When most folks think of evolution, they think of macro-evolution which is evolution on a grand scale like speciation which is the development of new species. What they fail to understand is that macro-evolution is the result of multiple occurances of micro-evolution which is evolution in a small scale, or biological changes that occur among populations. A perfect example of that is skin color among humans. We have genetic evidence that not only verifies that *all* humans were originally black since they originated in sub-saharan Africa, but that some populations became lighter as they left the tropics and into less sunny climates. There are also other changes such as from tropical adopted bodies to more cold adapted bodies like you see among the Inuit (Eskimo) peoples.
This is bull****. We don't really know how skin color originated. The Eskimos have lived in an Artic environment for thousands of years and yet they remain dark. If environment causes skin color why are the Eskimos still dark.
The science is out there people. And it is up to you to go out there and educate yourselves on the subject and not simply refuse the material out of ignorance.
You are wrong. Marc is doing what any good researcher would do . Yes, the evidence is out there he is just making an independent interpretation of the evidence.
The archaeological evidence and skeletal record make it clear that Blacks entered Europe numerous times and Indo-European speakers or Kurgan folk entered the area only recently. The fact that the first carriers of many genes common to Europeans are found in Cameroon make it obvious that Europeans only acquired these genes recently through intermarriage etc., with recent Africans--not the ancient Blacks who lived in this area who carried haplogroups N and are associated with the CroMagnon people of 40,000-28,000BC. Another group entered Europe via the Levant between 20,000-18,000 BC who probably carried haplogroup M and were associated with Ethiopian speakers or Natufians according to most researchers.
Recent genetic research indicates that the contemporary Europeans are not related to the ancient Europeans. quote:
Science 11 November 2005: Vol. 310. no. 5750, pp. 1016 - 1018 DOI: 10.1126/science.1118725 Prev | Table of Contents | Next
REPORTS Ancient DNA from the First European Farmers in 7500-Year-Old Neolithic Sites Wolfgang Haak,1* Peter Forster,2 Barbara Bramanti,1 Shuichi Matsumura,2 Guido Brandt,1 Marc Tänzer,1 Richard Villems,3 Colin Renfrew,2 Detlef Gronenborn,4 Kurt Werner Alt,1 Joachim Burger1 The ancestry of modern Europeans is a subject of debate among geneticists, archaeologists, and anthropologists. A crucial question is the extent to which Europeans are descended from the first European farmers in the Neolithic Age 7500 years ago or from Paleolithic hunter-gatherers who were present in Europe since 40,000 years ago. Here we present an analysis of ancient DNA from early European farmers. We successfully extracted and sequenced intact stretches of maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from 24 out of 57 Neolithic skeletons from various locations in Germany, Austria, and Hungary. We found that 25% of the Neolithic farmers had one characteristic mtDNA type and that this type formerly was widespread among Neolithic farmers in Central Europe. Europeans today have a 150-times lower frequency (0.2%) of this mtDNA type, revealing that these first Neolithic farmers did not have a strong genetic influence on modern European female lineages. Our finding lends weight to a proposed Paleolithic ancestry for modern Europeans.
This DNA found in the ancient Europeans was N1(a).
It seems to me that we may be asking the wrong question. Instead of trying to explain why the Old Europeans were not Indo-European speakers, or contemporary Europeans, we should be asking the question who these Old Europeans were. It appears to me that they may have been Africans.
This is based on the reality that the haplogroup N1(a) is common to Senegambians, modern Ethiopians and the Dravidian speaking people of India (Richards et al, 2005; Toomas et al, 2004). The Old Europeans may be related to African cattle raising farming groups, originally from Africa and the Middle East who may have planted the seeds of agriculture in ancient Europe, especially descendants of the Natufians.
Many Researchers see Africans spreading into Europe in ancient times. Brace et al (2006) recognized Sub-Saharan Africans as associates of the Nufian farmers that introduced farming to Europe.
Chris Stringer and Robin McKie wrote:
"Nor does the picture get any clearer when we move on to the Cro-Magnons, the presumed ancestors of modern Europeans. Some looked more like present-day Australians or Africans, judged by OBJECTIVE anatomical categorizations, as is the case with some early modern skulls from the Upper Cave at Zhoukoudian in China."
Africa in a sense kept pumping out migrations and dispersals of people and this included people like the Neanderthals who, equally, it doesn't seem were our ancestors.
CL Brace (2006)– “When 24 craniofacial measurements of a series of human populations are used to generate neighbor-joining dendrograms, it is no surprise that all modern European groups, ranging all of the way from Scandinavia to eastern Europe and throughout the Mediterranean to the Middle East, show that they are closely related to each other. The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants, although the prehistoric modern ties are somewhat more apparent in southern Europe. It is a further surprise that the Epipalaeolithic Natufian of Israel from whom the Neolithic realm was assumed to arise has a clear link to Sub-Saharan Africa. Basques and Canary Islanders are clearly associated with modern Europeans. When canonical variates are plotted, neither sample ties in with Cro-Magnon as was once suggested. The data treated here support the idea that the Neolithic moved out of the Near East into the circum-Mediterranean areas and Europe by a process of demic diffusion but that subsequently the in situ residents of those areas, derived from the Late Pleistocene inhabitants, absorbed both the agricultural life way and the people who had brought it.”
The main problem with Brace et al’s attempt to make the Late Pleistocene inhabitants of Europe = contemporary Europeans is that these people were Negroes or Blacks.
There have been numerous "Negroid skeletons" found in Europe. Marcellin Boule and Henri Vallois, in Fossil Man, provide an entire chapter on the Africans/Negroes of Europe Anta Diop also discussed the Negroes of Europe in Civilization or Barbarism, pp.25-68. Also W.E. B. DuBois, discussed these Negroes in the The World and Africa, pp.86-89. DuBois noted that "There was once a an "uninterrupted belt' of Negro culture from Central Europe to South Africa" (p.88).
Boule and Vallois, note that "To sum up, in the most ancient skeletons from the Grotte des Enfants we have a human type which is readily comparable to modern types and especially to the Negritic or Negroid type" (p.289). They continue, "Two Neolithic individuals from Chamblandes in Switzerland are Negroid not only as regards their skulls but also in the proportions of their limbs. Several Ligurian and Lombard tombs of the Metal Ages have also yielded evidences of a Negroid element. Since the publication of Verneau's memoir, discoveries of other Negroid skeletons in Neolithic levels in Illyria and the Balkans have been announced. The prehistoric statues, dating from the Copper Age, from Sultan Selo in Bulgaria are also thought to protray Negroids. In 1928 Rene Bailly found in one of the caverns of Moniat, near Dinant in Belgium, a human skeleton of whose age it is difficult to be certain, but seems definitely prehistoric. It is remarkable for its Negroid characters, which give it a reseblance to the skeletons from both Grimaldi and Asselar (p.291).
Boule and Vallois, note that "We know now that the ethnography of South African tribes presents many striking similarities with the ethnography of our populations of the Reindeer Age. Not to speak of their stone implements which, as we shall see later , exhibit great similarities, Peringuey has told us that in certain burials on the South African coast 'associated with the Aurignacian or Solutrean type industry...."(p.318-319). They add, that in relation to Bushman art " This almost uninterrupted series leads us to regard the African continent as a centre of important migrations which at certain times may have played a great part in the stocking of Southern Europe. Finally, we must not forget that the Grimaldi Negroid skeletons sho many points of resemblance with the Bushman skeletons". They bear no less a resemblance to that of the fossil Man discovered at Asslar in mid-Sahara, whose characters led us to class him with the Hottentot-Bushman group.
Trenton W. Holliday, tested the hypothesis that if modern Africans had dispersed into the Levant from Africa, "tropically adapted hominids" would be represented in the archaeological history of the Levant, especially in relation to the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids. This researcher found that the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids (20,000-10,000),were assigned to the Sub-Saharan population, along with the Natufians samples (4000 BP). Holliday also found African fauna in the area.
Keita notes that: quote:
"Epipaleolithic "mesolithic" Nile Valley remains have these characteristics and diverge notably from their Maghreban and European counterparts in key cranio-facial characteristics (see comments in Keita 1990) although late Natufian hunters and early Anatolian farmers (Angel 1972) shared some of these traits, suggesting late Paleolithic migration out of Africa, as supported by archeology **(Bar Yosef 1987)**. - Keita, 1993.
Holliday confirmed his hypothesis that the replacement of the Neanderthal people were Sub-Saharan Africans. The founders of civilization in South West Asia were the people, archaeologists call Natufians. By 13,000 BC, according to J.D. Clark (1977) the Natufians were collecting grasses which later became domesticated crops in Southwest Asia. In Palestine the Natufians established intensive grass collection. The Natufians used the Ibero-Maurusian tool industry (Wendorf, 1968). These Natufians , according to Christopher Ehret Natufians were small stature folk who spread agriculture throughout Nubia into the Red Sea. The Natufians took the Ibero-Maurusian tools into Europe, North Africa and the Middle East.
Some researchers believe that Natufian, or some related population took the E3b alpha cluster to Europe.
The Proto-Magyar were one of the many ethnic groups which formerly lived in the Fertile African Crescent. They offered prayers to *kan, e.g., Magyar kan, konyorog, Manding kani, and Dravidian ka-n. They also worshipped the god Amon, who they called Anya (Winters, 1986).
