WHO WERE THE SHANG?, EXACTLY WHAT WERE THEIR RACE? Options

[noobie7]

You can claim "craniometric anthropology,"advanced astrophysics or 4th dimension geometry to be soft science if you wish. It doesn't change the fact that its nearly impossible for a complete neophyte such as yourself to invalidate their peer reviewed findings. Take another look at Pietruwesky's resume.
R1b is African.

A group of chromosomes of potential interest to past trans-Saharan connections is the paragroup R1b1* (R-P25*). Cruciani et al18 found this paragroup (at that time defined as haplogroup 117, or R-M173*(xSRY10831, M18, M73, M269)) to be present at high frequencies (up to 95%) in populations from northern Cameroon. The same paragroup was only rarely observed in other sub-Saharan African regions, and not observed at all in western Eurasia.

Generally, I've found genetic studies can be misinterpreted by those with their own agenda;which is why I stuck with craniometrics, contemporary reports,ancient Shang oracle bone/Manding writing similarities and even linguistic parallels with W.African Dagaare/Qiang. They're all on the preceding pages.

[Rayzor]

You can claim "craniometric anthropology,"advanced astrophysics or 4th dimension geometry to be soft science if you wish. It doesn't change the fact that its nearly impossible for a complete neophyte such as yourself to invalidate their peer reviewed findings. Take another look at Pietruwesky's resume.
R1b is African.

Generally, I've found genetic studies can be misinterpreted by those with their own agenda;which is why I stuck with craniometrics, contemporary reports,ancient Shang oracle bone/Manding writing similarities and even linguistic parallels with W.African Dagaare/Qiang. They're all on the preceding pages.

Archaeology findings from Shang clearly shows that based on craniometrics studies, the people of Shang are definitely mongoloids not negroids.

Racial & Cultural continuity, from Yangshao to the Shang

Racially the Shang were Mongoloids, like the preceding Yangshao and Longshan cultures. The Shang bones are indistinguishable from the Longshan. The Shang were not invaders from the Middle East. In addition to racial similarities, the Shang also shared cultural similarities with the Yangshao and Longshan cultures.

http://donlehmanjr.com/China/china%20chapt...ok2/china23.htm

The skulls found in Yangshao are physically Chinese, not negroid.

By the Yangshao period (3000 BC±
5000 BC)7, the skull measurements are `physically Chinese' and
`modern'6. The physical similarity of the Jiahu people to the later
Dawenkou (2600 BC±4300 BC) indicates that the Dawenkou might
have descended from the Jiahu, following a slow migration along the
middle and lower reaches of the Huai river and the Hanshui valley.

https://ccrma.stanford.edu/CCRMA/Courses/220a/flutes.pdf

Afrocentrics are in denial and refuse to admit their mistakes and still desperately want to pursue their agenda. Shang dynasty got nothing to do with African or negroid at all. Writing on Shang oracle bones and Manding writing are not the same.

This post has been edited by Rayzor: Dec 24 2011, 06:36 AM

[AnybodyKiller]

You can claim "craniometric anthropology,"advanced astrophysics or 4th dimension geometry to be soft science if you wish. It doesn't change the fact that its nearly impossible for a complete neophyte such as yourself to invalidate their peer reviewed findings. Take another look at Pietruwesky's resume.
R1b is African.

Generally, I've found genetic studies can be misinterpreted by those with their own agenda;which is why I stuck with craniometrics, contemporary reports,ancient Shang oracle bone/Manding writing similarities and even linguistic parallels with W.African Dagaare/Qiang. They're all on the preceding pages.

Comparing craniometric anthropology to astrophysics? Come on man.
Soft Science > Social Science > Anthropology
Anthropology leaves way more to interpretation than genetics. Similarities in linguistics and culture is far from hard science as well. For instance people in the future could claim Eminem was black because of linguistic and cultural similarities to African-Americans. His genetic profile wouldn't lie though.

I will say this about genetics though; you have to look at the data! You can't read the abstract or discussion and conclude "Oh he's a scientist, he knows what he's talking about." For instance It's been claimed that Northern and Southern Han Chinese are "worlds apart" with a FST of .0009 while Western and Eastern Europeans are "relatively homogeneous" with FST distances of .005. The words can at times manipulate the actual findings.. You have to focus on the hard evidence, the Y-DNA frequencies, MT-DNA frequencies, FST measurements, The sampling methods.. Populations included, Sample size etc.

if R1b is African you might as well say we are all African. You might as well say white people are black because we all came from Africa.

