posted
I hope to provide more evidence for the fact that though there are those who cling to the idea that Europeans are indigenous to Europe and were always there, facts tell otherwise. Facts have it that the Capsammochal were the original population of Europe and during the Migration Period in Early Medieval times, today's whites first entered the continent and established today's European nations between the period of the 5th and 10th centuries. Here is a quote to start the discussions that notes, as I've been saying, that the Germanic and Italic populations are extremely young entrants to Europe:
[The present paper is a] proposal providing a quantitative direct database for number and origin of migrants for [European] populations. This is possible due to recent advances in the analysis of both multiple isotropic tracers (Sr, Pb, O) from human biominerals (teeth bones) and ancient DNA both used as proxies for human migrations. Integrating these with archeological artefact analysis herein offers an unprecedented opportunity to develop a fully integrated, multidisciplinary methodology for studying past migrations. The case studies for the project include early medieval cemeteries in Switzerland, Italy, Austria, and Hungary in order to study some of the most interesting migrations of the Mieeld Ages, including those of the Germanic-speaking Alammani and Goths (into Switzerland and Italy, respectively), and the Turkic-speaking Avars (into Austria and Hungary).
And recall that the archeological record leaves no trace of "white" per se, populations in Europe prior to the time of the few centuries leading to Ceasar slaughtering and enslaving the indigenous population of Africans there and changing the face of Italy and in coming centuries Germany and Northern Europe.
There are those who feel that the white Vikings were somehow indigenous. Let the above facts be a tap-on-the-shoulder that they too were newcomers and they took over the infrastructure of pre-established commmunities, ships, lands, and life-style from the indigenous African populations there.
Over time, I will speak more to the fact that the so-called Indo-European languages are Hurranian in origin - the language spoken by an African people in the Anatolia that whites would migrate to and come to be indentified with (after inheriting its language and African foundations).
quote:I hope to provide more evidence for the fact that though there are those who cling to the idea that Europeans are indigenous to Europe
This is true by definition Marc, if you think about it.
quote:and were always there
This is a strawman argument, since no one claims that Europe was -always- populated with humans.
Neanderthal lived in Europe for 100's of thousands of years before human beings supplanted them.
quote:Facts have it that the Capsammochal were the original population of Europe and during the Migration Period in Early Medieval times,
The facts are that you have so little regard for fact that you make up fake terms like 'Capsammochal', which is obviously some sort of twisted rendering of Capsian.
The fact is that Capsian is a stone tool industry, not a single population geneology that can be traced from ancient times to today.
So introduction of this fake-term is another strawman argument by you.
quote:today's whites first entered the continent and established today's European nations between the period of the 5th and 10th centuries.
Fact is - Europe isn't a continent, so your comments make no sense.
However, you do offer the possibility of entertainment.
Tell us, in your view then, what is the 'factual' history of 'white people' prior to medievil times?
Tell us where these peoples ancestors were 5 thousand years ago, 10 thousand, 20 thousand, 30 thousand.
Some 6 percent of Europeans are descended from the continent's first founders, who entered Europe from the Near East in the Upper Paleolithic era 45,000 years ago, Dr. Richards calculates. The descendants of these earliest arrivals are still more numerous in certain regions of Europe that may have provided them with refuge from subsequent waves of immigration. One is the mountainous Basque country, where people still speak a language completely different from all other European languages. Another is in the European extreme of Scandinavia. Another 80 percent arrived 30,000 to 20,000 years ago, before the peak of the last glaciation, and 10 percent came in the Neolithic 10,000 years ago, when the ice age ended and agriculture was first introduced to Europe from the Near East.
It used to be thought that the most important human dispersals occurred in the Neolithic, prompted by the population increases made possible by the invention of agriculture. But it now seems that the world filled up early and the first inhabitants were quite resistant to displacement by later arrivals.Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Given Marc's belief that white people migrated into Europe no earlier than the 10th century CE, I wonder what he makes of Roman mosaics like the one below?
posted
Quote: According to Anthropologist like Underhill and Wells, these peoples ancestors settled Europe 30 thousand years ago.
Rasol - No creditable anthropologist claims that modern Whites inhabited Europe 30,000 years ago. When they say ancestors: they mean Cro-Magnons, NOT modern Whites like yourselves. No creditable scientist disputes that the homeland of Modern Whites is the Eurasian plains.
quote:Quote: According to Anthropologist like Underhill and Wells, these peoples ancestors settled Europe 30 thousand years ago.
quote:Mike writes: Rasol - No creditable anthropologist claims that modern Whites inhabited Europe 30,000 years ago.
This statement is another example of a strawman argument.
Supposidly you are responding to - > Quote: According to Anthropologist like Underhill and Wells, these peoples ancestors settled Europe 30 thousand years ago
Yet you speak of 'modern-whites' (?), a term nowhere found in the passage you pretend to be respounding to.
