I don't know what was so confusing about my explanation.
quote: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.
Correct. But what you fail to see is that these Neolithic forebearers mixed with the indigenous European population already there. Hence, the majority of Greeks carry European R lineages. And the majority of Greeks looked European (as seen in classical art) and still do today. This is totally different from Marc's silly theory of whites replacing a black population indigenous to Europe!
quote: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.
You are letting the racial classifications get too much to you. "Negroid" is an outdated term describing cranial features. The article says nothing about Macedonians concerning ethnicity only about the region of Macedon.
quote: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).
"Negroids" is an outdated term, so let's just say peoples of African descent. Obviously they were not "exterminated" if modern Europeans today carry their lineages. Obviously they were absorbed the by indigenous European population which is the opposite of what Marc thinks.
quote: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.
First of all there was no Ancient Greek claim of ancient Egyptians being their "father figure" or "mentor" at all. There are however certain myths like the one of Danaus whose descendants settled Greece. Also, you fail to understand that the HLA study talks about genes inherited in the area of Macedon long before any ethnic label 'Macedonians' existed!
quote:Maybe it was during the later times the percentage (E lineage)dropped to 24%. Prior to that it was much higher.
Or maybe they were always low, as E is not indigenous to Europe!
quote:as you know invasion, conquest and lengthy occupation can change the makeup of genes.
True but we have no evidence of such.
quote:SO I AM STILL NOT CONVINCED. AM I BEING BSed?
Again, you are only BSing YOURSELF! You are either not smart enough to understand the explanations, or you choose not to and instead choose Marc's fantasies of indigenous black Europeans! LOLPosts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ You are probably right. I maybe just wasting my time. Huh?! LOLPosts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
quote: Maybe it was during the later times the percentage (E lineage)dropped to 24%. Prior to that it was much higher. Or maybe they were always low, as E is not indigenous to Europe!
quote: as you know invasion, conquest and lengthy occupation can change the makeup of genes. True but we have no evidence of such.
Based on what you all just admitted indeed the AG did have a POSSIBLE strong African influence if they were not african themselves. Key reasons cited above. Also why is it that E is only found( ie24%) in Greeks and no other Mediterranean Europeans. Seems to me the logically explaination is that these Africans bypassed all other areas and settled in Greece resulting in high E percentage seen. They brought their knowledge from AE resulting in a "kick start" of the classical Greeks. Evenually the Macedonians took over and eradicated all evidence of the African Greeks. AND THIS IS NOT NEW. Europeans had done this in the past ie eradicate evidence of African presence in lands.
Sounds like a good theory to me. And the evidence prove that this is a possible scenario. Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ So the guy (xyz) believes that Greeks were all black, but became white when Macedonians invaded?! LOL
Let's review for a second. Greece was conquered by Macedon yes, but even the Greek historical records show no mass invasion or immigration from Macedon that changed the demographics of Greece. Which is why Greeks during classical times looked 'white' well before Macedonian conquest.
Classical Greeks ]
Despite their 'white' looks, some of these Greeks had African ancestry that they inherited from immigrant during Neolithic times. Of course these immigrants of African ancestry were a minority that were absorbed into the greater indigenous European gene-pool. Hence E lineages are 24% and Greeks overall look 'white'.
Also, the HLA studies you cited even included some populations from the Macedonian region indicating that African ancestry penetrated as far north as there.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, the HLA studies you cited even included some populations from the Macedonian region indicating that African ancestry penetrated as far north as there.
^ Correct, as also indicated by Larry Angels studies of the neolithic skeletal remains in Macedonia.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Guys. Seems like you are admitting African presense in AG.
I don't have know enough info to conclude that the AG were all black. I never said so.
To me the sticklier is why the African lineage is found ONLY/MOSTLY in Greece.
Any rational person will postulate that these AE type migrated/emigrated/travelled and SETTLED in Greece. And since they were more advanced they probably brought their science and technology to Greece. Thus Greece getting their "jumo" start.
Makes perfect sense to me.
In case you missed the key points and correlation. . .they are.
Larger percentage of African genes in Greeks compared to other Europeans. This tells me their were MORE Africans there.
First advance European civilization. The connection to AE is the african presense.
Conclusion - the Africans brought/helped/started the AG civilization. Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
To return to the subject of the thread: whites are complete newcomers to Europe. As a rule, it was Africans that built cities, states, and nations, and civilizations at their historic outset in Europe and whites that destroyed them. Destroyed them and as Ceasar had 10,000 Hebrew (at the time, black Africans) build the Colliseum and Apia had slaves (Africans) build the Apian way where thousands of Africans were afterwards crucified (irony: today, the Apian Way is celebrated in Europe), it was Africans that built and whites that destroyed. People forget that Early Medieval Rome that attracted white migrants were built before their arrival. Christianity was completely foreign to whites and the Christianity they came to adopt was from their exposure to African religion - referred to as Christianity, the African Christ hair like lamb's wool and so on. Whites are clinging to the idea they were always in Europe and this is not true.
"A widely accepted theory assumes, that most European peoples have a common origin somewhere in Central asia. Their languages (Greek, Latin, Old German/Old English, Slavonian) are quite similar to each other and even to Persian (Iran) and Sanskrit (India!). For reasons we do not know, they decided to move to the regions of the world where they settle now.