The name Maa is found in many Proto-Saharan ethnonyms. For example the Manding called themselves Ma-nde (the children of Ma), the Sumerians called themselves Mah-Gar-ri (exalted God's children), and the Magyar of ancient times referred to themselves as Muh-ger-ri , or Ma-ka-r (exalted children) (Winters,1986).
According to David MacRitchies the most ancient Uralic speakers were called czernii ugris or 'Black Ugris'. The Ugris were also called Hunni. The name Ugrian, is the origin for the word Hungarian. The Hungarians were also called Sabatocospali ,"the Blacks".
The Carpathian blacks arrived in the area in the 4th millennium B.C. The Tripolye culture dates from 3800 to 2100 B.C. The Tripolye culture was established in the Ukraine, Moldavia and Romania along the Siret River in the Ukraine. The Tripolye people may have collected/cultivated barley, millet and wheat. They also had domesticated cattle, sheep-goats and pigs. As in Africa, their principle domesticate at this time was cattle .
During the middle Neolithic copper was being exploited in several mountainous regions of Europe. The center for copper mining in Europe was the Carpathian mountains. Many copper objects have been found on Tripolyean sites .
Many animal and human figurines have been found on Tripolyean sites. The Tripolye rotund ceramic female figurines are analogous to the rotund female figurines found in ancient Nubia.
It appears that for over a millennium the Linear Pottery and Cris farming groups practiced agriculture in the core region of Tripolyean culture. The middle Neolithic Tripolye people on the other hand are associated with cattle herding and mining.
The Vinca Tordos culture is very interesting because of the evidence of writing found in this culture. The famous Tartaria tablets were produced by the Vinca Tordos culture. The Vinca Tordos culture is associated with western Bulgaria, southwest Romania and Yugoslavia.
The Vinca people in addition to possessing writing were also engaged in copper metallurgy. They also made clay and stone figurines and fine pottery. As among the contemporary Nubians and Tripolyeans culture the Vinca people made fine human and animal figurines .
This means that the original Africans carrying halogroups R1 and K had to have entered the area much later during the Neolithic sometime after 8kya. I would speculate that these Africans were the archaeological group called the Old European who have left us many works of art like the stick people that acknowledge their African origin.
There is disagreement over where the Europeans originated and when they spread across Europe. Dr. M. Gimbutas maintains that Europeans had their origin in the Pontic steppe country on the north coast of the Black Sea and began to expand into Europe as Kurgan nomads after 4000 BC In 1987, Dr. C. Renfrew hypothesized that the Indo-Europeans lived in eastern Anatolia and spread into Europe around 7000 years ago with the spread of agriculture. Both of these views have little support based upon the ancestral culture terms used by the Proto-Indo-European which are predominately of non Indo-European (I-E) origin. After a comparison of the linguistic, agricultural and genetic evidence researchers have found little support for both of these theories. Sokal et al, noted that: "If the IEs originated in situ by local differentiation only, there should be no significant partial correlation , since geography should fully explain the observed genetic and linguistic distances. This was not the case. If the genetics-language correlation were entirely due to the spread of populations accompanying the origin of agriculture, then the origin-of-agriculture model should suffice, or at least there should be some effect due to origin of agriculture. But we saw that origin-of-agriculture distances (OOA) cannot reduce the partial correlations remaining after geography has been held constant."
The genetic evidence supporting the absence of an Indo-European origin in the Anatolian region is supported by the historical and archaeological evidence. The north and east of Anatolia was inhabited by non-Indo-European speakers.
It appears that Indo-Europeans did not enter Anatolia until sometime between 2000 -1800 BC At this time we note the appearance of Indo-European (Hittite) names in the literary records of the Old Kingdom of Hatti, a Kushite people. And at least as late as 1900 BC Anatolia was basically still Hattian (i.e., occupied by mainly by Blacks).
An important group in Anantolia in addition to the Hatti, were the Hurrians. The Hurrians enter Mesopotamia from the northeastern hilly area[1]. They introduced horse-drawn war chariots to Mesopotamia[2].
Hurrians penetrate Mesopotamia and Syria-Palestine between 1700-1500 BC. The major Hurrian Kingdom was Mitanni, which was founded by Sudarna I (c.1550), was established at Washukanni on the Khabur River. The Hurrian capital was Urkesh, one of its earliest kings was called Tupkish.
Linguistic and historical evidence support the view that Dravidians influenced Mittanni and Lycia. (Winters 1989a) Alain Anselin is sure that Dravidian speaking peoples once inhabited the Aegean. For example Anselin (1982, pp.111-114) has discussed many Dravidian place names found in the Aegean Sea area.
Two major groups in ancient Anatolia were the Hurrians and Lycians. Although the Hurrians are considered to be Indo-European speakers, some Hurrians probably spoke a Dravidian language.
The Hurrians lived in Mittanni. Mittanni was situated on the great bend of the Upper Euphrates river. Hurrian was spoken in eastern Anatolia and North Syria.
Most of what we know about Hurrian comes from the Tel al-Armarna letters. These letters were written to the Egyptian pharaoh. These letters are important because they were written in a language different from diplomatic Babylonian.
The letters written in the unknown language were numbered 22 and 25. In 1909 Bork, in Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatische Gesellschaft, wrote a translation of the letters.
In 1930, G.W. Brown proposed that the words in letters 22 and 25 were Dravidian especially Tamil. Brown (1930), has shown that the vowels and consonants of Hurrian and Dravidian are analogous. In support of this theory Brown (1930) noted the following similarities between Dravidian and Hurrian: 1) presence of a fullness of forms employed by both languages; 2) presence of active and passive verbal forms are not distinguished; 3) presence of verbal forms that are formed by particles; 4) presence of true relative pronouns is not found in these languages; 5) both languages employ negative verbal forms; 6) identical use of -m, as nominative; 7) similar pronouns; and 8) similar ending formations:
Dravidian Hurrian
a a
-kku -ikka
imbu impu
There are analogous Dravidian and Hurrian terms:
English Hurrian Dravidian
mountain paba parampu
lady,woman aallay ali
King Sarr,zarr Ca, cira
god en en
give tan tara
to rule irn ire
father attai attan
wife,woman asti atti
Many researchers have noted the presence of many Indo-Aryan words in Hurrians. This has led some researchers to conclude that Indo –Europeans may have ruled the Hurrians. This results from the fact that the names of the Hurrian gods are similar to the Aryan gods:
Hurrian Sanskrit
Mi-it-va Mitra
Aru-na Varuna
In-da-ra Indra
Na-sa-at-tiya Nasatya
There are other Hurrian and Sanskrit terms that appear to show a relationship:
English Hurrian Sanskrit Tamil
One aika eke okka `together'
Three tera tri
Five panza panca añcu
Seven satta sapta
Nine na nava onpatu
Other Hurrian terms relate to Indo-Aryan:
Enlglish Hurrian I-A Tamil
Brown babru babhru pukar
Grey parita palita paraitu `old'
Reddish pinkara pingala puuval
English Mitanni Vedic Tamil
Warrior marya marya makan, maravan
Although researchers believe that the Hurrians-Mitanni were dominated by Indo-Aryans this is not supported by the evidence. Bjarte Kaldhol found that only 5 out of 500 Hurrian names were I-A sounding[3].
The linguistic evidence discussed above is consistent with the view that the only Indian elements in Anatolian culture were of Dravidian ,rather than Indo-Aryan origin. This evidence from Mittanni adds further confirmation to the findings of N. Lahovary in Dravidian Origins and the West, that prove the earlier presence of Dravidian speakers in Anatolia.
But none of the Hurrian terms are related to Kurdish.
Origin Indo-European Speakers
The usual method of Indo-European and Chinese invasion was two-fold. First, they settle in a country in small groups and were partly assimilated.
Over a period of time their numbers increased. Once they reach a numerical majority they joined forces with other Indo-European speaking groups to militarily overthrow the original inhabitants in a specific area and take political power. Since these communities occupied by the blacks often saw themselves as residents of a city-state, they would ignored the defeat of their neighbors. This typified their second form of invasion of the countries formerly ruled by the Proto-Saharans/ Kushites/Blacks.
Blacks have failed even today to recognize that even though whites are highly nationalistic and engaged in numerous fratricidal wars, they will unify temporarily to defeat non-European people. As a result in case where the Blacks have been politically organized into states or Empires, rather than isolated city-states, the large political units have lasted for hundreds of years as typified by ancient Egypt, Axum, Mali and ancient Ghana.
D'iakonov on the other hand, believes that the Indo-Europeans (I-E) homeland was the Balkan-Carpathian region. He has shown that the culture terms of the I-E group indicate that they made their way across forest-steppe and deciduous forest zones to settle other parts of the world. This view is highly probable.
The view that these people were farmers seem unlikely, since the ideal farming areas in Europe were already settled by the Black people carrying haplogroups N, M, K and R1. Instead of being farmers the I-E people were originally nomads.
The steppes could not have been the homeland of the Indo-Europeans because it was heavily occupied by the Proto-Saharan people who entered Europe after 3000BC and remained the dominant people in the area until after 1300 B.C.