People only use strawman arguments when they can't refute what was actually said.
This does not work with me.
I will make you address what was actually said, or call you out for irrelevant blather.
I will never 'chase-after' your strawman arguments.
posted
^ I think this last nonsense post is a sign that Mike has completely mentally broke down from Rasol's rightous rectification!
quote:Mike wrote: ..Rasol - No creditable anthropologist claims that modern Whites inhabited Europe 30,000 years ago..
ROTFL
And as for the poster who started this thread, his mind was broken a long time ago! Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't you guys read anything besides racist trash articles designed to further muddle your already muddled minds. You are already at a computer; all you had to do was search "Eurasian Plains" or some other relevant word. What is your Problem?
From Encyclopedia Britannica
Hellenes (Greeks) Quote: Of the Indo-European tribes of European origin, the Greeks were foremost as regards both the period at which they developed an advanced culture and their importance in further evolution. The Greeks emerged in the course of the 2nd millennium BC through the superimposition of a branch of the Indo-Europeans on the population of the Mediterranean region during the great migrations of nations that started in the region of the lower Danube. From 1800 BC onward the first early Greeks reached their later areas of settlement between the Ionian and the Aegean seas. The fusion of these earliest Greek-speaking people with their predecessors produced the civilization known as Mycenaean. They penetrated to the sea into the Aegean region and via Crete (approximately 1400 BC) reached Rhodes and even Cyprus and the shores of Anatolia. From 1200 BC onward the Dorians followed from Epirus.
Just to give you some insight into how hopeless you are. A knowledgeable person will read the above article and brand it White racist trash. Why? Because the author is trying to hold on to some of the old B.S. Modern White people had NOT reached the Danube by 2000 B.C. Combine that with his trying to make a connection between the Hellenes and Mycenaean, and other subtle lying White B.S. And it’s really a piece of White racist trash. But even with all of that racist crap: it still makes my point. You guys really need to try and catch up.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ The only one talking B.S. as usual is YOU!
First of all, the Eurasian steppes is considered the origin of Indo-European which is a language group and NOT a race. Indo-European spread into (the rest of) Europe from probably Russia during the Bronze and Iron Ages from 2,000 B.C. onward. All of that is besides the point that 'white peoples' were already living in Europe.
Why? Because white skin developed in Europe! White skin was an adaptation to the glaciel climate of Europe during the Pleistocene. Which is why indigenous Europeans are 'white'.
End of Marc's nonsense fantasy story of black aborigines of Europe being wiped out by whites from the steppes! LOLPosts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Quote: First of all, the Eurasian steppes is considered the origin of Indo-European which is a language group and NOT a race.
You seem to be suggesting that there were no people attached to the language.
That study said NOTHING about Whites turning White IN Europe.
The only Whites in Europe pre-invasion were Cro-Magnons. Close your mind all you want, but that's not going to change. You have NO ancient history. Trying to steal the history of others is sad and sick.
While you are trying to find a lie for that, also find one for this: how would you explain the pure blood Mongol, who is just as pale as you are.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: First of all, the Eurasian steppes is considered the origin of Indo-European which is a language group and NOT a race.
quote: You seem to be suggesting that there were no people attached to the language.
No he isn't. You do realise that that Indo European speakers include European whites, and Indian Blacks, and that not all whites of Europe speak Indo European languages don't you?
If so, then you will understand that the geneology of Europeans, and the history of the Indo European languages are distinct issues.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike. As you know, Africans were found far-and-wide in Eurasia. Here's a picture I'd like to share with you of the Steppe population there when whites emerged. It was for all intents and purposes the same as that you'd find in North Africa.
Couple of white kids in this thread with exotic names trying to go incognito calling themselves non-white to try to gain some mileage. Pretty cute stuff.
Here is a U-Tube presentation showing where whites emerged on the Steppes where Africans were also found. A brother here at EF shared. Whites are living in a state of denial as to their origins but this puts it straight: No European origin. But the Steppes:
Here is the answer, courtesy Geneticist, Peter Underhill:
The First Europeans
About 80 percent of Europeans arose from primitive hunters who arrived about 40,000 years ago, endured the long ice age and then expanded rapidly to dominate the continent, a new study shows.
Researchers analyzing the Y chromosome taken from 1,007 men from 25 different locations in Europe found a pattern that suggests four out of five of the men shared a common male ancestor about 40,000 years ago.
Peter A. Underhill, a senior researcher at the Stanford Genome Technology Center in Palo Alto, Calif., and co-author of the study, said the research supports conclusions from archaeological, linguistic and other DNA evidence about the settlement of Europe by ancient peoples.
When we can get different lines of evidence that tell the same story, then we feel we are telling the true history of the species. The researchers used the Y chromosome in the study because its rare changes establish a pattern that can be traced back hundreds of generations, thus helping to plot the movement of ancient humans.
