Thursday, September 18, 2014

The La Brana Skull is a Blue Eyed Negro --Not Caucasian

The Europeanization of La Brana is not based on the actual skull. Below is a comparison of the Oase, Loschbour   and La Brana skulls.


Below are pictures of the actual La Brana skull and the reconstructed La Brana skull.

You can note that the skull and jaw were not connected and the nasal opening is much larger on the original skull than the mock up of the skull placed besides the drawing of the "Europeanized" La Brana skull. On the drawing of the LaBrana skull they have LaBrana man smiling. You can see from the photograph taken when the skeletal remains were excavated the skeleton was not smiling.

Below is the Oase skull and the reconstructed first European. Clearly this individual was a negro or Sub-Saharan African.

The Loschbour and Oase skulls make it clear that the hunter-gatherer and farming populations of ancient Europe were negro-not Caucasian.

Look at the so called reconstructed La Brana skull. The artist has narrowed the nasal index of the "reconstructed" skull to make it appear more modern European. The original pictures of the La Brana skull taken when the skeletal remains were excavated show a wide nasal passage and broken jaw.

The LaBrana skull given its measurement is clearly negroid. LaBrana man probably looked like this. Here we see an African child with dark skin and blue eyes.


The La Brana skull is 7,000 years old and comes from Spain, Oase 2 is 40,000 years old from Romania. The skulls are identical. They show continuity of the Negro type in Europe between 40k to 7k years ago.



Krefter said...

La Brana-1 may or may not have had similar facial features as present-day Africans, but his DNA is what's most important.

His people contributed anywhere from 30-53% ancestry to present day Europeans, just about 0% to all other people. He was Eurasian and specifically "West Eurasian", his closest relatives outside of Europe contributed over 50% ancestry to Middle easterns and South Asians, 40% to native Americans, and over 20% to Siberians.

Krefter said...

Everyone in the world has their own history that of course intertwines, and as far as I can see history is not biased, does not have a superior race, racial destines, etc.

I understand where you're coming from. You react to racism with ethnocentrism. That's not the right way to react.

Dr. Clyde Winters said...

Correct history does not have a superior or inferior race. But it does demand truth. Identifying people based on their ethnicity does not imply an idea of superiority. The Khoisan and Pgymy peoples today are hunter gatherers, but in the past they had wonderful civilizations. This shows the decline and fall of civilizations. And should make us understand that their is nothing that last forever.