"Frequent but smaller incidents between Roman troops and Germanic tribes did not change a balance of power for several centuries until about A.D. 400. But then the Roman Empire was challenged by severe attacks and raids carried forth to the south of the Alps. So the Romans withdrew troops from their territories north of the Alps (including Switzerland). But they could not prevent the decline of their empire."
The decline of their empire was the decline of African presence in Europe. But, that whites were so determined to enter their cities and claim African social capital and culture as their own is a testimony to black genius. And, I remind, the Indo-European language, the source of discussion here at EF and the language of communication of the world, was African at its roots and used by the Germanic peoples who'd come to dominate a continent cleared out of the forest by Africans and made suitable for the habitation of those who'd displace and come after them:
posted
^ Spamming your scientifically illiterate babble dosen't make it any less ridiculous:
Here's what a population geneticist has to say....
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
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."
posted
There is no saving grace; no saving glory. The entry of today's Europeans is characterized in a few words that herald the destruction that accompanied their appearance from the Steppes:
THE MIGRATION PERIOD, ALSO CALLED BARBARIAN INVASIONS (AD 300 - AD 700)
Völkerwanderung, is a name given by historians to a human migration which occurred within the period of roughly AD 300–700 in Europe,[1] marking the transition from Late Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages.
The migration included the Goths, Vandals, and Franks, among other Germanic, Bulgar and Slavic tribes. The migration may have been triggered by the incursions of the Huns, in turn connected to the Turkic migration in Central Asia, population pressures, or climate changes.
Migrations would continue well beyond 1000 AD, successive waves of Slavs, Alans, Avars, Bulgars, Hungarians, Pechenegs, Cumans, and Tatars radically changing the ethnic makeup of Eastern Europe. Western European historians, however, tend to emphasize the migrations most relevant to Western Europe.
The "changed ethnic makeup" they speak of is the genocide of the indigenous Africans by incoming whites. No grace. No glory. A presence summarized by DEATH and DESTRUCTION.
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
More on migrations. Again. They were so late as to be almost yesterday: "Germanic expansions during early Roman times are known only generally, but it is clear that the forebears of the Goths were settled on the southern Baltic shore by 100 AD."
100 AD is incredibly late and shows Europeans of today are complete newcomers to the continent though they like to claim otherwise. It was African until then.
posted
^ Germanic expansions have nothing to do with the fact that Whites are indigenous to Europe and were affectively white since the at least the Mesolithic!
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
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."
End of story.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
All blush pinkish with delight at hearing of the deep African roots of Paleolithic and more recent Europe before the bloody slaughters of indigenous Africans, before their mass murders by Caesar following in the footsteps of Alexander and the so-called William the Conqueror to come.
The Harvard lectures were given by Valery Pavlovich Alexeev who was considered one of the Soviet Union's most distinguished anthropologists. He directed the Institute of Archaeology in Moscow and was able to achieve full membership in the Soviet Academy of Sciences without ever having been a member of the Communist Party.
There are some who cling to the belief that the Upper Paleolithic of North Europe was home of whites. However, at the time the great inventions of art and advanced (for its time) tools and life style of the U.P. were established, it was all African. Here is an excerpt you are drooling with delight awaiting to hear from the text below of the finds of African human remains in Russia 25,000 years ago:
"Both Kostenki II and Kostenki XIV produced burials of Upper Paleolithic man. Skeletal remains from Kostenki II are of an adult male, tall, and approximately fifty years of age. Reconstruction of the head reveals a broad face and narrow brow. The head from Kostenki XIV is the best preserved; no bones were destroyed except for the end of the nasal bone which had been crushed by the investigator. Reconstruction reflects a very strong adult individual with a combination of morphological features. The nose is very broad, similar to African or Australian. This strong development around the nose is not typical for Europoid but is similar to East African populations; however, Negroid nasal bones are flat while Kostenki XIV is strong. This find is a combination of features whose origin is different from other groups.
Thus, at Kostenki, we have both stone and bone tools and sculptures as well as houses, female figurines similar the "Venus of Villendorf", and the remains of Upper Paleolithic man. From Kostenki II we have a broad head and narrow brow and from Kostenki XIV we have a tall adult exhibiting a combination of strong physical features which differ from typical Europoid."
There is some white lineage that is to be found in Europe but it is of dubious origin. Until the Germanic migrations and those enroute to Italy and Spain, Europe was all African. Most Africans were murdered in cold blood. Those who remained were mostly women and perhaps children (who'd be used as slaves). Copulation between white men and African women produced offspring who'd carry African genetic material going back into the deep past. But, it was wrongly come by into the bloodline of Europeans today who hold it.
Cheers,
Your friend Marc W.
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
I have read this entire thread so far and sometimes I had to read certain posts twice in disbelief of the lowness in quality of arguments by some. It reminds me of what my grandmother use to say: "it is easy to catch a hen without a head for it can't see where it is going even though it keeps running."
Posts: 213 | From: New York City, USA | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Really fascinating stuff!!! I had my doubts.. .but more I read and check out your sources the more I feel I am getting closer to the truth. Wish you would keeo it simple though. . .stay away from the photo dosplay. It is hard to follow. I know it is your trademark.
But keep it coming bro. Of course citing sources help.
Question: What percentage of skulls/remains from 25kya demonstrated these East African features vs European features. ie how old is the "oldest" European skulls compared to the African's?
It seems the argument is European were there 30Kya. Or was it the Africans. Sounds like Marc has showed evidence that Africans were indegenous to Europe up to 25kya.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:It seems the argument is European were there 30Kya. Or was it the Africans.