The Y chromosome is inherited only by sons from their fathers. When sperm carrying the Y chromosome fertilizes an egg it directs the resulting baby to be a male. An X chromosome from the father allows a fertilized egg to be female.
"The Y chromosome has about 60 million DNA base pairs. Changes in those base pairs happen infrequently, but they occur often enough to establish patterns that can be used to trace the ancestry of people. Researchers looking at the 1,007 chromosome samples from Europe identified 22 specific markers that formed a specific pattern of change. Underhill said the researchers found that about 80 percent of all European males shared a single pattern, suggesting they had a common ancestor thousands of generations ago.
"The basic pattern had some changes that apparently developed among people who once shared a common ancestor and then were isolated for many generations. This scenario supports other studies about the Paleolithic European groups. Those studies suggest that a primitive, stone-age human came to Europe, probably from Central Asia and the Middle East, in two waves of migration beginning about 40,000 years ago. Their numbers were small and they lived byhunting animals and gathering plant food. They used crudely sharpened stones and fire.
"About 24,000 years ago, the last ice age began, with mountain-sized glaciers moving across most of Europe. The Paleolithic Europeans retreated before the ice, finding refuge for hundreds of generations in three areas: what is now Spain, the Balkans and the Ukraine.
"When the glaciers melted, about 16,000 years ago, the Paleolithic tribes resettled the rest of Europe. Y chromosome mutations occurred among people in each of the ice age refuges, said Underhill. He said the research shows a pattern that developed in Spain is now most common in northwest Europe, while the Ukraine pattern is mostly in Eastern Europe and the Balkan pattern is most common in Central Europe.
"About 8,000 years ago a more advanced people, the Neolithic, migrated to Europe from the Middle East, bringing with them a new Y chromosome pattern and a new way of life - agriculture. About 20 percent of Europeans now have the Y chromosome pattern from this migration.
"Archaeological digs in European caves clearly show that before 8,000 years ago, most humans lived by gathering and hunting. After that, there are traces of grains and other agricultural products. Earlier studies had traced European migration patterns using the DNA contained in the mitochondria, a key part of each cell. This type is DNA is passed down from mother to daughter."
Antonio Torroni, a researcher at the University of Urbino, Italy, who first proposed that early humans retreated to Spain during the ice age, said in a separate Science report that the Y chromosome study fits completely' with the mitochondria studies.
"The Y chromosome studies are also consistent with genetic studies showing a broader picture of human migration. In general, studies show that modern humans first arose in Africa about 100,000 years ago and thousands of years later began a long series of migrations, he said. Some groups migrated eastward and humans are known to have existed in Australia about 60,000 years ago. Other groups crossed the land bridge into the Middle East. Humans appeared in Central Asia about 50,000 years ago. From there, the theory goes, some migrated west, arriving in Europe about 40,000 years ago. Later, some migrated east, across the Bering Straits, to the Americas." Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And for populations no longer found in Europe and absent from Tunesia and parts of North Africa today where white populations now exist where they once did - all recent migrations under 3000 years old:
posted
A man problem here is ignoring the more modern evidence being unearthed next to a daily basis..
If one goes to http://www.prehistory.it one will see that pottery,artefacts, scripts in some unknown languages were in Europe as far as 27,000 yrs BC !
What about the Bulgarian discoveries in Perperikon- a city dating to at least 5,000 yrs BC...
And the temples,sphere balls,etc,pyramids of Bosnia-now confirmed...More and more facts,artefacts,unknown symbols,scripts,etc.. are accumulated with each passing month
posted
In 8, 14, and 15 these as representatives of African populations in Scandinavia now vanished as a result of Germanic incursion into those lands.
We see what Hitler and Germanic peoples without remorse did to the Jews. It doesn't take much immagination to know what happened to the diminuitive, small statured Africans once there.
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whites have made a history for themselves of denying African existence or claiming African historical figures and accomplishments as their own. Theirs is a history of deceit and theft filled with ill-will and are not to be trusted.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ..The only Whites in Europe pre-invasion were Cro-Magnons...
Perhaps you were not listening. 'Cro-Magnon' is an inaccurate misnomer named after some caves in France. The modern humans who inhabited those caves came from the Eurasian steppes themselves and ultimately descended from Africans like all non-Africans. Cro-Magnons were NOT white by the way, since they were new to Europe and 'white skin' evolved later as a response to their environment. Perhaps you read the article again and this time more closely.
quote:..Close your mind all you want, but that's not going to change..
LOL I was thinking the exact same about you. The only difference is that I close my mind to nonsense while you close yours to FACTS!
quote:You have NO ancient history. Trying to steal the history of others is sad and sick.
And exactly what do you know about MY ancient history?! LOL Better yet, since when have I tried to steal others history?! Perhaps you and your partner Marc as very confused individuals should try looking at yourselves with that accusation when you make claims of whites invading Europe during the Middle Ages only to destroy some indigenous population of diminuitive blacks in the process! LMAO
quote:While you are trying to find a lie for that, also find one for this: how would you explain the pure blood Mongol, who is just as pale as you are.