In support of an early presence of Indo-European speakers on the steppes many scholars maintain that the Andronovo cultures and wheeled vehicles are markers of Indo-European "High" culture.
But this theory has been proven to be unsupportable by the archeological and linguistic data. The civilizations and economy that characterized "Old Europeans" are foreign to the Indo-European culture portrayed in the Indo-Aryan literature.
As outlined above the I-E speakers learned much about horsemenship from the Mitanni. Many scholars use the chariot and horsemanship as an ethnic marker for the Indo-Europeans. But it can not be proven that the horse drawn chariot was an exclusive Indo-European marker. Wheeled vehicles were used in Mesopotamia and the Indus Valley before the 3rd millennium. The presence of pre-Dynasty and early Dynasty wheeled toy animals from Egypt and elsewhere support the view that the wheel was a well known technology to the Kushites before the expansion of the Indo Europeans.
This view is further supported by the fact that the IE roots for "wheel" number four. Use of a number of terms to signify the "wheel" illustrates that this technological innovation must have come from elsewhere and was later adopted by the Proto-Indo-Europeans after there dispersal.
The horse can not be a marker for the Indo-European dispersal either. It would appear that in the steppes, the horse was not intensively used until the Iron age. V.M. Masson believes that horse domestication and riding developed in the 1st millennium BC, on the steppes.
The early I-E were Kurgan nomadic warriors. Kurgan is a name used by archaeologist for the early Europeans.The term I-E does not refer to a racial type, because many of the ancient I-E speakers may have been black , given the fact that among the depictions of the People of the Sea on Egyptian monuments their are African people. But today the only I-E people we have are Caucasian.
The Iranian and Indian speaking people belong to the Indo-Aryan group which is not closely related to the I-E.
Evolving in the Caucasus mountains, the Kurgan folk were pastoralist. They herded cattle, pigs and sheep.
The original whites or Kurgan people were a very destructive people. They destroyed vast regions of forest across Europe. By the Fourth millennium BC, wide tracts of forests were gone in Europe. Upon their encounter with civilized Africoid communities, the latter were enslaved while the Kurgans adopted their culture. The Kurgan warriors used these slaves to grow grain.
The Indo-Europeans remained an insignificant group until they learned the art of metal working from the Hittites of Asia Minor. This along with natural disasters that took place around the world after 1600 BC, helped the Kurgans to infiltrate civilized areas in the Aegean and Indus Valley.
The Kurgan people are also known as the Battle Axe/ Corded Ware Folk. By the Third millennium BC, the Kurgan were breeding horses and organized themselves into militarized chiefdoms. The symbol of the warrior class was the horned helmet common to the Sea Folk and later Vikings. Their common weapon was the double axe.
The Kurgan folk in small numbers slowly migrated into the centers of civilization, first in northern Mesopotamia, then India. By 3500 BC, the Kurgans were invading the Caucasus region. Beginning in 3700 B.C., Old European settlements had walls built around them to keep out the Kurgan warriors.
These early I-E people practiced human sacrifice. At the death of a man his wife was often killed and buried with him.
The Kurgan people mixed with the indigenous Africoid people. Some of them were made slaves by the warrior elites. If black communities were more powerful than the Kurgans, they formed an alliance between themselves and conquered weaker groups. Once the Kurgan tribe became stronger it would knock off its former ally.
No matter how you may want to get other forum members to ignore Marc's work his posters are compelling and put the lie to your comments. The research supporting an extra European origin for whites can not be ignored.
In conclusion the archaeological evidence suggest that The Old Europeans may have been Blacks who carried the N1 lineage to Europe that were later replaced by Indo-European speaking populations. There were probably no ancient white foragers of farmers in ancient Europe.
Years of research on the origin of the Indo-European speakers place there origin outside western Europe. Genetics can not change this history which is also supported by the ostelogical and iconographic evidence Marc has presented throughout this thread.
For once, Stop being jealous of Marc and try to learn something.
References:
[1] Timothy Potts, Mesopotamia and the East. Oxford Unversity Committee for Archaeology. Monograph 37.
[2] H.W.F. Sagy, Peoples of the Past: Babylonians. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1995.
Cavalli-Sforza LL (1995) Demographic history of India and mtDNA-sequence diversity. Am J Hum Genet 56:979–992 [PubMed].
Christopher Ehret,C. (1979).On the antiquity of agriculture in Ethiopia", Jour. of African History 20, p.161.
Richards M. 2003. The Neolithic invasion of Europe. Annu Rev Anthropol 32:135-162. Full text
Richards M, Macaulay V, Hickey E, Vega E, Sykes B, Guida V, Rengo C, et al (2000) Tracing European founder lineages in the Near Eastern mtDNA pool. Am J Hum Genet 67:1251–1276 [PubMed] [Free Full Text].
Richards M, Rengo C, Cruciani F, Gratrix F, Wilson JF, Scozzari R, Macaulay V, Torroni A (2003) Extensive female-mediated gene flow from sub-Saharan Africa into Near Eastern Arab populations. Am J Hum Genet 72:1058–1064 [ Free Full text in PMC].
Toomas Kivisild,1 Maere Reidla,1 Ene Metspalu,1 Alexandra Rosa,1 Antonio Brehm,2 Erwan Pennarun,1 Jüri Parik,1 Tarekegn Geberhiwot,3 Esien Usanga,4 and Richard Villems.(2004)1 Ethiopian Mitochondrial DNA Heritage: Tracking Gene Flow Across and Around the Gate of Tears. Am J Hum Genet. 2004 November; 75(5): 752–770.
Wendorf,F. (1968).The History of Nubia,( Dallas,1968) pp.941-46).
quote:The archaeological evidence and skeletal record make it clear that Blacks entered Europe numerous times and Indo-European speakers or Kurgan folk entered the area only recently.
You contine to make checkered moves in what amounts to a chess match.
Black can only relate skin color.
Indo-European can only relate languge.
All humans were originally Black, so noting early Black populations cannot show that whites are not descendant from them.
The earliest European lineages are found in highest frequence among *non* Indo European speaking white people, such as basques and fins [note: finland is the blondest nation on earth] so you cannot prove that Indo European speakers brought -white skin- to Europe either.
Indo European langauges are also spoken among Black people in India so you can't even prove that the original Indo European speakers were white.
The attempt to make language into race, is now as ever a complete failure.
21st century genetics has simply mooted the 17th century race-discourse.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is bull****. We don't really know how skin color originated.
Actually it's science, and you are simply ignorant of it.
Skin color is caused by genes, and the history of genes can and has been assessed.
It only frustrates you and makes you swear [most unacademical I must say], because it completely shattered your cherished race-delusions.
quote:The Eskimos have lived in an Artic environment for thousands of years and yet they remain dark. If environment causes skin color why are the Eskimos still dark.
^ False.
That environment and skin color have a cause and effect relationship is established every time anyone tans - due to sun exposure.
As for the Eskimo, their skin color is no great mystery, here is what a leading scientist on the topic of skin color says:
"Looking at Alaska, one would think that the native people should be pale as ghosts," Jablonski says. One of the reasons they're not is that these populations have not lived in the region very long in terms of geological time. But more importantly, their traditional diet is rich in fish and other seafood.... "What's really interesting is that if these people don't eat their aboriginal diets of fish and marine mammals, they suffer tremendously high rates of vitamin D-deficiency diseases such as rickets in children and osteoporosis in adults,"
Jablonski and Chaplin concluded that modern humans... evolved in the tropics, where they were exposed to high UV levels. But... away from the equator, where UV levels are lower, humans became fairer so as to allow enough UV radiation to penetrate their skin and produce vitamin D, the "sunshine vitamin," also obtained from eating fish and marine mammals... essential for maintaining healthy blood levels of calcium and phosphorous, and thus promoting bone growth. Skin color... becomes a balancing act between the evolutionary demands of photo-protection and the need to create vitamin D in the skin.
- Nina Jablonski
^ Now, Dr. Winters....anyone can play dumb, and refuse to understand, no challenge in that.
Likewise anyone can cut and paste massive blobs of spam, that relate no point at issue, and essentially attempt shout-down all unpleasant fact.
The real question is- can you refute the scientific explanation of the cause of skin color?
If so, present your scientific study or sources of refutation.
At any rate, you'll have to do more than just swear in exasperation because the reality of the world isn't what you wish it were.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^I have already presented the evidence of the fallasy that skin color is caused by genes and environment the case of the Eskimos. The fact that the Eskimos remain dark while they live in an environment that theoretically should have made them become lighter than most Europeans invalidates the contemporary views regarding the origination of skin color. Eskimo
European
Moreover Nina Jablonski can not teach me anything. All the evidence makes it clear that the Egyptians were Black, yet she recently maintained that they were white. Why should I accept whatever she says about skin color (relating to sun light and vitamin D) when she can't even get it right about the Egyptians?
You follow Eurocentric ideas blindly. Just because an authority figure says something does not make it right. That's the difference between Marc and; Djehuti and you, he thinks and makes his own decisions while you are lead around like a pet. Just because a European researcher says something, does not make that European researcher right.
posted
^ Ignoring hand-puppet Marc, in order to address the trickster behind the puppet.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: ^I have already presented the evidence of the fallasy that skin color is caused by genes and environment the case of the Eskimos.