There is no such argument among educated people.
Only among hard harded ignorant people who can't read and don't want to learn, and silly internet trolls who get their jollies from spreading ignorance for the same reason that self-hating prostitutes enjoy spreading their STD's.
If you disagree, don't whine, simply name 1 anthropologist who disputes the following:
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 Underhill.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bro or sista . . .since you are whining like a biaaatch. Or cousin . .since you may be white. In case you missed it. The evidence is here. . .
"Both Kostenki II and Kostenki XIV produced burials of Upper Paleolithic man. Skeletal remains from Kostenki II are of an adult male, tall, and approximately fifty years of age. Reconstruction of the head reveals a broad face and narrow brow. The head from Kostenki XIV is the best preserved; no bones were destroyed except for the end of the nasal bone which had been crushed by the investigator. Reconstruction reflects a very strong adult individual with a combination of morphological features. The nose is very broad, similar to African or Australian. This strong development around the nose is not typical for Europoid but is similar to East African populations; however, Negroid nasal bones are flat while Kostenki XIV is strong. This find is a combination of features whose origin is different from other groups.
Thus, at Kostenki, we have both stone and bone tools and sculptures as well as houses, female figurines similar the "Venus of Villendorf", and the remains of Upper Paleolithic man. From Kostenki II we have a broad head and narrow brow and from Kostenki XIV we have a tall adult exhibiting a combination of strong physical features which differ from typical Europoid."
Checking the link Marc referenced. Looks like East Africans were roaming Europe(Russia) about 25kya. That is deep within Europe so imagine the amount that were along the southern coast of Europes ie Greece.
As I maintain man(Africans) moved NORTH - OOA. South migration is recent.
Not sure what you are so upset about. We are all Africans under the skin.. . .to some extent.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is an idea. Someone can put a chronological chart showing presence of Ancient African artifacts/skeletons found in Europe. It should be very simple. Date and what was found – on a simple time line. Similar to what Myra has on a website for AE.
In addition below the time-line show estimated period of genetic changes in human Haplo Groups.
Even further below that time line show “European” civilizations.
That should give some idea on the impact of African influence in Europe.
I don’t know enough to put this together. . . but most EDUCATED people may be to draw some insight from it.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ And those paleolithic European remains you speak of are the direct ancestors of white Europeans! *All* humans outside of Africa descend from Africans-- from white Europeans, to East Asians, to Native Americans. So the fact that early Europeans have African features is nothing amazing!
There is nothing to dispute this fact. Such a fact has not even been argued with except by a few Afrocentric lunatics whose arguments are akin to the white racists who claim prehistoric African remains are caucasoid!!
Whites are indigenous to Europe! White skin evolved in Europe in response to the glacial climate and little sunlight. End of Story.
Blacks are not indigenous to Europe. The first people who entered Europe were likely not even black anymore because of adaptation to lesser sunlight in Central Asia. Once they settled Europe, they developed 'white skin'.
The Neolithic was then introduced by recent immigrants from Africa as denoted by E lineages. Which is why some Greeks today carry some of these E lineages. Most Greek lineages are indigenous to Europe.
I'm sorry but xyz, and Kemson remind me of those white losers who are easily brainwashed by the white supremacist garbage. Only this time it is Marc's black racist garbage that has ensnared your minds! LOLPosts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
R_ASS-OL- just kidding - I don't get caught in that type of nonsense
Here is what I found out. Seems that the White Nords are really new to Europe. Really fascinating stuff. Question is who were the Iberians (Mediterraneans)? Since they were pushed out by the White Nords after 300AD. Were they the Africans Marc was talking about? Here are the pieces to the puzzle. Any more evidence anyone?
The Völkerwanderung, the forceful expansion of the Germanic tribes into France, England, Northern Italy and Iberia, is seen an indication of cultural energy and dynamism. This analysis became associated with nineteenth century German Romantic nationalism. The Migration Period, also called Barbarian Invasions or Völkerwanderung, is a name given by historians to a human migration which occurred within the period of roughly AD 300–700 in Europe,[1] marking the transition from Late Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages. Due to the Hun encroachment - Atila the Hun of "short of stature, with a broad chest and a large head; his eyes were small, his beard thin and sprinkled with gray; and he had a flat nose and a swarthy complexion, showing the evidences of his origin The migration included the Goths, Vandals, and Franks, among other Germanic, Bulgar and Slavic tribes. Migrations would continue well beyond 1000 AD, successive waves of Slavs, Alans, Avars, Bulgars, Hungarians, Pechenegs, Cumans, and Tatars radically changing the ethnic makeup of Eastern Europe. Western European historians, however, tend to emphasize the migrations most relevant to Western Europe. The migration movement may be divided into two phases; the first phase, between AD 300 and 500, largely seen from the Mediterranean perspective of Greek and Latin historians,[2] with the aid of some archaeology, put Germanic peoples in control of most areas of the former Western Roman Empire. The Völkerwanderung, the forceful expansion of the Germanic tribes into France, England, Northern Italy and Iberia, is seen an indication of cultural energy and dynamism.Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ And those paleolithic European remains you speak of are the direct ancestors of white Europeans! *All* humans outside of Africa descend from Africans-- from white Europeans, to East Asians, to Native Americans. So the fact that early Europeans have African features is nothing amazing!
