It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

10,000 year old giants of the Sahara

page: 2
78
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2015 @ 05:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: FeistyFemme
I find it funny that an ancient North African tribe/race of people are "Caucasoid". I love the way how Africans get downplayed on their own damn continent. So...the Kiffians were first, then the more "negroid" group, the Tenerians, were black. Makes no sense to me. For the love of God, just say white people discovered and did EVERYTHING.


The problem is more likely in where you mis-learned the term Caucasoid.

Mainly it refers to the skull shape, which I suspect in the end reflects in the facial features of the person, regardless of skin color.

In other words, Caucasian as it is defined in the USA is not the same thing as Caucasoid as it is defined globally.
edit on 5/27/2015 by r0xor because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-5-2015 by DrumsRfun because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 27 2015 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: r0xor
Arab people are considered Caucasoid, are they not?

Yes.

Most of western Asia, and significant parts of northern Africa, have caucasoid craniology.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: FeistyFemme




So...the Kiffians were first, then the more "negroid" group, the Tenerians, were black. Makes no sense to me. For the love of God, just say white people discovered and did EVERYTHING.


Dear God...You're playing the race card because of a historical fact?

Should the anthropologists and archeologists revise their findings because you're displeased?
Do some research. Caucasoid peoples didn't come from just Europe. They were all over Africa and Asia.

History lessons get re-written, and falsified because of people like you. Sorry if facts offend you.
edit on 27-5-2015 by ColeYounger because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-5-2015 by DrumsRfun because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 07:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: FeistyFemme
I find it funny that an ancient North African tribe/race of people are "Caucasoid". I love the way how Africans get downplayed on their own damn continent. So...the Kiffians were first, then the more "negroid" group, the Tenerians, were black. Makes no sense to me. For the love of God, just say white people discovered and did EVERYTHING.



Chill out. This article clearly states these people were found in NORTH AFRICA. Look at most of North Africa today. A majority of North African countries are not even "black" people, but "lighter" skinned folks. Africa is an extremely large continent.
edit on 28-5-2015 by DrumsRfun because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Let's clear some things up real quick because this thread has been derailed by peoples' confusion stemming from the common usage of the term Caucasion.

It's not quite as simple as saying the term is being misunderstood unfortunately as it was coined by a German philosopher, Christoph Meiners, who attempted to create a racial taxonomy with two major races (Caucasian and Mongolian) based on his own bigotry rather than science. Make no mistake about it, Meiners thought that Europeans, particularly the Germans, were superior in every single way to other people and this idea that lighter skinned Europeans were superior was extremely popular at the time with — as you may have guessed — lighter skinned Europeans.

However it was another German, Professor Johann Friedrich Blumenbach, one of the fathers of anthropology, expanding on Meiners' ideas in The Natural Varieties of Mankind, who really popularized Caucasion and associated terms. In The Natural Varieties of Mankind he classified people in 5 major races: Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid (originally Ethiopian), American Indian and Malayan. Keep in mind this was the late 18th century. While he was trying to make a science of what he was doing by employing the precursor to craniometry (measurements of the cranium), craniology, as criteria for taxonomic classification, he started by grouping people by skin color and then attempted to back it up with more scientific means.

Anyway, fast forward a hundred years and the prevailing theories of "race" centered around three major races; Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid and a plethora of subraces. In physical anthropology, the terms have stuck around (though they'll fall out use soon enough) but the meanings have changed considerably.

As it is used in physical anthropology, Caucasoid includes people from Europe, North Africa and Asia and has absolutely nothing to do with skin color and everything to do with craniometry. A final word of caution, particularly when used incompetently, relying strictly on craniometry and similar analyses of other parts of the skeleton to determine an individual's "race" (itself an outmoded idea) can lead to disasters errors. Case in point, Chatters identification of Kennewick Man as Caucasoid which has been tentatively blown out of the water by recent DNA tests.

As for the Kiffians, IIRC they're thought to have a close affinity to the Mechta-Afalou (Mechtoid), basically a group of Cro Magnons who migrated north out of Africa mixing it up with other populations in Europe and Asia and before migrating back to Africa, probably driven by the changes in the climate of the Sahara region.