First of all, the only one lying is YOU. Second, fair skinned Asians like some Mongols (since many are actually darker) northern Chinese, Koreans, etc. were explained in the same thread of that article here. Fair skin among Europeans and northeast Asians is a result of convergent evolution but from different genes. European 'whiteness' was the result of a particular mutation.
And lastly, I am not fair-skinned at all. I am not even white, if that's what you thought! LOLPosts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see that Mr. Washington fails to realize that many European archeologists had in the 1800 up until recently an imperialistic attitudes towards all non white "races".
This was done BY DESIGN..If we stick with AE history we can quickly see that(this applies to Europeans):
1-most were FREEMASONS
2-power elites at that time had political /sociological reasons to show the superiority of the Europeans over the African savages/barbarians..
3-religious reasons which tied in with the Freemasonic aspects.The only entity that was capable of advancing the funds and who had the poltical clout and historical knowledge was the Roman Catholic Church or the Vatican with its Jesuit agents..
Now if you think this is far fetched how come the actual president of Sudan(muslim) recently visited the Pope giving him a MASONIC handshake and consulting him about the Darfur problem..
Also read my post about E.A Wallis Budge legacy and how he is still maligned today by egypotologists..
Once you start reading his books where he clearly demonstrates the African origin of the AE civilisation you will understand..
Finally any archaeological find is HIGHLY POLITICAL so never expect a clear cut opinion.
Next to all egyptologists etc are either on governmental payrolls or get their funds from specific Foundations which are controlled by the power elite,Vatican etc..
Even if a person was financially independent he could never do archeology in today's contexts without first applying for all kinds of permits,submitting to various rules,...having groups,Fondations directing their research,how to interpret these findings,etc..
In Bosnia, the Foundation,despite the backing by the PM had its 2007 excavation campaign sabotaged with ludicrous restriciting permits,money confiscated from their bank accounts,false accusations of criminal activities in regards to the funds collected by the foundation,etc..(that is right ,you have your donated funds confiscated then you are accused of putting them in your pocket !)
Only a public outcry and a near uprising by the people of Bosnia made the bought and paid politicians back up...Nonetheless not until 2008 will the real excavation campaign begin..
See the Foundation website(in many languages- Bosnia,German.English,Arabic,French,etc..)
And yes they do have the collaboration of many egyptologists from Egypt as well as from other non-European countries..
And for those out there even in ISRAEL archeology is a political matter.
The CFR-Council on Foreign Affairs as well as the EU and its leader Javier Selena have called for a Mediterranean Union,meaning a de facto control by the EU of all Northern Africa up to and including Turkey ! Thus paving the way to the recolonization of Africa..
So just sticking to the race aspect of it is ludicrous..
You can go to this website as well to get the real picture about Israel
Again I am not denying that African influences did occur in Europe well as in Mexico(re the msyterious Olmecs)etc..but just to basically level it on one's skin pigmentation is ludicrous..
Look at the Christian religions for starters-they all used European concocted images of Christ,the Apostles ,bible characters,etc..
Now why is it surprising that European egyptologists would not follow the same model in their interpretations as to how the AE looked like ?!
ryb
Note- To those that think I am a Bible/Christian basher-well just look as to what were the Commandments in the Bible BEFORE those given by God to Moses..not the popularized 10 Commandments as per the Hollywood version..
You will learn how so-called Jews (from Babylonia)invaded Europe,took over the countries even before the year 1,000 !
Interesting to not that all of the principal Japanese that ushered the Meijin period(opening to the West) that went to Europe to Europeanize Japan were ALL high ranking FREEMASONS.
quote: fair skinned Asians like some Mongols (since many are actually darker) northern Chinese, Koreans, etc. were explained in the same thread of that article here. Fair skin among Europeans and northeast Asians is a result of convergent evolution but from different genes. European 'whiteness' was the result of a particular mutation.
Telling that they would rather defend the scientifically illiterate/ahistorical photochop of Marc Washington, rather than the scientific assessments of geneticists Keith Chang, Rick Kittles et. al..... Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
By the way Ray, I don't know what "freemasonry" has to do with anything, unless you've bought into that psuedo-historical stuff of Egyptian masonry that was adopted by some Afrocentrics.
All in all, the main topic of this thread has been refuted as usual like every other silly topic the author creates. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The main problem here is that the first European archeologists into Egypt were financially backed by the power elite that were Freemasons.
They truly believed that they were the descendents of the AE civilisation.Hence they HAD to discard any African elements that they were uncovering
Naturally up until the 1920's the field of egyptology was more or less open,even to freelancers thus this is why TODAY we do have accounts of the origins of the AE based in Africa(read Budge et al..)
