posted
I have been reading and researching ancient cultures for a few years now maybe 3. I have recently had a bit of time off and was able to travel to Egypt (Not extensively though) Sudan, Dubai, Ethiopia, and Yemen. Unfortunately all of this traveling (Except for Ethiopia) was before i really started to study and get interested into things historic and pre-historic. I have been hovering around the forum for probably about a year but really didn't have much to add. I just want to say thanks to all for you guys/gals for hard work and time in the forums, Its great and there is a lot to learn. I still have a lot of reading to do and plan to go back to Africa and the M.E.
I do have 1 question though. All of my reading usually come to the conclusion that Mesopotamia was the first civilization. When it comes to Ancient Egypt they only put the date of the civilization AT or AFTER the point of Unification. Why do 'they' not consider the North and South already civilized, before unification? What about the Nomes? I am under the impression that these were already city-states. If so how old do the Nomes go back? Do i have the right interpretation?
Again, thanks a lot, you will probably see me around as a regular.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by astenb: I do have 1 question though. All of my reading usually come to the conclusion that Mesopotamia was the first civilization. When it comes to Ancient Egypt they only put the date of the civilization AT or AFTER the point of Unification. Why do 'they' not consider the North and South already civilized, before unification?
Evergreen Writes:
First of all, welcome to the forum. In my opinion many historians give precedence to the antiquity of Mesopatamian civilization over Egyptian because the Mesopatamian people are closer genetically and culturally to Western Europe. This in turn allows Europeans to claim that civilization began in Eurasia instead of in Africa. The first question we have to ask ourselves is what does the word "civilization" mean?
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by astenb: I have been reading and researching ancient cultures for a few years now maybe 3. I have recently had a bit of time off and was able to travel to Egypt (Not extensively though) Sudan, Dubai, Ethiopia, and Yemen. Unfortunately all of this traveling (Except for Ethiopia) was before i really started to study and get interested into things historic and pre-historic. I have been hovering around the forum for probably about a year but really didn't have much to add. I just want to say thanks to all for you guys/gals for hard work and time in the forums, Its great and there is a lot to learn. I still have a lot of reading to do and plan to go back to Africa and the M.E.
I do have 1 question though. All of my reading usually come to the conclusion that Mesopotamia was the first civilization. When it comes to Ancient Egypt they only put the date of the civilization AT or AFTER the point of Unification. Why do 'they' not consider the North and South already civilized, before unification? What about the Nomes? I am under the impression that these were already city-states. If so how old do the Nomes go back? Do i have the right interpretation?
Again, thanks a lot, you will probably see me around as a regular.
With that very perceptive point out you made (in the bold above), you know you are on solid ground.
Anyway, you can say for sure that Kemet was the first state, and if that's what you consider in your definition of civilization, than you can say Kemet was the first civilization un-shamefully [perhaps noting that this depends on how you define "civilization"].
Most times you see a comment like that, it is made half-wittedly (no insult, just the point out that of these individuals few know in detail what they are talking about) or deceptively.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, what they are claiming is that Mesopotamia was the beginning of organized urban complexes with central governmental authority, architecture, agriculture, writing and animal husbandry. They are also talking about a wide range of cultures spread over the entire region between the Tigris and Euphrates valley and not one single entity as there was no unified nation, government or culture called Mesopotamia. So you are right, if those are the standard by which civilization is being defined, then civilization existed along the Nile Valley long before the unification of Egypt, as there were various cultures there that exhibited similar patterns of development long before Mesopotamia.
Posts: 8898 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Welcome to the forum, Astenb! I hope you can contribute more historical and cultural material to this forum.
Posts: 26311 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mesopatamian people are closer genetically and culturally to Western Europe than Dynastic Kemetians are.
I was hopping that rather than simply making a blanket statement, someone would explain in what way or ways the statement is true. Anyone can say anything they want, but if they want it to be believed they have to back it up with something.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Mesopatamian people are closer genetically and culturally to Western Europe than Dynastic Kemetians are.