I used to think like you until I realized that many other non-European countries have done studies and found almost identical results. Are they all part of this conspiracy to "erase the black truth"?

You may want to look into the Y-DNA halpogroup F instead of Y-DNA R. You could make a much stronger (and meaningful) case for that. More in the message I sent you.

This post has been edited by AnybodyKiller: Dec 24 2011, 02:49 AM

[noobie7]

Comparing craniometric anthropology to astrophysics? Come on man.
Soft Science > Social Science > Anthropology
Anthropology leaves way more to interpretation than genetics. Similarities in linguistics and culture is far from hard science as well. For instance people in the future could claim Eminem was black because of linguistic and cultural similarities to African-Americans. His genetic profile wouldn't lie though.

I will say this about genetics though; you have to look at the data! You can't read the abstract or discussion and conclude "Oh he's a scientist, he knows what he's talking about." For instance It's been claimed that Northern and Southern Han Chinese are "worlds apart" with a FST of .0009 while Western and Eastern Europeans are "relatively homogeneous" with FST distances of .005. The words can at times manipulate the actual findings.. You have to focus on the hard evidence, the Y-DNA frequencies, MT-DNA frequencies, FST measurements, The sampling methods.. Populations included, Sample size etc.

if R1b is African you might as well say we are all African. You might as well say white people are black because we all came from Africa.

I used to think like you until I realized that many other non-European countries have done studies and found almost identical results. Are they all part of this conspiracy to "erase the black truth"?

You may want to look into the Y-DNA halpogroup F instead of Y-DNA R. You could make a much stronger (and meaningful) case for that. More in the message I sent you.

Listen up ,AnybodyKiller. I developed an interest in Asian Neolithic people quite by accident. A website I visit, jandyongenesis.blogspot, made the astonishing claim that Angkor Wat was built by Ku$hite Egyptians during the Wet Holocene,roughly 9000 years ago. Apparently its architectural plan is identical to that of Giza,which new research shows to be at least 7000 years old due to water erosion,ie, it was standing when rainfall was heavy. I did a post on the Khmer forum which was poorly received despite a wealth of evidence of parallels with the Ancient black world-the naga motifs,African faces in the sculptures and a long history of negritos and Australoids in early S.E Asia as far as Indonesia and the Philipinnes .
http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=258402
Anime watching,made me recognise a number of E.African bantu words. Further research revealed, not only bantu but W.African vocabulary and even Somali in Japanese.http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=236042
It dawned on me there must have a gateway,a dispersal point for all these early Afro-Asians;this was India. I provided artwork,cultural similarities,craniometrics,linguistic analyses and dna studies but still everyone hated.http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=261575
Don't get me wrong. I don't claim to have all the answers but I know what I know which is that early Asia ,Neolithic China,and the earliest dynasty,the Shang were largely black. Also ,the learning process never stops: look at these Australian aborigine/Tamil language connection.

When I first came to Australia, I was amazed to find that many of the native languages sounded very close to Dravidian languages - especially Telugu and Tamil. I painstakingly developed a database, where I compared the words for common items like the sun, the moon, rain, water, sea, body part names, mother father etc.,common activities like eating, sleeping etc. among as many native languages I could find. I then compared all of these to these items names in Tamil and Telugu. I was amazed that I got direct hits on many of these words.

http://www.ausanthrop.net/phorum/read.php?1,115
Relevance? The old familiar paradigms we thought we knew no longer apply.
I now recognise at least 3 or 4 black sub races present in early China,Polynesian,Melanesian,Negroid and Australoid.
AK, I actually followed your dna link;as expected it leaves things too open ended for any certainity which is why I'd rather use other means. Return the favour and confirm or disconfirm the evidence I presented throughout these 7 pages.

