Who were the latter Pleistocene eastern Africans?

[Planet Asia]

Medits who keep postulating that prehistotic East Africans were not ancestral to the modern inhabitants read this:


The African Archaeological Review, 6 (1988), pp. 57 72


Who were the later Pleistocene eastern Africans?

L . A . SCHEPARTZ

Abstract

A later Pleistocene Khoisan peopling of eastern Africa has been suggested by most researchers. The evidence cited consists of a few isolated crania, archaeological occurrences described as 'Wilton', rock paintings and scattered populations of present-day huntergatherers
speaking languages with clicks and viewed as bearing some physical resemblances to living Khoisan groups. When these different lines of evidence are evaluated, it is clear that there is no strong basis for retaining the concept of later Pleistocene Khoisan populations in eastern Africa. Instead, the available data suggest that the later Pleistocene and Holocene eastern Africans were tall, linear peoples.

[Planet Asia]

From the full text:



"Linguistic evidence suggests that, prehistorically, eastern Africa was a place where speakers of at least two other language phyla might have congregated. Ehret's (1974a) reconstruction of proto-Nilotic places Nilo-Saharan-speakers in eastern Africa by at least 4-6000 BP. In keeping with this, Sutton (1974,
1977) has suggested that Nilotic language-speakers living in northern Kenya today provide a good analogy for the archaeological remains of semi-permanent lakeshore habitations in the same area dating from between 10,000 and 4000 BP (Owen et al. 1982). Afroasiatic is another language phylum that may have been present early in eastern Africa. Ehret (1974b) suggests Afroasiatic (Southern Cushitic) speakers began moving into eastern Africa at least 5000 years ago and that they may have been responsible for early stone cairn burials in northern Kenya (Stiles and Munro-Hay 1981). Given these linguistic arguments for early populations of Nilo-Saharan and Afroasiatic language-speakers in eastern Africa and their ties with current eastern African populations, it seems more reasonable to regard those groups as the earliest known populations in the region, and to reserve judgement on the role of click language-speakers."


And


"If some of the eastern African rock paintings date to the terminal Pleistocene or early Holocene, the tall 'Kolo' peoples may represent groups like the lakeshore fishing folk thought to have been in eastern Africa at least as early as 10,000 BP (Barthelme 1977, 1981; Owen et al. 1982). Human remains from the lakeshore sites of Lothagam, the Lake Turkana Galana
Boi beds and Ishango are tall and linear, exactly the features depicted in the 'Kolo' style paintings. This link between the 'Kolo' style paintings and skeletons from the lakeshore sites is supported by other evidence. Archaeologists have proposed that ancestral populations of either Nilo-Saharan (Sutton 1974, 1977) or Affoasiatic language-speakers could have been responsible for these lakeshore sites; and modern speakers of both linguistic phyla are among the tallest and most slender people of eastern Africa (Hiernaux 1968, 1975).



The role of tall, linearly built populations in eastern Africa's prehistory has always been debated. Traditionally, they are viewed as late migrants into the area. But as there is better palaeoanthropological and linguistic documentation for the earlier presence of these populations than for any other group in eastern Africa, it is far more likely that they are indigenous eastern Africans. I have argued elsewhere (Schepartz 1985) that these prehistoric linear populations show resemblances to both Upper Pleistocene eastern African fossils and present-day, non-Bantu-speaking groups in eastern Africa, with minor differences stemming from changes in overall robusticity of the dentition and skeleton. This suggests a longstanding tradition of linear populations in eastern Africa, contributing to the indigenous development of cultural and biological diversity from the Pleistocene up to the present.


There you have it, continuity from the Upper Pleistocene till now. No hybridization with Medits and certainly no evidence of Medits *EVER* being the original inhabitants that were later replaced by Bantus.

[Agrippa]

That doesnt make them members of the Negrid core group, they had typical Negrid characteristics and the Negrid type came later and brought only admixture so or so.

[Leader of the Barbarian Juns]

Stop saying Medits,You cant make an argument by insulting people,it makes you look insane and insecure.

Also you forget Agrippa he is not a medit but a national socialist nazi.

[Agrippa]

wander said:

Stop saying Medits,You cant make an argument by insulting people,it makes you look insane and insecure.

Also you forget Agrippa he is not a medit but a national socialist nazi.

I have Mediterranid admixture and am phenotypically closest (standard types) to Atlantid and Keltic Nordic, depending on definition. However, I'm no real Ns btw, explained in other threads.

Otherwise I agree with you and I dont say that Aethiopids are Mediterranids, they just show Mediterranoid morphological influences and are too far away to be considered Negrid in the narrower sense, though they are usually in the Negroid category or seen as a contact race (which doesnt have to imply mixture necessarily but an intermediate position from the evolutionary perspective at least) or mixed race.

The elongated types indigenous to EA are rather close to so called Niloto-Hamits and Nilotids by the way which generalised Negrid character is for sure even if Niloto-Hamits might show deviating tendencies from the standard.

The reason why I argue that is not ideology but because I think its the truth and many anthropologists both classic and modern think the same btw.

[Leader of the Barbarian Juns]

agrippa said:

wander said:

Stop saying Medits,You cant make an argument by insulting people,it makes you look insane and insecure.

Also you forget Agrippa he is not a medit but a national socialist nazi.

I have Mediterranid admixture and am phenotypical closest (standard types) to Atlantid and Keltic Nordic, depending on definition. However, I'm no real Ns.

Otherwise I agree with you and I dont say that Aethiopids are Mediterranids, they just show Mediterranoid morphological influences and are too far away to be considered Negrid in the narrower sense, though they are usually in the Negroid category or seen as a contact race (which doesnt have to imply mixture necessarily but an intermediate position from the evolutionary perspective at least) or mixed race.

The elongated types indigenous to EA are rather close to so called Niloto-Hamits and Nilotids by the way which generalised Negrid character is for sure even if Niloto-Hamits might show deviating tendencies from the standard.

You saying you have "Mediterranid admixture" is the nordicists definition.

As far as you claiming not to be a nazi (which you rather people not say) is a laugh.You are the same person who does not believe in individualism,you are also the same person who calls United States of America "Jewish".I have no promble with nazis what i have a promble with is someone who elegantly tries to deny it.

[Agrippa]

United States of America "Jewish".

That was a rather satirical remark, though the USA are strongly influenced by so called "Liberal Jews" and Neoconservatives (a strongly Jewish influenced ideology) I wouldnt call the USA (generally) "Jewish" in a serious way.

Otherwise to think collectivistic does make me an anti-Liberal but not necessarily a classic Ns...

Its a question of definition, lets put it that way, I'm collective oriented, social oriented and have biologistic outlook, however, historical Ns had various elements other than that with which I dont agree, though I see the positive and similarities to my worldview too.

You saying you have "Mediterranid admixture" is the nordicists definition.

Well, I could also say I have Nordid, Dinarid or Cromagnid admixture - Central European bastard

Thats why I spoke about phenotypically closest to...

[Crimson Guard]

<<That was a rather satirical remark, though the USA are strongly influenced by so called "Liberal Jews" and Neoconservatives (a strongly Jewish influenced ideology) I wouldnt call the USA (generally) "Jewish" in a serious way.>>

Europe is the same way..even was way before the USA got this way. Sounds like your just angry that America is at the Top,while Europe remains at 2nd place for over 60 years.Some of these European Quasi National Socialists make me laugh.

"People who live in glass houses shouldnt throw stones".

[annienormanna]

agrippa said:

United States of America "Jewish".

Central European bastard

You sure you want to stand behind this comment?

LOL ;D

[$ FEROCITY D $]

agrippa said:

wander said:

Stop saying Medits,You cant make an argument by insulting people,it makes you look insane and insecure.

Also you forget Agrippa he is not a medit but a national socialist nazi.