Eskimo are a people, not a -case-, and the sentense "case of the Eskimo" contains no evidence. In fact, you have produced a cut and paste spam containing no evidence about skin color at all.
However, in your massive blob-of-spam post you did pull your usual pseudo-intellectual prank [trickster] of listing bibliographic citations from the very scholars who have already debunked you, and YOU KNOW THIS:
Cavalli-Sforza LL and PA Underhill.
Sforza's views on skin color are below. He states European ancestors were dark, and turned white in Europe due to Vitamin D deficiency. The fact that the Eskimo are still dark is a part of his [AND Jablonski's evidence]:
Which leads to,
PA Underhill, your other MIS-citation.
Underhills entire thesis on European origin completely DESTROYS you.
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."
^ Dr. Winters, why do you continue to falsely cite these scholars while pretending they support you, and ignoring their direct evidence and conclusions which contradict you?
You have the nerve to list them at the end of your 'garbage posts', but you don't have the courage to actually address what they are saying.
posted
And, the Ainu have been in Japan for untold thousands of years and look like they just stepped out of Africa. Living in artic-like Hokkaido as they do the erroneous theory says they'd turn white-skinned. They didn't.
The evidence I've presented shows whites are as recent to Europe as a people can be.
^ The above is about the Ainu of Japan, and has nothing to do with history of skin color, whites or Europeans.
Your nonsense posts simply show your desparation.
Please stay on topic.
Now go back up the thread and address Underhill, and Sforza.
YOU CITED THEM, so address them, or stand exposed and a pseudo-scholar and laughing stock who resorts to spam because he doesn't understand anthropology and so can't intelligently discuss it.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Apparently cut and paste is easy, while actually addressing scientific study of the subject is -TOO DIFFICULT- for you?
quote: Cavalli-Sforza LL and PA 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."
^ Underhill and Sforza, You cited them, now address them, or stay silent.
posted
Rasol there is nothing to debate. The evidence is clear the present "white" Europeans were not in Europe 40,000 years ago. They are descendents of the Kurgan people whose ancestors may be related to the first Africans who settled Asia--but they were not descendents of the first Europeans.
The CroMagnon man replaced the Neanderthals. The scientific data makes it clear that these Europeans, CroMagnon man carried the N haplogroup. Few if any contemporary Europeans carry this gene.
Natufians who introduced agriculture to Europe were probably E3b and haplogroup M. These Africans came from East Africa. Some Europeans may be descendents of this group, and again these people would not represent the original humans who as noted earlier carried the N haplogroup.
Most Europeans carry haplogroup K, R1 and etc. These genes are found in West Africa and are reletively recent in origin. The genes of the "whites" prove that they only recently came to Europe.
Also please present the archaeological evidence supporting a migration of humans from Asia to Europe between 60kya and 30kya. It is clear that archaeological evidence for humans in Europe begin in Iberia where they moved Eastward. Uderhill and Sforza are speculating about the rise of man in Europe. They can test all the modern Europeans they wish, this will tell us nothing about the original people who "whites" killed off after they entered Europe, just like the American Indians.
This is the scientific data, the first Europeans carried N haplotype , and later entered the E3b Africans. We must conclude:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Rasol there is nothing to debate.
Then why are you still pleading your case?
In fact, there is Underhill and Sforza, unaddressed and unrefuted evidence and conclusion that modern white Europeans are direct descendants of paleolithic Europeans.
Just admit you can't refute them, rather than pretend there is *nothing* to refute, which just makes you look like a sore loser.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The evidence is clear the present "white" Europeans were not in Europe 40,000 years ago.
This is a lie. For according to your sources, Sforza and Underhill, there were no "white" people 40 thousand years ago, anywhere, the present "white" people of Europe ARE descendant from the aboriginal settlers of Europe 40 thousand year ago, YOUR CITED SOURCE, PA Underhill says just this....
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.
^ Stings when your own source refutes you doesn't it?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As for the rest of your largely beside the point commentary...
quote:The CroMagnon man replaced the Neanderthals.
CroMagnon is a reference to caves in France, the term has no standing in current anthropology as a morphology, sub-species or lineage.
quote: The scientific data makes it clear that these Europeans, CroMagnon man carried the N haplogroup.
^ The above makes clear that you still don't understand lineology in genetics.
Here is what Spencer Wells has to say.....
Haplogroup N, like M, is one of two groups that descend directly from haplogroup L3. Early members of this group lived in the eastern Mediterranean region and Western Asia. Some members bearing mutations specific to haplogroup N formed many groups of their own which went on to populate much of the rest of the globe. These descendants are found throughout Asia, Europe, India, and the Americas.
However, because almost all of the mitochondrial lineages found in the Near East and Europe descend from N, it is considered a western Eurasian haplogroup.
quote: Few if any contemporary Europeans carry this gene.
Actually there is no known population on Earth which has *underived* N lineages, which in turn, likely derives from L3, in Africa 50 thousand + years ago - rather Europeans, and most all Eurasians have DERIVED N lineages.
The question is -when do European linage derive- what is their mrca? The answer is *the paleolithic*, according to Underhill, Wells and every one who knows what they are talking about.
As we know, this leaves you in the position of claiming -> there is nothing to debate, which translates to: you can't refute anything. Isn't that so?
Honestly, you and Marc don't seem to be able to grasp the basics of population genetics, and we've been trying to teach you on this forum for over a year now.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Natufians who introduced agriculture to Europe were probably E3b and haplogroup M. These Africans came from East Africa.
Yes, it's probable that neolithic Natufian derived introduced East African male chromosome E3b1 and SouthWest Asian J into Europe.
You'll have to explain to us how this helps your claim that modern Europeans are not descendant from Paleolithic Europeans.
Modern Europeans continue to carry the 3 main Paleolithic lineages, whose mrca is concordant with the following.... Which in turn is concordant with the Ice age.....
You still completely fail to understand genetics.
Until you do, we can't have and intelligent debate on this topic. lol.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also please present the archaeological evidence supporting a migration of humans from Asia to Europe between 60kya and 30kya. Underhill and Sforza are speculating about the rise of man in Europe.
^ translation: admits that your own sources debunk you and so start attacking them.
Actually no they aren't speculating. They are geneticists and have no choice but to follow the evidence.
Unlike you, who simply ignores the truth whenever he doesn't like it.
But if you can't bear being debunked by *your own sources*, try mine instead:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: This is bull****. We don't really know how skin color originated. The Eskimos have lived in an Artic environment for thousands of years and yet they remain dark. If environment causes skin color why are the Eskimos still dark.
The answer to why Inuit (Eskimo is pejorative) remained dark is simple. The Inuit diet consists of fishmeat and marine mammal blubber which is rich in vitamin D. Since dark skin impedes the synthesis of vitamin D, many populations that live in less sunny latitudes evolved light skin. Europeans are a perfect example of this. However, since the ancestors of the Inuit supplemented their vitamin D in their diet *there was no need to evolve lighter skin* hence Inuit are an exception.
Now we have provided a simple scientific answer to your question, while all you offer is psuedo-scholarly nonsense. So we understand your frustration as noted by your cussing. Posts: 26237 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
First of all, the man in the picture is a member of the Saami people who don't even speak an Indo-European language let alone Germanic!! In fact that man proves what Rasol said about the oldest populations in Europe not speaking Indo-European! Germanic people are indigenous to Europe anyway possessing R1b lineages also!
Second of all, R1a is a Y-chromosomal lineage meaning that is possessed and passed on by males only NOT females! LOL
So by posting that picture you only DEBUNK YOURSELF! Posts: 26237 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I forgot to mention that the Saami (such as that blonde guy in the picture) are indigenous to Finland...
quote:Originally posted by rasol: The earliest European lineages are found in highest frequence among *non* Indo European speaking white people, such as basques and fins [note: finland is the blondest nation on earth] so you cannot prove that Indo European speakers brought -white skin- to Europe either.
And...
quote:Indo European langauges are also spoken among Black people in India so you can't even prove that the original Indo European speakers were white.
The attempt to make language into race, is now as ever a complete failure.
21st century genetics has simply mooted the 17th century race-discourse.
There you go, Marc. Posts: 26237 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ also sadly proves the point about genetics just being difficult for some, but i want to marc to keep pursuing this 'clear path' to reality. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ It may seem funny at first, but when you realize that this is truly how Marc thinks it becomes quite sad.
Posts: 26237 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, it's sadly embarrassing. Really, I could cry, really. Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| 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.
This is what I don't get about this whole argument. Some on here claim that the Europeans (White folks) invaded and took over Europe. Ok, but now I must ask, where did these white folks come from prior to the invasions?
I think people are trying to disprove that white folks existed in Europe, but if they weren't in Europe then please define their most ancient geographic location. It wasn't in Africa, Asia, Americas or even in the Oceania's. Please tell me where they came from prior to Europe ...
Or is it those who believe that the Europeans are foreigners to Europe are from outer-space and that they are aliens?
Thank you!
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: The Romans constantly had to defend themselves against raids or more massive attacks by the Germans on their eastern frontier. In AD 9 a Roman army of three legions (c.13,000) was caught in ambush and destroyed when on a punitive expedition against raiders.