As far as I know, there has been no DNA analysis of samples extracted from Kiffian remains so I'd say the jury is out on the particulars of skin tone, but does it really matter anyway?

edit on 2015-5-27 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 03:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Perhaps but when you consider that the tallest of the Egyptian Pharoahs was Ramesses II coming in at around 5' 6" and 5' was considered a decent height for women at that time then, even a group of women of 6' 6" height and strong build would have made quite an impression, should any of this ethnic group have still been around at that time, and when one considers the writings of the Hebrews and their campaign against the descendants of the Nephilim they probably were.

The classification of Caucasian is also perhaps stretching things for the Mechtoids, but it is interesting that this group had Eurasian Mit Dna given they seem to emerge from around Mali.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 07:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Kantzveldt


The classification of Caucasian is also perhaps stretching things for the Mechtoids, but it is interesting that this group had Eurasian Mit Dna given they seem to emerge from around Mali.


They don't have any DNA from the Kiffians, IFAIK, the closest they came was another group of humans that lived thousands of years later that was in the link I posted earlier.

I don't want to get into a lot of wild speculation, but we can probably assume there was a lot of flow back and forth during the green phases of the Sahara, and DNA merging between Saharan, sub-Saharan, and Eurasians. Although the term "Cro-Magnon" is outdated (such people were in fact modern homo sapiens sapiens, the claim is that the Kiffians have mtDNA from such, meaning a flow back into Africa, likely following animal herds moving into the greening Sahara grasslands.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 08:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Kantzveldt

Isn't that the Philistines? Excessively tall, fierce warriors, often referred to as "giants"?



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Yes they follow the cultural and physical similarity trail back to the Taforalt, but there are issues with those because how would a North African Mechtoid group switch almost exclusively to Western Eurasian Mit Dna, assumed to be of the Iberian peninsula?

The obvious solution would seem that they were in fact simply Iberians of that period, but then they still had the marked North African mechtoid traits which aren't of Iberia, so a mystery, mechtoid man meets Iberian woman.


The population exhumed from the archaeological site of Taforalt in Morocco (12,000 years BP) is a valuable source of information toward a better knowledge of the settlement of Northern Africa region and provides a revolutionary way to specify the origin of Ibero-Maurusian populations… Ancient DNA was extracted from 31 bone remains from Taforalt. The HVS1 fragment of the mitochondrial DNA control region was PCR-amplified and directly sequenced. Mitochondrial diversity in Taforalt shows the absence of sub-Saharan haplogroups


The Tuareg are the closest living descendants of the curious admixture.



A total of 129 individuals from two villages in the Acacus region, in Fezzan, were genetically analysed at the mtDNA level. The results here reported clearly show the low level of genetic diversity in the Libyan Tuareg sample, that is hypothetically due to high endogamy. Furthermore, phylogenetic analyses indicate that the mtDNA genetic pool of the Libyan Tuareg is characterized by a major “West- Eurasian” component, that is shared with many Berber groups and hypothetically comes from the Iberian Peninsula,


Genetic insight into Tuareg


a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Could be they were such a North African people.





edit on Kam531147vAmerica/ChicagoThursday2831 by Kantzveldt because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 10:13 AM
link   
Could these people, the subject of this thread, be related to the tall, "Nordic" people who originally populated the Azores? They were thriving when the Spaniards arrived, but died out by conquest and disease. I read about them many years ago, and clipped the article, which I may still have stuck away somewhere...



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Lazarus Short

I dunno maybe they were just the more adventurous of the Celts that entered the Iberian peninsula, whether related to the Berbers though i couldn't say.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: r0xor

Whenever I've heard Caucasoid was referring to Caucasian. But thanks for the clarity



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: ColeYounger

Well maybe I wouldn't be writing this if the history of my continent wasn't ignored and only subjected to findings of cultures that are non-black. Real talk...



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: FeistyFemme

There's a whole lot more to African history and it's many and diverse ethnic groups than simply being about black people.


"True Black Africans appear as a recent adaptive radiation in the above dendrograms, apparently branching off from an ancestral Pygmy population — a line of ancestry also indicated by osteological data (Coon 1962:651-656; Watson et al. 1996). This radiation seems to have occurred somewhere in West Africa.

Before the Bantu expansion about 3,000 years ago, true Black Africans were absent from the continent's central, eastern, and southern regions (Cavalli-Sforza 1986:361-362; Oliver 1966). They were also absent from the middle Nile until about 4,000 years ago, at which time they begin to appear in paintings from Pharaonic Egypt and in skeletal remains from Nubia".

The oldest proto-Negroid skull is from Nigeria (Iwo Eleru) and no older than 11200 ± 200 BP.[4] Asselar Man is the oldest Negro in modern form, at only 6500 B.P. (Camp, 1974).