Whoaaa! What I get from Marc is that the present day Europeans came from the Völkerwanderung .. . so those African features you speak about that on Europeans . . .are REALLY African people. He may suggesting that all these remains are from AFRICAN people.
There is nothing to dispute this fact. Such a fact has not even been argued with except by a few Afrocentric lunatics whose arguments are akin to the white racists who claim prehistoric African remains are caucasoid!!
Whites are indigenous to Europe! White skin evolved in Europe in response to the glacial climate and little sunlight. End of Story.
Are you saying black is NOT indigenous to Europe. It seems like the article from Upenn on skin turning white noted that all skin tone was dark or brown prior to 6kya. So white skin is NOT indigenous Europe . . .cousin. I am beginning to think you are BSing . . .Huti. 6ky vs 35ky. Who is your daddy!! Get outta here with that pseudo logic!!
Blacks are not indigenous to Europe. The first people who entered Europe were likely not even black anymore because of adaptation to lesser sunlight in Central Asia. Once they settled Europe, they developed 'white skin'.
More nonsense from you. Here is a tip. .. . draw your OWN conclusions from the data. If there were africans occupying the area for 45ky. I will say they are belong there. With your logic then the EuroAmericans are indigenous to America ie climate matches skin tone.
The Neolithic was then introduced by recent immigrants from Africa as denoted by E lineages. Which is why some Greeks today carry some of these E lineages. Most Greek lineages are indigenous to Europe.
we discussed this already. Up and down the Mediterranean coast only the Greeks carry as much E. What is your conclusion bro. .. . keeping in mind it had a civilization that followed AE. Let me help. One time had a strong African presense. Last Stand by the AE type before being overrun by the . . .you know who.
I'm sorry but xyz, and Kemson remind me of those white losers who are easily brainwashed by the white supremacist garbage. Only this time it is Marc's black racist garbage that has ensnared your minds! LOL
I am a sensible man. That looks at evidence and come to conclusion on my OWN. And I am no racist… .my wife is white. Got the jungle fever.Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I'm sorry but xyz, and Kemson remind me of those white losers who are easily brainwashed by the white supremacist garbage. Only this time it is Marc's black racist garbage that has ensnared your minds! LOL
Insults help no one. I've learned and reminded myself of this over and over again. Now, I'm reminding anyone besides myself. For now, in particular to you member Djehuti, you should exercise some constraints on your insults to other members. Instead of tantrums, present as many solid and truthful facts for your arguments as you possibly can. Anything less would be intellectually derailed forcing you to return to a cycle of tantrums and insults again. There are so many wonderful things to learn from EgyptSearch and that’s why I like it a lot. So let’s act grown and keep it moving.
Posts: 213 | From: New York City, USA | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I'm sorry if you consider it an insult. I never called you guys any names, I was just making a comparison and a perfectly valid one at that.
Rasol and I have given you guys all the facts regarding the bio-history of Europeans and that whites are indeed aboriginal to Europe. If you choose to ignore facts in favor of fantasy (just like white supremacists) then that is not our problem. Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
More BS Djehuti. I am starting to wonder about you. I NEVER said white were MOT indegenous to Europe. I am looking at the evidence presented and saying that East African type(maybe unchanged) were present in Europe 45kya to 4kya. More so along the southern European coast ie Greece, Italy, Iberia. These Africans are indegenous to Europe also. Infact moreso. But they were wiped out/overrun by the recent peoples from further north
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ I'm sorry if you consider it an insult. I never called you guys any names, I was just making a comparison and a perfectly valid one at that.
Rasol and I have given you guys all the facts regarding the bio-history of Europeans and that whites are indeed aboriginal to Europe. If you choose to ignore facts in favor of fantasy (just like white supremacists) then that is not our problem.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: The evidence is here. . . "Both Kostenki II and Kostenki XIV produced burials of Upper Paleolithic man. Skeletal remains from Kostenki II are of an adult male, tall, and approximately fifty years of age. Reconstruction of the head reveals a broad face and narrow brow.
^ evidence that you don't really read your [sussed] sources and leave out what you don't want to hear....
In the Mesolithic period, populations in European Russia exhibit the same physical traits as did the Paleolithic populations i.e. tall, thick bones, broad face, long hair, well developed nasal bones.
Cromagnon 3, named after a cave in France, is a famous burial with the preserved skeleton of Upper Paleolithic man. The term "Cromagnon" refers to Upper Paleolithic people, but there are local variations. The Mesolithic people of eastern Europe are definitely descendants of Upper Paleolithic populations i.e. massive bones, tall, broad face, and well developed nasal bones.
^ But you claim, that what is stated in bold is not true, and your source is supposed to provide evidence.
Though the page is a badly written, outdated and does not refute Underhill's genetic evidence, it does contain evidence, that you can't read, and dont' understand anthropology.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I NEVER said white were NOT indegenous to Europe.
Indigenous means originating in or 1st. You don't even know what you're saying. No wonder you don't understand what you read.
quote:I am looking at the evidence presented and saying that East African type(maybe unchanged) were present in Europe 45kya
You continue to FLUNK BASIC ANTHROPOLOGY.
When you will you get it thru your thick-slow head that the entire human population lived in Africa and only in Africa as little as 60 thousand years ago.
Before 40kya~ their were -no- people living in Europe, at all.
By definition then the 1st people to migrate to Europe, or indigenous Europeans descend from Africans, to Asia, to Europe from 60kya~.
At this time - there are no cold adapted peoples, regardless of the shapes of their skulls.
And variable skull shapes 'pre-date' the outmigrations of Non-Africans, as we know now, well at least those of us who read current anthropology instead of stinking our minds with outdated and misunderstood, misinformation from the internet.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am the first to admit that I am no Anthropologist. But I noticed you convenient ignored this article. What it is saying is
White Nords are “recent”. ie the Western Europeans you are see today eventually overran Rome and Greece. There were NOT the original peoples there.
Also, Rasol you are playing word games, slight of hands tricks. Indigenous/aboriginal. The piece you cited implies that African type people WERE in Europe 45ya – 4kya. It may be old, I don’t know, that‘s why I suggested in the thread that a timeline with “African” finds in Europe should be published. Then we can get a clearer picture of up to when they were there as Africans.
Besides the words - yes white people may of originated in Europe but the fact maybe that African type(modern/unchanged) we there also. And was there LONG before. Hence “who is your daddy comment”. Who are the true Europeans the ones adapted or the ones who were there LONG before. Hence my EuroAmerican response.
Sooooo . . . .Based on the evidence I will still have to conclude that Africans belong/indigenous/Aboriginal/occupied Europe. What ever word you want to use . . . . .cousin
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: R_ASS-OL- just kidding - I don't get caught in that type of nonsense
Here is what I found out. Seems that the White Nords are really new to Europe. Really fascinating stuff. Question is who were the Iberians (Mediterraneans)? Since they were pushed out by the White Nords after 300AD. Were they the Africans Marc was talking about? Here are the pieces to the puzzle. Any more evidence anyone?
The Völkerwanderung, the forceful expansion of the Germanic tribes into France, England, Northern Italy and Iberia, is seen an indication of cultural energy and dynamism. This analysis became associated with nineteenth century German Romantic nationalism. The Migration Period, also called Barbarian Invasions or Völkerwanderung, is a name given by historians to a human migration which occurred within the period of roughly AD 300–700 in Europe,[1] marking the transition from Late Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages. Due to the Hun encroachment - Atila the Hun of "short of stature, with a broad chest and a large head; his eyes were small, his beard thin and sprinkled with gray; and he had a flat nose and a swarthy complexion, showing the evidences of his origin The migration included the Goths, Vandals, and Franks, among other Germanic, Bulgar and Slavic tribes. Migrations would continue well beyond 1000 AD, successive waves of Slavs, Alans, Avars, Bulgars, Hungarians, Pechenegs, Cumans, and Tatars radically changing the ethnic makeup of Eastern Europe. Western European historians, however, tend to emphasize the migrations most relevant to Western Europe. The migration movement may be divided into two phases; the first phase, between AD 300 and 500, largely seen from the Mediterranean perspective of Greek and Latin historians,[2] with the aid of some archaeology, put Germanic peoples in control of most areas of the former Western Roman Empire. The Völkerwanderung, the forceful expansion of the Germanic tribes into France, England, Northern Italy and Iberia, is seen an indication of cultural energy and dynamism.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: I am the first to admit that I am no Anthropologist. But I noticed you convenient ignored this article. What it is saying is
White Nords are “recent”. ie the Western Europeans you are see today eventually overran Rome and Greece. There were NOT the original peoples there.
Also, Rasol you are playing word games, slight of hands tricks. Indigenous/aboriginal. The piece you cited implies that African type people WERE in Europe 45ya – 4kya. It may be old, I don’t know, that‘s why I suggested in the thread that a timeline with “African” finds in Europe should be published. Then we can get a clearer picture of up to when they were there as Africans.
Besides the words - yes white people may of originated in Europe but the fact maybe that African type(modern/unchanged) we there also. And was there LONG before. Hence “who is your daddy comment”. Who are the true Europeans the ones adapted or the ones who were there LONG before. Hence my EuroAmerican response.
Sooooo . . . .Based on the evidence I will still have to conclude that Africans belong/indigenous/Aboriginal/occupied Europe. What ever word you want to use . . . . .cousin
You still don't get it, do you?! The Europeans who were there LONG before ARE THE ONES WHO ADAPTED, you moron!!
Hence, white skin EVOLVED IN EUROPE.
Germanic invasions or any movement of Norsemen have NOTHING to do with WHITES. Since *ALL* ancient Europeans were WHITE.
Hence these ancient southern Europeans
Greeks
Romans
Were not black, but have been white since at least Mesolithic times.
I must ask, what exactly is your IQ??
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is another angle to the evidence. Here are the facts/evidence.
1- white skin appeared ~6kya. Prior to that everyone(in Europe) else was brown/dark/brown. 2- The piece I am citing is saying that these Nords appeared and spread from deep within Europe starting from about AD .. .give or take 3- These White Nords are the majority in western Europe today. 4- It appears that the present today western European may not be a good representation of what the Iberians/Greeks/Romans looked like. 5- The Genetic evidence says that the ¼ Greeks were Africans at one time. The same HLA study piece is saying that the Macedonian Greeks DO NOT have this African blood but the original(coastal) Greeks DO 6- The Macedonian Greeks eventually controlled Greece. So pictures of Macedonian Greeks is not going to fool anyone. They are what they are. I believe the Gods and original inhabitants were revered as Africans. See some of Marc’s work. 7- Common sense will tell that since Africa is so close to Europe that the Africans traveled along the coast of Europe pre- 5kya.
So cousin.. . . . a few pictures(of Macedonians) doesn’t prove anything!!!.