The muslims did not care about AE,in fact the early egyptologists had to bribe the authorities from preventing them to destroy any artefacts..,use kickbacks etc..
Even today we see the same attitude in most muslim countries-all that was before Islam is unpure hence it can be discarted/destroyed..
Only Turkeya nd Syria seem to have any sane policy in regards to their antiquity..
M Washington- instead of putting all the blame on the bad "Europeans" forgets that if it was NOT for them most of what we have today in various museums in Europe etcv,.. ,also in Egypt in regards to the AE would have been long destroyed..
Egytians of today-only see the AE vestiges as a way to skim off $$$ from these funny infidels(Europeans,non muslims,etc..) and eek out a living while chanting "Allah is Great "!
As for the Copts-they are only interested in preserving their monastaries,Churches-they do not care about AE except for propaganda purposes and claim that they are the real AE-sure most of their ancestors came from Asia Minor,Greece,Rome,.. etc..
Many Coptic Churches,etc where ancient AE temples that were converted;same can apply for many older mosks..
Finally can M. Washington gives us any good reasonas s to why the Sudanese government is neglecting its ancient past ?They surely do not look like Europeans to me !
And what about Lybia,Saudi Arabia,Iran,Israel,Lebanon ?
You will notice that Turkey and Syrian are more or less secular states..Need I say more ?!
Posts: 305 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
To Djehuti- Simply because the PREDECESSORS of the Freemasons were the Templars and the Templars had relationships with the "Assassins sects...
But the Templars did not arise out from the blue yonder...they were a creation of the Roman Catholic Church,their official money lenderers alongside with many Jewish families that had already intermarried with nobility and "converted" to christianity..
The infamous Rotschilds- they can trace their direct ancestry to the Israeli kingdom before the Greek/Roman times..
You also have to take into account the various Crusades to liberate the Holy lands
And this is where it gets interesting..
Kings,nobles needed $$$ to do warfare just like modern states,guerilla groups need today..
Now who had that kind of financial means except the Roman Catholic Church(Vatican)..
Many authors,researchers etc agree that it was Constantine(around 325 AD) that merged the various paganistic beliefs into a new religion that was to become Roman Catholicism.
Some researchers also suggest that Roman Catholicism was the creator of buddhism as well as of islam..
And how come :
-many of the coptic monasteries,churches used AE temples,places of worships etc..
Restoration of different monasteries in Egypt have clearly shown this..
We are told that suddenly the AE all converted to catholicism then later on to islam,this from people that had followed their religion for millienia ?
That even in parts of northern Sudan remnants to the cult of Osiris still existed at the time Islam started to penetrate those areas...
And get this- "European Jews" came from the Middle East..this proving that "Europeans" were already in the region,before the Greeks/Romans ever set foot unto Egyptian shores..
Hence parts of the "white race" did come from Africa..
As for Blacks- I surmise that parts of them did come from Europe !
Places to watch for further archaeological discoveries are: Bulgaria,Turkey,Romania,Ukraine,,Malta,Portugal, Spain,etc..
Hence M Washington simplistic assertions are self delusional as he ONLY SEES/RETAINS that is confirming his own THEORY..
Finally get this- Egytpian archaeologists have just confirned the validity fo the Bosnian pyramids-and they are at least 12,000 yrs old,built before the last Ice Age as Bosnian,South of Europe did not have an iceshield..
I would not be surprised if they find drawings,skeletons, etc that are of African origin..clearly showing their black features..
Calculations by the Foundation is that they need around $200 millions in order to fully excavate that site but as their whole budget for this year is about $500,000 so it will take them 400 yrs..!
But if they can get more funds,many millions within a period of 20 yrs or less they could have a very good idea as to who those pyramid builders were..
posted
Also if you go to http://www.prehistory.it on their 1st webpage you will see figurines that look very similar to African ones except those were excavated in Europe more than 20,000 yrs ago !
Also look up at the strange alphabet found on a rock- these characters look like certain African scripts...
Hence nothing wrong in assuming that Blacks were in Europe,Whites in Africa and that the Ice Age of over 12,000 yrs ago lead to massive population displacements .
And the major displacement being the creation of the Black Sea from over 6,000 yrs B.C.. the "deluge" in the Mesopotamian region, etc.. Henceforth Blacks ,the majority ,remained in Africa and the "whites" moved to Europe this due to desertification of the Nile Valley and Northern Africa and population pressure as well..
Note-Africa as per the anthropolgists seems to be the motherland of the human race so it is illusory to believe as they do that only the Black race was to dumwitted to move out of Africa..
Posts: 305 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
The more I re-read this study the more I am starting see Marc’s, Mike111 and others point. Indeed, were the classical Greeks . . . “White” ?