[Rayzor]

Listen up ,AnybodyKiller. I developed an interest in Asian Neolithic people quite by accident. A website I visit, jandyongenesis.blogspot, made the astonishing claim that Angkor Wat was built by Ku$hite Egyptians during the Wet Holocene,roughly 9000 years ago. Apparently its architectural plan is identical to that of Giza,which new research shows to be at least 7000 years old due to water erosion,ie, it was standing when rainfall was heavy. I did a post on the Khmer forum which was poorly received despite a wealth of evidence of parallels with the Ancient black world-the naga motifs,African faces in the sculptures and a long history of negritos and Australoids in early S.E Asia as far as Indonesia and the Philipinnes .
http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=258402
Anime watching,made me recognise a number of E.African bantu words. Further research revealed, not only bantu but W.African vocabulary and even Somali in Japanese.http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=236042
It dawned on me there must have a gateway,a dispersal point for all these early Afro-Asians;this was India. I provided artwork,cultural similarities,craniometrics,linguistic analyses and dna studies but still everyone hated.http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=261575
Don't get me wrong. I don't claim to have all the answers but I know what I know which is that early Asia ,Neolithic China,and the earliest dynasty,the Shang were largely black. Also ,the learning process never stops: look at these Australian aborigine/Tamil language connection.

http://www.ausanthrop.net/phorum/read.php?1,115
Relevance? The old familiar paradigms we thought we knew no longer apply.
I now recognise at least 3 or 4 black sub races present in early China,Polynesian,Melanesian,Negroid and Australoid.
AK, I actually followed your dna link;as expected it leaves things too open ended for any certainity which is why I'd rather use other means. Return the favour and confirm or disconfirm the evidence I presented throughout these 7 pages.

Shang are not black/negroid. Do you know how to read? You got no evidence at all. All your posts have been refute by me in the past.

Archaeology findings from Shang clearly shows that based on craniometrics studies, the people of Shang are definitely mongoloids not negroids.

Racial & Cultural continuity, from Yangshao to the Shang

Racially the Shang were Mongoloids, like the preceding Yangshao and Longshan cultures. The Shang bones are indistinguishable from the Longshan. The Shang were not invaders from the Middle East. In addition to racial similarities, the Shang also shared cultural similarities with the Yangshao and Longshan cultures.

http://donlehmanjr.com/China/china%20chapt...ok2/china23.htm

The skulls found in Yangshao are physically Chinese, not negroid.

By the Yangshao period (3000 BC±
5000 BC)7, the skull measurements are `physically Chinese' and
`modern'6. The physical similarity of the Jiahu people to the later
Dawenkou (2600 BC±4300 BC) indicates that the Dawenkou might
have descended from the Jiahu, following a slow migration along the
middle and lower reaches of the Huai river and the Hanshui valley.

https://ccrma.stanford.edu/CCRMA/Courses/220a/flutes.pdf

All these overwhelming evidences clearly shows that Shang are mongoloids, not negorid.

Judging from the Oracle Bone excavated from the earth, the Shang people undoubtedly spoke Sino-Tibetan Language. All the characters that were used in Oracle Bone were the forerunner of the Modern day Chinese character.

Shang without a doubt are definitely ethnic Han Chinese or at least ethnic Han Chinese's ancestors.

This post has been edited by Rayzor: Dec 24 2011, 09:36 AM

[samnang]

Black Africans should be allowed visa-free travel and automatic citizenship in China now that it's been proven Africans and Chinese are one in the same.

[AnybodyKiller]

Listen up ,AnybodyKiller. I developed an interest in Asian Neolithic people quite by accident. A website I visit, jandyongenesis.blogspot, made the astonishing claim that Angkor Wat was built by Ku$hite Egyptians during the Wet Holocene,roughly 9000 years ago. Apparently its architectural plan is identical to that of Giza,which new research shows to be at least 7000 years old due to water erosion,ie, it was standing when rainfall was heavy. I did a post on the Khmer forum which was poorly received despite a wealth of evidence of parallels with the Ancient black world-the naga motifs,African faces in the sculptures and a long history of negritos and Australoids in early S.E Asia as far as Indonesia and the Philipinnes .
http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=258402
Anime watching,made me recognise a number of E.African bantu words. Further research revealed, not only bantu but W.African vocabulary and even Somali in Japanese.http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=236042
It dawned on me there must have a gateway,a dispersal point for all these early Afro-Asians;this was India. I provided artwork,cultural similarities,craniometrics,linguistic analyses and dna studies but still everyone hated.http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=261575
Don't get me wrong. I don't claim to have all the answers but I know what I know which is that early Asia ,Neolithic China,and the earliest dynasty,the Shang were largely black. Also ,the learning process never stops: look at these Australian aborigine/Tamil language connection.

