|
|
Post by CooCooCachoo on Mar 24, 2005 22:05:45 GMT -5
Rate the "Caucasianess" of the following ancient civilizations.
Think up your own scale. Percentages, points, or whatever. Post evidense. Rate the following civilizations, in how caucasian you see them as. (Add ones, etc.)
Assyrians
Babylonians
Hitites
Hebrews
Mesopotamians
Egyptians
Minoans
Greeks
Macedonians
Persians
Phoenicians
Sumarians
|
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on Mar 24, 2005 22:39:51 GMT -5
All of them are Caucasian. The basic stock of all those people is Caucasian, some mixing could have occurred along the way but it doesn't change anything. You can't indentify the "Caucasian-ness" of a certain civ. They're all equally Caucasian in my book, and I guess I give them all 100s.
|
|
|
|
Post by CooCooCachoo on Mar 24, 2005 22:46:47 GMT -5
All of them are Caucasian. The basic stock of all those people is Caucasian, some mixing could have occurred along the way but it doesn't change anything. You can't indentify the "Caucasian-ness" of a certain civ. They're all equally Caucasian in my book, and I guess I give them all 100s. ...Pretty gay. You must feel guilty about the Holocaust or something. You're not exactly taking a risk by declaring everyone "winners". ...A better question for you might be, "who ISN'T Caucasian?" |
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Mar 24, 2005 23:03:18 GMT -5
Assyrians and Babylonians are the same people. They are Mediterranean Caucasoids. Of what variety of Med, I cannot say for sure. But they are definitely well within the Irano-Afghan/Armenoid/Atlanto-Mediterranean range. The Hittites were Alpines and Armenoids. Caucasoid. No doubt about that. Orientalid and Atlanto-Mediterranean influences predominant. Caucasoid. The Palestinians and Jews have since been Dinaricized by Alpine admixture, I think. Depends on who in Mesopotamia you are talking about. Mesopotamia is a region, not an ethnic entity. Gracile Atlanto-Mediterranean Caucasoids with slight Nubian and West Asian superimposition. Basically white, though there is variation. Gracile Mediterraneans. Caucasoid. Eastern Atlanto-Mediterranean, Alpine, and Dinaric types predominant. Caucasoid through and through. See Greeks. Perhaps some Thracian influence, as well, considering it was a periphery nation in ancient times. Irano-Afghan with some Nordindid, Orientalid, and Armenoid elements. Caucasoid. They were Atlanto-Mediterranean of the Eastern variety, I believe. Need to look into it. If you want representatives of the Phoenicians, look no further than Lebanon. Of course many Lebanese have been Dinaricized by Alpine mixture since the days of Tyre and Sidon. I'm not sure which variety of brunet the Sumerians were, be it Atlanto-Mediterranean or Irano-Afghan. There were Basic White Eurafricans in Sumer, as well as a minority Armenoid element. These are all Caucasoid types. Though I do think Australoids might have been represented in Sumer, as well, just as they were in Elam and Harappa. This is a very interesting topic. |
|
|
|
Post by whoseyourdaddy on Mar 24, 2005 23:13:14 GMT -5
Off-topic but don't the Polish and Austrians have Alpine blood in them? Im asking Mike cause he probably knows but I dont want to start a new thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Mar 24, 2005 23:44:00 GMT -5
Alpine is properly a physical type. I don't like using the word "blood" in reference to them because properly the presence of physical types does not always imply a genetic relationship, though I know what Whoseyourdaddy means to say.
As for Poland, the Baltic coast is commonly said to be of East Baltic physical type whereas the interior is mostly Neo-Danubian. The poster Nuke posted a thread disputing the Neo-Danubian write-off for the Polish, though, if you care to look for it. An East Baltic is a Borreby-Ladogan blend and the Neo-Danubian is a Nordic-Ladogan blend. As far as I know Alpines are not important in Poland. It is rather the Ladogan and Borreby elements that make for the brachycephalic component.