The Battle of the Teutoburg Forest [i]The Battle of the Teutoburg Forest took place in the year 9 A.D. (probably lasting from September 9 to September 11) when an alliance of Germanic tribes led by Arminius, the son of Segimer of the Cherusci, ambushed and destroyed three Roman legions led by Publius Quinctilius Varus.
The battle began a seven-year war which established the Rhine as the boundary of the Roman Empire for the next four hundred years, until the decline of the Roman influence in the West. The Roman Empire made no further concerted attempts to conquer Germania beyond the Rhine.
The battle (which is called Schlacht im Teutoburger Wald, Varusschlacht or Hermannsschlacht in German) had a profound effect on 19th century German nationalism along with the recovery of the histories of Tacitus in the 15th century, in which the Germans identified with the Germanic tribes as a way to give the (at the time politically disunited) "German people" a common origin. The Roman force was led by Publius Quinctilius Varus, a noble from an old family, an administrative official who, as governor of the Gaul, was assigned to establish the new province of Germania in 7 AD.
His opponent, Arminius, had lived in Rome as a hostage in his youth, where he had received a military education and had even been given the rank of Equestrian. After his return, he was a trusted advisor to Varus.[1] In secret, he forged an alliance of Germanic tribes that had traditionally been enemies (the Cherusci, Marsi, Chatti, and Bructeri), but which he was able to unite due to outrage over Varus' measures. Historians believe that these were no different from the measures used to establish any nascent province--which often resulted in revolts.
While Varus was on his way from his summer camp somewhere west of the Weser river (its location remains disputed;[1] sites near the modern cities Minden or Rinteln have been suggested by the historian Delbrück and the military writer Pastenaci, respectively) to the winter headquarters near the Rhine, he heard reports of a local rebellion, fabricated by Arminius. Varus decided to quell this uprising immediately and take a detour through territory unfamiliar to the Romans. Arminius, who accompanied Varus, probably directed him along a route that would facilitate an ambush. Another Cheruscan nobleman, Segestes, father of Arminius' wife, and opposed to the marriage, warned Varus the night before the departure of the Roman forces, allegedly even suggesting that Varus apprehend himself along with several Germanic leaders whom he identified as covert participants in the planned uprising. But his warning was dismissed as the result of a personal feud. Arminius then left under the pretext of drumming up Germanic forces to support the Roman campaign, but instead led his troops, who must have been waiting in the vicinity, in attacks on surrounding Roman garrisons. Recent archaeological finds place the battle in Osnabrück County, Lower Saxony. On the basis of Roman accounts, the Romans must at this time have been marching northwestward from the area that is now the city of Detmold, passing east of Osnabrück; they must then have camped in this area prior to being attacked.
Varus's forces included three legions (Legio XVII, Legio XVIII, and Legio XIX), six cohorts of auxiliary troops (non-Roman allies) and three squadrons of cavalry (alae), most of which lacked combat experience with Germanic fighters under local conditions. The Roman forces were not marching in combat formation, and were interspersed with large numbers of camp-followers. As they entered the forest (probably just northeast of Osnabrück (52 16'34"N 8 02'50"E)), they found the track narrow and muddy; according to Dio Cassius a violent storm had also arisen. He also writes that Varus neglected to send out advance reconnaissance parties.
The line of march was now stretched out perilously long--estimates are that it surpassed 15 km (9 miles), and was perhaps as long as 20 km (12 miles).[1] It was then suddenly attacked by Germanic tribesmen. Arminius knew Roman tactics very well and could direct his troops to counter them effectively, using locally superior numbers against the spread-out Roman legions. The Romans managed to set up a fortified night camp, and the next morning broke out into the open country north of the Wiehen mountains, near the modern town of Osterkappeln. The break-out cost them heavy losses, as did a further attempt to escape by marching through another forested area, with the torrential rains continuing, preventing them from using their bows, and rendering them virtually defenseless, as their shields, too, became waterlogged.
They then undertook a night march to escape, but marched straight into another trap that Arminius had set, at the foot of Kalkriese Hill (near Osnabrück). There, the sandy, open strip on which the Romans could march easily was constricted by the hill, so that there was a gap of only about 100 m between the woods and the swampland at the edge of the Great Bog. Moreover, the road was blocked by a trench, and, toward the forest, an earthen wall had been built along the roadside, permitting the Germanic tribesmen to attack the Romans from cover. The Romans made a desperate attempt to storm the wall, but failed, and the highest-ranking officer next to Varus, Numonius Vala, abandoned the troops by riding off with the cavalry; however, he too was overtaken by the Germanic cavalry and killed, according to Velleius Paterculus. The Germanic warriors then stormed the field and slaughtered the disintegrating Roman forces; Varus committed suicide.[1] Velleius reports that one commander, Ceionus, "shamefully" surrendered, while his colleague Eggius "heroically" died leading his doomed troops.
Around 15,000 - 20,000 Roman soldiers must have died; not only Varus, but also many of his officers are said to have taken their own lives by falling on their swords in the approved manner.[1] Tacitus wrote that many officers were sacrificed by the Germanic forces in pagan ceremonies. Others were ransomed, however, and the common soldiers appear to have been enslaved.
All Roman accounts stress the completeness of the Roman defeat and the extremely heavy Roman casualties; also the fact that the Germanic troops apparently suffered only minor losses. That account is confirmed by the finds at Kalkriese, where, along with 6000 pieces (largely scraps) of Roman equipment, there is only one single item — part of a spur — that is clearly Germanic[citation needed]. Even allowing for the fact that several thousand Germanic soldiers were deserting militiamen who wore Roman armor (which would thus show up as "Roman" in the archaeological digs), and for the fact that the Germanic tribes wore less metal and more perishable organic material, this indicates surprisingly slight Germanic losses.
The victory over the legions was followed by a clean sweep of all Roman forts, garrisons and cities — of which there were at least two — east of the Rhine; the remaining two Roman legions, commanded by Varus' nephew Lucius Nonius Asprenas, were content to try to hold that river. One fort (or possibly city), Aliso, fended off the Germanic tribes for many weeks, perhaps a few months, before the garrison, which included survivors of the Teutoburg Forest, successfully broke out under their commander, Lucius Caeditius and reached the Rhine.
Upon hearing of the defeat, the emperor Augustus, according to Roman author and historian Suetonius in his book Lives of the Twelve Caesars, had a nervous breakdown with symptoms of semi-insanity, banging his head against the walls of his palace and repeatedly shouting Quintili Vare, legiones redde! ('Quintilius Varus, give me back my legions!') (sometimes rendered in English as "give me back my eagles," as in the BBC series based on the Robert Graves novel I, Claudius).
The three legion numbers were never used again by the Romans after this defeat, unlike other legions that were restructured — a case unique in Roman history.
The battle abruptly ended the period of triumphant and exuberant Roman expansion that had followed the end of the Civil Wars 40 years earlier. Augustus' stepson Tiberius took effective control, and prepared for the continuation of the war. Rome gradually slid into a period of tyranny and oppression lasting much of the rest of the first century.
The Germanic tribes, on the other hand, profited greatly from the plunder of their victory, and gradually began to move to a higher stage of development, although they were still a long way from political unification. This was apparently the goal of Arminius, however, who immediately sent Varus' severed head to Marbod, king of the Marcomanni, the other most powerful German ruler, with the offer of an anti-Roman alliance. Marbod declined the offer, sent the head on to Rome for burial, and remained neutral throughout the ensuing war. Only thereafter did a brief, inconclusive war break out between the two Germanic leaders.
During the next centuries, the Germanic tribes were able to profit from trade with Rome, without suffering the Roman yoke, and to absorb those elements of Roman culture which they wanted.
Traditionally, the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest was seen as having caused Augustus to give up his plans for the conquest of Germania. The view was that the later military actions were merely punitive face-saving measures. The current consensus among historians is that this is untenable, especially in light of recent archaeological finds, and not only those at Kalkriese Hill. For one third of the entire Roman army was repeatedly mobilized at great expense and risk for the Germanic campaigns, and its incursions were massive. Moreover, infrastructural measures were undertaken east of the Rhine which would have made no sense unless a full reconquest had been planned (see e.g. Waldgirmes Forum). Tacitus is unclear on the subject in Annales 1.3, but clearly his interest is in making Germanicus look good by comparison to his uncle, the emperor; and although Germanicus was definitely defeated, Tacitus tries his best to avoid saying so.
This does not, however, reduce the significance of the battle, since it is clear that without the massive advantage won in the Teutoburg Forest and in the ensuing weeks, the Germanic tribes would have been unable to resist the renewed Roman assault. This victory, on this completely one-sided scale, was not sufficient to ensure the ultimate victory in the war of independence, but it was definitely necessary for that purpose.
For almost 2000 years, no one knew for certain where the battle had taken place. The main hint as to its location was an allusion to the saltus Teutoburgiensis in section i.60-62 of Tacitus's Annals, an area "not far" from the land between the upper reaches of the Lippe and Ems Rivers in central Westphalia.
During the 19th century, theories as to the true site of the battle abounded, and the followers of one theory successfully argued for the area of a long wooded ridge called the Osning, around Bielefeld. This was then renamed the Teutoburg Forest, and became the site of the Detmold Memorial.
Late 20th-century research and excavations at Kalkriese Hill (52°26'29"N, 8°8'26"E.) were sparked by finds by British amateur archaeologist Major Tony Clunn's discovery of coins from the reign of Augustus (and none minted later), and some ovoid leaden Roman sling shot. Clunn was casually prospecting with a metal detector in hopes of finding "the odd Roman coin." The excavations soon turned up more scraps of weapons and equipment, the helmet mask of a Roman officer, the bone pits, and the remains of the Germanic fortifications. As a result, Kalkriese is now perceived to be the actual site of part of the battle, probably its conclusive phase. Kalkriese is a village administratively part of the city of Bramsche, on the north slope fringes of the Wiehengebirge, a ridge-like range of hills in Lower Saxony, north of Osnabrück. The site some 70 km from Detmold was first suggested by 19th-century historian Theodor Mommsen, one of the "founding fathers" of modern research into ancient history.
While the initial excavations were done by the archaeological team of the Kulturhistorisches Museum Osnabrück under the direction of Prof. Wolfgang Schlüter from 1987 onward, after the dimensions of the project became apparent, a new foundation was created to organize future excavations, to build and run a new museum on the site, and to centralise publicity work and documentation. Since 1990 the excavations have been directed by Susanne Wilbers-Rost.
The Varusschlacht Museum ("Varus' Battle Museum") and Park Kalkriese include a large outdoor area with trails leading to a re-creation of part of the earthen wall from the battle, and other outdoor exhibits. An observation tower allows visitors to get an overview of the battle site. Most of the indoor exhibits are housed in the tower. A second building includes the ticket center, museum store and a restaurant. The museum houses a large number of artifacts found at the site, which include fragments of studded sandals legionaries lost in flight, spearheads, and a Roman officer's ceremonial face-mask, which was originally silver-plated. Coins minted with the countermark VAR, distributed by Varus, support the identification of the site. Excavations have revealed battle debris along a corridor almost 15 miles from east to west and little more than a mile wide. A long zig-zagging wall constructed of peat turves and packed sand apparently had been constructed beforehand: concentrations of battle debris before it, and a dearth of finds behind it, testify to the Romans' inability to breach the defense. Human remains found here appear to corroborate Tacitus' account of their later burial. (Smithsonian, p 81)
Posts: 21 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Been away but. . . . It seems like Dr Winters and Marc is digging further into timeline issue and I, R1a and R1b association. As I said this is the KEY to getting a non-EuroCentric(unbiased)view of what went down in Europe mainly between 1000BC to 500AD.
Certain facts I gathered are:
1. per Wikipedia and other sources the Germanic people you see throughout Europe today INCLUDING southern Europe were NOT there pre- The Völkerwanderung - the forceful expansion of the Germanic tribes into France, England, Northern Italy and Iberia. 2. Based upon the first point. What did the majority of people look like prior to that? We know that E3b is African (not sure about the R1a and R1b) so there was african ie dark africans present in southern Europe for some time. 3. My guess is the Original R1a and R1b “may” be African also SINCE the Cameroonians carry the R1 underived. Rasol/DJ can correct me but the R1 underived are suppose to be the forebearer of line? That said I will assume that the fathers of these R1a etc were Cameroonian type. Not sure on this though.
Genes however only tell part of the story. Saw recently the documentary of Genes and Ancestry. White looking people carrying African genes and vice versa etc. Point being not sure what the R1a and R1b looked like right after the last ice age 10kya. But what is apparent, and this is where the archeological evidence etc comes in, there were strong African(recent) influences throughout Europe, mostly Southern Europe, up to 1000BC.
These African finds are available and dated. So what see now is NOT what was there then. Case in point - North America. In less than 400yrs entire ethnic group replaced by another. The few remaining “Indians” probably carry the European genes. Just like some modern Greeks still carry E3b but don’t look East African.
QUOTE FROM RASOL - ^ However the *main* male lineage in Greece, is actually Neolithic dervied E3b, so modern Greeks are paternally Afro-Asian and European. Greeks are not fully European genetically, period.
SO WHY IS THIS BEING ARGUED. YOU SAID IT YOURSELF!! GREEKS ARE NOT FULLY EUROPEAN, PERIOD
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Moron/Need overwhelming eveidence to be convinced. YES!! Afrocentric. Maybe. We are all africans under the skin. Racist. Definitely NOT!!!. Can't afford to be. Good white folks has been partly responsible for getting us out of slavery. And we are still protected by them. AA or africans on the whole are not able to defend themselves. Period.
BTW =- Rasol/Djehuti. I am working on that time line thing. Iall beah back!! (arnold), in the other thread. Doing some research, per your advice . Huh!!?. I agree on the I, R1a and R1b and their appearance but I am trying to associate/correlate these groups with the eventual expansion of the Germanic people 100BC to 300AD. That is the key, me boy.
quote:Originally posted by Tyrann0saurus: I honestly wonder why this forum has such a strong magnetic attractive effect on morons. AMR1, Marc Washington, Clyde Winters, White Nord, Evil Euro, Arrow99/Horemheb, xyyman, Perfect Egyptian...I want to sigh.
I really wish there was a much larger percentage of rational, knowledgeable posters here than we currently have. Maybe all the "race" talk scares away more "mainstream" people who dismiss us as a gaggle of Afrocentric or racist nuts.
-------------------- 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 |
quote:Originally posted by R U 2 religious: This is what I don't get about this whole argument. Some on here claim that the Europeans (White folks) invaded and took over Europe. Ok, but now I must ask, where did these white folks come from prior to the invasions?
I think people are trying to disprove that white folks existed in Europe, but if they weren't in Europe then please define their most ancient geographic location. It wasn't in Africa, Asia, Americas or even in the Oceania's. Please tell me where they came from prior to Europe ...
Or is it those who believe that the Europeans are foreigners to Europe are from outer-space and that they are aliens?
^ LOL Non of those maps show any areas outside of Europe! It is again what I've been saying-- The Russian steppes ARE in Europe! Eastern Europe to be exact. Notice the first small map shows the Ukrainian steppe. Ukraine as is Western Russia is in Europe. Marc's claim is that white people entered Europe with Indo-European langauges. The only problem is that Indo-European entered the rest of Europe in the early Bronze Age from 3,500 to 3,000 B.C.! But Marc all of a sudden juxtaposes this with the Germanic invasions of Midieval times around the 5th to 10th centuries A.D.!! LOL The guy then claims Charlemagne (a Germanic king) was a black African christ or something!!
Posts: 26237 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Been away but. . . . It seems like Dr Winters and Marc is digging further into timeline issue and I, R1a and R1b association. As I said this is the KEY to getting a non-EuroCentric(unbiased)view of what went down in Europe mainly between 1000BC to 500AD.
No. The key (as it is with anything) is getting all the facts and KNOWING what they are saying. Something which you've failed to do thus far!
quote:Certain facts I gathered are:
1. per Wikipedia and other sources the Germanic people you see throughout Europe today INCLUDING southern Europe were NOT there pre- The Völkerwanderung - the forceful expansion of the Germanic tribes into France, England, Northern Italy and Iberia.
Of course not, but what the heck do Germanic tribes have to do with the overall peopling of Europe during the Paleolithic?!
quote:2. Based upon the first point. What did the majority of people look like prior to that? We know that E3b is African (not sure about the R1a and R1b) so there was african ie dark africans present in southern Europe for some time.
Yes during the Neolithic but they mixed with the indigenous white populations who were the majority!
quote:3. My guess is the Original R1a and R1b “may” be African also SINCE the Cameroonians carry the R1 underived. Rasol/DJ can correct me but the R1 underived are suppose to be the forebearer of line? That said I will assume that the fathers of these R1a etc were Cameroonian type. Not sure on this though.
Yes R1* originated in Africa but only in the Paleolithic along with every other lineage found among peoples outside of Africa!! *All humans* descend from Africans from white Euroepans to yellow Asians to Native Americans etc.! When will you get this into your confused mind?
quote:Genes however only tell part of the story. Saw recently the documentary of Genes and Ancestry. White looking people carrying African genes and vice versa etc. Point being not sure what the R1a and R1b looked like right after the last ice age 10kya. But what is apparent, and this is where the archeological evidence etc comes in, there were strong African(recent) influences throughout Europe, mostly Southern Europe, up to 1000BC.
Lineages don't have a certain "look" to them, but since *all humans* descend from black Africans then of course the ancestors of Europeans were black in the distant past as well as *all other people*. The recent influence you speak of is not R but E, specifically E3b which entered Europe with Neolithic bearers!
quote:These African finds are available and dated. So what see now is NOT what was there then. Case in point - North America. In less than 400yrs entire ethnic group replaced by another. The few remaining “Indians” probably carry the European genes. Just like some modern Greeks still carry E3b but don’t look East African.
Incorrect. It was not a "replacement" but admixture. Native Americans (if that's what you mean by "Indians") were largely wiped out by invading Europeans. What you have in the case of E3b are immigrants who intermarried/mixed with the predominant indigenous Europeans who were WHITE!
quote:QUOTE FROM RASOL - ^ However the *main* male lineage in Greece, is actually Neolithic dervied E3b, so modern Greeks are paternally Afro-Asian and European. Greeks are not fully European genetically, period.
SO WHY IS THIS BEING ARGUED. YOU SAID IT YOURSELF!! GREEKS ARE NOT FULLY EUROPEAN, PERIOD
Because you cannot comprehend that this IS TOTALLY THE OPPOSITE OF THE CRAP THAT MARC HAS BEEN FILLING YOUR HEAD WITH!! Posts: 26237 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: The guy then claims Charlemagne (a Germanic king) was a black African christ or something!!
Actually I find his claim very interesting because it gives a insight in his Ideology. What he is saying is typical for Christians,throughout out history Christians have identified themselves with Christ or associated imported historical figures who were seen as saviours=Messiah of some sort for Christianity. Even though this Biblical talk of him is conflicting, for instance he talks about the white man committing Genocide on the black man but in the same gasp he claims Canaanites and Jesus were black and pours Biblical ideology in his view of the world.Anyone who read the Bible knows that this book is full of Genocide and acts of cruelty against Canaanites and now Jews. At least we know were he got his ideas from… If you follow his logic that the white man ridded Europe of the black man and put the Bible in this,it must be the will of God that the white man inherited Europe.
The Bible and Genocide. However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance,do not leave alive anything that breathes.
3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel.
And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword.
And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. 34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain.
And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city.
And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them:
But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire.
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
And before they were laid down, she came up unto them upon the roof; 9 And she said unto the men,I know that the LORD hath given you the land, and that your terror is fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land faint because of you.
When the Israelites grew stronger, they forced the Canaanites to work as slaves, but they never did drive them out of the land. The tribe of Ephraim also failed to drive out the Canaanites living in Gezer, and so the Canaanites continued to live there among them. The tribe of Zebulun also failed to drive out the Canaanites living in Kitron and Nahalol, who continued to live among them.
The tribe of Asher also failed to drive out the residents of Acco, Sidon, Ahlab, Aczib, Helbah, Aphik, and Rehob. In fact, because they did not drive them out, the Canaanites dominated the land where the people of Asher lived. The tribe of Naphtali also failed to drive out the residents of Beth-shemesh and Beth-anath. Instead, the Canaanites dominated the land where they lived. Nevertheless, the people of Beth-shemesh and Beth-anath were sometimes forced to work as slaves for the people of Naphtali. As for the tribe of Dan, the Amorites forced them into the hill country and would not let them come down into the plains. The Amorites were determined to stay in Mount Heres, Aijalon, and Shaalbim, but when the descendants of Joseph became stronger, they forced the Amorites to work as slaves. "You are my battle-ax and sword," says the LORD. "With you I will shatter nations and destroy many kingdoms. With you I will shatter armies, destroying the horse and rider, the chariot and charioteer. With you I will shatter men and women, old people and children, young men and maidens.With you I will shatter shepherds and flocks, farmers and oxen, captains and rulers. "As you watch, I will repay Babylon and the people of Babylonia for all the wrong they have done to my people in Jerusalem," says the LORD. "Look, O mighty mountain, destroyer of the earth! I am your enemy," says the LORD. "I will raise my fist against you, to roll you down from the heights. When I am finished, you will be nothing but a heap of rubble. You will be desolate forever. Even your stones will never again be used for building. You will be completely wiped out," says the LORD.
Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword.Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children.Posts: 21 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Been away but. . . . It seems like Dr Winters and Marc is digging further into timeline issue and I, R1a and R1b association. As I said this is the KEY to getting a non-EuroCentric(unbiased)view of what went down
The key is educating yourself and learning how to think critically, so that you can distinguish fact from fiction, and theory from lunacy.
It's always those who lack the dicipline to educate their minds and think critically, who are forever waundering the internet from website to website confused over 'what they should believe'.
And it is these hapless few who are easily exploited by internet distortion junkies.
quote:If you follow his logic that the white man ridded Europe of the black man and put the Bible in this,it must be the will of God that the white man inherited Europe.
Isn't a religous issue, really.
He's simply a black man with a leuco-phobic inferiority complex visa vi whites.
His take on history is little more than a defense mechanism.
This is why he attacks those who disagree with him racially by calling them whites.
His discourse is driven by fear, and this is why relating factual information has no effect on it.
He's still afraid and his make-believe history 'protects' him from his fear.
One approach is to use such discussants as and excuse for relating factual information.
Have to be as crafty as they are loony.
I've learned that people who oridinarly don't care about the arcane aspects of science and history, can be 'tricked' into learning it, if you start with a 'debate' over something ridiculous - UFOs, BigFoot, Afro-Charlemagne.
If they want to be taken seriously via their bogus claims, they ultimately have no choice but to address factual information. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone: Actually I find his claim very interesting because it gives a insight in his Ideology. What he is saying is typical for Christians,throughout out history Christians have identified themselves with Christ or associated imported historical figures who were seen as saviours=Messiah of some sort for Christianity. Even though this Biblical talk of him is conflicting, for instance he talks about the white man committing Genocide on the black man but in the same gasp he claims Canaanites and Jesus were black and pours Biblical ideology in his view of the world.Anyone who read the Bible knows that this book is full of Genocide and acts of cruelty against Canaanites and now Jews. At least we know were he got his ideas from… If you follow his logic that the white man ridded Europe of the black man and put the Bible in this,it must be the will of God that the white man inherited Europe.
The Bible and Genocide. However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance,do not leave alive anything that breathes.
3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel.
And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword.
And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. 34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain.
And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city.
And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them:
But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire.
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
And before they were laid down, she came up unto them upon the roof; 9 And she said unto the men,I know that the LORD hath given you the land, and that your terror is fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land faint because of you.
When the Israelites grew stronger, they forced the Canaanites to work as slaves, but they never did drive them out of the land. The tribe of Ephraim also failed to drive out the Canaanites living in Gezer, and so the Canaanites continued to live there among them. The tribe of Zebulun also failed to drive out the Canaanites living in Kitron and Nahalol, who continued to live among them.
The tribe of Asher also failed to drive out the residents of Acco, Sidon, Ahlab, Aczib, Helbah, Aphik, and Rehob. In fact, because they did not drive them out, the Canaanites dominated the land where the people of Asher lived. The tribe of Naphtali also failed to drive out the residents of Beth-shemesh and Beth-anath. Instead, the Canaanites dominated the land where they lived. Nevertheless, the people of Beth-shemesh and Beth-anath were sometimes forced to work as slaves for the people of Naphtali. As for the tribe of Dan, the Amorites forced them into the hill country and would not let them come down into the plains. The Amorites were determined to stay in Mount Heres, Aijalon, and Shaalbim, but when the descendants of Joseph became stronger, they forced the Amorites to work as slaves. "You are my battle-ax and sword," says the LORD. "With you I will shatter nations and destroy many kingdoms. With you I will shatter armies, destroying the horse and rider, the chariot and charioteer. With you I will shatter men and women, old people and children, young men and maidens.With you I will shatter shepherds and flocks, farmers and oxen, captains and rulers. "As you watch, I will repay Babylon and the people of Babylonia for all the wrong they have done to my people in Jerusalem," says the LORD. "Look, O mighty mountain, destroyer of the earth! I am your enemy," says the LORD. "I will raise my fist against you, to roll you down from the heights. When I am finished, you will be nothing but a heap of rubble. You will be desolate forever. Even your stones will never again be used for building. You will be completely wiped out," says the LORD.
Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword.Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children.
Stone, Marc's neurosis has little do with religion and EVERYTHING to do with his phobia and reverse racism against whites, as Rasol pointed out.
I forgot to tell you before, that you waste your time and energy responding with long winded posts against Marc. Because all he will do is ignore it and continue his spamm of silliness.
But that excerpt from the Bible is interesting. Perhaps you should post it here in the religion section of the forum. Posts: 26237 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A claim has been made that I said that white Europeans are recent entrants to Europe and that the Russian Steppes is in Eurasia - that being the homeland of whites places them in Europe from the time of their origins. That's clear enough. I made a mistake and I am admitting it. I will need to and will re-work my thinking on this issue. The point being that the Indo-European began in the Russian Steppes and didn't enter Western Europe until incursions into Italy beginning near 800 BC or Germany until incursions beginning near the time of Christ.
The rest remains the same. After Germanic influx, the ethnic composition changes meaning genocide was carried-out throughout the European continent making the atrosities of the Holocaust appear innocent to what happened to Europe's African population at the hands of whites. Whites who, it's interesting, would call Africans primitive and barbaric. In so doing, these Europeans have their cake and eat it too.
Re-working this will take time but, stay on the attack, please. Without you, my last five web pages wouldn't have been developed so you contribute something to my creative energies and the quality of my work. Blast away.
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
To the page below is added yet more evidence that the presence in Upper Paleolithic Europe down through today is home to African genetic material. With today as a starting point and a white population, the further one goes back in time, the more African it becomes; with Western Europe itself being virtually all African before the Germanic invasions.
The added quote from a group of geneticists writing in Nature is the following:
“We studied 96 Yorubans (from Nigeria), believed to share common ancestry with northern Europeans about 100,000 years ago. At short distances, the Nigerian and European-derived populations typically show the same allelic combinations…”
David Reich et. al., Linkage disequilibrium in the human genome, Nature 411, 199 – 204, issue of 10 May 2001.”