I was hopping that rather than simply making a blanket statement, someone would explain in what way or ways the statement is true. Anyone can say anything they want, but if they want it to be believed they have to back it up with something.
Evergreen Writes:
SIMPLE: Genetically the common lineages in Europe are closer to the common lineages found in Mesopotamia than the common lineages found in NE Africa.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Evergreen: Today yes; But I thought that we were talking about ancient people. In which case, none of that is true, with the possible exception of the Assyrians, who MAY have been a mixed race people.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Evergreen: Today yes; But I thought that we were talking about ancient people. In which case, none of that is true, with the possible exception of the Assyrians, who MAY have been a mixed race people.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Evergreen: Today yes; But I thought that we were talking about ancient people. In which case, none of that is true, with the possible exception of the Assyrians, who MAY have been a mixed race people.
Evergreen Writes:
Using your model what were the primary Black haplogroups found in ancient Mesopotamia?
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The mapping of MODERN people is very far from completion, yet you expect accurate usable data about ANCIENT people? Ask me again in about fifty years. (I think that you may have fallen victim to one of the many DNA frauds who make outrageous claims about their work).
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Excuse me Mike111, how can Egyptian structures look Greek when they are much older than Greek structures. Greeks copied from the ancient Egyptians.
Posts: 603 | From: Mobile, Alabama | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike111, are you confusing skin color for genetic relationships?
There are people in South Asia and Oceania who are darker then African, yet the genetic distance between the two are as far apart as they are geographically. Sag-gi as shown previously in different threads mean "Black Heads", the Sumerian people of Mesopotamia; and? They my be dark/black/dark-brown etc ... but that doesn't stop the fact that they may be genetically closer to Western Europeans then African R ...
Or does it? You tell me
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
In all likelihood, populations in southwest Asia by the Neolithic and post-Neolithic early Holocene periods would have positioned genetically intermediate between Africans and Northern Eurasians.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Mesopatamian people are closer genetically and culturally to Western Europe than Dynastic Kemetians are.
I was hopping that rather than simply making a blanket statement, someone would explain in what way or ways the statement is true. Anyone can say anything they want, but if they want it to be believed they have to back it up with something.
Evergreen Writes:
SIMPLE: Genetically the common lineages in Europe are closer to the common lineages found in Mesopotamia than the common lineages found in NE Africa.
Actually that is quite ridiculous both historically and currently. The differences in culture and genetics are too many to name. Modern Europe is primarily a first world, Christian, captialist, democratic system. Modern Mesopotamia is primarily a dictatorial, democratic, Islamic system. Hence, why the U.S. is fighting a war in Mesopotamia, because of this DIFFERENCE between the two. Likewise, ancient Mesopotamia was also very different culturally as well as genetically. While Europeans may have descended from groups who passed through Mesopotamia or had influence from Mesopotamia at some early period, that does not mean that they are "close" in any real sense either now or in the past. And this is not simply an issue of whether the ancient Mesopotamians were black, because while at some point in the past there may have been a black element in the population, this element was impacted by migrations other populations before and during the development of the ancient cultures of the region.
Posts: 8898 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [QUOTE]Likewise, ancient Mesopotamia was also very different culturally as well as genetically. While Europeans may have descended from groups who passed through Mesopotamia or had influence from Mesopotamia at some early period, that does not mean that they are "close" in any real sense either now or in the past. And this is not simply an issue of whether the ancient Mesopotamians were black, because while at some point in the past there may have been a black element in the population, this element was impacted by migrations other populations before and during the development of the ancient cultures of the region.
Evergreen Writes:
Doug you quoted me so I have to assume you are responding to me. If so please stay on topic. We are looking at the differences between the genes present in Dynastic Era Egypt and Mesopotamia in comparison to modern Europe.
In your opinion what were the primary maternal and paternal lineages present in Dynastic Era Egypt and Mesopotamia and how do these lineages map to the lineages now found in modern Europe?