http://www.ausanthrop.net/phorum/read.php?1,115
Relevance? The old familiar paradigms we thought we knew no longer apply.
I now recognise at least 3 or 4 black sub races present in early China,Polynesian,Melanesian,Negroid and Australoid.
AK, I actually followed your dna link;as expected it leaves things too open ended for any certainity which is why I'd rather use other means. Return the favour and confirm or disconfirm the evidence I presented throughout these 7 pages.

Even with this "soft" evidence the Cambodians disproved you with their knowledge of ancient Khmer civilization. They disproved your "sociocultural" evidence with their "sociocultural" evidence.

Anthropology is impressionistic, it's up to personal interpretation most times and people see what they want to see. That's why a French anthropological/archaeological team had King Tut looking like a damn French mime!

Genetics is a lot "harder" of a science than Anthropology by far. People can use wordplay in the 'abstract' 'conclusion' or 'discussion' etc. sections to point the evidence one way, but the data doesn't lie. Even considering data tampering, is the entire human geneticist world (South Asian, East Asian, Southeast Asian included) except the Afrocentrics covering up this black "truth"?

Polynesians, Melansians and Australoids are very different from African natives. In fact Australian natives cluster the furthest from present day Africans. Polynesians are basically East Asians with a 20% or lower Melanesian admixture.

Austronesian-speaking populations of Polynesia and Micronesia share a substantial portion of their gene pool with Taiwanese Aboriginal or East Asian populations, with no more than a 20% (or smaller) genetic contribution from Near Oceania

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/1/21.full


E1b1 (West Africans, most African-Americans, Jamaicans) actually arose around the same period as 0 (Asians) and R (Europeans). 25k-35k years ago. the Y-DNA E carriers don't have many descendants outside of Africa.

[Nanyue]

Even with this "soft" evidence the Cambodians disproved you with their knowledge of ancient Khmer civilization. They disproved your "sociocultural" evidence with their "sociocultural" evidence.

Anthropology is impressionistic, it's up to personal interpretation most times and people see what they want to see. That's why a French anthropological/archaeological team had King Tut looking like a damn French mime!

Genetics is a lot "harder" of a science than Anthropology by far. People can use wordplay in the 'abstract' 'conclusion' or 'discussion' etc. sections to point the evidence one way, but the data doesn't lie. Even considering data tampering, is the entire human geneticist world (South Asian, East Asian, Southeast Asian included) except the Afrocentrics covering up this black "truth"?

Polynesians, Melansians and Australoids are very different from African natives. In fact Australian natives cluster the furthest from present day Africans. Polynesians are basically East Asians with a 20% or lower Melanesian admixture.

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/1/21.full


E1b1 (West Africans, most African-Americans, Jamaicans) actually arose around the same period as 0 (Asians) and R (Europeans). 25k-35k years ago. the Y-DNA E carriers don't have many descendants outside of Africa.

Polynesians are not really an mixture of East asians whatsoever, East asian is this context is a scientific genetic term used to refer to people of Mongoloid East asian/Southeast asians. Polynesians are mixture of Taiwanese aborigines (old mongoloid) and melanesians, this happened when a small number of Taiwanese aborigine seafearers migrated out from Taiwan 5000 years ago.

(Taiwanese aborigines)




NEW EVIDENCE the other possibility is that Polynesian East asian admixture already existed long before the migration of Taiwanese aborigines like 10,000 years. The time where every land was inhabited by an very few people.

http://www.ncca.gov.ph/about-culture-and-a...at=13&i=364
http://www.physorg.com/news130761648.html

The phylogeny of complete sequences of two major Austronesian-speaking populations’ specific clades of mitochondrial DNA, haplogroups E and B4a1, contradicts the consensus view. Haplogroup E presents much deeper private subclades in ISEA. This suggests an ancestry there and a subsequent movement of people into Taiwan, probably motivated by the sea level rising at the end of the last ice age. The geographic origin of the B4a1 branch is unclear, but its most frequent sub-branch, present only in eastern ISEA and the Pacific and defined by the ‘Polynesian motif’, dates to around 7500 years predating the hypothetical “Out of Taiwan” movement 4000 years ago. Furthermore this branch is more diverse to the east of New Guinea in the Bismarck Archipelago, suggesting an origin in that region.

