quote:Marc writes: Ask Rasol where I say that whites came between the 5th and 10th century.
lol. Why would he ask me, when it's cut and pasted from *you*, page 1 post 1:
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: posted 23 September, 2007 11:50 PM [page 1 post 1] Whites first entered the continent between the period of the 5th and 10th centuries.
quote:. He will ignore you and produce no reply.
Or, I'll cut and paste your silly lies back to you, until you're *forced to admit* having written them, [easy money] and then make [whatever] ridiculous humiliating excuse you can for your insane behaviors.
quote: Why? I never said anything, not a word
Clearly you're nuts, and babbling like a lunatic.
quote:It was the 15 century, not the 5th
That would still be a lie, so I don't see how changing your claim helps you here, however it's not what you wrote either -> " between the period of the 5th and 10th centuries" *is* what you wrote.
It's cut and pasted from your insane babbblings.
It's a measure of how deeply disturbed you are, that you deny your words, even when they are cut and pasted and thrown back in your face.
You're both hilarious and pathetic.
It's always been clear that you are and obsessed loser with no idea of what he is talking about.
But you now make it crystal clear that you are so utterly demented as to have no idea of what you are writing from one post to the next.
So, what will do now, "admit to another mistake"?
quote:Are you saying I am lying because I note that the Germanic Migration Period extended to the 15th century AD?
^ Nope, we're saying that you are desparate to change your claim, having failed to deny your claim. The reason you wrote 5th century to begin with, is to make claims on when Europeans 1st entered Europe.
The reason you did not say 15th century is because that would be utterly useless to your original claim.
The reason you deny your claims, the reason you change your claims is the reason all liars do.
You get caught in a lie, and your claims make no sense, so you change them, or deny them, or try to change the subject.
And the time you waste turning your every stupid lying reply into photochop is a priceless bit of neurotic behavior.
Your "therapist" will eventually make a fortune off of you, if you don't drive yourself insane before *seeking the help* you so clearly need.
^ on queue, our predictable neurotic writes....
quote:Mad Marc Washington writes: I stand corrected. I admit it.
It's not a question of correcting you [again].
It's not a question of your changing your claims...again.
It's not even a question of your lying...again.
It's a question of your not being able to help it, because you're mentally ill.
And that is what you need to admit, at least to yourself.
Stop obsessing over Europeans and seek the help you need.
There is no further point in arguing with a mentally disturbed person such as yourself.
However I caution xyyman, clyde winters and anyone else against further humoring this lunatic. [you both should be ashamed]
You harm him rather than help him.
If you do not further encourage his insanity, I will make no further reply.
He is left in the fashion of most asylum inmates, to continue his insane babblings, undisturbed.
I add the names in parentheses in [Rasol writes] (Marc is quoted) It was the 15 century, not the 5th
(Rasol writes) That would still be a lie, so I don't see how changing your claim helps you here, however it's not what you wrote either -> " between the period of the 5th and 10th centuries" *is* what you wrote. It's cut and pasted from your insane babbblings.
[Marc writes] Gee whiz, Rasol. Are you saying I am lying because I note that the Germanic Migration Period extended to the 15th century AD? You really are an empty-head, aren't you, not knowing some of the most basic things about your own history.
Rasol. If you use the key words "germanic migration period 15th century" what you will find is that Marc wasn't lying. "Babblings" you say? From Britannica and from www.germanictribes.org, these aren't babblings, these are facts you don't seem to know about. No wonder you make the outlandish claims you do. You are an empty head.
posted
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! @ the Pinochio bit. Caught Rasol Lying and mis-directing. Just dropping in. Really busy.
-------------------- 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 |
Instead of a feeble/fake attempt at cheerleading, you should just admit your boy is a loon.
quote:Marc writes: Ask Rasol where I say that whites came between the 5th and 10th century.
quote:^ This idiot doesn't even know his own writing: Originally posted by a neurotic idiot named Marc Washington:
posted 23 September, 2007 11:50 PM [page 1 post 1] Whites first entered the continent between the period of the 5th and 10th centuries.
^ Are you satisfied now, idiot?
quote:Marc: He will ignore you and produce no reply.
quote:Or, I'll cut and paste your silly lies back to you, until you're *forced to admit* having written them, [easy money] and then make [whatever] ridiculous humiliating excuse you can for your insane behaviors.
quote:Marc: Why? I never said anything, not a word
quote:Clearly you're nuts, and babbling like a lunatic.
quote:Mad Marc Washington writes: I stand corrected. I admit it.
quote:Marc writes: Ask Rasol where I say that whites came between the 5th and 10th century.
quote:^ This idiot doesn't even know his own writing: Originally posted by a neurotic idiot named Marc Washington:
posted 23 September, 2007 11:50 PM [page 1 post 1] Whites first entered the continent between the period of the 5th and 10th centuries.
^ Are you satisfied now, idiot?
quote:Marc: He will ignore you and produce no reply.
quote:Or, I'll cut and paste your silly lies back to you, until you're *forced to admit* having written them, [easy money] and then make [whatever] ridiculous humiliating excuse you can for your insane behaviors.
quote:Marc: Why? I never said anything, not a word
quote:Clearly you're nuts, and babbling like a lunatic.
quote:Mad Marc Washington writes: I stand corrected. I admit it.
posted
Rofl @ the top post on this page, but seriously, other than some picture spamming meant to imply that Europe's and Iran's populations had changed, I don't see any evidence that modern Europeans aren't descendants of ancient Europeans.
[Alive Box writes] I don't see any evidence that modern Europeans aren't descendants of ancient Europeans.
[Marc writes] My May 1, and much older Oct 12, 2007, and Feb 24, 2008 comments on the Pinochio web paqe below acknowledge that whites descended from Upper Paleolithic Europeans.
I added the “Marc wrote:” preceding Alive Box’ quote directly below:
[Alive Box writes] Marc wrote: [Europeans] first entered the continent and established today's European nations between the period of the 5th and 10th centuries.
From where? And evidenced by what?
[Marc writes] Fair question. Statedly more clearly, the bulk of whites entered Western Europe from 500 AD to 1500 AD as shown here in some of these articles found through a key word search at Goggle under:
For someone who is always talking about how ignorant others are about anthropology and what great failures they are in the field, he appears most ignorant of all. For instance. Since yesterday he has been blowing a trumpet of how Underhill wrote:
"[Modern Europeans] carrying R1b are believed to be the descendants of the first modern humans who entered Europe about 35,000-40,000 years ago . Those forebearers were the people who painted the beautiful art in the caves in Spain and France."
He hasn't recognized that these are the Aurignacian people and they were African and I've been showing this and he ignores the ANTHROPOLOGICAL evidence:
Not only that, but where the cave art of Spain is concerned, the 2nd tier below shows that the people Underhill is speaking of an Rasol is using as evidence of Paleolithic Europeans are African as shown in the brown, black, and red stick figures common throughout Africa. The page shows the whole population of Upper Paleolithic down through Iron Age Spain, in fact, had an African population. So, in Rasol trumpeting Underhill's comments on Spain, he is, in fact, unwittingly trumpeting its African heritage. (Thanks, Rasol!!!)
Archeological evidence of phenotypic whites doesn’t seem to predate 1000 BC. No one at this site has produced anything more than (empty) words on this point.