You got to find European skulls in Africa. . . . . .European genes in Africa . . . . . . European culture in Africa. So far we have it the other way around. OOA
So I have to conclude - the Ancient Greeks were probably. . .. .E3b ie East Africans who were overrun by R1a and R1b.
Let’s look at “absolute” time. To prove this I need a timeline for the R1a, R1b and E3b appearance along with African artifacts found in Europe. Please point me in the direction!! Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ And again your brain has missed it. 'White' or fair skin is not associated with only "Nords" or nordic Europeans but is something held in common by all Europeans.
You are right Northwest Europeans have nothing to do with the appearance of Southern Europeans because they are different peoples from different parts of Europe, but they all share common ancestry as Europeans and they all share the trait of fair-skin with southern Europeans being darker since they recieve more sunlight in the south as well as greater diet of vitamin from fish and yes recen African ancestry is another factor as well!
There were no East Africans in Greece "overrun" by whites. R1 carriers were *aboriginal* to Greece as they are to the rest of Europe. There were Neolithic immigrants carrying African E and Asiatic J lineages who were absorbed by the indigenous people!
Your bias brain cannot accept this fact, can it? Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
I am the first to admit that I am no Anthropologist. But I noticed you convenient ignored this article. What it is saying is
White Nords are “recent”. ie the Western Europeans you are see today eventually overran Rome and Greece. There were NOT the original peoples there.
Also, Rasol you are playing word games, slight of hands tricks. Indigenous/aboriginal. The piece you cited implies that African type people WERE in Europe 45ya – 4kya. It may be old, I don’t know, that‘s why I suggested in the thread that a timeline with “African” finds in Europe should be published. Then we can get a clearer picture of up to when they were there as Africans.
Besides the words - yes white people may of originated in Europe but the fact maybe that African type(modern/unchanged) we there also. And was there LONG before. Hence “who is your daddy comment”. Who are the true Europeans the ones adapted or the ones who were there LONG before. Hence my EuroAmerican response.
Sooooo . . . .Based on the evidence I will still have to conclude that Africans belong/indigenous/Aboriginal/occupied Europe. What ever word you want to use . . . . .cousin
quote:Djehuti: You still don't get it, do you?! The Europeans who were there LONG before ARE THE ONES WHO ADAPTED, you moron!!
xyz in engaging in what I call crap-eating-grin trolling .
It translates as - i'm wrong and i know it, so i will make a series of more and more ridiculous statements until it reaches the point where i can pretend i was never serious to begin with, thereby mitigated some of the embarrassment, over having made a complete fool of myself.
posted
^ More like the grin of a child with down-syndrome, or as it is popularly called, the 'retard grin'! Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ And again your brain has missed it. 'White' or fair skin is not associated with only "Nords" or nordic Europeans but is something held in common by all Europeans.
There were no Nordes during the LGM because Northern Europe was a block of ICE.
It's fascinating to observe the process of people keeping themselves believing in peudoscientific racial fantasies by refusing to learn basic history and anthropology.
A substantial portion of the European gene pool appears to be of Upper Paleolithic origin, but it was relocated after the end of the LGM, when most of Europe was repopulated. - The Genetic Legacy of Paleolithic Homo sapiens sapiens in Extant Europeans: A Y Chromosome Perspective Ornella Semino
^ Now XYZ, go google the internet for a new excuse to stay uneducated.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
A drawing is needed showing the African artifacts/skulls found in Europe and tie that into the genetics and drop in the time line to get the point across. Give it to a geneticist/historian/linguist/anthroplogist/archeaologist to TELL ME WHAT IT MEANS. Bros and cousins take the data and draw YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS.
You guys probable think WMDs were in Iraq also.
In the mean time I will make it easy for you guys. Which one of these are FALSE?
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Here is another angle to the evidence. Here are the facts/evidence.
1- white skin appeared ~6kya. Prior to that everyone(in Europe) else was brown/dark/brown. 2- The piece I am citing is saying that these Nords appeared and spread from deep within Europe starting from about AD .. .give or take 3- These White Nords are the majority in western Europe today. 4- It appears that the present today western European may not be a good representation of what the Iberians/Greeks/Romans looked like. 5- The Genetic evidence says that the ¼ Greeks were Africans at one time. The same HLA study piece is saying that the Macedonian Greeks DO NOT have this African blood but the original(coastal) Greeks DO 6- The Macedonian Greeks eventually controlled Greece. So pictures of Macedonian Greeks is not going to fool anyone. They are what they are. I believe the Gods and original inhabitants were revered as Africans. See some of Marc’s work. 7- Common sense will tell that since Africa is so close to Europe that the Africans traveled along the coast of Europe pre- 5kya.
So cousin.. . . . a few pictures(of Macedonians) doesn’t prove anything!!!.
You got to find European skulls in Africa. . . . . .European genes in Africa . . . . . . European culture in Africa. So far we have it the other way around. OOA
So I have to conclude - the Ancient Greeks were probably. . .. .E3b ie East Africans who were overrun by R1a and R1b.
Let’s look at “absolute” time. To prove this I need a timeline for the R1a, R1b and E3b appearance along with African artifacts found in Europe. Please point me in the direction!!
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
And . . . .in case you missed the point "white nords" are most western europeans and cited by my reference. Which Google/internet/wikipedia says originated about 300AD.!!!!!!!!