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I mean is that the comparison of the "differences" between Europe, Africa and Mesopotamia obscures the fact that all three regions are VERY different historically, culturally and genetically. The closeness of Europe to Mesopotamia relative to Africa does not mean that they are CLOSE in any real cultural, ethnic or political fashion or that they ever have been. Some people jump to conclusions about such statements when the statement itself does not support such conclusions. In other words, some people may take it to mean that Europe and Mesopotamia have been historically "close" in terms of ethnicity and culture, but in reality they have NEVER been particularly close.
This is not directed at you per se, but the whole gist of the exchange between you two.
Posts: 8898 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Europeans and mesopotamians are two completly different people, there are many africans who are closer related to mesopotamians than europeans are, and the same is also true of many europeans being closer related to mesopotamians than many africans . Africa and europe do not represent a homogenious group of people, never has and probably never will.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ The problem is that Southwest Asia is between Africa and the rest of Eurasia so the inhabitants are diverse with various lineages some relating to Africa, others to Europe.
As for Mike. What evidence is there that Mesopotamians in general were black? Does being black entail being African??
Posts: 26311 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Evergreen: Today yes; But I thought that we were talking about ancient people. In which case, none of that is true, with the possible exception of the Assyrians, who MAY have been a mixed race people.
Evergreen Writes:
Using your model what were the primary Black haplogroups found in ancient Mesopotamia?
This is a silly question. We don't know what they were since up to now no one has analyzed the genetic material of ancient Mesopotamian skeletons.
But what we do know is that when the ancient skeletons are analyzed, such as Cro-Magnon skeletons they do not carry genes related to contemporary Europeans. We can hypothsize that ancient skeletons from these areas will carry genes different from the contemporary population.
The dates for the appearence of ancient genetic groups is based on hypothetical statistical models. I may have missed the literature, but I have not read an article in which any of these statistical models have been confirmed.
quote:Originally posted by R U 2 religious: Mike111, are you confusing skin color for genetic relationships?
There are people in South Asia and Oceania who are darker then African, yet the genetic distance between the two are as far apart as they are geographically. Sag-gi as shown previously in different threads mean "Black Heads", the Sumerian people of Mesopotamia; and? They my be dark/black/dark-brown etc ... but that doesn't stop the fact that they may be genetically closer to Western Europeans then African R ...
Or does it? You tell me
Not only did they call themselves Black heads, Col. Rawlinson made it clear that the Sumerians came from Africa.
Col. Rawlinson the decipherer of the cuneiform writing makes it clear that the ancient Turanians were the“Hamitic Nations” mentioned in the Bible: Kush (Cush), Misraim (Egypt), Nimrud ( Sumerians and Elamites) and Canaan (Phonesians) (see: C.B. Rawlinson, "Notes on the early history of Babylon", Jour. Royal Asiatic Society (First Series) 15, p.230. ).
The controversy surrounding the Kushite/African/Black origins of the Elamites, Sumerians, Akkadians and “Assyrians” is simple and yet complicated. It involves both the racism exhibited toward the African slaves in the Western Hemisphere and Africans generally which led to the idea that Africans had no history ; and the need of Julius Oppert to make Semites white, to accommodate the “white” ancestry of European Jews.
To understand this dichotomy we have to look at the history of scholarship surrounding the rise of Sumero-Akkadian studies. The study of the Sumerians, Akkadians. Assyrians and Elamites began with the decipherment of the cuneiform script by Henry Rawlinson. Henry Rawlinson had spent most of his career in the Orient. This appears to have gave him an open mind in regards to history. He recognized the Ancient Model of History, the idea that civilization was founded by the Kushite or Hamitic people of the Bible.
As result, Rawlinson was surprised during his research to discover that the founders of the Mesopotamian civilization were of Kushite origin. He made it clear that the Semitic speakers of Akkad and the non-Semitic speakers of Sumer were both Black or Negro people who called themselves sag-gig-ga “Black Heads”. In Rawlinson’s day the Sumerian people were recognized as Akkadian or Chaldean, while the Semitic speaking blacks were called Assyrians.