THREAD PURPOSE: European nations established only from Medieval times - whites are very new to (Western) Europe.
(Whites descended from the African Aurignacians of the Upper Paleolithic to first appear in the archeological record as a white phenotype near 5 – 6000 BC in the Russian Steppes from where they eventually entered Western Europe, the Near East, Africa, and so on.)
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box): Rofl @ the top post on this page, but seriously, other than some picture spamming meant to imply that Europe's and Iran's populations had changed, I don't see any evidence that modern Europeans aren't descendants of ancient Europeans.
By page two I had seen enough evidence that Marc is a nutjob.
The guy starts a thread based on a dumb premise, repeats it for 20 pages, then finally realises its ridiculous.
Then he denies his own premises.
Then he admits his denial is a mistake.
Then he continues to assert the same stupid idea anyway.
And now he's trying to *explain* all this.
ES - where the lunacy never ends. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
I added the “Marc wrote:” preceding Alive Box’ quote directly below:
[Alive Box writes] Marc wrote: [Europeans] first entered the continent and established today's European nations between the period of the 5th and 10th centuries.
From where? And evidenced by what?
[Marc writes] Fair question. Statedly more clearly, the bulk of whites entered Western Europe from 500 AD to 1500 AD as shown here in some of these articles found through a key word search at Goggle under:
For someone who is always talking about how ignorant others are about anthropology and what great failures they are in the field, he appears most ignorant of all. For instance. Since yesterday he has been blowing a trumpet of how Underhill wrote:
"[Modern Europeans] carrying R1b are believed to be the descendants of the first modern humans who entered Europe about 35,000-40,000 years ago . Those forebearers were the people who painted the beautiful art in the caves in Spain and France."
He hasn't recognized that these are the Aurignacian people and they were African and I've been showing this and he ignores the ANTHROPOLOGICAL evidence:
Not only that, but where the cave art of Spain is concerned, the 2nd tier below shows that the people Underhill is speaking of and Rasol is using as evidence of Paleolithic Europeans are African as shown in the brown, black, and red stick figures first common throughout Africa, Spain, and (to a degree) France. The page shows the whole population of Upper Paleolithic down through Iron Age Spain, in fact, had an African population. So, in Rasol trumpeting Underhill's comments on Spain, he is, in fact, unwittingly trumpeting its African heritage. (Thanks, Rasol!!!)
Archeological evidence of phenotypic whites doesn’t seem to predate 1000 BC. No one at this site has produced anything more than (empty) words on this point.
THREAD PURPOSE: European nations established only from Medieval times - whites are very new to (Western) Europe.
(Whites descended from the African Aurignacians of the Upper Paleolithic to first appear in the archeological record as a white phenotype near 5 – 6000 BC in the Russian Steppes from where they eventually entered Western Europe, the Near East, Africa, and so on.)
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box): Rofl @ the top post on this page, but seriously, other than some picture spamming meant to imply that Europe's and Iran's populations had changed, I don't see any evidence that modern Europeans aren't descendants of ancient Europeans.
By page two I had seen enough evidence that Marc is a nutjob.
The guy starts a thread based on a dumb premise, repeats it for 20 pages, then finally realises its ridiculous.
Then he denies his own premises.
Then he admits his denial is a mistake.
Then he continues to assert the same stupid idea anyway.
I added the “Marc wrote:” preceding Alive Box’ quote directly below:
[Alive Box writes] Marc wrote: [Europeans] first entered the continent and established today's European nations between the period of the 5th and 10th centuries.
From where? And evidenced by what?
[Marc writes] Fair question. Statedly more clearly, the bulk of whites entered Western Europe from 500 AD to 1500 AD as shown here in some of these articles found through a key word search at Goggle under:
For someone who is always talking about how ignorant others are about anthropology and what great failures they are in the field, he appears most ignorant of all. For instance. Since yesterday he has been blowing a trumpet of how Underhill wrote:
"[Modern Europeans] carrying R1b are believed to be the descendants of the first modern humans who entered Europe about 35,000-40,000 years ago . Those forebearers were the people who painted the beautiful art in the caves in Spain and France."
He hasn't recognized that these are the Aurignacian people and they were African and I've been showing this and he ignores the ANTHROPOLOGICAL evidence:
Not only that, but where the cave art of Spain is concerned, the 2nd tier below shows that the people Underhill is speaking of and Rasol is using as evidence of Paleolithic Europeans are African as shown in the brown, black, and red stick figures first common throughout Africa, Spain, and (to a degree) France. The page shows the whole population of Upper Paleolithic down through Iron Age Spain, in fact, had an African population. So, in Rasol trumpeting Underhill's comments on Spain, he is, in fact, unwittingly trumpeting its African heritage. (Thanks, Rasol!!!)
Archeological evidence of phenotypic whites doesn’t seem to predate 1000 BC. No one at this site has produced anything more than (empty) words on this point.
THREAD PURPOSE: European nations established only from Medieval times - whites are very new to (Western) Europe.
(Whites descended from the African Aurignacians of the Upper Paleolithic to first appear in the archeological record as a white phenotype near 5 – 6000 BC in the Russian Steppes from where they eventually entered Western Europe, the Near East, Africa, and so on.)
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
WTF are you talking about. No evidence. Can you be more specific.
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box): Rofl @ the top post on this page, but seriously, other than some picture spamming meant to imply that Europe's and Iran's populations had changed, I don't see any evidence that modern Europeans aren't descendants of ancient Europeans.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Xyyman, A BITTER LOSER, in denial asks" "Can you be more specific?"
^ Specifically, this thread ended on page 1. The page where Marc, the mentally ill and pathetic person you are encouraging, made silly comments he spent 20 pages defending, and then, for madness sakes, began to angrily deny ever having made.
Mad Marc Washington then admitted to making these weird claims, and apologized for either making them in the 1st place, or for having denied making them [choose one]... thus making both you and him look equally foolish.
This is THE END Xyyman. Painful and humiliating though it may be.
And though you may spend 20 more pages being stupid, it will still be the case that the logical end of this thread is found ON PAGE 1.
The 21 pages that follow simply measure the breadth and depth of Marc's insanity and your sheer stupidity, for ever having promoted it.
ps - Notice, Dr. Winters, nowhere to be found in defense of this dumb thread, at least has the good sense, charlatan though he may be, to stand far away from Marc and his mad meltdown.
I'd say take a hint, but I don't think you're smart enough to catch a clue.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
I added the “Marc wrote:” preceding Alive Box’ quote directly below:
[Alive Box writes] Marc wrote: [Europeans] first entered the continent and established today's European nations between the period of the 5th and 10th centuries.
From where? And evidenced by what?
[Marc writes] Fair question. Statedly more clearly, the bulk of whites entered Western Europe from 500 AD to 1500 AD as shown here in some of these articles found through a key word search at Goggle under:
For someone who is always talking about how ignorant others are about anthropology and what great failures they are in the field, Rasol appears most ignorant of all. For instance, recently he has been blowing a trumpet of how Underhill wrote:
"[Modern Europeans] carrying R1b are believed to be the descendants of the first modern humans who entered Europe about 35,000-40,000 years ago . Those forebearers were the people who painted the beautiful art in the caves in Spain and France."
I have to thank Rasol for this quote as I hadn’t known about it before. I couldn’t have found better evidence of the fact that it was Africans who populated early Europe. Thanks again, Rasol.
Yet, he hasn't recognized that these are the Aurignacian people and they were African and I've been showing this and he ignores the ANTHROPOLOGICAL evidence – and yet talks about what atrocious failures others are in the field of anthropology. Go figure:
Not only that, but where the cave art of Spain is concerned, the 2nd tier below shows that the people Underhill is speaking of (and Rasol is using as evidence of Paleolithic Europeans) are African. They are shown as the brown, black, and red stick figures in Spanish cave art; these prehistoric figures were common throughout Africa and Spain and, (to a degree), France. The web pictures show the whole population of Upper Paleolithic Spain down through Iron Age Spain, was, in fact an African population. So, in Rasol trumpeting Underhill's comments on Spain, he is, in fact, unwittingly trumpeting its African heritage. (Thanks, Rasol!!!)
Archeological evidence of phenotypic whites doesn’t seem to predate 1000 BC. No one at this site has produced anything more than (empty) words on this point.
THREAD PURPOSE: European nations established only from Medieval times - whites are very new to (Western) Europe.
(Whites descended from the African Aurignacians of the Upper Paleolithic to first appear in the archeological record as a white phenotype near 5 – 6000 BC in the Russian Steppes from where they eventually entered Western Europe, the Near East, Africa, and so on.)
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
[Rasol writes] Mad Marc Washington then admitted to making these weird claims, and apologized for either making them in the 1st place,
[Marc writes[ Wow. I get the sense that you feel my admission is a sign that I feel shamed. The fact is that the Germanic Migration Period brought the bulk of today's Europeans into the continent.
The mistake was that I both forgot it and said you were making that point up. But you weren't. I was being man enough to admit it. That's all. Other than that, I don't feel s*** about it and don't give a f*** about it.
But, Mr. Smarty-Pants, how about the many untruths you consciously made as, for instance, claiming Xyyman and I made comments about Brace. These are outright lies and you know it. The Pinochio Page has others.
I admitted the one mistake I know of and I don't expect you will either acknowledge or apologize for your knowingly-made Brace fabrications or others.
Aside from that, the last 22 pages, in my view, are filled with malarky coming from you. Unsubstantiated comments backed up with not a shred of archeological evidence; beliefs pulled from thin air.
Caoi.
PS - thanks for introducing the Underhill quotes enabling me to add the archeological evidence to show he (and you) are actually talking about African forefathers in Upper Paleolithic Europe whose lineages extend down to today's population in ways I've denoted. You are a real pal.
Archeological evidence of phenotypic whites doesn’t seem to predate 1000 BC. No one at this site has produced anything more than (empty) words on this point.
THREAD PURPOSE: European nations established only from Medieval times - whites are very new to (Western) Europe.
(Whites descended from the African Aurignacians of the Upper Paleolithic to first appear in the archeological record as a white phenotype near 5 – 6000 BC in the Russian Steppes from where they eventually entered Western Europe, the Near East, Africa, and so on.)
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
Rasol. You have been harping about one mistake I made and admitted concerning a point I knew and forgot. How about mistakes your own mistakes? Here is my response to (a few of) your mistakes:
Marc someone one needs to jump in a lake alright to save you from drowning
The Germanic peoples are a historical group of Indo-European -speaking peoples, originating in Northern Europe and identified by their use of the Germanic languages which diversified out of Common Germanic in the course of the Pre-Roman Iron Age. The ancestors of these peoples became the eponymous ethnic groups of North Western Europe, such as the Danes, Swedes, Norwegians, Germans, Dutch, and English.
Let it go Posts: 567 | From: USA | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Rasol. You have been harping about one mistake I made and admitted concerning a point I knew and forgot. How about mistakes your own mistakes? Here is my response to (a few of) your mistakes:
Rasol. You have been harping about one mistake I made and admitted concerning a point I knew and forgot. How about mistakes your own mistakes? Here is my response to (a few of) your mistakes:
I added the “Marc wrote:” preceding Alive Box’ quote directly below:
[Alive Box writes] Marc wrote: [Europeans] first entered the continent and established today's European nations between the period of the 5th and 10th centuries.
From where? And evidenced by what?
[Marc writes] Fair question. Statedly more clearly, the bulk of whites entered Western Europe from 500 AD to 1500 AD as shown here in some of these articles found through a key word search at Goggle under:
For someone who is always talking about how ignorant others are about anthropology and what great failures they are in the field, Rasol appears most ignorant of all. For instance, recently he has been blowing a trumpet of how Underhill wrote:
"[Modern Europeans] carrying R1b are believed to be the descendants of the first modern humans who entered Europe about 35,000-40,000 years ago . Those forebearers were the people who painted the beautiful art in the caves in Spain and France."
I have to thank Rasol for this quote as I hadn’t known about it before. I couldn’t have found better evidence of the fact that it was Africans who populated early Europe. Thanks again, Rasol.
Yet, he hasn't recognized that these are the Aurignacian people and they were African and I've been showing this and he ignores the ANTHROPOLOGICAL evidence – and yet talks about what atrocious failures others are in the field of anthropology. Go figure:
Not only that, but where the cave art of Spain is concerned, the 2nd tier below shows that the people Underhill is speaking of (and Rasol is using as evidence of Paleolithic Europeans) are African. They are shown as the brown, black, and red stick figures in Spanish cave art; these prehistoric figures were common throughout Africa and Spain and, (to a degree), France. The web pictures show the whole population of Upper Paleolithic Spain down through Iron Age Spain, was, in fact an African population. So, in Rasol trumpeting Underhill's comments on Spain, he is, in fact, unwittingly trumpeting its African heritage. (Thanks, Rasol!!!)
Archeological evidence of phenotypic whites doesn’t seem to predate 1000 BC. No one at this site has produced anything more than (empty) words on this point.
THREAD PURPOSE: European nations established only from Medieval times - whites are very new to (Western) Europe.
(Whites descended from the African Aurignacians of the Upper Paleolithic to first appear in the archeological record as a white phenotype near 5 – 6000 BC in the Russian Steppes from where they eventually entered Western Europe, the Near East, Africa, and so on.)
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
I added the “Marc wrote:” preceding Alive Box’ quote directly below:
[Alive Box writes] Marc wrote: [Europeans] first entered the continent and established today's European nations between the period of the 5th and 10th centuries.
From where? And evidenced by what?
[Marc writes] Fair question. Statedly more clearly, the bulk of whites entered Western Europe from 500 AD to 1500 AD as shown here in some of these articles found through a key word search at Goggle under:
For someone who is always talking about how ignorant others are about anthropology and what great failures they are in the field, Rasol appears most ignorant of all. For instance, recently he has been blowing a trumpet of how Underhill wrote:
"[Modern Europeans] carrying R1b are believed to be the descendants of the first modern humans who entered Europe about 35,000-40,000 years ago . Those forebearers were the people who painted the beautiful art in the caves in Spain and France."
I have to thank Rasol for this quote as I hadn’t known about it before. I couldn’t have found better evidence of the fact that it was Africans who populated early Europe. Thanks again, Rasol.
Yet, he hasn't recognized that these are the Aurignacian people and they were African and I've been showing this and he ignores the ANTHROPOLOGICAL evidence – and yet talks about what atrocious failures others are in the field of anthropology. Go figure:
Not only that, but where the cave art of Spain is concerned, the 2nd tier below shows that the people Underhill is speaking of (and Rasol is using as evidence of Paleolithic Europeans) are African. They are shown as the brown, black, and red stick figures in Spanish cave art; these prehistoric figures were common throughout Africa and Spain and, (to a degree), France. The web pictures show the whole population of Upper Paleolithic Spain down through Iron Age Spain, was, in fact an African population. So, in Rasol trumpeting Underhill's comments on Spain, he is, in fact, unwittingly trumpeting its African heritage. (Thanks, Rasol!!!)
Archeological evidence of phenotypic whites doesn’t seem to predate 1000 BC. No one at this site has produced anything more than (empty) words on this point.
THREAD PURPOSE: European nations established only from Medieval times - whites are very new to (Western) Europe.
(Whites descended from the African Aurignacians of the Upper Paleolithic to first appear in the archeological record as a white phenotype near 5 – 6000 BC in the Russian Steppes from where they eventually entered Western Europe, the Near East, Africa, and so on.)
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
………………………………THE PAST REVISITED: AFRICANS OCCUPIED BRITAIN BEFORE TODAY’S POPULATION……………………………..
English and Welsh are races apart Sunday, 30 June, 2002, 15:31 GMT 16:31 UK
Map of England and Wales reflected in genes Gene scientists claim to have found proof that the Welsh are the "true" Britons.
The research supports the idea that Celtic Britain underwent a form of ethnic cleansing by Anglo-Saxons invaders following the Roman withdrawal in the fifth century.
Genetic tests BBC
Genetic tests show clear differences between the Welsh and English.
It suggests that between 50% and 100% of the indigenous population of what was to become England was wiped out, with Offa's Dyke acting as a "genetic barrier" protecting those on the Welsh side.
And the upheaval can be traced to this day through genetic differences between the English and the Welsh.
Academics at University College in London comparing a sample of men from the UK with those from an area of the Netherlands where the Anglo-Saxons are thought to have originated found the English subjects had genes that were almost identical.
But there were clear differences between the genetic make-up of Welsh people studied.
The research team studied the Y-chromosome, which is passed almost unchanged from father to son, and looked for certain genetic markers.
Link BBC
Ethnic links: Many races share common bonds
They chose seven market towns mentioned in the Domesday Book of 1086 and studied 313 male volunteers whose paternal grandfather had also lived in the area.
They then compared this with samples from Norway and with Friesland, now a northern province of the Netherlands.
The English and Frisians studied had almost identical genetic make-up but the English and Welsh were very different.
The researchers concluded the most likely explanation for this was a large-scale Anglo-Saxon invasion, which devastated the Celtic population of England, but did not reach Wales.
Dr Mark Thomas, of the Centre for Genetic Anthropology at UCL, said their findings suggested that a migration occurred within the last 2,500 years.
Genetic links
It reinforced the idea that the Welsh were the true indigenous Britons.
In April last year, research for a BBC programme on the Vikings revealed strong genetic links between the Welsh and Irish Celts and the Basques of northern Spain and south France.
It suggested a possible link between the Celts and Basques, dating back tens of thousands of years.
The UCL research into the more recent Anglo-Saxon period suggested a migration on a huge scale.
"It appears England is made up of an ethnic cleansing event from people coming across from the continent after the Romans left," he said.
Celtic Britons
Archaeologists after the Second World War rejected the traditionally held view that an Anglo-Saxon invasion pushed the indigenous Celtic Britons to the fringes of Britain.
Instead, they said the arrival of Anglo-Saxon culture could have come from trade or a small ruling elite.
But the latest research by the UCL team, "using genetics as a history book", appears to support the original view of a large-scale invasion of England.
It suggests that the Welsh border was more of a genetic barrier to the Anglo-Saxon Y chromosome gene flow than the North Sea.
Dr Thomas added: "Our findings completely overturn the modern view of the origins of the English."
SHORE: “Another circumstance connected with these names which is desirable to remember is the absence of evidence to show that the Old English ever called any of the darker-complexioned Britons brown or black men. Their name for them was Wealas … the Welsh annals mention black Vikings on the coast.”
My take on the situation, as mentioned before, can be paraphrased by saying so much milk was added to the tiny amount of black coffee left that the cup does not even have the look of a tan tinge but appears pure white: i.e. lands (and the continent as a whole) that began black are now white. This happened with the Basques and Saami as well. So much white was added to the black base that those populations today look pure white – though they rest on black foundations in cases blacks being in situ for many of thousands of years BC.
Archeological evidence of phenotypic whites doesn’t seem to predate 1000 BC. No one at this site has produced anything more than (empty) words on this point.
THREAD PURPOSE: European nations established only from Medieval times - whites are very new to (Western) Europe.
(Whites descended from the African Aurignacians of the Upper Paleolithic to first appear in the archeological record as a white phenotype near 5 – 6000 BC in the Russian Steppes from where they eventually entered Western Europe, the Near East, Africa, and so on.)
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
You're right. You can't debate. But, you can sure clown and you can sure lie. At least you owe Xxyman for the bold lie you told about him mentioned in the first comments below.
"I'll remember forever, When I was but three, Mama, who was clever, Remarking to me; If, son, when you're grown up, You want ev'rything nice, I've got your future sewn up If you take this advice:
Be a clown, be a clown, All the world loves a clown. Act a fool, play the calf, And you'll always have the last laugh. Wear the cap and the bells And you'll rate with all the great swells If you become a doctor, folks'll face you with dread, If you become a dentist, they'll be glad when you're dead, You'll get a bigger hand if you can stand on your head, Be a clown, be a clown, be a clown!!!"
- Lyrics from, Be a Clown. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Rasol wrote that I said ” [Europeans] first entered the continent and established today's European nations between the period of the 5th and 10th centuries.”
Forgetting I had written this, I first chided him for falsifying my words but a check showed he was telling the truth. I’d meant, though, to say that from the 5th to 15th centuries the ancestors of the bulk of today’s population in Europe arrived at that time.
However, the mention of the “10th century” provides a bit of irony as it then that William the “Conqueror” (Invader, Hitler, stealer of land and wealth, committer of genocide against Africans – i.e. the indigenous black Celts) killed at least half the Celtic population and took possession of their wealth.
So, today’s England is a land of pretense as their haughty arrogance and feeling of racial superiority (where it exists – not all white Britons are that way) is based on the same racial events that the Jews so abhor. A Holocaust.
A further irony is that I took some classes while in college in an elite school in Pennsylvania called Haverford – a name which hails to Britain. I also took classes at their sister school, three miles away; a bus left every half-an-hour between the two campuses which students from one school could board to take classes at the other.
I’d always felt rather intimidated at the other college, Bryn Mawr, as the girls who attended came from the richest families in America: family income was higher than at Harvard.
Ninty percent of the graduating class went on to become medical doctors. Over half of my graduating class at Haverford became lawyers. Myself being from the black “ghetto,” I also felt intimidated in the town of Bryn Mawr itself; it is home to the American upper class and typified with estates, mansions, maids, and butlers.
However, I just found out yesterday that Bryn and Mawr are Celt names. Look at the end of this post for some of those names. Bryn means “hill” and Mawr means “big.”
I found many other Celt names of tons of town and city names near Philadelphia where I grew up: names predating the invasion of William the Conquerer and massacres: Avon, Capel (chapel), Castell (Castle), Hamps (Dry Stream) (in New York is Hampstead), Plas (Palace).
The most prestigious place names in today’s English come from my ancestors. These names are African (i.e. by people of African phenotype).
I have a new-found pride and more-and-more look upon Europe as a land based on false pretenses of many kinds including the false pretense of racial superiority; a land of people who look with paternalistic, fake pity upon impoverished Africa which they have always exploited (and exploit) to the hilt. The European and American ships of state float on the wealth of African resources taken from an African population kept impoverished.
WIPED-OUT: 13,418 towns (a huge, unknown number were Celt) (still existent!!!) most razed, by William, devasted the population of Celts (I think there were over a million) to “British” living ten per sqare mile in the 11th century.
The Domesday Book appropriately called for the Celts who lost their lives and lands, recorded all this information. The book commissioned by William the so-called Conqueror in 1086.
The primary purpose of commissioning the book was to gain information of all households so that they might be taxed. A portion of the taxes went to pay-off maurading Danish and Norwegian armies: http://www.domesdaybook.co.uk/compiling.html
What an irony. The British-to-be came from the Netherlands and invaded the land and stole it from Celts and then had to fight against other of their people and paying them off to stay away by further stealing from the population. We gave them land and religion: the religion of a black Christ (now portrayed white)
SOME QUOTES BELOW
Why is the Domesday Book still important today? The Domesday Book provides an invaluable insight into the economy and society of 11th century Norman England. For historians it can be used, amongst other things, to discover the wealth of England at the time, information about the feudal system existent in society (the social hierarchy from the king down to villagers and slaves), and information about the geography and demographic situation of the country. For local historians it can reveal the history of a local settlement and its population and surroundings, whilst for genealogists it provides a useful and fascinating resource for tracing family lines. Through the centuries the Domesday Book has also been used as evidence in disputes over ancient land and property rights, though the last case of this was in the 1960s. Some examples of what can be learnt from the information in the Domesday Book can be found in Life in the 11th Century.
Why were many places listed in the Domesday Book as 'wasted'? When William and his army invaded in 1066 they continued their conquest campaign towards western and northern England, leaving a fair amount of destruction in their wake. The term 'waste' or 'wasted' appears many times in the Domesday Book, most often describing settlements the army had passed through and left their mark on during their conquest, although the term was also used sometimes for manors simply not paying geld for one reason or another.
ORIGIN OF PLACE NAMES
Virtually all of the place names decided on up to around the 14th Century were due to the environment of the area. For example, Doncaster would probably have originated as a Roman fort on a hill, from the Roman 'Caster' and Celtic 'Don'.
Roman Terms: 50BC - 410 AD
Caster: Fort; Camp; Later town Cester: Fort; Camp; Later town Chester: Fort; Camp; Later town Fos (s): Ditch Port: Harbour; Gate Street: Paved way
Celtic Terms: 800BC - 400 AD
Aber: River mouth or ford Afon: River Allt: Hillside Avon; Esk; Eye; Dee: River Bedd: Grave Bre-; Drum; Don: Hill Caer: Fortress Capel: Chapel Carnedd: Cairn Castell: Castle Coed: Wood Cwm: Valley Dinas: City Glan: River Bank Hamps: Dry stream in Summer Llan: Church Llyn: Lake Mawr: Big Môr: Sea Mynydd: Mountain Os: God Pant: Hollow Pen; Bryn: Hill; Head Plas: Palace Pont; Bont: Bridge Porth: Harbour Tre: Hamlet; Village; Town Treath: Beach Ynys: Island
Following link also includes Anglo-Saxon and Viking terms. Keep in mind that England had black Vikings before the mass invasion.
Archeological evidence of phenotypic whites doesn’t seem to predate 1000 BC. No one at this site has produced anything more than (empty) words on this point.
THREAD PURPOSE: European nations established only from Medieval times - whites are very new to (Western) Europe.
(Whites descended from the African Aurignacians of the Upper Paleolithic to first appear in the archeological record as a white phenotype near 5 – 6000 BC in the Russian Steppes from where they eventually entered Western Europe, the Near East, Africa, and so on.)
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:posted 11 May, 2008 11:48 PM by Marc Washington Forgetting I had written this, I first chided him for falsifying my words but a check showed he was telling the truth.
Here is some more truth for you.
This thread is silly, and you're a fool who doesn't know what he is talking about, and can't even recall what he actually said...... ^ Keep Clowning.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Rasol wrote that I said ” [Europeans] first entered the continent and established today's European nations between the period of the 5th and 10th centuries.”
Forgetting I had written this, I first chided him for falsifying my words but a check showed he was telling the truth. I’d meant, though, to say that from the 5th to 15th centuries the ancestors of the bulk of today’s population in Europe arrived at that time.
However, the mention of the “10th century” provides a bit of irony as it then that William the “Conqueror” (Invader, Hitler, stealer of land and wealth, committer of genocide against Africans – i.e. the indigenous black Celts) killed at least half the Celtic population and took possession of their wealth.
So, today’s England is a land of pretense as their haughty arrogance and feeling of racial superiority (where it exists – not all white Britons are that way) is based on the same racial events that the Jews so abhor. A Holocaust.
A further irony is that I took some classes while in college in an elite school in Pennsylvania called Haverford – a name which hails to Britain. I also took classes at their sister school, three miles away; a bus left every half-an-hour between the two campuses which students from one school could board to take classes at the other.
I’d always felt rather intimidated at the other college, Bryn Mawr, as the girls who attended came from the richest families in America: family income was higher than at Harvard.
Ninty percent of the graduating class went on to become medical doctors. Over half of my graduating class at Haverford became lawyers. Myself being from the black “ghetto,” I also felt intimidated in the town of Bryn Mawr itself; it is home to the American upper class and typified with estates, mansions, maids, and butlers.
However, I just found out yesterday that Bryn and Mawr are Celt names. Look at the end of this post for some of those names. Bryn means “hill” and Mawr means “big.”
I found many other Celt names of tons of town and city names near Philadelphia where I grew up: names predating the invasion of William the Conquerer and massacres: Avon, Capel (chapel), Castell (Castle), Hamps (Dry Stream) (in New York is Hampstead), Plas (Palace).
The most prestigious place names in today’s English come from my ancestors. These names are African (i.e. by people of African phenotype).
I have a new-found pride and more-and-more look upon Europe as a land based on false pretenses of many kinds including the false pretense of racial superiority; a land of people who look with paternalistic, fake pity upon impoverished Africa which they have always exploited (and exploit) to the hilt. The European and American ships of state float on the wealth of African resources taken from an African population kept impoverished.
WIPED-OUT: 13,418 towns (a huge, unknown number were Celt) (still existent!!!) most razed, by William, devasted the population of Celts (I think there were over a million) to “British” living ten per sqare mile in the 11th century.
The Domesday Book appropriately called for the Celts who lost their lives and lands, recorded all this information. The book commissioned by William the so-called Conqueror in 1086.
The primary purpose of commissioning the book was to gain information of all households so that they might be taxed. A portion of the taxes went to pay-off maurading Danish and Norwegian armies: http://www.domesdaybook.co.uk/compiling.html
What an irony. The British-to-be came from the Netherlands and invaded the land and stole it from Celts and then had to fight against other of their people and paying them off to stay away by further stealing from the population. We gave them land and religion: the religion of a black Christ (now portrayed white)
SOME QUOTES BELOW
Why is the Domesday Book still important today? The Domesday Book provides an invaluable insight into the economy and society of 11th century Norman England. For historians it can be used, amongst other things, to discover the wealth of England at the time, information about the feudal system existent in society (the social hierarchy from the king down to villagers and slaves), and information about the geography and demographic situation of the country. For local historians it can reveal the history of a local settlement and its population and surroundings, whilst for genealogists it provides a useful and fascinating resource for tracing family lines. Through the centuries the Domesday Book has also been used as evidence in disputes over ancient land and property rights, though the last case of this was in the 1960s. Some examples of what can be learnt from the information in the Domesday Book can be found in Life in the 11th Century.
Why were many places listed in the Domesday Book as 'wasted'? When William and his army invaded in 1066 they continued their conquest campaign towards western and northern England, leaving a fair amount of destruction in their wake. The term 'waste' or 'wasted' appears many times in the Domesday Book, most often describing settlements the army had passed through and left their mark on during their conquest, although the term was also used sometimes for manors simply not paying geld for one reason or another.
ORIGIN OF PLACE NAMES
Virtually all of the place names decided on up to around the 14th Century were due to the environment of the area. For example, Doncaster would probably have originated as a Roman fort on a hill, from the Roman 'Caster' and Celtic 'Don'.
Roman Terms: 50BC - 410 AD
Caster: Fort; Camp; Later town Cester: Fort; Camp; Later town Chester: Fort; Camp; Later town Fos (s): Ditch Port: Harbour; Gate Street: Paved way
Celtic Terms: 800BC - 400 AD
Aber: River mouth or ford Afon: River Allt: Hillside Avon; Esk; Eye; Dee: River Bedd: Grave Bre-; Drum; Don: Hill Caer: Fortress Capel: Chapel Carnedd: Cairn Castell: Castle Coed: Wood Cwm: Valley Dinas: City Glan: River Bank Hamps: Dry stream in Summer Llan: Church Llyn: Lake Mawr: Big Môr: Sea Mynydd: Mountain Os: God Pant: Hollow Pen; Bryn: Hill; Head Plas: Palace Pont; Bont: Bridge Porth: Harbour Tre: Hamlet; Village; Town Treath: Beach Ynys: Island
Following link also includes Anglo-Saxon and Viking terms. Keep in mind that England had black Vikings before the mass invasion.
Archeological evidence of phenotypic whites doesn’t seem to predate 1000 BC. No one at this site has produced anything more than (empty) words on this point.
THREAD PURPOSE: European nations established only from Medieval times - whites are very new to (Western) Europe.
(Whites descended from the African Aurignacians of the Upper Paleolithic to first appear in the archeological record as a white phenotype near 5 – 6000 BC in the Russian Steppes from where they eventually entered Western Europe, the Near East, Africa, and so on.)
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
Giuseppe Sergi is a researcher I hope to speak more about in the future. He furthered the understanding that the greater part of Europe was populated by Africans; he called them Eurafricans as they were Africans in Europe (Europe being, as you know, a word of Phoenician origin: Phoenicians shown also in the archeological record as being Africans).
Not in the piece below but elsewhere I think that Sergi says that the long-headed (as opposed to round-headed) original population of Britain was Mediterranean, i.e. according to him, a race with origins in North Africa and the earliest populators of the Mediterranean. Here's something on him and his thinking:
Giuseppe Sergi (1841 – 1936) was an influential Italian anthropologist of the early twentieth century, notable for his opposition to Nordicism in his books on the racial identity of ancient Mediterranean peoples.
Born in Messina, Sicily, Sergi was a student of Cesare Lombroso. When he became university professor in 1880, the discipline of anthropology was still associated with the Literature Faculty. In the following years, thanks to the activity of his Laboratory of anthropology and psychology, he helped establish the discipline on a more scientific basis. He developed a program of research into both psychology and the anthropology. In 1893 he founded the Roman Society of Anthropology.
According to Sergi, the Mediterranean race arose from primal populations in North Africa, and was related to Hamitic peoples. Sergi claimed that the Mediterraneans, the Africans and the Nordics all originated from an original "Eurafrican Race". According to Sergi the Mediterranean race, the "greatest race of the world", was responsible for the great civilisations of ancient times, including those of Egypt, Carthage, Greece and Rome. These Mediterranean peoples were quite distinct from the peoples of northern Europe. To Sergi the Semites were a branch of the Eurafricans who were closely related to the Mediterraneans.
Sergi was strongly opposed to the use of the cephalic index to model poulation ancestry, arguing that cranial morphology was more useful.
Internationally renowned for his contributions to anthropology, he succeeded in establishing the International Conference of Psychology in Rome, 1905, under his presidency.
He died at Rome in 1936. His son Sergio Sergi, also a noted anthropologist, developed his father's theories.
How can anyone look at these and NOT see strong African/Negroid influence in ancient Europe.
You are saying that the current phenotype of modern Europeans are a "recent development". And that up to the upper Paleolithic period Europeans were tropical black Africans, that is why there are NO "remains" of modern Europeans in Europe today. You are saying that in roughly 12000yrs these traits developed and became wide-spread. Is that enough time? Sounds unbelievable. All the remains of Europeans up to about 10000yrs ago are tropical black Africans. What about the Steppes? Were there modern Europeans remains found there. circa 12kybp?
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I’d meant, though, to say that from the 5th to 15th centuries the ancestors of the bulk of today’s population in Europe arrived at that time.
As I suspected that is probably closer to the "truth". What can get lost in these types of "debates", that are more about ego than "truth", is that the evolutionary nature of civilization is complex; trying to pin down definitive time frames as to when what started and with whom can be problematic. Ancient population settlements and replacements were on a phased basis extending over long periods of time, with the original peopling of Europe by blacks. Sergi does help your case somewhat despite his obvious racism, as his research did point to the original peopling of Europe.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rasol is saying that Europeans were tropical "black/brown" Africans/Negroids during about 12kybp(Upper Paleolithic). And turned white/pale Europeans/Caucasoids in less than 8ky. Does it take such a short time for these Nordic features to develop from tropical Black Africans. From Grimaldi, "Cro-magnon", cave paintings etc all indication are that the indigenous inhabitants of Europe were non-caucasoids.
Note I am not disputing that Europeans are decendants of Africans. Some of these nordics features developed someplace else and these people migrated from elsewhere replacing the cro-magnons, grimaldi's, cave dwellers from the ice age. Gimbutas and other leading scientist suggest these people came from the Steppes.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
PART 1 – THE AFRICAN PHASE: roughly during the formation of the Capsemmochal peoples extending from the creation of ancient kingdoms in Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, and Canaan, etc. to incursions of Germanic peoples during the Roman Empire and its end. (Africans formed Roman Republic and were by far the greatest population during the Roman Empire. They were the first Christians. Established the first churches. The portrayals of the the Virgin Mary and Christ and the apostles were in the first centuries always shown as African. As the incursive Germanic and other tribes were Christianized and took over Christendom, the foregoing figures were shown as white and today’s pope is white. Christ is portrayed as white. The first popes and priests were Africans.
PART 2 – THE INCURSION INTO AND ESTABLISHMENT OF WHITES IN WESTERN EUROPE: roughly from near 800 BC in trickles to the flood from the 5th to 15th centuries AD:
As I, Marc, have repeated each time it was endlessly denied (and why would you, Rasol, imply in your ceaseless arguments that the nations of Europe were not created during the Middle Ages and “imply” they somehow existed before? The author writes:
The organization of the present States of Europe may be traced back to the Middle Ages.
… the [Germanic tribes] living along the northern boundaries of the Roman Empire had begun their migrations and predatory incursions. Along this border lived the tribes of the Teutonic family, divided by the Oder into the East Germans and West Germans. The East Germans included the Ostrogoths and Visigoths, Burgundians, Vandals, Heruli, Rugii, and Scyrri. The West Germans were divided into the Ingvaeones or Germans on the sea-coast, including the later Frisians and Anglo-Saxons; the Istvaeones or the Germans of the Rhine, including the Franks between the Weser and Rhine; the Hermiones, among whom were the later Thuringians and the upper German tribes of the Alamanni and Bavarians (Bajuvarii). As early as the years 161-80 the Marcomanni, a West German tribe, advanced as far as Aquileia; they were defeated, but introduced northern elements into the population. After this failure the current of the migration divided into two streams: one to the south-east, the migration of the East Germans; one to the south-west, the migration of the West Germans. Of the East Germans, the Goths reached the lower Danube and the Black Sea and divided, according to these respective positions, into the Ostrogoths and Visigoths. In 375, on account of the pouring in of Asiatic hordes through the gateway of the nations between the Urals and the Caspian, the Ostrogoths came under the power of the Huns. The Visigoths, who were also hard pressed, retreated towards Transylvania and received land somewhat south of this from the Emperors Valens and Theodosius. When, after the death of Theodosius, the Roman Empire was divided in 395 into the Western and Eastern Empires, ruled respectively by his sons Honorius and Arcadius, the Visigoths under Alaric plundered Thrace and Greece and, with the permission of Arcadius, settled in Illyria. From here they pressed toward Italy and in 410 even entered Rome. They then turned towards South-Eastern Gaul and in 419 founded the first German kingdom on Roman soil, its capital being Toulouse; they also conquered a large part of Spain. In 507 the Visigoths were forced to give up their possessions in Gaul to the Franks, and in 531 the capital of the Visigothic Kingdom was transferred to Toledo.
The recall from the Rhine of the Roman legions needed for the struggle against Alaric left the way to the south-west open to two other East German peoples, the Burgundians and the Vandals. The Burgundians, who had formerly lived between the Oder and the Vistula, crossed the Rhine in 406 and founded a kingdom having its capital at Worms; in 437 this kingdom was broken up by the Roman governor Aëtius, but another arose in 443 around Geneva and Lyons; this, however, in 532, was absorbed into the Kingdom of the Franks. In 406 the Vandals left their home on the northern slope of the mountains called Riesengebirge, and in union with the Alani and Suevi passed through Gaul into Spain; the Visigoths drove them out of Spain into the Roman provinces in Africa, whence for a long time they controlled the Mediterranean and in 455 ravaged Rome. In 476 Odoacer, the leader of the mercenaries made up of Heruli, Rugii, and Scyrri, seized the government and called himself King of Italy. At almost the same time the Ostrogoths in Pannonia were again free, as the power of the Huns was broken in the great battle on the Catalaunian Fields near Châlons-sur-Marne in 451. Theodoric, the King of the Ostrogoths, conquered Odoacer in 489 and created a kingdom (493-526) that embraced Italy, Sicily, a part of Pannonia, Rhaetia, and the Province; this kingdom went to pieces in 553. The Ostrogoths were followed by the Lombards, a tribe of the lower Elbe, who, passing through Pannonia, reached Italy in 568 under their King Alboin; it was not until 771 that the Lombards were brought under subjection by the Franks. All these peoples were to disappear in order, by their absorption into the civilization of Rome, to bring about the union of Christianity, the state religion of Rome since the time of Constantine the Great, with a more stable power, the united West Germans.
The West Germans, although their migrations were not very extended, had changed their habitations as follows: in the fourth century the Alamanni advanced into Alsace and in the fifth century took entire possession of it, spreading towards the north as far as Coblenz. The Franks were divided into the Ripuarian and Salian Franks; the former settled on both sides of the middle and lower Rhine, the latter advanced from the Scheldt to the Somme. Towards the end of the third century the Saxons advanced from the Elbe to the Rhine; in the fifth century, with the aid of the Angles, they conquered Britain; the former inhabitants of Britain took refuge in Wales and France and gave their name to Brittany. The Frisians settled on the coast and islands of Schleswig-Holstein; the Thuringians spread from the lower Elbe to the southern bank of the Main. The Bajuvarii went farthest south. At the time of the birth of Christ they lived in modern Bohemia; about 500 their territory extended from the Lech to the Enns and from the Danube to the junction of the Eisack and the Adige. The region occupied by the tribes just named enlarged the scene of European history; all that was now needed was the political and spiritual union of these peoples to make them the leading people of Europe. The political union was brought about by the Franks, the spiritual union by Christianity. In the end these were combined into a form of theocracy which, by a rapid series of victories, conquered not only Southern Europe, but also Middle and Eastern Europe as well.
Just as the fifth century passed into the sixth (481-511) Clovis, King of the Salian Franks, forcibly subdued the most important of the surrounding tribes; he led them to embrace Christianity after his own conversion. Clovis first united what was left of the Roman Empire on the Seine and Loire with his own domain and made Paris his capital. After this he subdued the Alamanni on the Rhine, Mosel, Lower Main, and Neckar; as the champion of the doctrines of Roman Christianity, he conquered the King of the Arian Visigoths near Poitiers (507) and seized the Visigothic territory between the Loire and the Garonne. By overthrowing the petty Salian chiefs and the royal family of the Ripuarian Franks, he made himself the ruler of all the Frankish tribes. The work was completed by his four sons, who seized the territories of the Thuringians and Burgundians, forced the Ostrogoths to give up Provence and Rhaetia, and obtained by treaties sovereignty over the Bajuvarii.
Thus was laid the foundation of the Franco-Christian Empire which opened to Christianity a new missionary field to be won over to the Faith only by properly trained apostles. The training was given in the monastic institutions which, in imitation of the East, had now spread over all of Western Europe. One of the chief factors in the conversion of the heathen was the Order of St. Benedict of Nursia, encouraged by Gregory the Great. The precursors of the Benedictines were St. Patrick (432) and St. Columba (about 550), who converted Ireland and Scotland, while the Anglo-Saxons received Christianity from the Benedictine Augustine (596), who had been specially sent by Rome. At the death of St. Patrick there were in Ireland several bishops, numerous priests and many monasteries; his own see was Armagh. Columba founded the celebrated monastery on the Island of Iona, between Ireland and Scotland, which was the centre of the Scotch missions and dioceses. The Abbot Augustine and his companions erected the metropolitan Sees of Canterbury (Durovernum), York (Eboracum), and the see of London; in the course of the seventh century the successors of Augustine, Mellitus and Theodore of Tarsus, completed his work.
A glorious band of self-sacrificing apostles of the Faith, from Columbanus and Gallus to Boniface, carried Christianity from the British Isles to the Continent. They founded their work on what scanty remains of Christianity still existed in the former Roman provinces. In the fifth century Severinus and Valentinus laboured in south-eastern Germany. They found the remains of nearly obliterated sees in Lorch, Pettau, Windisch in Switzerland, Chur, Basle, Strasburg, Avenches in Switzerland, Martigny, and Geneva, but the Teutonic migrations and the disorders consequent on them had almost destroyed the life of the Church. About 610 Columbanus crossed the Vosges mountains, where he had founded the monasteries of Annegray and Luxeuil, and came to Lake Constance; here from Bregenz as a centre he preached Christianity, while his companion St. Gall became the founder of the celebrated monastery of St. Gall. In the early part of the seventh century the monks Agilus and Eustasius, of the monastery of Luxeuil, preached the Gospel in Bavaria; they were followed by Rupert of Worms and Emmeram of Aquitaine. St. Corbinian laboured as the first Bishop of Freising, and Kilian in Würzburg. Ecclesiastical life on the Rhine was largely developed by Bishops Nicetius of Trier, Cunibert of Cologne, Dragobodo of Speyer, Amandus, Lambert, and Hugo of Maastricht. The Gospel was brought to the Frisians by Wilfrid of York and Willibrord of Northumbria; the latter erected a see at Utrecht. Willibrord's companion, Suidbert, went into the countship of Mark in the region of the Weser, Lippe, and Ruhr Rivers; the brothers Ewald laboured with little success among the Saxons. An organization including all these countries was not established until the appearance of the greatest of the apostles of the Germans, St. Boniface. He entered on his career in the time of the Carlovingian Mayors of the Palace, who were destined to realize the union of Church and State in Western Europe.
Repeated divisions of the kingdom, disputes as to succession, civil wars, and the power of the nobles almost brought the great Frankish kingdom to dissolution. It was saved from utter ruin by Pepin of Heristal, Mayor of the Palace (Major domus), who gradually took control of the government. In 687 Pepin won for himself the position of Mayor of the Palace of Neustria and Burgundy, in addition to that for Austrasia which he already held; in this way he reunited the kingdom. He then undertook the conquest of the tribes which had broken loose from the Frankish rule and encouraged the missions to the West Frisians. His son, Charles Martel, who was not less active, held a position of such power that he was able, in the great battle of Poitiers, 732, to protect Christian German civilization against the attempt of Islam to conquer the world. Pepin the Short, the son of Charles, brought about the union of Church and State which had so great an influence on the history of the world. Having obtained the title of king in 752, his first task was to defend Pope Stephen II, who had appealed to him for aid, from the attacks of the Lombards; this was followed by the so-called "Donation of Pepin," a grant of territory to the pope which was the foundation of the later States of the Church. Their mutual engagements fixed not only their own policy but also that of their successors. Like Pepin, his famous son, Charlemagne, lent his support to the Holy See, and all his conquests were undertaken for the good of the Church and Christianity. By successful campaigns against Aquitaine, the Lombards, Avars, Saxons, and Danes, and by treaties with the Slavic peoples, Charlemagne increased his domain until it extended from the Ebro and the Apennines to the Eider River in Schleswig-Holstein, and from the Atlantic to the Elbe and the Raab. His kingdom became a world-empire and he himself one of the great rulers of history, worthy of reviving the Western Roman Empire. He was crowned, Christmas Day, 800, by the pope, and the new empire rested essentially on the basis of an alliance with the Church. Its ideal was the Kingdom of God on earth, in which the emperor by Divine appointment is God's viceroy in order to lead and rule all races as divided into nations, classes, and distinctions of rank according to Divine will.
Archeological evidence of phenotypic whites doesn’t seem to predate 1000 BC. No one at this site has produced anything more than (empty) words on this point.
THREAD PURPOSE: European nations established only from Medieval times - whites are very new to (Western) Europe.
(Whites descended from the African Aurignacians of the Upper Paleolithic to first appear in the archeological record as a white phenotype near 5 – 6000 BC in the Russian Steppes from where they eventually entered Western Europe, the Near East, Africa, and so on.)
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then I guess you can' read. The other half is calling. AND STOP THOSE STUPID NEW THREADS. man up!!
Seems like ego isn't as big a problem as with your mentor who reads half a response and think the person don't get it. Lord of his own kingdom.
And fails to addres Marc's anthropological and archeological evidence. His reponse is the one liner - R1a, R1b and I are European lineage.
So maybe you can do better and address explain Marc's evidence... . .
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box): Rofl @ the top post on this page, but seriously, other than some picture spamming meant to imply that Europe's and Iran's populations had changed, I don't see any evidence that modern Europeans aren't descendants of ancient Europeans.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Retreating ice sheet behind which were the pheontoypic Africans whose related populations are seen above. They followed this retreat into Finland and the Scandinavian countries prior to incoming whites.
R1a map corresponding to the above web page showing it was African phenotypic populations who were the carriers and spreaders of this genetic material 30,000 years ago. The map (not the above conclusions) is the work of the Finnish geneticist Kalevi Wiik.
Yo. Rasol. The above is a new map for you. You posted the other one maybe (no exaggeration) about 100 times. Maybe it's time for something fresh and new? Huumm.
Caoi.
Your friend, Marc
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
R1a map corresponding to the above web page showing it was African phenotypic populations who were the carriers and spreaders of this genetic material 30,000 years ago. The map (not the above conclusions) is the work of the Finnish geneticist Kalevi Wiik.
Hi Dr. Winters. It's not translated into English yet and won't be published for a month or so, I think. Here's the page a person collaborating on the project told me about:
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box): Rofl @ the top post on this page, but seriously, other than some picture spamming meant to imply that Europe's and Iran's populations had changed, I don't see any evidence that modern Europeans aren't descendants of ancient Europeans.
Having read the above: I didn't know if to laugh or cry. To not know and understand that the most valuable thing that you could possibly have: is an authentic artifact made by the ancients themselves. The information that artifacts provide, is far superior to the guessing of geneticists.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box): Rofl @ the top post on this page, but seriously, other than some picture spamming meant to imply that Europe's and Iran's populations had changed, I don't see any evidence that modern Europeans aren't descendants of ancient Europeans.
Having read the above: I didn't know if to laugh or cry. To not know and understand that the most valuable thing that you could possibly have: is an authentic artifact made by the ancients themselves. The information that artifacts provide, is far superior to the guessing of geneticists.
This is true . But Negroes fear being independent thinkers so they try to be on the safe side and follow the findings of Europeans. Most of these Negroes are cowards.
Population genetics is based on conjecture. They base population movements on the genes collected from the present inhabitants of Europe and use this evidence to decribe who lived where and when. This is unreliable because many present populations in Iran, U.S.A., and etc. have replaced the earlier--"original" populations.This is why contemporary Europeans have no genetic link to the Augrinacians who first replaced the Neanderthal people in Europe.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
AND STOP THOSE STUPID NEW THREADS. man up!!
Printer-friendly view of this topic