|
Post by Agrippa on Feb 4, 2006 18:46:32 GMT -5
The most interesting fact is that in the assumed core zones variation strongly decreases and before a certain time typical Negrids were found practically nowhere.
Furthermore we have the record of Sudan, can you prove the opposite? Negrids evolved there later, whether they immigrated or not and ok, you didnt answered the Bantu-problem question, but thats ok, since its obvious that Negrids expanded in most of Africa.
The variation is not the problem, the variation shows how varied the people were before the development of Negrids really began, afterwards we see drastically reduced variation, which is typical and the result of strong selective pressure in a region and afterwards expansion.
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Feb 4, 2006 18:52:58 GMT -5
The most interesting fact is that in the assumed core zones variation strongly decreases and before a certain time typical Negrids were found practically nowhere. There are no core zones of typical anything in Africa, period. Wrong, so called "Negrid" morphology appears in Sudan earlier than in West Africa, as represented by the remains at Wadi Halfa, Tuska and Sehaba. If you still think otherwise please post proof from the fossil record and stop holding theories as truths.
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Feb 4, 2006 18:54:15 GMT -5
Your ad-hominems aside again, how is Cavalli-Sforza and Rosenberg relevant to this study? What is your relevant contribution to this thread? Its been nothing but straws, non-sequitirs and ad-hominems. just get out of a thread you logically can't contribute to. / LOL! Run, Kingfish! Here come Sapphire! I guess you can't explain the relevance of Sforza and Rosenberg, just leave the thread and quit trolling.
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Feb 4, 2006 18:56:37 GMT -5
So Tunesia is the same as Kongo and KOngo the same as Namibia and Namibia the same as Ethiopia, sure...
Whats with Asselar?
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Feb 4, 2006 19:11:58 GMT -5
So Tunesia is the same as Kongo and KOngo the same as Namibia and Namibia the same as Ethiopia, sure... Whats with Asselar? Asselar is in the Saharan zone of mali and dates back to 6000 B.C. and judging from the morphology of Asselar it wasn't what you would describe as a typical core "Negrid". At any rate Asselar is far younger than the remains in Sudan that date back to 14,700 B.C.
|
|
|
Post by mhagneto on Feb 4, 2006 19:33:13 GMT -5
/ LOL! Run, Kingfish! Here come Sapphire! I guess you can't explain the relevance of Sforza and Rosenberg, just leave the thread and quit trolling. / And you cant quit lying, can you? C-S et al are extremely and conclusively relevant to your whining about bias, which is what you were doing in the post I quoted. Quit holding your dick and answer my question, which was not about your stupid thread. Of course you wont, your negritude wouldnt allow it, would it? On second thought, maybe you're not lying; maybe you havent reached the level where you realize youre not playing the dozens on some street corner. So, if you want to be held in something other than contempt, quit negritudinizin'. C'mon, Kingfish, act like a man! Or is that impossible?
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Feb 4, 2006 19:36:41 GMT -5
I guess you can't explain the relevance of Sforza and Rosenberg, just leave the thread and quit trolling. / And you cant quit lying, can you? C-S et al are extremely and conclusively relevant to your whining about bias, which is what you were doing in the post I quoted. Quit holding your dick and answer my question, which was not about your stupid thread. Of course you wont, your negritude wouldnt allow it, would it? On second thought, maybe you're not lying; maybe you havent reached the level where you realize youre not playing the dozens on some street corner. So, if you want to be held in something other than contempt, quit negritudinizin'. C'mon, Kingfish, act like a man! Or is that impossible? What did C-S say? What did Rosenberg say? Quit trolling, I repeat, this thread is about skeletal morphology, not genetics. Now please explain the relevance and quit trolling with insults?
|
|
|
Post by mhagneto on Feb 4, 2006 19:42:27 GMT -5
/ And you cant quit lying, can you? C-S et al are extremely and conclusively relevant to your whining about bias, which is what you were doing in the post I quoted. Quit holding your dick and answer my question, which was not about your stupid thread. Of course you wont, your negritude wouldnt allow it, would it? On second thought, maybe you're not lying; maybe you havent reached the level where you realize youre not playing the dozens on some street corner. So, if you want to be held in something other than contempt, quit negritudinizin'. C'mon, Kingfish, act like a man! Or is that impossible? What did C-S say? What did Rosenberg say? Quit trolling, I repeat, this thread is about skeletal morphology, not genetics. Now please explain the relevance and quit trolling with insults? / Now, I know you're not a man. You cant answer a direct question. Good bye and good riddance.
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Feb 4, 2006 19:43:47 GMT -5
What did C-S say? What did Rosenberg say? Quit trolling, I repeat, this thread is about skeletal morphology, not genetics. Now please explain the relevance and quit trolling with insults? / Now, I know you're not a man. You cant answer a direct question. Good bye and good riddance. Good bye, just get the heck away.
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Feb 4, 2006 20:01:14 GMT -5
Asselar is in the Saharan zone of mali and dates back to 6000 B.C. and judging from the morphology of Asselar it wasn't what you would describe as a typical core "Negrid". At any rate Asselar is far younger than the remains in Sudan that date back to 14,700 B.C. Its correct, Asselar isnt that typical and shows a combination of generalised archaic and Negrid traits. I even have pictures...posted it on Stirpes partly. Wadi Halfa is even less typical, just robust with various primitive traits. Who considered Wadi Halfa being more typical for Negroid morphology? Jebel Sahaba is the same case - same group. Some group them with the Mechta-Afalou type. Singa in Sudan seems to be closer to Proto-Khoisanids/Boskopids with rather generalised archaic traits. Asselar seems to be one of the, if not the earlist finding of a type which was not just generalised primitive but showed Negroid characteristics.