Black Africans



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 06:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kantzveldt
a reply to: FeistyFemme

There's a whole lot more to African history and it's many and diverse ethnic groups than simply being about black people.


"True Black Africans appear as a recent adaptive radiation in the above dendrograms, apparently branching off from an ancestral Pygmy population — a line of ancestry also indicated by osteological data (Coon 1962:651-656; Watson et al. 1996). This radiation seems to have occurred somewhere in West Africa.

Before the Bantu expansion about 3,000 years ago, true Black Africans were absent from the continent's central, eastern, and southern regions (Cavalli-Sforza 1986:361-362; Oliver 1966). They were also absent from the middle Nile until about 4,000 years ago, at which time they begin to appear in paintings from Pharaonic Egypt and in skeletal remains from Nubia".

The oldest proto-Negroid skull is from Nigeria (Iwo Eleru) and no older than 11200 ± 200 BP.[4] Asselar Man is the oldest Negro in modern form, at only 6500 B.P. (Camp, 1974).


Black Africans


Never heard of this theory before, its very interesting. I recall that black Africans have the tallest and shortest people ouf any other race, and black people have the most diverse genetic code out of asians and Caucasians. Also are Ethiopians caucasiod, if caucasiod is based off of facial features?
edit on 28-5-2015 by Teeky because: more

edit on 28-5-2015 by Teeky because: word



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 07:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: FeistyFemme
a reply to: ColeYounger

Well maybe I wouldn't be writing this if the history of my continent wasn't ignored and only subjected to findings of cultures that are non-black. Real talk...


Not that I really want to get involved in this ethnocentric rant, but if you do not live on and were born in (or, at least, born in) Africa--anywhere on the continent--then it is not "[your] continent."

Next, there's no need to go on a diatribe against white people, just because you're unhappy with the archaeology happening on "your continent." If you feel so strongly about it, become an archaeologist and set the record straight (assuming that your implied belief that there is some sort of only-whitey-has-a-history-anywhere conspiracy is correct).

And as far as 'ignoring' the history of Africa, only uneducated people ignore the history of the world, but it's much like anywhere else--the Chinese shouldn't be expected to have a vast knowledge of American history, nor should we of Chinese history. And I doubt your average Nigerian has much factual knowledge about American history, especially going back 5,000 years or more.

The findings, as someone pointed out and you thanked them for, are not based on racist aspirations by archaeologists, but by standardized ways to classify what they have found. If a group of people found buried in Niger exhibit Caucasoid traits, that's fine--it's not as if northern Africa isn't as big of (if not bigger than) a melting pot of cultures and races and tribes as America is. To pretend that every ancient culture discovered in Africa should only be of the "Negroid" classification is ignorant:


Ripley's The Races of Europe was rewritten in 1939 by Harvard physical anthropologist Carleton S. Coon. Carleton S. Coon, a 20th-century craniofacial anthropometrist, used the technique for his The Origin of Races (New York: Knopf, 1962). Because of the inconsistencies in the old three-part system (Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid), Coon adopted a five-part scheme. He defined "Caucasoid" as a pattern of skull measurements and other phenotypical characteristics typical of populations in Europe, Central Asia, South Asia, West Asia, North Africa, and Northeast Africa (Ethiopia, and Somalia). He discarded the term "Negroid" as misleading since it implies skin-tone, which is found at low latitudes around the globe and is a product of adaptation, and defined skulls typical of sub-Saharan Africa as "Congoid" and those of Southern Africa as "Capoid".


So, as you can see, even in some instances, Africa has three distinct skull classifications--Caucasoid and Negroid (separated into Congoid and Capoid).

Source

I guess my point in responding is--why the ignorant, racially motivated hate? The history of Africa is still that continent's history, whether it lines up with your expectations or not.

ETA: Real talk...
edit on 29-5-2015 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 07:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Teeky

Based on my quoted Wiki reference here, they are...Ethiopians and Somalis.



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I dont think asking specifics of what the giant Africans looked like is being racist. The article pointed out that the giants were caucasoid which if you arent into anthropology you may not know exactly what that means. So it is highly probable that the giants were black Africans with causoid features.



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Teeky

I never said you were being racist...and the comment to which I was referencing concerning racism was not as benign as just questioning what they looked like.



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I know you weren't referring to me, I was talking about Feistyfemme,




top topics



 
78
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join