HLA genes in Macedonians and the sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks
1) Macedonians belong to the ‘‘older’’ Mediterranean substratum, like Iberians (including Basques), North Africans, Italians, French, Cretans, Jews, Lebanese, Turks (Anatolians), Armenians and Iranians, 2) Macedonians are not related with geographically close Greeks, who do not belong to the ‘‘older’’ Mediterranenan substratum, 3) Greeks are found to have a substantial relatedness to sub-Saharan (Ethiopian) people, which separate them from other Mediterranean groups.
translation – the classical Greeks were Ethiopian/East African in origin
Genetic distances are closer between Greeks and Ethiopian/sub-Saharan groups than to any other Mediterranean group and finally Greeks cluster with Ethiopians/sub-Saharans in both neighbour joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses. The time period when these relationships might have occurred was ancient but uncertain and might be related to the displacement of Egyptian-Ethiopian people living in pharaonic Egypt.
translation – the classical Greeks were Ethiopian/East African in origin
Ancient Macedonians were among the peoples that lived between northern Greece (Thessaly) and Thrace in the Balkans and were considered by the classical Greeks as ‘‘non-Greek barbarians’’ that could not participate in the Greek Olympic Games (3). Hero- dotus wrote that ‘‘Macedonians’’ were ‘‘Dorians’’ and were never admitted to the Greek community
translation – the classical Greeks were different from the Macedonian Greeks
5). Macedonians fought against the Greeks between 357–336 B.C. under King Philip II. They defeated the Greeks at the Battle of Chaironea (338 B.C.). The Macedonian empire extended from the Balkan Peninsula to the Himalayas and to North Africa during the reign of Philip’s son, Alexander the Great (6). Thereafter, Macedonia was conquered by the Romans.
translation – the classical Greeks were different from the Macedonian Greeks. The Macedonian Greeks eventual conquered and absorbed the original African descendant Greeks.
In addition, sub-Saharan and other Africans were compared with all available Mediterranean groups in order to solve the question of the unique Greek HLA profile.
Our results show that Macedonians are related to other Mediterraneans and do not show a close relationship with Greeks; however they do with Cretans (Tables 3, 4, Figs 1–3). This supports the theory that Macedonians are one of the most ancient peoples existing in the Balkan peninsula, probably long before arrival of the Mycaenian Greeks (10) about 2000 B.C. Other possible explanation is that they might have shared a genetic background with the Greeks before an hypothetical admixture between Greeks and sub- Saharans might have occurred. The cultural, historical and genetic identity of Macedonians is established according to our results. However, 19th century historians focused all the culture in Greece ignoring all the other Mediterranean cultures present in the area long before the classical Greek one (25).
translation – the classical Greeks were different from the Macedonian Greeks. The Macedonians were from the north.
Much to our surprise, the reason why Greeks did not show a close relatedness with all the other Mediterraneans analyzed (Tables 5, 6 and Figs 1–3) was their genetic relationship with sub-Saharan ethnic groups now residing in Ethiopia, Sudan and West Africa (Burkina- Fasso).
translation – the classical Greeks were . . . .MODERN DAY Africans????? ie less than 2000yrsBC
The conclusion is that part of the Greek genetic pool may be sub-Saharan and that the admixture has occurred at an uncertain but ancient time. The origin of the West African Black ethnic groups (Fulani, Mos si and Rimaibe sampled in Burkina-Fasso) is probably Ethiopian (26, 27) (Fig. 4). The Fulani are semi-nomadic hunters and gatherers and one of the few people in the area to use cows’ milk and its byproducts to feed themselves and to trade; their facial parameters show a Caucasian admixture.
whites mixed with africans??? I think NOT. These features are indigenous. These people moved OUT of Africa!!
Two kinds of Nubians were described in ancient times: Reds and Blacks, probably reflecting the degree of Caucasian admixture.
whites mixed with africans??? I think NOT. Genetic evidence proves movement OOA. These are indigenous features
Thus, it is hypothesized that there could have been a migration from southern Sahara which mixed with ancient Greeks to give rise to a part of the present day Greek genetic background.
translation – the classical Greeks were Ethiopian/East African in origin
Also, the time when admixture occurred could be after the overthrown of some of the Negroid Egyptian dynasties (Nubian or from other periods) or after undetermined natural catastrophes (i.e.: dryness). Indeed, ancient Greeks believed that their religion and culture came from Egypt.
translation – the classical Greeks were Ethiopian/East African in origin. Did they(AE) migrate north to find the AG (ancient greek) civilization??Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is a good thread for Marc and other's to espouse their theory, about the recent Europeans, and provide evidence. But please keep it simple the picture art is hard to follow.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: The more I re-read this study the more I am starting see Marc’s, Mike111 and others point
This is because they exploit ignorance.
re:
quote:HLA genes in Macedonians and the sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks
^ The study documents Neolithic migrations of Africans to Greece.... it is not claiming a paleolithic *African* population replaced by whites.