So I maintain. These modern Europeans are NOT the same as the pre- 5kya southern europeans.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why do I have to spoon feed you? What is you agenda? I never said I need pictures. I assume your are a college grad.. .so you would undersand the usefulllness of timelines, charts and ovelays. Geeeesh. What are you on? Steriods?
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: A drawing is needed showing the African artifacts.
In this case, it would be a childish attempt to use pictures to substitute for and inability to read.
There are many websites on the internet where you can find really dumb people who will believe anything you say.
ES isn't that place.
You should really take your mindless prattle elsewhere.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
And you still haven't denied any of this. ie which one is false.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: A drawing is needed showing the African artifacts/skulls found in Europe and tie that into the genetics and drop in the time line to get the point across. Give it to a geneticist/historian/linguist/anthroplogist/archeaologist to TELL ME WHAT IT MEANS. Bros and cousins take the data and draw YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS.
You guys probable think WMDs were in Iraq also.
In the mean time I will make it easy for you guys. Which one of these are FALSE?
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Here is another angle to the evidence. Here are the facts/evidence.
1- white skin appeared ~6kya. Prior to that everyone(in Europe) else was brown/dark/brown. 2- The piece I am citing is saying that these Nords appeared and spread from deep within Europe starting from about AD .. .give or take 3- These White Nords are the majority in western Europe today. 4- It appears that the present today western European may not be a good representation of what the Iberians/Greeks/Romans looked like. 5- The Genetic evidence says that the ¼ Greeks were Africans at one time. The same HLA study piece is saying that the Macedonian Greeks DO NOT have this African blood but the original(coastal) Greeks DO 6- The Macedonian Greeks eventually controlled Greece. So pictures of Macedonian Greeks is not going to fool anyone. They are what they are. I believe the Gods and original inhabitants were revered as Africans. See some of Marc’s work. 7- Common sense will tell that since Africa is so close to Europe that the Africans traveled along the coast of Europe pre- 5kya.
So cousin.. . . . a few pictures(of Macedonians) doesn’t prove anything!!!.
You got to find European skulls in Africa. . . . . .European genes in Africa . . . . . . European culture in Africa. So far we have it the other way around. OOA
So I have to conclude - the Ancient Greeks were probably. . .. .E3b ie East Africans who were overrun by R1a and R1b.
Let’s look at “absolute” time. To prove this I need a timeline for the R1a, R1b and E3b appearance along with African artifacts found in Europe. Please point me in the direction!!
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
You're only feeding yourself, and believe me, you don't want to know what that crude is inside your spoon.
quote:And you still haven't denied any of this....
Deny? Why would I deny 'any of that'. Indeed I 'affirm' it to be your incoherent illiterate babblings, at which point it has been fully addressed.
quote:What is you agenda?
^ To watch you squirm when confronted with facts that destroy your fantasies borne of ignorance....
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
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."
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: A drawing is needed showing the African artifacts/skulls found...
In other words, you expect the same kind of silly photoshop crap of the same kind Marc created to brainwash your simple mind??
quote:You guys probable think WMDs were in Iraq also.
You sound like our resident Eurocentric troll Hore, when you then bring up a silly strawman of modern politics that has NOTHING to do with what is being discussed.
quote:In the mean time I will make it easy for you guys. Which one of these are FALSE?
I'm not even going to participate in your childish game. We gave you all the info you need. It should be a matter of reading comprehension if also scientific understanding after that.
The recent African lineages in Greeks have NOTHING to do with the initial settlement of Europe of even Greece itself!
quote: And . . . .in case you missed the point "white nords" are most western europeans and cited by my reference. Which Google/internet/wikipedia says originated about 300AD.!!!!!!!!
So I maintain. These modern Europeans are NOT the same as the pre- 5kya southern europeans.
Apparently YOU missed the point and still do. Populations change over time and don't remain the same. Southern Europeans pre- 5kya are the ancestors of the white southern Europeans you see today!
quote:Why do I have to spoon feed you? What is you agenda?
The only you are trying to feed us is your dissembled crap, but we are not biting. Nor do we have an agenda besides educating, but yours is obviously not to understand anything but Afro-crap that people like Marc try to feed people.
quote:I never said I need pictures. I assume your are a college grad.. .so you would undersand the usefulllness of timelines, charts and ovelays.
And I assume you are at least past elementary school to be able to read any of the data presented and understand?
quote: Geeeesh. What are you on? Steriods?
No, but I can only guess that you've been smoking to many trees or something for you to be so confused over simple scientific explanations. LOLPosts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not going anywhere with this. You cite a source and I cite a few sources. Leave this for now. Will be back on this topic. When work on other sources
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is more. It seems this is a ongoing topic - From another thread
quote:Originally posted by Thought2:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Thought, what do you mean by "whites"??
Do you mean European-looking, or overall light-skinned Eurasians because that is a good question.
Thought Writes:
Indeed, you pose a very thoughtfull question Djehuti. I think relative to a discourse about back migration from Western Northern Eurasia into the Middle East and eventually Africa it is first neccessary to establish a POSSIBLE chronology for said event. Then we can examine what possible physical characteristics were existent in Northern Eurasia (specifically Western Northern Eurasia). For example many of the first Europeans carried a phenotype similar to modern Sub-Saharan Africans. It is safe to assume that by the Bronze Age (3300 BC) Europeans had phenotypes similar to what we see today in Western Northern Eurasia (for example see Ötzi the Ice-Man). These sorts of haplogroup I carrying Europeans represent the "Real Whites". Greeks look very different from these people because Greeks have substantial Sub-Saharan and Middle Eastern lineages. Then we can look for evidence of said physical characteristics in northern AE. This would be a proper approach to such a topic.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
According to Spencer Wells, all northern Eurasians share a common ancestry in western Central Asia. Could this be where "caucasian" Near-Easterners come from or from another source like Anatolia or something?
