|
Post by topdog on May 22, 2005 0:11:45 GMT -5
These afro-loons and their inflated fantasies should be banned already.. Cry and weep idiot, What I posted came from unbiased sources. If you disagree thats your problem. Don't make ad-hominem attacks on me for the sake of lacking a better argument.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on May 22, 2005 0:21:31 GMT -5
All this over only one study citation done by an African Afrocentrists scholar. Didn't he change his name to Shomarka Keita? He was probably born Mike Johnson or something like that. Shut up and quit your lies, he was born Shomaraka Keita and didn't change his name you idiot, is ad-hominem attacking the best solution you have in place of having a reasonable argument? Howells Gieh Egyptians are *NOT* Typical of Egyptians, this has been pointed out too many damn times to you, get your head out of the sand of denial. Who cares if it disagrees with with Brace, Brace's own work disagree with genetics. Have you read any of his works? I gather you haven't. he did study dynastic Upper Egyptians which I pointed out to you in an earlier post. There was not any radical overnight change from sub-Saharan to coastal African during dynastic times, just a blending of the two and predynastic Upper Egyptians were never pushed south idiot, post some proof for that. Because they did idiot and he isn't the one one to say such a thing, just because you disagree doesn't make his statements ridiculous. Your statements are the ones that are ridiculous. Ad-hominem wishful thinking!
|
|
|
Post by topdog on May 22, 2005 0:25:30 GMT -5
Am J Phys Anthropol. 1996 Oct;101(2):237-46. Related Articles, Links
Concordance of cranial and dental morphological traits and evidence for endogamy in ancient Egypt.
Prowse TL, Lovell NC.
Department of Anthropology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
A biological affinities study based on frequencies of cranial nonmetric traits in skeletal samples from three cemeteries at predynastic Naqada, Egypt, confirms the results of a recent nonmetric dental morphological analysis. Both cranial and dental traits analyses indicate that the individuals buried in a cemetery characterized archaeologically as high status are significantly different from individuals buried in two other, apparently nonelite cemeteries and that the nonelite samples are not significantly different from each other. A comparison with neighbouring Nile Valley skeletal samples suggests that the high status cemetery represents an endogamous ruling or elite segment of the local population at Naqada, which is more closely related to populations in northern Nubia than to neighbouring populations in southern Egypt.
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on May 22, 2005 0:26:02 GMT -5
Shut up and quit your lies, he was born Shomaraka Keita and didn't change his name you idiot, is ad-hominem attacking the best solution you have in place of having a reasonable argument? Howells Gieh Egyptians are *NOT* Typical of Egyptians, this has been pointed out too many damn times to you, get your head out of the sand of denial. Who cares if it disagrees with with Brace, Brace's own work disagree with genetics. Have you read any of his works? I gather you haven't. he did study dynastic Upper Egyptians which I pointed out to you in an earlier post. There was not any radical overnight change from sub-Saharan to coastal African during dynastic times, just a blending of the two and predynastic Upper Egyptians were never pushed south idiot, post some proof for that. Because they did idiot and he isn't the one one to say such a thing, just because you disagree doesn't make his statements ridiculous. Your statements are the ones that are ridiculous. Ad-hominem wishful thinking! If all you can do is call me an idiot and call every attack on you "ad-hominem" than so be it. No one takes you seriously. haha...now Howell's data isn't "true Egyptian" how so? They wre found in the Gizeh plateau from the 26th to 30th dynasties. What's the exception this time? I find it funny that your only response to every study is that the sample studied wasn't true Egyptian. That seems ad-hominem to me. Just Shut Up Nobody takes you serioulsy buddy. Do something with your society to make you proud of something other than a civilizations that you have no relation to.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on May 22, 2005 0:31:53 GMT -5
ListenErudite (or whatever your names u go by),I'am not not making an attack,I'am making a point of fact... You have proven nothing,but over stated the same moronic fantasy opinion/biased view over and over again.This very topic's title is a wild boast against Alexandrian,filled with nothing more than feeble arrogant banter,very typical of Afrocentrism... Here, have a little more taste of defeat: www.geocities.com/enbp/All Pictures,DNA prove that the Ancient and modern Egyptians where/are not Black Africans...very far from it,they are Caucasoid..So get over it, get a life and culture of your own!
|
|
|
Post by topdog on May 22, 2005 0:33:56 GMT -5
If all you can do is call me an idiot and call every attack on you "ad-hominem" than so be it. No one takes you seriously. haha...now Howell's data isn't "true Egyptian" how so? They wre found in the Gizeh plateau from the 26th to 30th dynasties. What's the exception this time? I find it funny that your only response to every study is that the sample studied wasn't true Egyptian. That seems ad-hominem to me. Read this and weep idiot: Intra-population and temporal variation in ancient Egyptian crania. S.R. Zakrzewski. Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton, UK. The level of morphological variation within a population is the result of factors such as population expansion and movement. Traditionally Egyptologists have considered ancient Egypt to have a homogeneous population, with state formation occurring as a result of local processes without influence from migration. This paper tests this hypothesis by investigating the extent of biological relationships within a series of temporally successive Egyptian skeletal samples. Previous studies have compared biological relationships between Egyptians and other populations, mostly using the Howells global cranial data set. In the current study, by contrast, the biological relationships within a series of temporally-successive cranial samples are assessed. The data consist of 55 cranio-facial variables from 418 adult Egyptian individuals, from six periods, ranging in date from c. 5000 to 1200 BC. These were compared with the 111 Late Period crania (c. 600-350 BC) from the Howells sample. Principal Component and Canonical Discriminant Function Analyses were undertaken, on both pooled and single sex samples. The results suggest a level of local population continuity exists within the earlier Egyptian populations, but that this was in association with some change in population structure, reflecting small-scale immigration and admixture with new groups. Most dramatically, the results also indicate that the Egyptian series from Howells global data set are morphologically distinct from the Predynastic and Early Dynastic Nile Valley samples (especially in cranial vault shape and height), and thus show that this sample cannot be considered to be a typical Egyptian series.This research was funded by the Wellcome Trust (Bioarchaeology Panel), Durham University (Addison-Wheeler Fellowship) and by University of Southampton. I guess if people were to come to American 2000 years from now and see crania from people who are living now and compare it to the earliest crania in America they too would be dumb for saying they are not typical, correct? Red herring strawman argument you idiot, I never claimed Egypt.
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on May 22, 2005 0:34:56 GMT -5
Am J Phys Anthropol. 1996 Oct;101(2):237-46. Related Articles, Links Concordance of cranial and dental morphological traits and evidence for endogamy in ancient Egypt. Prowse TL, Lovell NC. Department of Anthropology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada. A biological affinities study based on frequencies of cranial nonmetric traits in skeletal samples from three cemeteries at predynastic Naqada, Egypt, confirms the results of a recent nonmetric dental morphological analysis. Both cranial and dental traits analyses indicate that the individuals buried in a cemetery characterized archaeologically as high status are significantly different from individuals buried in two other, apparently nonelite cemeteries and that the nonelite samples are not significantly different from each other. A comparison with neighbouring Nile Valley skeletal samples suggests that the high status cemetery represents an endogamous ruling or elite segment of the local population at Naqada, which is more closely related to populations in northern Nubia than to neighbouring populations in southern Egypt. This is isolated to one small town. The people studied are said to be different than Upper Egyptians. If they're more closely related to Nubians than southern Egyptians, they can't be real Egyptians.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on May 22, 2005 0:36:57 GMT -5
ListenErudite (or whatever your names u go by),I'am not not making an attack,I'am making a point of fact... You are maing an attack, plain ans simple.
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on May 22, 2005 0:37:56 GMT -5
Read this and weep idiot: Intra-population and temporal variation in ancient Egyptian crania. S.R. Zakrzewski. Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton, UK. The level of morphological variation within a population is the result of factors such as population expansion and movement. Traditionally Egyptologists have considered ancient Egypt to have a homogeneous population, with state formation occurring as a result of local processes without influence from migration. This paper tests this hypothesis by investigating the extent of biological relationships within a series of temporally successive Egyptian skeletal samples. Previous studies have compared biological relationships between Egyptians and other populations, mostly using the Howells global cranial data set. In the current study, by contrast, the biological relationships within a series of temporally-successive cranial samples are assessed. The data consist of 55 cranio-facial variables from 418 adult Egyptian individuals, from six periods, ranging in date from c. 5000 to 1200 BC. These were compared with the 111 Late Period crania (c. 600-350 BC) from the Howells sample. Principal Component and Canonical Discriminant Function Analyses were undertaken, on both pooled and single sex samples. The results suggest a level of local population continuity exists within the earlier Egyptian populations, but that this was in association with some change in population structure, reflecting small-scale immigration and admixture with new groups. Most dramatically, the results also indicate that the Egyptian series from Howells global data set are morphologically distinct from the Predynastic and Early Dynastic Nile Valley samples (especially in cranial vault shape and height), and thus show that this sample cannot be considered to be a typical Egyptian series.This research was funded by the Wellcome Trust (Bioarchaeology Panel), Durham University (Addison-Wheeler Fellowship) and by University of Southampton. I guess if people were to come to American 2000 years from now and see crania from people who are living now and compare it to the earliest crania in America they too would be dumb for saying they are not typical, correct? Red herring strawman argument you idiot, I never claimed Egypt. This only proves what I've been saying all along. Predynastic Upper Egyptians are distinct from actual dynastic Egyptians. These people never claim Howell's data doesn't consist of actual Egyptians, but merely that they are not the same as predynastic ones. This makes sense, considering he derived them from the 26TH TO 30TH DYNASTIES. Much Much later than the predynastic Egyptians your survey is talking about. All you do is call people an idiot, a moron, and dismiss every attack on you as "ad-hominem". Every one of your posts basically revolves around either Egypt or East Africa.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on May 22, 2005 0:41:26 GMT -5
This is isolated to one small town. The people studied are said to be different than Upper Egyptians. If they're more closely related to Nubians than southern Egyptians, they can't be real Egyptians. Wrong you idiot, the earliest Upper Egyptians, the Badarians were more Negroid than the Dynastic Upper Egyptians and Naqadans due to *LATER* migration from the north affecting the latter two and fit in well among Early Dynastic samples. This was already pointed out to you, so yes, Badarians are typical Egyptians, but of an earlier period. One thing you forget or should I say you didn't know was that Brace studied Naqadans[the map you keep posting] while Keita studied Badarians and Naqadans,Brace never studied Badarians.
|
|
|
Post by kir on May 22, 2005 0:42:25 GMT -5
Alex, what do you think are these egyptians?
|
|
|
Post by topdog on May 22, 2005 0:46:37 GMT -5
This only proves what I've been saying all along. Predynastic Upper Egyptians are distinct from actual dynastic Egyptians. Wrong, the study doesn't list whether the predynastic ones are Upper or Lower Egyptians, but one thing is sure: Howells crania show no continuity with any of them, so they are *NOT** Egyptian when compared to predynastic and *EARLY DYNASTIC* crania. Did you forget this sentence: "The results suggest a level of local population continuity exists within the earlier Egyptian populations, but that this was in association with some change in population structure, reflecting small-scale immigration and admixture with new groups." That statement supports Keita, not you.
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on May 22, 2005 0:46:41 GMT -5
Wrong you idiot, the earliest Upper Egyptians, the Badarians were more Negroid than the Dynastic Upper Egyptians and Naqadans due to migration from the north and fit in well among Early Dynastic samples. This was already pointed out to you, so yes, Badarians are typical Egyptians, but of an earlier period. One thing you forget or should I say you didn't know was that Brace studied Naqadans[the map you keep posting] while Keita studied Badarians and Naqadans,Brace never studied Badarians. And how do you know for sure that the Badarians stayed in Upper Egypt during the civilization of Ancient Egypt? It's not normal for one town to be so isolated from its surrounding areas and to have more in common with a land hundreeds of kilometeres to the South.
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on May 22, 2005 0:47:32 GMT -5
Alex, what do you think are these egyptians? I think nothing of them. They're Egyptian, and I see them as being mostly Caucasian. Enough said.
|
|
|
Post by kir on May 22, 2005 0:51:44 GMT -5
I think nothing of them. They're Egyptian, and I see them as being mostly Caucasian. Enough said. I agree that they are Caucasian, but before you said that Gurna Egyptians were outliers.
|
|