This latest study, led by Leeds University and published in this month’s Molecular Biology and Evolution, shows that a substantial fraction of the mitochondrial DNA lines (inherited by female descendants) have been evolving within ISEA for a much longer period, some since modern humans arrived about 50,000 years ago. The DNA lineages show population dispersals at the same time as sea level rises and also show migrations into Taiwan, east out to New Guinea and the Pacific, and west to the Southeast Asian mainland – within the last 10,000 years

This post has been edited by Nanyue: Dec 24 2011, 02:33 PM

[AnybodyKiller]

Polynesians are not really an mixture of East asians whatsoever, East asian is this context is a scientific genetic term used to refer to people of Mongoloid East asian/Southeast asians. Polynesians are mixture of Taiwanese aborigines (old mongoloid) and melanesians, this happened when a small number of Taiwanese aborigine seafearers migrated out from Taiwan 5000 years ago.

(Taiwanese aborigines)




NEW EVIDENCE the other possibility is that Polynesian East asian admixture already existed long before the migration of Taiwanese aborigines like 10,000 years. The time where every land was inhabited by an very few people.

http://www.ncca.gov.ph/about-culture-and-a...at=13&i=364
http://www.physorg.com/news130761648.html

The phylogeny of complete sequences of two major Austronesian-speaking populations’ specific clades of mitochondrial DNA, haplogroups E and B4a1, contradicts the consensus view. Haplogroup E presents much deeper private subclades in ISEA. This suggests an ancestry there and a subsequent movement of people into Taiwan, probably motivated by the sea level rising at the end of the last ice age. The geographic origin of the B4a1 branch is unclear, but its most frequent sub-branch, present only in eastern ISEA and the Pacific and defined by the ‘Polynesian motif’, dates to around 7500 years predating the hypothetical “Out of Taiwan” movement 4000 years ago. Furthermore this branch is more diverse to the east of New Guinea in the Bismarck Archipelago, suggesting an origin in that region.

This latest study, led by Leeds University and published in this month’s Molecular Biology and Evolution, shows that a substantial fraction of the mitochondrial DNA lines (inherited by female descendants) have been evolving within ISEA for a much longer period, some since modern humans arrived about 50,000 years ago. The DNA lineages show population dispersals at the same time as sea level rises and also show migrations into Taiwan, east out to New Guinea and the Pacific, and west to the Southeast Asian mainland – within the last 10,000 years

Very Interesting! Bookmarked links.
(Meant to say Southeast Asian btw)

Yeah, more and more of the modern studies point increasingly to the "Southern Route". ISEA being the location of the K -> O transition (Ice Age adaptions etc.) , rather than the "more advanced Taiwanese invaded Australoids" Northern Route theory.

But in any case, Polynesians and Pacific Islanders cluster closer to Southeast Asians than Africans by far. Melanesians are very distant from Africans also.

This post has been edited by AnybodyKiller: Dec 24 2011, 02:52 PM

[Sheelfnep]

ó íàñ íà âûøåïðèâåäåííîì ðåñóðñå ìîæíî êóïèòü ðåìîíò êâàðòèð â ñàíêò-ïåòåðáóðãå Êîìïàíèÿ «ÓÞÒ ÑÅÐÂÈÑ» çàðåãèñòðèðîâàíà è íàõîäèòñÿ íà ðûíêå ñòðîèòåëüíûõ óñëóã ñ 2006 ãîäà. Èñòîðèÿ íàøåé îðãàíèçàöèè íà÷àëàñü ñ óñòàíîâêè íàòÿæíûõ ïîòîëêîâ, è çà ïðîøåäøèå ãîäû ìû óñïåëè íàêîïèòü ñåðüåçíûé îïûò â ýòîì ñåãìåíòå. Íà ñåãîäíÿøíèé äåíü ìû óæå íå îãðàíè÷èâàåìñÿ ïðåäîñòàâëåíèåì îäíîé óñëóãè, êàê ðåìîíò êâàðòèð ïîä êëþ÷, è ãîòîâû ïðåäîñòàâèòü ïåðå÷åíü óñëóã â ñôåðå ñòðîèòåëüíî-îòäåëî÷íûõ ðàáîò. ðåìîíò êâàðòèð â ñàíêò-ïåòåðáóðãå

[AsiaticGlory]

interesting
Polynesians are a mix of proto-Mongoloids and Melanesians.