I draw your attention to the arc of African rock art spanning primarily coastal areas from Africa to the Scandinavian countries and Greenland not to mention Upper Paleolithic France and Neolithic Spain. This is yet another signature of the African presence in Europe and yet more proof that it was an African bastion until the horiffic genocide that eliminated them from an entire continent over hundreds of years.
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
I would recommend that you take some time and study modern anthropology before making claims in photoshop.
You need to treat your reputation and credibility as something that you value as all true scholars do.
Don't *publish* to photoshop until you are confident of the facts.
You should make sure you have expert sources who can affirm your findings, or that you have done your own research that you are prepared to present - on demand.
And, you must be very careful to be sure that you understand your own sources.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hate to say it, but Marc Washington and Winters are right....but only partially. The history of white people proper goes back to only about maybe 6,000 to 8,000 years ago, but if we focus only on histoy it starts with the Greeks. Even the people who inhabited Europe during the Ice Age weren't white, check the article posted earlier about the emergence of white skin color. If you want to know why there's more information about genetics and anthropology about Europe than any other "continent", its because white, "Eurocentric" minded historians and scientists have been trying desperately to find the origin of mankind and all things of substance in Europe and to this date their tries have failed. Now their last attempt is to link modern Europeans with Neanderthals in anyway they can, but like it or not, their roots don't go back that far. Every DNA test out their proves modern Europeans have no link with Neanderthals, so whites have no descent from cave dwelling Neanderthals. People of African descent have roots way more deeper and thats the truth racist whites don't want people to know, because it that in effect makes people of African descent *THEIR* CREATOR AND MAKER, essence their God in a way. Think about it, paternal, autosomal and maternal DNA proves that Africans and peoples of African descent have deeper roots than white Europeans and that whites are recent offspring from those of us who have deeper roots. This isn't racist or black supremacy, its the truth so people need to quit being blind and open up their minds and gain knowledge of self.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mackandal: I hate to say it, but Marc Washington and Winters are right....but only partially. The history of white people proper goes back to only about maybe 6,000 to 8,000 years ago, but if we focus only on histoy it starts with the Greeks. Even the people who inhabited Europe during the Ice Age weren't white, check the article posted earlier about the emergence of white skin color. If you want to know why there's more information about genetics and anthropology about Europe than any other "continent", its because white, "Eurocentric" minded historians and scientists have been trying desperately to find the origin of mankind and all things of substance in Europe and to this date their tries have failed. Now their last attempt is to link modern Europeans with Neanderthals in anyway they can, but like it or not, their roots don't go back that far. Every DNA test out their proves modern Europeans have no link with Neanderthals, so whites have no descent from cave dwelling Neanderthals. People of African descent have roots way more deeper and thats the truth racist whites don't want people to know, because it that in effect makes people of African descent *THEIR* CREATOR AND MAKER, essence their God in a way. Think about it, paternal, autosomal and maternal DNA proves that Africans and peoples of African descent have deeper roots than white Europeans and that whites are recent offspring from those of us who have deeper roots. This isn't racist or black supremacy, its the truth so people need to quit being blind and open up their minds and gain knowledge of self.
^ No one here (not even Marc and Winters' most virulent critics) denies that whiteness is very recent to Europe. What we take issue with is their claim that whites are recent invaders to the subcontinent who displaced black African natives, as opposed to the less pigmented direct descendants of prehistoric Europeans.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: What we take issue with is their claim that whites are recent invaders to the subcontinent who displaced black African natives, as opposed to the less pigmented direct descendants of prehistoric Europeans.
Judging from the level of war-like behavior recorded throughout the histories of White Europeans (still going on today), in comparison to displacement behaviors of other non-White indigenous people who already populated all parts the earth, the former in the quoted issue taken above may be suffice enough to suggest the possible existence of Whites in the Europe regions today. Disregarding the highly erroneous CHM theory, a favorite for Western intellectual acrobatics, and looking from the outside in; I'd suggest Whites maybe closer to Asians (Chinese) and evolved around these regions. That White Europeans maybe a possible break away-Asian type who later mated with other peoples of African admixtures as opposed to pure Black African people; suggesting why genetics haven’t biologically connected Whites directly to any one ancient or prehistoric people.
Posts: 213 | From: New York City, USA | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'd suggest Whites maybe closer to Asians (Chinese) and evolved around these regions. That White Europeans maybe a possible break away-Asian type who later mated with other peoples of African admixtures
^ Please explain how the above is anything more than a mealy-mouthed admission of the following facts....
quote:
The First Europeans
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 "
Cavalli-Sforza LL and PA Underhill.
^ If you feel you can dispute any of the above, then quote exactly what is is you dispute and then address it.
quote:^ Please explain how the above is anything more than a mealy-mouthed admission of the following facts....
My comments were meant to add my 2cents of clarity and weren’t meant to be a bait triggering attempts to engage or trick me into a cycle of absorbed and dedicated fact finding mission into White biological origin. At the moment, I reserve such strenuous, noble and painstaking efforts towards my strongest interest, Black History. After all, I’m also Black!!!
Despite some questionable projected complexes some people may exhibit, you, on the other hand, may dwell and dedicate yourself to whatever subjects interests you. That is your right and freedom. But attempting to insult my intelligence but coining my suggestions, “mealy-mouthed”, I believe is way out of your zone of reach; In other words, completely out of your league. My opinions were my independent views, in my own words, just like the redundant image you continue to post. And my articulation was simple enough for most people to grasp and understand it. In fact, I mentioned “Asians (Chinese)”, “Black Africans” and fusion of people with “African admixtures” to give direction to my ideas unlike the image you keep posting. The information presented in the image you posted aren’t facts, but rather theoretical suggestions in absence of solid, biological evidences tracing the subject(s) of interests to a particular one prehistoric, ancient race of people. What sense does it make attempting to brand my hypothesis “mealy-mouthed”?
Regardless, I must say again, this topic has been an interesting one; a very fascinating read for anyone wanting avenues to hints for exploring many ideas presented here.
Posts: 213 | From: New York City, USA | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:My comments were meant to add my 2cents of clarity
Then you should speak clearly and not in mealy-mouthed fashion.
Effectively you are grudgingly admitting the following:
1) Modern Europeans descend from stone-age humans who came to Europe, probably from Central Asia and the Middle East, in two waves of migration beginning about 40,000 years ago.
2) When the glaciers melted, about 16,000 years ago, the Paleolithic tribes resettled the rest of Europe.
3) 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.
quote:The information presented aren’t facts
^ Then refute it, if you can. Mealy-mouthed whining is not rebuttal.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obviously you don't like to read in completion and for whatever reason, continue to take things out of context. I don’t want to suggest such behavior could be a sign of a reprobated individual, but continuing such deviated, yet hardly calculated approach in any debate, will eventually render you almost powerless in presenting quality rebuttals void of excessively recursive and tiring posts.
Since I can't speak over EgyptSearch, I chose to write as concise and as clearly as I possibly can.
I also believe the original title of this thread was "European nations established only from Medieval times - whites are very new to Europe." Judging from the information presenting in this thread so far, consensus result may show this title by Marc Washington may be closer to the true White European history and a very short one at that.
Posts: 213 | From: New York City, USA | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:And all because MW was able to man-up and admit that he was wrong.
This must have really annoyed you, since it caused you to go all -diarrhea of the mouth- and such.
So far from it, I had to chuckle at the self loathing assumptions though. The naive gratification your may be feeling can be partly blamed on the limitation other human ways of interaction on internet boards besides typing and choosing emoticons.
If you would remove the blinders and possibly stop the self-loathing and taking things out of context, you may begin to realize that you may be the only one exciting yourself over absolutely nothing. The "diarrhea of the mouth" line was funny because in reality, it reflected nothing describing my state of expressions or feelings, yet you seemed to have possibly excited yourself off your seat thinking you’ve hit something on the nail. This could be very Keith Richburg like ( http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1011294 | interview audio link)
You should really learn about him.
Posts: 213 | From: New York City, USA | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
Europeans owe their ancestry mainly to Stone Age hunters, not to later migrants who brought farming to Europe from the Middle East, a new study suggests.
Based on DNA analysis of ancient skeletons from Germany, Austria, and Hungary, the study sways the debate over the origins of modern Europeans toward hunter-gatherers who colonized Europe some 40,000 years ago. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
So a more advanced people from the middle east brought farming with them and gave it to some hunter gatherer dumbasses in Europe who took it and somehow turned it into rocket science? Sced of that.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ From meally-mouthed nonsense to completely off-point babblement. No one cares Kemson.
Well, you may not care. Speak for yourself. In the end you were only capable of insults. Something, I've refrained myself from going. Had I chosen to go this route, I can assure you that you are far too below skilled enough to match my swiftness or its effectiveness. Like knives in a draw, you would certainly be the least sharpest. Moderators of the boards have also addressed their concern to me some times back over insults and I intend to respect their wishes. You, on the other hand need a lot of help and you should really learn about Keith Richburg. I am almost fully convinced your character and his are quite compatible. Self-loathing can be a poisonous and unfortunate condition if gone untreated and may not be a good sign of mental order while swinging it around with naive pride and a false sense of accomplishment.
I'm don't represent any organized religion but I am a spiritual person and I'll say, may God help you, you are going to need all the help you can get.
Posts: 213 | From: New York City, USA | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic