|
Post by Dagaalyahan on Dec 16, 2005 19:11:32 GMT -5
^^c'mon guys.. look at Libaax.. he wouldnt be out of place amongst the Masaai!!
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Dec 16, 2005 19:13:30 GMT -5
He's not Nilotid and is too light. Of course that's not to say there are no Aethiopid Masai.
|
|
|
Post by ericksmith on Dec 16, 2005 19:17:19 GMT -5
What makes you think the outward features dont reflect the skull structure?
|
|
|
Post by Soomaal on Dec 16, 2005 19:17:21 GMT -5
You think they deserve their own morphology like the Khoisan, Libaax? Yes since no one can clearly say the origins of Somalis. The fact that most Somalis would be out of place in most places in Africa also shows they should have their own morphology just like Khoisan. The habashi's can keep the Aethiopid label since they are a mix of people.Then again a lot of people use to mix in the Horn of Africa. For example the ancient city of Zeila(Somalia). There were Afars, Oromo, Harari, Somali and Arabs. They all mixed and spoke a language called Zeilawi now extinct.
|
|
|
Post by Dagaalyahan on Dec 16, 2005 19:17:49 GMT -5
^^wtf? I was only joking lol.. he definately would be out of place imo.
|
|
|
Post by Soomaal on Dec 16, 2005 19:18:05 GMT -5
^^c'mon guys.. look at Libaax.. he wouldnt be out of place amongst the Masaai!! I wouldn't mind chilling with some Massai, they're a warrior race. lol
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Dec 16, 2005 19:20:56 GMT -5
What makes you think the outward features dont reflect the skull structure? I'm sure they do to some extent, but I didn't want this to turn into a broad-nose/narrow-nose type of debate. I wanted to look at it as if were archaeologists who just unearthed skulls from all over black Africa and that's all we had to work with.
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Dec 16, 2005 19:25:15 GMT -5
I'm going to play devil's advocate for a moment, Charlie. I mean, it would be easy to just say Somalis are elongated Negroids, but when compared to other traditionally elongated populations, they still stick out like sore thumbs skull-wise, do they not? I mean, even when you look at the flesh differences between Norwegians and Iranians, they still have very similar skulls. Too similar to be ignored. Can that be paralleled with Horners and other sub-Saharans? FULANI: MAASAI: There is a definite skeletal similarity between the Fulani and the Maasai. Look at the particulars of the occiput, the bulbous doming foreheads, etc. These groups are traditional bastions of the elongated morphology in West and East Africa respectively. They are very similar to broad Negroid peoples, but they just have elongated proportions. But when you stretch that variation to include people who look like this: Perhaps you're taking it too far. SKELETALLY speaking. It's obvious that Horners have very dark skin and many other FLESHY features in common with their black brothers living further into the interior. But I'm trying to ignore the flesh features because they are easily adapted. It's the skull that I think is important. And I don't see a big similarity between Somalis and elongated Maasai/Fulani, much less to broad Negroids. Of course it would be better if I could actually compare the actual skulls of all these peoples instead of having to look through regular pictures to do it, but you can still see the basic tenets of what I'm saying. This is the problem with the variation theory. Now if you can convince me that Somalis are similar enough skeletally to be considered in the same morphological league as the rest of black Africans, then I'd be very content. But for now, I'm conflicted about where they fall cranially. To clarify, I don't believe the Aethiopid type is a hybrid of modern races like Caucasoid and Negroid. If it is a hybrid at all, perhaps it is a mixture of a fine-featured morphology SIMILAR to prehistoric Caucasoids, but certainly not in the same league as modern West Eurasians. Or maybe they are like the Khoisan and don't belong to any morphological group but their own. I honestly don't know. Of course there is that theory that fine-featured Somali-looking L2/L3 carriers migrated into the interior of Africa and mixed with pygmies to create the true Negroid type, but I doubt you'd agree with that either. I see where you're going with this Mike but Horners occupy the extreme realm of Elongation due to isolation and drift. With Somalis they're homogeneous and almost never mix that much outside of their clans I think. "The position of Nile Valley and Horn individuals considered collectively is seen to be at the ‘‘extreme’’ of the two morphometric trends, but overlapping the greatest with the other Africans and Europeans." AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN BIOLOGY 16:679–689 (2004) We know the two groups above aren't derived from Europeans, but they overlap with Europeans in some traits, the question is, are they equally African? Of course. "The view that “elongated” characteristics are indigenous and equally tropical African (“Black) for specific archaeological series and peoples is supported by Gabel (19661, Hiernaux (1975), and Rightmire (1975a,b)." AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 87:245-254 (1992) I agree that Somalis don't look the same as Fulanis and Masai, but metrically speaking, the Fulanis and masai are closer to Somalis[at the group level] than to Congolese and Benin people. Their body proportions are also the same. I just don't like the idea of idealized types of what a real "African" should look like and terms like Negroid and Caucasoid are not useful in sorting this out.
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Dec 16, 2005 19:29:49 GMT -5
LOL, you guys are the pretty much the least mixed descendants of the pre-historic East Africans. I would say Horn of Africoid, lol!
|
|
|
Post by Soomaal on Dec 16, 2005 19:34:47 GMT -5
LOL, you guys are the pretty much the least mixed descendants of the pre-historic East Africans. I would say Horn of Africoid, lol! That works too, since we occupy the actual horn.
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Dec 16, 2005 19:37:25 GMT -5
Despite the variation, they all look very similar to me. I don't think you'd have different races if you stripped off their flesh. Maybe some of them would be outliers on a chart, but not the lot. If we study Horn of Africans we see that their origins are in sub-Saharan Africa and that they're metrically different from Caucasoids. They only question is how and why are they that way, not what they are. I agree they are metrically different to Caucasoids. But by the same token are they just as metrically different from Negroids? Now compare those Nigerians to these Ghanians users.boardnation.com/~theoasis/index.php?board=7;action=display;threadid=69They share some similarity but do not look the same to me. Thats why I insist labels like Caucasoid and Negroid be abandoned, because they encourage the image of idealized types. I look at sub-saharan Africa in the whole as a diverse group of people that occupy extremes at both ends with variation in between.
|
|
|
Post by magneto on Dec 16, 2005 20:01:51 GMT -5
LOL..I said something like this before but IMO you gotta go with genetics because Physical Antropology involves alot of pseudo sciences. Are they of the race and who is pred negroid,mongoloid or caucasoid genetically??What about if you found these skulls what would you think??Which one is technically more accurate?Mike the jedi or someone tell your opinion on each one 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Dec 16, 2005 20:10:47 GMT -5
Thanks for the explanation, Charlie. I completely agree that the Aethiopid type is completely indigenous to black Africa and the Horn (excepting the infamous Arab incursion, of course).
But as I said before, I've never been sure if they fell in the same league morphologically as West, Central, and Nilotic East Africans or if they were deserving of their own label (like the Khoisan). It's a huge continent so I guess I shouldn't be surprised at the diversity, even in the skull. Whatever they are, their type is indigenous, prehistoric, and has nothing to do with West Eurasians, of that I am sure.
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Dec 16, 2005 20:29:57 GMT -5
What about if you found these skulls what would you think? Which one is technically more accurate? Mike the jedi or someone tell your opinion on each one Okay. 1. Well, the costume is a dead giveaway, but he (or is that a she... lol) is of the elongated Sahelian type of West Africa. In ye olden days he/she/it would have been assumed to have Berber mixture, but that's nonsense of course. It's just climactic adaptation and besides the fine features wouldn't look too different from his/her/its traditional broad kin. People who look like this are not representative of most Fulani, I have heard. Rather most Fula are supposedly indistinguishable from other broad West Africans (correct me someone if I'm wrong). 2. Looks very West African to me. Typical broad West African type (or in Agrippa-speak: Sudanid). In every respect he represents the benchmark of the traditional definition of Negroid. 3. Could be West African, could be black American. Same as #2 in my opinion. Looks to have lighter skin. 4. I'm terrible with Mongoloids. They all look alike to me. But I'm going to guess this guy is Korean. 5. Her features aren't as extreme as those of #2 and #3, but I'm guessing she's either West African or African American. Could be Caribbean, too. Tell you the truth she could probably fit anywhere in black Africa, save the darker areas like the Congo or Sudan. Nice-looking girl. 6. Very extreme archaic features. Veddoid (Indian aboriginal). 7. I'm going to guess this guy is either from the Horn or India. Could be one of those black Yemenis, too. 8. Afro-American? Caribbean? So, numbers 1, 2, 3, and 5 are what most consider to be Negroid. #7 might have Arab mixture and #8 might have white/Amerind mixture. How'd I do?
|
|
|
Post by magneto on Dec 16, 2005 20:59:17 GMT -5
Lets see.. 1. he's Fulani he's represenative of the pure desert adapted Fulani plus they are the Fulani that dress that way.Most Wodaabes look like him--genetically negroid2. ]Mutumbo is Central African from Zaire--gentically negroid3. NOPE!! He's Papuan---gentically related to Mongoloid peope?? 4. Korean..getically mongoloid5. ]Nope 100% Tigre Eritrean..genetically pred Negroid + up to 40% admx??6. Right..genetically related to Mongoloid peoples??[/color] 7. Yes..Somali8. Nope..North Sudanese--genetically Negroid + admixture??
|
|