[Sheelfnep]

òóò íà íàøåì ðåñóðñå ìîæíî êóïèòü íàòÿæíûå ïîòîëêè öåíû Êîìïàíèÿ «ÓÞÒ ÑÅÐÂÈÑ» çàðåãèñòðèðîâàíà è íàõîäèòñÿ íà ðûíêå ñòðîèòåëüíûõ óñëóã ñ 2006 ãîäà. Èñòîðèÿ íàøåé îðãàíèçàöèè íà÷àëàñü ñ óñòàíîâêè íàòÿæíûõ ïîòîëêîâ, è çà ïðîøåäøèå ãîäû ìû óñïåëè íàêîïèòü ñåðüåçíûé îïûò â ýòîì ñåãìåíòå. Íà ñåãîäíÿøíèé äåíü ìû óæå íå îãðàíè÷èâàåìñÿ ïðåäîñòàâëåíèåì îäíîé óñëóãè, êàê óñòàíîâêà íàòÿæíûõ ïîòîëêîâ, è ãîòîâû ïðåäîñòàâèòü ïåðå÷åíü óñëóã â ñôåðå ñòðîèòåëüíî-îòäåëî÷íûõ ðàáîò. ñòîèìîñòü ðåìîíòà êâàðòèðû

[Sheelfnep]

ó íàñ íà ýòîì ðåñóðñå âû ìîæåòå çàêàçàòü íàòÿæíûå ïîòîëêè öåíû Êîìïàíèÿ «ÓÞÒ ÑÅÐÂÈÑ» çàðåãèñòðèðîâàíà è íàõîäèòñÿ íà ðûíêå ñòðîèòåëüíûõ óñëóã ñ 2006 ãîäà. Èñòîðèÿ íàøåé îðãàíèçàöèè íà÷àëàñü ñ óñòàíîâêè íàòÿæíûõ ïîòîëêîâ, è çà ïðîøåäøèå ãîäû ìû óñïåëè íàêîïèòü ñåðüåçíûé îïûò â ýòîì ñåãìåíòå. Íà ñåãîäíÿøíèé äåíü ìû óæå íå îãðàíè÷èâàåìñÿ ïðåäîñòàâëåíèåì îäíîé óñëóãè, êàê ðåìîíò êâàðòèð ôîòî, è ãîòîâû ïðåäîñòàâèòü ïåðå÷åíü óñëóã â ñôåðå ñòðîèòåëüíî-îòäåëî÷íûõ ðàáîò. íàòÿæíûå ïîòîëêè ñàíêò-ïåòåðáóðã

[Sheelfnep]

íà âûøåïðèâåäåííîì ñàéòå âû ñìîæåòå çàêàçàòü ðåìîíò êâàðòèð ôîòî Êîìïàíèÿ «ÓÞÒ ÑÅÐÂÈÑ» çàðåãèñòðèðîâàíà è íàõîäèòñÿ íà ðûíêå ñòðîèòåëüíûõ óñëóã ñ 2006 ãîäà. Èñòîðèÿ íàøåé îðãàíèçàöèè íà÷àëàñü ñ óñòàíîâêè íàòÿæíûõ ïîòîëêîâ, è çà ïðîøåäøèå ãîäû ìû óñïåëè íàêîïèòü ñåðüåçíûé îïûò â ýòîì ñåãìåíòå. Íà ñåãîäíÿøíèé äåíü ìû óæå íå îãðàíè÷èâàåìñÿ ïðåäîñòàâëåíèåì îäíîé óñëóãè, êàê ðåìîíò êâàðòèð ïîä êëþ÷, è ãîòîâû ïðåäîñòàâèòü ïåðå÷åíü óñëóã â ñôåðå ñòðîèòåëüíî-îòäåëî÷íûõ ðàáîò. íàòÿæíûå ïîòîëêè ôîòî