Rawlinson identified these Akkadians as Turanian or Scythic people. But he made it clear that these ancient Scythic or Turanian speaking people were Kushites or Blacks.
A major supporter of Rawlinson was Edward Hincks. Hincks continued Rawlinson’s work and identified the ancient group as Chaldeans, and also called them Turanian speakers. Hincks, though, never dicussed their ethnic origin.
A late comer to the study of the Sumerians and the Akkadians was Julius Oppert. Oppert was a German born of Jewish parents. He made it clear that the Chaldean and Akkadian people spoke different languages. He noted that the original founders of Mesopotamia civilization called themselves Ki-en-gi “land of the true lords”. It was the Semitic speakers who called themselves Akkadians.
Assyrians called the Ki-en-gi people Sumiritu “the sacred language”. Oppert popularized the Assyrian name Sumer, for the original founders of the civilization. Thus we have today the Akkadians and Sumerians of ancient Mesopotamia.
Oppert began to popularize the idea that the Sumerians were related to the contemporary Altaic and Turanian speaking people, e.g., Turks and Magyar (Hungarian) speaking people. He made it clear that the Akkadians were Semites like himself . To support this idea Oppert pointed out that typological features between Sumerian and Altaic languages existed. This feature was agglutination.
The problem with identifying the Sumerians as descendants from contemporary Turanian speakers resulted from the fact that Sumerian and the Turkish languages are not genetically related. As a result Oppert began to criticize the work of Hincks (who was dead at the time) in relation to the identification of the Sumerian people as Turanian following the research of Rawlinson.
It is strange to some observers that Oppert,never criticized Rawlinson who had proposed the Turanian origin of the Ki-en-gi (Sumerians). But this was not strange at all. Oppert did not attack Rawlinson who was still alive at the time because he knew that Rawlinson said the Sumerians were the original Scythic and Turanian people he called Kushites. Moreover, Rawlinson made it clear that both the Akkadians and Sumerians were Blacks. For Oppert to have debated this issue with Rawlinson, who deciphered the cuneiform script, would have meant that he would have had to accept the fact that Semites were Black. There was no way Oppert would have wanted to acknowledge his African heritage, given the Anti-Semitism experienced by Jews living in Europe.
Although Oppert successfully hid the recognition that the Akkadians and the Sumerians both refered to themselves as sag-gig-ga “black heads”, some researchers were unable to follow the status quo and ignore this reality. For example, Francois Lenormant, made it clear, following the research of Rawlinson, that the Elamite and Sumerians spoke genetically related languages. This idea was hard to reconcile with the depiction of people on the monuments of Iran, especially the Behistun monument, which depicted Negroes (with curly hair and beards) representing the Assyrians, Jews and Elamites who ruled the area. As a result, Oppert began the myth that the Sumerian languages was isolated from other languages spoken in the world evethough it shared typological features with the Altaic languages. Oppert taught Akkadian-Sumerian in many of the leading Universities in France and Germany. Many of his students soon began to dominate the Academe, or held chairs in Sumerian and Akkadian studies these researchers continued to perpetuate the myth that the Elamite and Sumerian languages were not related.
There was no way to keep from researchers who read the original Sumerian, Akkadian and Assyrian text that these people recognized that they were ethnically Blacks. This fact was made clear by Albert Terrien de LaCouperie. Born in France, de LaCouperie was a well known linguist and China expert. Although native of France most of his writings are in English. In the journal he published called the Babylonian and Oriental Record, he outlined many aspects of ancient history. In these pages he made it clear that the Sumerians, Akkadians and even the Assyrians who called themselves şalmat kakkadi ‘black headed people”, were all Blacks of Kushite origin. Eventhough de LaCouperie taught at the University of London, the prestige of Oppert, and the fact that the main centers for Sumero-Akkadian studies in France and Germany were founded by Oppert and or his students led to researchers ignoring the evidence that the Sumerians , Akkadians and Assyrians were Black.
In summary, the cuneiform evidence makes it clear that the Sumerians, Akkadians and Assyrians recognized themselves as Negroes: “black heads”. This fact was supported by the statues of Gudea, the Akkadians and Assyrians. Plus the Behistun monument made it clear that the Elamites were also Blacks.
The textual evidence also makes it clear that Oppert began the discussion of a typological relationship between Sumerian and Turkic languages. He also manufactured the idea that the Semites of Mesopotamia and Iran, the Assyrians and Akkadians were “whites”, like himself. Due to this brain washing, and whitening out of Blacks in history, many people today can look at depictions of Assyrians, Achamenians, and Akkadians and fail to see the Negro origin of these people.
To make the Sumerians “white” textbooks print pictures of artifacts dating to the Gutian rule of Lagash, to pass them off as the true originators of Sumerian civilization. No Gutian rulers of Lagash are recognized in the Sumerian King List.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The Sumerians were differentiating themselves from the Gutians.
Gutian ..... Sumerian
Gutian
Sumerian King Gudea
Note the different handshake of the Sumerian and the Gutians. Much of the art published relating to Sumerians, are often pictures of the Gutians when they ruled Lagash.
No Gutian kings of Lagash are mentioned in the Sumerian King List.
posted
^ More ridiculousness from Clyde. By the way, Cro-magnons are bound to have the same genetic markers or similar as contemporary Euroepans for the simple fact that they are the direct ancestors of contemporary Europeans. Posts: 26311 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Djehuti - though your statement has factual basis, you may have gone overboard with it. The Caucasians who migrated into Europe were ALREADY Modern Humans, they did not evolve from THESE Cro-Magnons as your post seems to suggest. But they did "absorb" the European Cro-Magnons.
In The Tribes of Britain, archaeologist David Miles says around 80 percent of the genetic characteristics of most white Britons have been passed down from a few thousand Ice Age hunters.
But I don't know how meaningful that is, when you consider that:
At least 98 percent of the human and chimpanzee genomes are identical. Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I fear that genetics is being confused with craniofacial form.
quote: the oft-repeated European feeling that the Cro- Magnons are "us" (47) is more a product of anthropological folklore than the result of the metric data available from the skeletal remains.
C. Loring Brace et al PNAS January 3, 2006; v103 n1 pp 242-247
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Indeed. These ignorant people like Mike fail to realize that phenotypic traits like cranio-facial form are highly mutable and subject to change. Cro-magnons are the direct ancestors of white Europeans despite their different features. The fact that Cro-magnons possess tropical features is due simply to the fact that they like all other human populations in the world are descended from Africans.
Posts: 26311 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Djehuti; and others: Since I do respect accuracy and honesty, I must say upfront that C. Loring Brace; an anthropologist at the University of Michigan, is not a main-stream scientist. As a matter of fact, his ideas are considered (putting it gently: Controversial). However, since you insist on quoting him, I thought it instructive to post what he “ACTUALLY” wrote.
The title of this piece is: The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form
Many human craniofacial dimensions are largely of neutral adaptive significance, and an analysis of their variation can serve as an indication of the extent to which any given population is genetically related to or differs from any other. 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.
in situ: In the natural or original position or place
Late Pleistocene: The end of the stage is defined exactly at 10,000 Carbon-14 years BP ("before present")
Demic diffusion is an archaeological term that refers to population diffusion into and across an area previously uninhabited by that group, possibly displacing, replacing, or intermixing with a pre-existing population.
Neolithic culture appeared in the Levant (Jericho, modern-day West Bank) about 8500 BC. It developed directly from the Epipaleolithic Natufian culture in the region, whose people pioneered wild cereal use, which then evolved into true farming.