I have Mediterranid admixture and am phenotypically closest (standard types) to Atlantid and Keltic Nordic, depending on definition. However, I'm no real Ns btw, explained in other threads.

Otherwise I agree with you and I dont say that Aethiopids are Mediterranids, they just show Mediterranoid morphological influences and are too far away to be considered Negrid in the narrower sense, though they are usually in the Negroid category or seen as a contact race (which doesnt have to imply mixture necessarily but an intermediate position from the evolutionary perspective at least) or mixed race.

The elongated types indigenous to EA are rather close to so called Niloto-Hamits and Nilotids by the way which generalised Negrid character is for sure even if Niloto-Hamits might show deviating tendencies from the standard.

The reason why I argue that is not ideology but because I think its the truth and many anthropologists both classic and modern think the same btw.

this is what Agrippa means by "contact race" indicating ssa sub variants that formed early clinal zones of admx - producing rather distinctive local groups -

www.nmafa.si.edu/exhibits/focus/images/13.4-Central_Africa124a.jpg

[king3]

East Africans are Negroid. I don't know what this term Negrid means but what Planet Asia Posted just seemed to of got ignored. East Africans are Black. They did not mix with anything. Their is no "medits" in East Africa. Whatever you call East Africans Negrid or Negroid they belong to the same family. Anyone have anything to say to what Planet Asia posted besides this negrid stuff. I guess since you cannot refute what was posted people just ignore it and talk garbage.

[Planet Asia]

agrippa said:

That doesnt make them members of the Negrid core group, they had typical Negrid characteristics and the Negrid type came later and brought only admixture so or so.

Ah, to you and Pontikos they're not true Negroes which is core Negrid to you, what garbage! These people are what I've been stating they- are subtype of "Negroid", no more no less. No Negrid type came later bringing admixture and altered the phenotype. I'd be a fool to argue with outdated anthropology in light of the obvious that anyone can see when they look at East Africans, that they are Negroid.

[Planet Asia]

king3 said:

East Africans are Negroid. I don't know what this term Negrid means but what Planet Asia Posted just seemed to of got ignored. East Africans are Black. They did not mix with anything. Their is no "medits" in East Africa. Whatever you call East Africans Negrid or Negroid they belong to the same family. Anyone have anything to say to what Planet Asia posted besides this negrid stuff. I guess since you cannot refute what was posted people just ignore it and talk garbage.

Thats typical of what dodona people do, place non-Caucasoid peoples into discrete clusters and give Caucasoid astronomical variation.

[mhagneto]

bertrand said:

king3 said:

East Africans are Negroid. I don't know what this term Negrid means but what Planet Asia Posted just seemed to of got ignored. East Africans are Black. They did not mix with anything. Their is no "medits" in East Africa. Whatever you call East Africans Negrid or Negroid they belong to the same family. Anyone have anything to say to what Planet Asia posted besides this negrid stuff. I guess since you cannot refute what was posted people just ignore it and talk garbage.

Thats typical of what dodona people do, place non-Caucasoid peoples into discrete clusters and give Caucasoid astronomical variation.

/

Give an example of what you claim above. Do you have Cavalli-Sforza's HGHG? His coancestry coefficients (Fst's)are there. So are M Nei's. A K Roychoudhury gives similar findings. So, what do "dodona people" say that violates this data?

[Planet Asia]

mhagneto said:

bertrand said:

Thats typical of what dodona people do, place non-Caucasoid peoples into discrete clusters and give Caucasoid astronomical variation.

/

Give an example of what you claim above. Do you have Cavalli-Sforza's HGHG? His coancestry coefficients (Fst's)are there. So are M Nei's. A K Roychoudhury gives similar findings. So, what do "dodona people" say that violates this data?

I'm talking physical anthropology, genetics and none of that what you say refute this. You bring up the same crap everytime with Cavalli-Sforza as if he's the authority, why don't you read more than one source? My original post in this thread stands unrefuted.