Like Marc, you don't know the difference between Paleolithic and Neolithic, so you can't understand the fundamental difference between what he is asserting [which is utterly ludicrous], and what this paper is saying...
hence, ignorance is exploited.
Btw: Many Eurocentrists attacked this 2002 study, but it has later been affirmed by more recent studies from other geneticists and from as late as 2005
HLA genes in Southern Tunisians (Ghannouch area) and their relationship with other Mediterraneans.Hajjej A, Hmida S, Kaabi H, Dridi A, Jridi A, El Gaa l ed A, Boukef K.
. This present study confirms the relatedness of Greeks to Sub-Saharan populations. This suggests that there was an -admixture- between the Greeks and Sub-Saharans probably during Pharaonic period or after natural catastrophes (dryness) occurred in Sahara.
-> In baby talk: Europeans were already in Greece. Africans migrated to Greece and mixed with them. The exact opposite of what Marc is saying.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am the first to admit that I am not familiar with the difference between Paleolithic and Neolithic. But what is inferred from the FACTS may be subjected.
1. Ancient (classical) Greek are genetically different to Macedonian Greeks. They are similar to AE/Ethiopians/East Africans.
Inference – The East Africans type populated Greece up to the Macedonian invasion. Was this before of after - Paleolithic and Neolithic.. . I don’t know. But the fact is the classical Greeks are closely related to the “East Africans” type.
2. The author said that the relation existed during the Dynastic times ie 4000y ago. That is recent. . .to me. 3. The classical Greeks considered the Macedonians UNLIKE themselves. And the genetics proved that.
As I said this is a good thread for others to bring out the proof of AG being . . . .black
I am reading the - HLA genes in Southern Tunisians. Name of others?. . .thanks
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote: The more I re-read this study the more I am starting see Marc’s, Mike111 and others point
This is because they exploit ignorance.
re:
quote:HLA genes in Macedonians and the sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks
^ The study documents Neolithic migrations of Africans to Greece.... it is not claiming a paleolithic *African* population replaced by whites.
Like Marc, you don't know the difference between Paleolithic and Neolithic, so you can't understand the fundamental difference between what he is asserting [which is utterly ludicrous], and what this paper is saying...
hence, ignorance is exploited.
Btw: Many Eurocentrists attacked this 2002 study, but it has later been affirmed by more recent studies from other geneticists and from as late as 2005
HLA genes in Southern Tunisians (Ghannouch area) and their relationship with other Mediterraneans.Hajjej A, Hmida S, Kaabi H, Dridi A, Jridi A, El Gaa l ed A, Boukef K.
. This present study confirms the relatedness of Greeks to Sub-Saharan populations. This suggests that there was an -admixture- between the Greeks and Sub-Saharans probably during Pharaonic period or after natural catastrophes (dryness) occurred in Sahara.
-> In baby talk: Europeans were already in Greece. Africans migrated to Greece and mixed with them. The exact opposite of what Marc is saying.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
To Djehuti- sorry to burst your balloon but at the upcoming European archeologist Congress to be held in Croatia- Osmanagic and others have been invited by Bosnian archeologists to put forward what has so far been uncovered...
Yes,contrary to the establishment diktats- they now have solid artefacts,scripts,monoliths with symbols showing the location for the various pyramids,etc..
Macedonians different from the Greeks- of course ! I remember reading that the Greek Doric tribes had red hair and green eyes as one their distinctive mark..
And yes Dr Hawass has stated that indeed there are pyramids in Bosnia..
Also strong indications do exist that certain burial chambers are connected to the tunnels underneath the pyramids that are being excavated..
And yes they have found that INERTON WAVES resulting in the disturbance of the electromagnetic field above the pyramids are being emitted by the Bosnian ones,same thing for the Egyptian pyramids,Mayan ones,etc...
Note -will start a new thread in regards to the Bosnian Pyramids as to how they ARE connected with the Egytians ones and that the origin for those builders will also be interconnected
Posts: 305 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
Our study shows that the Greeks are separate from other Mediterranean populations and tend to cluster with Sub-Saharans. This result confirms the Sub-Saharan ORIGIN of Greeks. This observation suggests that there was an admixture between the Greeks and Sub-Saharans at an ancient time. The admixture has probably occurred during Egyptian pharaonic times. Indeed, ancient Greeks thought that their culture and religion came from Egypt. In this period, there was an influx of people to Greece represented by the migration of Negroid Egyptian dynasties with their followers (who were expelled) towards Greece. Moreover, many linguistic and cultural studies confirm that Fulani have several characteristics in common with ancient Egyptians, which suggest that they may come from pharaonic Egypt. An other possible influx of Negroid people into Greece was occurred, when the weather of desert became hyperarid (5000 B.C.)
I left out some “Caucasian admixture” lies ehhh.. .line . . .because we now know they are indigenous African features and there is no proof whites came to central Africa and mixed with Africans. It was the other way around.