It is very satisfying to have your source support my position, Thank you.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, for those who even while quoting Brace miss his base of operation, Brace is refering only to craniofacial form not genetics. I.e., he's talking facial features via measurements not NRY or mtDNA haplogroups which show real father's line and mother's line ancestry.
I haven't found it yet but maybe someone can supply a geneticist's report purporting the proclaimed disconnect between paleolithic European humanity and current Europeans in terms of their haplogroup affinities.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Again, because people fail to understand basic concepts of biohistory such as phenotypic change versus genetic continuity.
Posts: 26311 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Cro-Magnon is another name for the Grimaldi people. The Cro-magnon people as you note were tropically adapted or simply Negroes.
They belonged to the haplogroup N which is a branch of L3 branch. The N haplogroup spread from Africa to Europe. Haplogroup N was found within Cro Magnon skeletons. This gives us physical evidence of this haplogroup in Europe. Lets look at Caramelli's statement: quote: ________________________________________
Specific mtDNA sites outside HVRI were also analyzed (by amplification, cloning, and sequencing of the surrounding region) to classify more precisely the ancient sequences within the phylogenetic network of present-time mtDNAs (35, 36). Paglicci-25 has the following motifs: +7,025 AluI, 00073A, 11719G, and 12308A. Therefore, this sequence belongs to either haplogroups HV or pre-HV, two haplogroups rare in general but with a comparatively high frequencies among today's Near-Easterners (35). Paglicci-12 shows the motifs 00073G, 10873C, 10238T, and AACC between nucleotide positions 10397 and 10400, which allows the classification of this sequence into the macrohaplogroupN,containing haplogroups W, X, I, N1a, N1b, N1c, and N*. Following the definition given in ref. 36, the presence of a single mutation in 16,223 within HRVI suggests a classification of Paglicci-12 into the haplogroup N*, which is observed today in several samples from the Near East and, at lower frequencies, in the Caucasus (35). It is difficult to say whether the apparent evolutionary relationship between Paglicci-25 and Paglicci-12 and those populations is more than a coincidence. Indeed, the haplogroups to which the Cro-Magnon type sequences appear to belong are rare among modern samples, and therefore their frequencies are poorly estimated. However, genetic affinities between the first anatomically modern Europeans and current populations of the Near East make sense in the light of the likely routes of Upper Paleolithic human expansions in Europe, as documented in the archaeological record (37).
Carmelli specifically says: some of the Cro Magnon people belonged to the N group .
It is interesting to note that the DNA for the European farmers 7500 ybp was also haplogroup N1(a), which as noted by the researchers who conducted this research that contemporary Europeans do not have this gene.
The continuity of the N haplogroup from 24000-7500 BC makes it clear that Negroes were the dominant group in Europe up to this time.
.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Again, for those who even while quoting Brace miss his base of operation, Brace is refering only to craniofacial form not genetics. I.e., he's talking facial features via measurements not NRY or mtDNA haplogroups which show real father's line and mother's line ancestry.
I haven't found it yet but maybe someone can supply a geneticist's report purporting the proclaimed disconnect between paleolithic European humanity and current Europeans in terms of their haplogroup affinities.
posted
Um ..., please note the below underscored relevant sentence from the abstract you provided. Cro-Magnon was paleolithic.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
________________________________________
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. ________________________________________
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clyde: Your post proves what most should already have known: That is Cro-Magnon didn't do it, because a "Cave Man" couldn't do it. They can call Cro-Magnon "Homo-sapien-sapien" till the Cows come home, and he will still have been a Cave Man, incapable of "Art" (the cave paintings), or agriculture.
However, you implied that ALL Cro-Magnon were Black, I don't believe that to be the case, though undoubtedly some were (Cro-Magnon's also inhabited the middle-east and both sides of the Mediterranean). To me; Cro-Magnoids suggest wide variety in the Cro-Magnon type.
But you failed to speak to the central issue here: that is "Who are, or What are, Modern Europeans". My position is that the anatomically modern White's who migrated into Europe (ca. 2,000 B.C.) from the Eurasian plains, absorbed and replaced European Cro-Magnons.