As for Austria, there are plenty of Alpines, along with Dinarics, Norics, Nordics, and a couple of other minority types.
|
|
|
|
Post by santana on Mar 25, 2005 0:06:49 GMT -5
what does gracile mean.... and yes of course egyptians are caucasoid..other admixture doesnt count.. not even asian..
|
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Mar 25, 2005 0:26:46 GMT -5
It's basically a fining down of a parallel robust form. Having finer, smaller features. It is my opinion, as was Earnest Hooton's, that the Classic Mediterranean physical type is merely a gracilization, a "fining down" of more robust varieties; the straight-nosed Classic Mediterranean type of Iberians and various other peoples being a gracilized Atlanto-Mediterranean while the hooked-nose Classic Mediterranean type present in Orientalids and Nordindids is a gracilization of the Irano-Afghan. other admixture doesnt count.. not even asian.. By West Asian I mean Middle Eastern, not Mongoloid, if that's what you thought I was implying. |
|
|
|
Post by santana on Mar 25, 2005 0:30:36 GMT -5
no i mean that even without asian bllood (middle eastern) egyptians are still caucasoid and negroidic admixture makes no differendce.. alot of Gulf countries have alot more negroid admixture but are caucasoid none the lesss... gracile..ya for sure egyptians are gracile.. if u notice egyptians have small features, hand feet etc.. something that arabs dont have.. i was sitting with arabs the other day and they all have big feet etc. egyptians are small featured which is also contrary to sub saharan african features... the real semite however is said to be also small featured.. like bedouins.. the bedouins of egypt are like that anyways
|
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on Mar 25, 2005 0:34:34 GMT -5
no i mean that even without asian bllood (middle eastern) egyptians are still caucasoid and negroidic admixture makes no differendce.. alot of Gulf countries have alot more negroid admixture but are caucasoid none the lesss... gracile..ya for sure egyptians are gracile.. if u notice egyptians have small features, hand feet etc.. something that arabs dont have.. i was sitting with arabs the other day and they all have big feet etc. egyptians are small featured which is also contrary to sub saharan african features... the real semite however is said to be also small featured.. like bedouins.. the bedouins of egypt are like that anyways Really? I always thought Egyptians had more rugged features, not all "fine and nice". My family has mostly prominent noses and quite a lot of facial/body hair. But I suppose the hands/feet thing is true. |
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Mar 25, 2005 0:38:33 GMT -5
Maybe both the robust and gracile South Atlanto-Mediterraneans have always been present in Egypt and that Orientalid incursions by the Arabs or even further back to the Neolithic folk are not needed to explain either one's presence.
Are Egyptians primarily straight- or hook-nosed?
|
|
|
|
Post by santana on Mar 25, 2005 0:39:16 GMT -5
no trust me egyptians have small features.. some are rugged ya like most upper egyptians but still in comparison to other ppl measurement wise they are small.. like someone nose may be bumpy and stuff but in small proportion.. like true semites.. not that they were semites but both would be gracile .. my family have small features too... we all have prominent noses and hairy and we are upper egyptians by roots.. my father is darkish red but thin lips .. pointy nose...typical arab lookin..
|
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Mar 25, 2005 0:43:06 GMT -5
I think it would make more sense for the Egyptians to be related to the Berbers (fellow Hamites) to the west rather than the Semites to the east. I wonder if the small features is due to simple gracilization or if it is due to admixture with Orientalids from Arabia. It seems like only genetics could solve such a question.
|
|
|
|
Post by santana on Mar 25, 2005 0:46:48 GMT -5
well i dunno.. i am just making references to my family but egyptians mostly have straight noses from what i have seen.. they dont have convex noses all that much and not hooked.. they have straight noses mostly... but honestly egyptians are unique they still look different then berbers.. i can still tell a big difference between someone from algeria or morocco and an egyptian.. egyptian have these eyes that are wide..the shape is soo unique... i heard that upper egyptians like assuitis look mjore orientalid than other egyptians.. thats where my family is from...
|
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Mar 25, 2005 0:50:40 GMT -5
I think the Egyptians can be considered a local race. They've had so much time to develop in the Nile Valley that it isn't any wonder that they differ from their Capsian Berber brethren in the Maghreb slightly.
|
|