Is 5000BC - Paleolithic and Neolithic?? I believe what the author is suggesting is “modern” Africans, or African type people, were living in Greece up to 5000bc. The Macedonians conquered them in 537bc. 5000bc is dynastic time. . .so they were all Africans throughout that region.
Did I miss something?????
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:I believe what the author is suggesting is “modern” Africans, or African type people, were living in Greece up to 5000bc
Wrong.
I just quoted you exactly what they are saying:
This present study confirms the relatedness of Greeks to Sub-Saharan populations. This suggests that there was an -admixture- between the Greeks and Sub-Saharans probably during Pharaonic period or after natural catastrophes (dryness) occurred in Sahara.
Then I explained it to in the simplist possible terms:
-> Europeans were already in Greece. Africans migrated to Greece [this is the whole point of the 'after' the (drying up) of sahara comments] and mixed with them. The exact opposite of what Marc is saying.
quote:Did I miss something?????
You don't know the basics and so manage to completely misunderstand the entire study. Even after it is explained to you, you still don't grasp it.
You're the perfect dupe for Marc Washington.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
from another thread - Angel also used the concept of Negroid and Caucasoid..... yet Angel's work, which posited 'negroid' remains in Ancient Greece, which he concluded were indicative of migrations to Europe from Nubia, is part of the basis for a non-racial anthropology, which recognises the reality of overlapping lineages throughout human history.
Are you saying there were "lots" of Africans in Greece during dynastic times?
What about the neolithic times thing?? Are you BS ing me Rasol? I got the impression that Neolithic was about 10Kya. The author is saying that the African admixture in Greece was more recent ie 4-5Ky BC.
So I don't see your point. THERE WERE AFRICAN TYPE PEOPLE IN AG (CLASSICAL), in control or living there prior to the Macedonians conquest.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
All of your questions about the peopling of Europe in the 2 Paleolithic events and 1 Neolithic event are answered, in great detail earlier in this thread, including specifics relating time periods.....and by some of the worlds foremost anthropologists and geneticists.
All you have to do is read what has already been provided.
But if you prefer to ignore knowledge and stay igorant...go ahead.
It's your mind to waste. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Are you saying there were "lots" of Africans in Greece during dynastic times?
That depends on what you mean by "lots". African E lineages are found among Greeks up to 24% percent, almost a quarter. The same percent is seen of Asiatic J lineages. Of course these people were still a minority since the majority of lineages are still indigenous to Europe. The study states that African presence was in Greece either during dynastic times or before, when the Sahara dried up. Archaeology seems to support the latter.
quote:What about the neolithic times thing?? Are you BS ing me Rasol? I got the impression that Neolithic was about 10Kya. The author is saying that the African admixture in Greece was more recent ie 4-5Ky BC.
Neolithic is a description of technological industry, specifically the new stone tools but more importantly the domestication of plants and animals. The Neolithic began in Southwest Asia around 10Kya but was introduced to Greece 5-4Kya. This was the same time period that "negroid" skulls were found in Greece as well as the time period that correlates to African E lineages.
Rasol is not BSing you so much as you are to yourself. Perhaps out of confusion(?)
quote:So I don't see your point. THERE WERE AFRICAN TYPE PEOPLE IN AG (CLASSICAL), in control or living there prior to the Macedonians conquest.
Incorrect. Peoples of African ancestry or type were in Greece long before Classical times. Which is why Classical Greek portraits do not show any black peoples, though genetics does show there is black ancestry.
Some people like 'Kemson' refuses to believe this and makes ridiculous claims that white Greeks portrayed in Classical work are somehow frauds. LOLPosts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
African E lineage is found in Greeks 24%. Doesn't that mean there were (substantial) Africans in Greece about ~4kya? The "negroid" skulls around the same period supports this. Does this mean that the owners of the negroid skulls brought the neolithic technology as you said. So it is fair to say that the "negroid", ie African egyptians, lived freely in Greece PRIOR to their classical period.
I am not sure who the "negroid" met there. But you are saying there were indegenous Europeans(Leucoderms) present. But doesn't the aricle above say that the AG considered the Macedonians "different" or babaric? What was this differnce? I assume it was ethnic. My thinking there were "mulattoes" ie black per the one drop rule. .. running around.
It seem that the point of contention is when did these "negroids' get absorbed or . . .exterminated? You are saying from 5k BC to ~500bc the negroids were gone!! That is why there are no or very little portraites showing them(negroids).
But what about the view that the AG viewed AE as their mentor ie father figure ie direct connection. That implies to me that the AG were still had negroids running around to help build their civilization. It was only when the Macedonians took over that it became pure white. And the Genes of the Macedonins prove that.
Maybe it was during the later times the percentage (E lineage)dropped to 24%. Prior to that it was much higher.
as you know invasion, conquest and lengthy occupation can change the makeup of genes.
SO I AM STILL NOT CONVINCED. AM I BEING BSed?
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic