some of you got it wrong.Australoid did not leave africa. africans left africa.there is no Australoids in after and yes they are black but they are another black race.the san are africans,they are the same race has other africans,just a bit of a different look. in fact the othe races come from the san,folks from ethiopia and those from early sudan.
most ethiopians in ethiopia
Somalians are not mixed either.
did not mix with caucasian either.
Africoid peoples
A broad usage of the term, Africoid is used not only to describe peoples
of African descent, but is also used to refer to other peoples who also
often are also referred to as black, but whom some anthropologists have
in the past termed Hamitic, Capoid, Australoid (also known as Veddoid
when applied to Southeast Asians), and Sudroids or more inclusively
Dravidians, because they exhibit certain craniofacial and other physical
characteristics which are not commonly attributed to so-called
"Negroid" peoples. Chief among these physical characteristics are
limited or nonexistent alveolar prognathism[citation needed], a
brachycephalic cranium (in the case of
Capoid blacks), or hair which is relatively straight and finer in
texture (in the case of, again, some "Caucasoid", Sudroid, Veddoid, and
Australoid people). Polynesians are sometimes considered
pseudo-Africoid due to the admixture of Australoid and Mongoloid
characteristics. The Africoid concept is expounded upon in the works of
Afrocentric scholars such as Cheikh Anta Diop, and Chancellor
Williams. Those such as Keita however, see little value in
overextending the term to include relationships among genetically
distinct peoples, such as Africans and "Australoids", preferring to use
the term in context with biohistorical African populations of recent
African extraction.
Users of the term point to Ethiopians, Eritreans and Somalis who
exhibit phenotypical traits such as orthognathism, non-kinky hair
texture, and keen facial features seen by some as being exclusive to
Caucasoid peoples.
They contend such variations are indigenous to these groups and cannot
be attributed to invasions from outside Caucasoid peoples as suggested
under the Dynastic Race Theory and in more recent biological studies.
Such phenotypical variations, they argue, often occur within nuclear
family groups and are inherent to Africoid peoples, much as there are
broad variations in physical stature and body proportions between the
Pygmies of the Congo, who generally reach a height of 4.5 feet (1.4 m),
and of the Dinka or Tutsi of Rwanda, whose average height is 6.5 feet
(2.0 m) and who are described as "gracile", or gracefully slender.
Similarly, they continue, African peoples commonly considered "Negroid"
such as the Senegalese also may lack prognathism.
Critics of race categorization also dispute the notion of Caucasoid
admixture in the
case of the Wolof and other African peoples, holding that the
differences found among the Africoid peoples are simply localized
variations that do not rely on any mixture from an assortment of
discrete races. Such concepts of admixture they hold, too often
rely on stereotypical definitions of a "true negro" type, allowing
reclassification of peoples like Somalis, Ethiopians, etc to a
"Caucasoid" grouping or mixed grouping with Caucasoids, sometimes using
different labels like "Mediterranean" or "Middle Eastern." Narrow
naso-facial features for example are found among the oldest populations
of East Africa, independently of any admixture with Caucasoid or
Southwest Asiatic peoples.
They also dispute the notion that East Africans are more related to
Eurasians than other tropical Africans. To the contrary, they maintain
that the East African peoples are much more related to other African
populations than Europeans
and Asians, and that supporters of traditional race theories typically
use misleading labeling (such as 'Middle Eastern') to classify African
DNA data so as to decontextualize it. For example, Ethiopians are very
closely related to one of the oldest African populations, the Khosian
peoples or Bushmen and cluster likewise with Senegalese on several
Y-chromosomal measures. Chromosomal variants such as haplotype IV for
example are found in high frequency in west, central, and sub-equatorial
Africa in speakers of Niger-Congo, and to some extent among the
Nubians. Another variant, Haplotype XI has its highest frequencies in
the Horn and the Nile valley. Other types such as V and XI are found
more heavily in Africa and the Nile Valley than among peoples such as
Arabs, Turks or others. Haplotypes VII and VIII are most prevalent in
the Near East, and XII and XV in Europe.
As regards reliance on the categories of forensic anthropology, they
point
out that the weight of forensic data shows Africoid peoples cannot be
stereotyped as an extreme, or conceived of as mixes between idealized
types, but vary widely in physical characteristics. For example:
Scientists have been studying remains from the Egyptian Nile Valley
for years. Analysis of crania is the traditional approach to assessing
ancient population origins, relationships, and diversity. In studies
based on anatomical traits and measurements of crania, similarities have
been found between Nile Valley crania from 30,000, 20,000 and 12,000
years ago and various African remains from more recent times (see Thoma
1984; Brauer and Rimbach 1990; Angel and Kelley 1986; Keita 1993).
Studies of crania from southern predynastic Egypt, from the formative
period (4000-3100 B.C.), show them usually to be more similar to the
crania of ancient Nubians, Kushites, Saharans, or modern groups from the
Horn of Africa than to those of
dynastic northern Egyptians or ancient or modern southern Europeans.
Supporters of the term Africoid claim that there has been bias in
previous scholarship on African or Africoid peoples and that this
pattern is demonstrative of the need for more accurate terminology in
describing African populations. These scholars assert that variations of
phenotype found in places like Northeast Africa(horn of african types they mean here) are simply examples of
the natural biodiversity of indigenous populations, and that the
definition of "African" should not be confined to a region south of the
Sahara (Diop, Cheikh Anta, The African Origin of Civilization). Among
the points advanced:
# Bias seems to define Africoids as narrowly as possible while
incorporating as much as possible in groupings labeled as Causacoid
# Shifting
terminology and labeling of African peoples to downplay their diversity
Africoid as an approach to show population diversity
Modern re-analyses of previous studies shows a clear tendency to
sometimes minimize variability within certain northeast African
populations. This range of variation is the building block of the
concept of Africoid populations, as opposed to their rigid separation
into groupings like so-called "Caucasoid" and sub-Saharan Negroes.
According to one recent re-evaluation of studies on the ancient
Egyptians:
An overview of the data from the studies suggests that the major
biological affinities of early southern Egyptians lay with tropical
Africans. The range of indigenous tropical African phenotypes is great;
and this range of variation must be considered in any discussion of the
Nile Valley peoples. The early southern Egyptians belonged primarily to
an African descent group which gained some
Near Eastern affinity through gene flow with the passage of time.
(Keita, S. O. Y, "A brief review of studies and comments on ancient
Egyptian biological relationships")
In the classification of so-called "Negroid" peoples, traditional
scholarship has established a baseline phenotype for a "true Negro"
(generally a sub-Saharan type). Nonconforming characteristics in some
Northeast African populations have been cause for incorporation of these
peoples into a "Caucasoid" cluster. However, the same selective
classification scheme is not applied to groups traditionally categorized
as Negroid. Writers such as Carelton Coons report "Mediterranean"
remains that seem to have "Negroid" traits, but do not mention the
opposite. Nor do such scholars apply the same selective definition
approach with populations of the Levant, Maghreb or those farther north.
For example, scholars generally have made no similar attempt to define a
"true white." [31]
Others surveys of African peoples in the Nile Valley, Sahara and Sudan
confirm the cultural, skeletal and material links between them from the
earliest times.
Lumping of Africoid population data under labels such as 'Mediterranean'
Re-analyses of scholarship also show a tendency to sometimes lump
certain types of data, such as skeletical remains under broad clusters
or categories such as Mediterranean. Numerous studies of Egyptian crania
have been undertaken, with many showing a range of types, and workers
often describing substantially Negroid remains. Often this type has been
lumped into a Caucasoid cluster, typically using the term
"Mediterranean." A majority of these studies show the strong influence
of Sudanic and Saharan elements in the predynastic populations and yet
classification systems often incorporate them into the Mediterranean
grouping.
"Analyses of Egyptian crania are
numerous. Vercoutter (1978) notes that ancient Egyptian crania have
frequently all been “lumped (implicitly or explicitly) as Mediterranean,
although Negroid remains are recorded in substantial numbers by many
workers.. The majority of the work describes a Negroid element,
especially in the southern population and sometimes as predominating in
the predynastic period (Falkenburger, 1947)..
Use of racial categories in modern DNA studies
Some supporters of the term Africoid point to modern DNA studies
(Templeton, Lewotinin, et al.) that show a broad range of physical
variation organic to African peoples, maintaining that classifications
like Caucasoid, Mediterranean and 'true' sub-Saharan negroes are
artificial and stereotypical, and involve presorting ahead of time,
rather than letting the DNA data speak for themselves. This broad
mix of African genetic variation shown by DNA analysis, it is asserted,
calls for
inclusive concepts like Africoid to capture the genetic complexity on
the ground.
Other DNA studies in turn throw doubt on "classical" racial categories.
The nuclear DNA work of researcher Ann Bowcock (1991, 1994) for example,
suggests that such primary groupings as Europeans may be flawed, and
that such peoples arose as a consequence of admixture between certain
already differentiated African and Asian ancestral stocks. Under this
approach to the DNA data, Caucasians are thus not a primary grouping as
in the classical categories, but a secondary type or race, due to their
supposedly hybrid origins.
Anthropologists such as Lieberman and Jackson (1995), also find numerous
methodological and conceptual problems with using DNA sequencing and
other phylogenetic methods to support concepts of race. They hold for
example that: "the molecular and biochemical proponents of this model
explicitly use racial categories in their initial grouping of
samples They suggest that the authors of these studies find support for
racial distinctions only because they began assuming the validity of
race (Leiberman and Jackson 1995 "Race and Three Models of Human
Origins" in American Anthropologist 97(2) 231-242)
Whatever the approach used, modern DNA studies have in many ways
undermined traditional racial categories in favor of a population
variant/gradient or continuum approach. This continuum/gradient approach
is embraced by supporters of the term Africoid [39] as more accurate
and realistic than various models that allocate peoples like Ethiopians
to "Caucasoid" groupings.
Africoid as a term incorporating Oceanic, Dravidian and Australoid peoples
Some people argue for the primacy of phenotypes in describing a broad
cultural-genetic set of black peoples stretching from Africa to
Australia to Asia.[40] Other DNA data however, which details the
genetic
complexity of peoples, calls into question conceptions of a single,
rigid black or "Africoid" type that cuts across broad areas including
Asia and Australia. Physically there may be similarities (dark skin or
curlier hair for example) but genetically the data are much more
complex.
Indeed some supporters of the term Africoid (see Scholarly use section
below) note that DNA and serological (blood)analysis for example, places
populations like Australian Aborigines, Dravidians of India and
dark-skinned Pacific/Indian Ocean peoples closer to the populations of
mainland East Asia than the stereotypical sub-Saharan Negroid phenotype.
Scholarly use of the term Africoid descriptive of local populations
Some mainstream scholars advocate a non-racial terminology more directly
based on the local variability of the population data, and its changes
over time, holding that this allows for a wide range of types and
variation,
and that continued use of racial definitions and concepts are
problematic:
"Much of the previous work focused on “racial” analysis. The concept
of race is problematic, and (‘racial” terms have been inconsistently
defined and used in African historiography as noted recently (MacGaffey,
1966; Sanders, 1969; Vercoutter, 1978).. There is little demarcation
between the predynastics and tropical series and even the early southern
dynastic series. Definite trends are discernible in the analyses. This
broadly shared "southern" metric pattern, along with the other mentioned
characteristics to a greater or lesser degree, might be better
described by the term Africoid, by definition connoting a tropical
African microclade, microadaptation, and patristic affinity, thereby
avoiding the nonevolutionary term "Negroid" and allowing for variation
both real and conceptual."
most ethiopians and
Somalians
are not Caucasoid .there features are native to africa.
for more info see egyptsearchreloaded.com
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1237609&page=6
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=958
oh and check out skyscrapercity.com
that's all i have to say.i would be coming back to read any more comments. i just want to clear and correct some info here.
thank you.
peace and bye bye.
Edited by kenndo - 20-Oct-2010 at 00:30