Thought Writes:
Probably NOT. The first Europeans and the first East Asians had physical similarities to modern Sub-Saharan Africans, Melaneseans and Andaman Islanders. There is an attempt to sweep this baseline phenotype under the rug by labeling it "GENERALIZED". Modern European phenotype probably had derived bi the late mesolithic. Their population was small and grew when they were instructed on how to reap and sow by people whose ancerstors came out of Sub-saharan Africa within the last 10,000 years.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Not going anywhere with this. You cite a source and I cite a few sources. Leave this for now. Will be back on this topic. When work on other sources
The reason why YOU are not going anywhere is that all the sources that you cite, you fail miserably to understand!
The discussion I had with Thought you just cited was about the first appearance of light or fair-skinned Southwestern Asians or 'Middle-Easterners', but what he said about Euroepans only reiterates the simple fact that Rasol and I were trying to convey-- that since all Eurasians originate from Sub-Saharan Africa of course they originally had Sub-Saharan physical traits or appearances, but that they CHANGED OVER TIME into modern day 'whites' and East Asians etc.
quote:Thought: ...For example many of the first Europeans carried a phenotype similar to modern Sub-Saharan Africans. It is safe to assume that by the Bronze Age (3300 BC) Europeans had phenotypes similar to what we see today in Western Northern Eurasia (for example see Ötzi the Ice-Man). These sorts of haplogroup I carrying Europeans represent the "Real Whites". Greeks look very different from these people because Greeks have substantial Sub-Saharan and Middle Eastern lineages. Then we can look for evidence of said physical characteristics in northern AE. This would be a proper approach to such a topic.
^ The last part where he talked about Greeks, he was referring specifically to Neolithic remains in Greece that represent immigration from outside of Greece, hence *recent* Sub-Saharan (E) and Middle-Eastern (J) lineages-- neither of which are indigenous to Greece! Therefore, Marc's posts are B.S. and you are and have been only B.Sing yourself with it!
I'm sorry but I you do not understand any of the above you are a nitwit. I can explain that to an elementary school child and he/she would understand it at least after I explain it twice. We have been explaining this stuff to you a dozen times already!
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: It appears that the present today western European may not be a good representation of what the Iberians/Greeks/Romans looked like.
Why should Greeks and Romans look like western Europeans? They were southern Europeans.
quote:The Macedonian Greeks eventually controlled Greece. So pictures of Macedonian Greeks is not going to fool anyone.
Those images Djehuti posted are self-depictions made by Greeks and Romans, not Macedonians (who BTW have never been Greek and actually loathe it when you confuse them with Greeks). We could show you dozens of such images proving their whiteness, but those suffice. Bottom line, Greeks and Romans were white, not black. So were Charlemagne, the Vikings, Beethoven (who came up with the idea that he was black anyway?), and almost all other indigenous, post-Mesolithic Europeans.
While we're at it, the Olmecs, Mayans, Chinese, Japanese, Easter Islanders, Mongols, Hebrews, and Babylonians weren't black either. But the ancient Egyptians, Kushites, Ethiopians, Malinese, Songhayians, Ghanaians were. Why not claim those civilizations instead of those of Native Americans, East Asians, Europeans, and other non-blacks?
Posts: 7083 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ T-rex, don't encourage him, and for heaven-sake let's not include other peoples and cultures into the discussion. It might prove to be too much for the poor guy.
I posted pics of Classical pre-Hellenic, that is pre-Macedon conquered Greeks, and he dismisses them as Macedonian! LOL
I even told the guy that Macedon conquered Greece, there weren't any mass invasions that altered the Greek population.
Since the guy recieves his education from Marc, I think it would be better to leave him alone and let him join Marc's Make-Believe History world. LMAOPosts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Thought writes: The first Europeans and the first East Asians had physical similarities to modern Sub-Saharan Africans, Melaneseans and Andaman Islanders. There is an attempt to sweep this baseline phenotype under the rug by labeling it "GENERALIZED". Modern European phenotype probably had derived by the late mesolithic. .
^ XYZ may have the worst reading comprehension in the history of ES.
Thought is stating modern Europeans are descendant from paleolithic Europeans from whom their phenotype is *derived* by the mesolithic. And he is correct.
quote:Thought writes: Their population was small and grew when they were instructed on how to reap and sow by people whose ancerstors came out of Sub-saharan Africa within the last 10,000 years.
^ This references the neolithic introduction of E lineages, post the mesolithic derivition of European phenotype, but then, you don't know what any of these terms mean, so you can't really follow what he's saying. You're hopeless.
quote:XYZ: You cite a source and I cite a few sources.
Your sources don't agree with you. But you can't read, so.....
Continue to make a fool of yourself.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
You are probably right. I maybe just wasting my time. Huh?! LOL
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
] 
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
You still don't get it, do you?! The Europeans who were there LONG before ARE THE ONES WHO ADAPTED, you moron!!
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I never said I need pictures. I assume your are a college grad.. .so you would undersand the usefulllness of timelines, charts and ovelays. Geeeesh. What are you on? Steriods?![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic