the Egyptian Dynastic times. Founded and maintained by Indigenous Black Africans.
You guys have to understand White Nord's pain and others like him. There are many lies based on a White AE society. Atleast White Nord uses some valid links and data to try and prove his case. That is noble.
We have to give White Nord and others like him about 3 years to come around. Remember horemheb used to believe in a White/Mediterrain/Caucasian AE then reddish/brown tanned AE. Now horembeb/Celt concedes to Indigenous Black Africans as AE after all the truth and data we kept feeding him for 3 years.
Posts: 342 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ The problem is that the material that 'Nord' addresses is not about cranio-morphology but about skeletal body structure and proportions. Unlike facial morphology which has the greatest phenotypic variation (hence "caucasoid" and "negroid" don't exist because such features are exhibited by a wide array of populations around the globe), the body plan is much more clear-- the Egyptians have a type akin to contemporary Africans living in the Sahara to Savannah areas denoted by very long i.e. "super-negroid" limb proportions.
Which is exactly why there is virtually NOTHING for 'White Nord' to distort or "take out of context". The only thing he can do is flat out lie. But of course that gets you nowhere and the very premise of white supremacy or that whites created Egyptian civilization are also flat out lies. Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
White Nord
A banned big lipped primate
Member # 14093
The study that 'White Nord' presented is a much more recent study by Sonia Zakrzewski which only verified what Robins found. The label once called "super-negroid" is today more accurately called an extra-tropically adapted body plan i.e. very long limb to trunk ratio as according to the biological principle of Allen's rule. Thus the Egyptians are a population adapted to tropical climates of intense heat, which is not all surprising since they are a population indigenous to Africa.
Then again we are talking about the same guy who claims African haplogroup L3E as being a 'white' lineage! LMAO
Sure, she said Egyptians were African. But which? Did the study find OK, MK or NK remains of black Africans? No one knows because the only thing that the study you cited (which was NOT about racial makeup but AGRICULTURAL effects on the population) was that this previous scientist found that "Egyptians were negroid". I don't argue that Egyptians weren't negroid. The Nubians ruled Egypt for a long time.
Posts: 219 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
How sad, that at this late date, there are still people arguing about whether or not Egyptians were Black. I know that this argument has more to do with modern concerns than with Egyptians, but it's still an opportunity to share these great pictures.
quote:Originally posted by White Nord: Sure, she said Egyptians were African. But which? Did the study find OK, MK or NK remains of black Africans?...
Zakrzewski's study covers the same periods of time that Robins does-- predynastic to late dynastic periods. And the results are the same.
quote:...No one knows because the only thing that the study you cited (which was NOT about racial makeup but AGRICULTURAL effects on the population) was that this previous scientist found that "Egyptians were negroid"...
Incorrect. Anyone and everyone (intelligent) that has read the study, let alone the ones who made the study in the first place, know that this covers *all* of ancient Egypt. The study was not about agriculture so much as actual skeletal body proportions which shows the Egyptians were indigenous Africans. "Negroid" is an invalid racial term that valid anthropologists no longer use.
quote:I don't argue that Egyptians weren't negroid. The Nubians ruled Egypt for a long time.
Again "negroid" is a debunked term, but exactly what is your argument?? That there was a white presence in ancient Egypt? If so, where is the evidence, because these studies certainly don't help you.
As far as 'Nubians', that is term coined by the Romans to describe peoples to the south of Egypt that haven't been conquered by them. The Egyptians never used the term themselves but specified the various groups that live there. So it is silly to say that Nubian means black since the Egyptians were certainly black but they weren't 'Nubian'.
Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think they had R1a genetically tuned bug zappers strung up around their territorial perimetres so ... of course there was a white presence in ancient Egypt.
It was primarily of branded H3w Nbw prisoners of war allotted to the farms of the priesthood. This relatively numerical white presence (compared to earlier times with its handful of marianu military servicemen) dates no earlier than the New Kingdom's 19th dynasty (nor do the marianu charioteers precede the New Kingdom).
quote:... it was as a prisoner of war, transformed into a slave, chained and branded, that the white man first entered Egyptian civilization.
quote:Sure, she said Egyptians were African. But which?
Which what? They were the Africans who were Native to the Nile Valley.
quote:Did the study find OK, MK or NK remains of black Africans?
As ever, you argue by maintaining and unintelligible dialogue.
Zakrezewski found that AE were tropically adapted in skeletal form. This is of note, because black - which means - dark skinned - is a tropical adaption pertaining to skin tone.
She did not find them to be OK, MK or NK, because OK MK and NK are not references to distinct skeletypes, but references to time periods, and the skeletype of Nile Valley Africans were found to be tropical under all of these time periods, hence: the Egyptians generally had tropical body plans.
quote:No one knows
Everyone knows that you are evading that which makes sense - AE were native tropically adapted Africans, by attempting to evade this reality and replace it with a nonsensical discussion over meaningless acronyms that have no scientific value.
quote: because the only thing that the study you cited (which was NOT about racial makeup]
Correct, because most intelligent scientists reject race as being a dialogue of complete idiots, who can never make sense when discussing anything. The only one making bizarre, unsubstantiated claims about racial makeup - - is you.
quote:I don't argue that Egyptians weren't negroid. The Nubians ruled Egypt for a long time.
In the context of your hilariously dumb posts.... neither negroid, nor nubian have any meaning either.
You are left attempting to debate scientific substance, with nothing but racist nonsense.
You're funny, because you symbolize what Eurocentrism is reduced to. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
^ So utterly defeated was white-nord, Arthur Kemp, by the famous Narmer bust discovered by Petrie in 1st dynasty Abydos tombs, that he simply decided to lie and claim that it was a fraud that came from the 25th 'nubian' Dynasty.
One of the 'moments of great desparation' in the history of Eurocentrism. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: I don't think they had R1a genetically tuned bug zappers strung up around their territorial perimetres so ... of course there was a white presence in ancient Egypt.
ROTFLMAO!
quote:It was primarily of branded H3w Nbw prisoners of war allotted to the farms of the priesthood. This relatively numerical white presence (compared to earlier times with its handful of marianu military servicemen) dates no earlier than the New Kingdom's 19th dynasty (nor do the marianu charioteers precede the New Kingdom).
quote:... it was as a prisoner of war, transformed into a slave, chained and branded, that the white man first entered Egyptian civilization.
quote: Originally posted by rasol: You're funny, because you symbolize what Eurocentrism is reduced to.
Lol ain't that the truth!
Either they merely squirm, or they give in, and get on with the 'semites' (J lineages) of Egypt and ride that as far as it goes. Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ But in the case of 'White Nord' J-carriers were simply not white enough! LOL
So I assume Nord's questions have been answered. The studies are about skeletal type which show tropical adaption and therefore cannot possibly white.
Next stop, Marc's claims that whites are not indigenous to Europe! ROTFLPosts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And after reading that thread, I can't imagine why those claims persist ...
in a similar way that I can't imagine how any logical person could persist in their raciallist views after going through the "Egypt, race, significance, Africa" thread.Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
This thread is about skeletal morphology of the Egyptians which is undeniably tropical African.
In Sshaun's case what are we suppose to take this as?-- that Egyptians had low IQs?? LOLPosts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
This thread is about skeletal morphology of the Egyptians which is undeniably tropical African.
In Sshaun's case what are we suppose to take this as?-- that Egyptians had low IQs?? LOL
It would be funny if he came in here and said that just because they were black, despite what they contributed to the world.
Posts: 603 | From: Mobile, Alabama | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic