|
|
Post by caucasoid on Dec 3, 2003 9:26:13 GMT -5
Here is a quote from Coon. "The third division, that of the peoples with small heads, includes the aboriginal population of southern Arabia east of the Yemen, and various groups in Baluchistan, and again in southern India. This third variety is characterized by an abundance of wavy or ringleted hair, and facial features of a Veddoid character which in some instances suggest Australoid affinities." I find this interesting because of the presence of Negritids in Yemen as well as of Veddids. www.andaman.org/book/chapter48/48-yemenegrito.jpgwww.andaman.org/book/chapter48/48-yemenaussie.jpgThe Veddids are related to Negritids but have clear differences such as the wavy hair. What I am suggesting is that the wavy hair is Caucasoid variation and that dmixture of Caucasoids into a Negritid group produces Veddids. |
|
|
|
Post by caucasoid on Dec 3, 2003 9:47:15 GMT -5
Also, Huxley did note a similarity between Egyptians and Vedids. Although modern Egyptians are not particularly prognathous like the Veddids, the Badarians were. The wavy hair of modern and ancient Egyptians could suggest a Veddid component in that country. Has anyone since suggested such a component?
|
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Dec 3, 2003 9:58:16 GMT -5
It's logical to assume that ancient 'Veddoid-like' types in the Near East are essentially proto-Caucasoid. They've apparently mostly evolved out of existence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pugnox on Dec 3, 2003 10:25:42 GMT -5
Also interesting in this regard is that Sanskrit shares many of the same words with Swahili! The word for "lion" for example!
|
|
|
|
Post by caucasoid on Dec 3, 2003 11:16:05 GMT -5
Also interesting in this regard is that Sanskrit shares many of the same words with Swahili! The word for "lion" for example! Well, the Swahili were on the East Coast of Africa. Indian and Iranian sailers called in their ports. |
|
|
|
Post by caucasoid on Dec 3, 2003 11:40:25 GMT -5
It's logical to assume that ancient 'Veddoid-like' types in the Near East are essentially proto-Caucasoid. They've apparently mostly evolved out of existence. This is one idea, and they do group cranially with South Asians among the Caucasoids, as do Andamanese/Nicobarese Negritos. But genetically these types are Eastern, not Caucasian. |
|
|
|
Post by caucasoid on Dec 5, 2003 18:37:38 GMT -5
According to "Prehistoire et Protohistoire d'Egypt" the "Badarian skulls differ very little from other less ancient predynastic skulls; they are just a bit more prognathous. Next to these, they most resemble primitive Indian skulls: Dravidians and Veddas. They also present a few affinities with Negroes, due no doubt to a very ancient admixture of Negro blood."
|
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Mar 25, 2005 3:22:07 GMT -5
Also, Huxley did note a similarity between Egyptians and Vedids. Although modern Egyptians are not particularly prognathous like the Veddids, the Badarians were. The wavy hair of modern and ancient Egyptians could suggest a Veddid component in that country. Has anyone since suggested such a component? I now think this is very possible. I can't believe I didn't consider it before now. |
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Mar 25, 2005 10:01:53 GMT -5
It's logical to assume that ancient 'Veddoid-like' types in the Near East are essentially proto-Caucasoid. They've apparently mostly evolved out of existence. Yes, thats a view most anthropologists share (like Eickstedt, Schwidetzky etc.) and genetics seem to support too. They are the unspecialized and more primitive part of the Southern Eurasian populations which comes directly from the oldest sapiens strata of the regions. More Northern living populations of the same old sapiens stock evolved on to Europids (temperate-) and Mongolids (cold climate). you can see that the whole South of Eurasia was predominantely Weddoid-Australoid and some types later evolved on to Europids-Mongolids or those more progressive types later pressed the older groups back, splitted them, forced them into the jungle etc. You can see that both in India and South East Asia. In India Europid Indids (first major waves were Dravidians, then Aryans lead them, then Arabs-Muslims) forced the Weddids back, in South East Asia Sinids-core Mongolids pushed the Eastern Weddids back and mixed in many regions which produced the Palaemongolid type. Generalized map of the racial distribution of Asia before the European expansion: forum.stirpes.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=1770&stc=1 |
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Mar 25, 2005 15:54:35 GMT -5
What's interesting is that Veddoids still exist in the Middle East and we know that the Indus River Valley civilization had an important Veddoid element.  But I'm still intrigued by the possibility of Veddoid Badarians. If such a theory had any merit it would shut up all those people who try to say the Badarians were "negroid." |
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Mar 25, 2005 16:20:17 GMT -5
What's interesting is that Veddoids still exist in the Middle East and we know that the Indus River Valley civilization had an important Veddoid element. Its true, some of the remains from the Indus civilization suggest at least a small component of still rather Weddid individuals though the majoriy was of Europid, to be exact mostly Protoindid-Indid. |
|
|
|
Post by KLI on Mar 26, 2005 23:34:32 GMT -5
Who here thinks the ancient Sumerians were actually veddoids who slowly got displaced and assimilated by invading semitics?
|
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Mar 26, 2005 23:36:46 GMT -5
Who here thinks the ancient Sumerians were actually veddoids who slowly got displaced and assimilated by invading semitics? The Sumerians were a mishmash of Mediterranean, Eurafrican, Armenoid, and Veddoid. I don't think the Semitic-speaking peoples Caucasianized them. They were already Caucasian. This is evident in their artwork. |
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Mar 26, 2005 23:45:59 GMT -5
Who here thinks the ancient Sumerians were actually veddoids who slowly got displaced and assimilated by invading semitics? The Sumerians themselves were as or even more Caucasoid than the Semits and came from the regions North of Mesopotamia. |
|
|
|
Post by KLI on Mar 26, 2005 23:50:20 GMT -5
The Sumerians themselves were as or even more Caucasoid than the Semits and came from the regions North of Mesopotamia. The reason I ask is because I've recently read literature linking Veddoid+Sumerian+Indus Valley civilizations and lumping them all into the Elamo-Dravidian branch |
|