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Feb 5, 2006 6:01:49 GMT -5
Asselar is in the Saharan zone of mali and dates back to 6000 B.C. and judging from the morphology of Asselar it wasn't what you would describe as a typical core "Negrid". At any rate Asselar is far younger than the remains in Sudan that date back to 14,700 B.C. Its correct, Asselar isnt that typical and shows a combination of generalised archaic and Negrid traits. I even have pictures...posted it on Stirpes partly. So what was the point of bringing up Asselar? No, Jebel Sehaba was had a "Negroid" morphology overlain with robusticty, I posted on this subject long ago with information by a study that Colin P. Groves and Alan Thorne conducted on the said material. Because of robusticty, no more no less. This is why some nubian material was erroneously interpreted as having "Cro-Magnid" traits also, it was because of robusticty. Recent studies on Singa conclude that it is not Sanid: "Thus the Homa Shell Mounds and Singa do not provide convincing evidence for a later Pleistocene Khoisanoid presence in eastern Africa. Comparisons with more recently discovered eastern African materials show that claims of similarity to Khoisan morphology are inaccurate, and that 'there is now little or no skeletal evidence to support a Pleistocene occurrence of San populations in East Africa' (Rightmire 1984:193)." The African Archaeological Review, 6 (1988), pp. 57 72
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Feb 5, 2006 11:57:59 GMT -5
Because its the or at least one of the oldest skulls we know of with clearly Negroid characteristics - not fully Negrid like Sudanids yet though.
Thats a question of definition since they have just a generalised archaic character rather than a Negrid one, just look at the skulls yourself.
Furthermore which modern Negrid population is close to that type? Tell me one...there are robust Negrid variants with even Cromagniform character partly and CLEARLY without admixture, but a) you can see such variants very seldom and they usually dont look the same.
But please post the studies again or show the link.
Partly true again, but tell me what are the clearly Negrid traits you see in Wadi Halfa?
Opinions differ, however, SMITH-WOODWARD 1938, WELLS 1951, BROTHWELL 1974 though different. But lets assume thats arguable, arguable it seems to be at least, what does it mean? It means a generalised archaic morphology, no Negrid one, whether you call it "saniform" or "australiform" - it shows other than Negrid elements in the region. And the question how far Proto-Khoisanids/Boskopids came in general is another one, compare with Grimaldi.
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Feb 5, 2006 12:33:25 GMT -5
"....it is clear that several individuals at the Tamaya Mellot site, a large shell mound in the Niger Sahara, were very tall. Only eight faces could be reconstructed and their measurements show a wide range of values. The nose is usually wide, but in several instances it is narrow; prognathism, although present in all faces, varies between slight and extremely marked."
Jean Hiernaux, "The People of Africa", 1975, p.130-131
There you go Agrippa, that variation. There was no one core racial type.
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Feb 5, 2006 12:42:32 GMT -5
Groves studied Jebel-Sehaba and this is what was said:
COLIN P. GROVES AND ALAN THORNE 1999 The Terminal Pleistocene and Early Holocene Populations of Northern Africa. Homo 50(3):249-262. ISSN 0018-442X. Abstract:
We studied three northern African samples of human cranial remains from the Pleistocene/Holocene boundary: Afalou-bou-Rhummel, Taforalt, and Sudanese Nubia (Jebel Sahaba and Tushka), and compared them to late Pleistocene Europeans and Africans. Despite their relatively late dates, all three of our own samples exhibit the robusticity typical of late Pleistocene Homo sapiens. As far as population affinities are concerned, Taforalt is Caucasoid and closely resembles late Pleistocene Europeans, Sudanese Nubia is Negroid, and Afalou exhibits an intermediate status. Evidently the Caucasoid/Negroid transition has fluctuated north and south over time, perhaps following the changes in the distribution of climatic zones.
There you have it Agrippa, Sudanese Nubia and represented by Tushka and Jebel Sahaba were Negroid. I have the full text of this study, Colin Groves emailed it to me. As for Singa, its date is in dispute and today no one believes it was Sanid.
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Feb 5, 2006 13:33:08 GMT -5
True, but this shows just how necessary a core area was for the spread of the typical Negrid morphology since until a certain date you dont see such homogenous Negrid groups like we can see them today, thats exactly the point we are discussing here over and over again. Those without prognathy, sloping forehead with clear marks and narrow nose are hardly the ancestors of modern Negrids - they show a pre-Negrid population or respective mix, or, as a third possibility a still undifferentiated population with various tendencies - again no candidate for the main Negrid groups which made many parts of SSA so homogenous till modernity.
If you have the full text, what are the traits they identified as Negroid? I just want to know it because I want to distinguish it from generalised archaic traits, because f.e. prognathy was obviously there in Wadi Halfa, but prognathy alone doesnt make someone Negroid and for sure not Negrid, so more infos would be appreciated.
Indeed, no one said its Sanid, but at best Proto-Sanid/Boskopid and a related archaic form. Modern Sanids are relatively recent development as I said in various threads.
|
|