The quote: Our finding lends weight to a proposed Paleolithic ancestry for modern Europeans.
Seems to be suggesting that modern Europeans "Evolved" from Cro-Magnons. That theory has already been shot down many times.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Science magazine: April 20, 2007 When Europeans Became White
Researchers have disagreed for decades about an issue that is only skin-deep: How quickly did the first modern humans who swept into Europe acquire pale skin? Now a new report on the evolution of a gene for skin color suggests that Europeans lightened up quite recently, perhaps only 6000 to 12,000 years ago. This contradicts a long-standing hypothesis that modern humans in Europe grew paler about 40,000 years ago, as soon as they migrated into northern latitudes. Under darker skies, pale skin absorbs more sunlight than dark skin, allowing ultraviolet rays to produce more vitamin D for bone growth and calcium absorption. "The [evolution of] light skin occurred long after the arrival of modern humans in Europe," molecular anthropologist Heather Norton of the University of Arizona, Tucson, said in her talk.
The genetic origin of the spectrum of human skin colors has been one of the big puzzles of biology. Researchers made a major breakthrough in 2005 by discovering a gene, SLC24A5, that apparently causes pale skin in many Europeans, but not in Asians. A team led by geneticist Keith Cheng of Pennsylvania State University (PSU) College of Medicine in Hershey found two variants of the gene that differed by just one amino acid. Nearly all Africans and East Asians had one allele, whereas 98% of the 120 Europeans they studied had the other (Science, 28 October 2005, p. 601).
Norton, who worked on the Cheng study as a graduate student, decided to find out when that mutation swept through Europeans. Working as a postdoc with geneticist Michael Hammer at the University of Arizona, she sequenced 9300 base pairs of DNA in the SLC24A5 gene in 41 Europeans, Africans, Asians, and American Indians.
Using variations in the gene that did not cause paling, she calculated the background mutation rate of SLC24A5 and thereby determined that 18,000 years had passed since the light-skin allele was fixed in Europeans. But the error margins were large, so she also analyzed variation in the DNA flanking the gene. She found that Europeans with the allele had a "striking lack of diversity" in this flanking DNA--a sign of very recent genetic change, because not enough time has passed for new mutations to arise. The data suggest that the selective sweep occurred 5300 to 6000 years ago, but given the imprecision of method, the real date could be as far back as 12,000 years ago, Norton said. She added that other, unknown, genes probably also cause paling in Europeans.
As there are several other genes which are involved in skin color, it's a bit of an exaggeration to say that Europeans "suddenly" turned white a few thousand years ago, at least until we're sure that the rest of the mutations responsible are of similarly recent vintage. Still, SLC24A5 accounts for enough of the color variation for us to be able to confidently say that until relatively recently Europeans didn't look distinguishable from the people of northern India or southern Arabia.
Either way, the implication is that our European ancestors were brown-skinned for tens of thousands of years--a suggestion made 30 years ago by Stanford University geneticist L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza. He argued that the early immigrants to Europe, who were hunter-gatherers, herders, and fishers, survived on ready-made sources of vitamin D in their diet. But when farming spread in the past 6000 years, he argued, Europeans had fewer sources of vitamin D in their food and needed to absorb more sunlight to produce the vitamin in their skin.
The poor diet of the farmer is to blame! Whether this old hypothesis is correct or not is too early to determine, but this report certainly gives it new life. I imagine that the increased paleness of East Asians is also of relatively new vintage (as are all the other derived, prototypically "Asian" features), perhaps dating back no further than about 5,000 years, when one people* started farming rice somewhere in China and underwent a radical population explosion; similarly, I don't think you'll find any people who look like today's West Africans before ~10,000 years ago. All the external "racial" features people invest so much importance in are of surprisingly recent vintage.
*There's no reason to suppose said people were speakers of proto-Chinese, by the way, as the genetic evidence suggesting that all north-east Asians share very recent common roots also suggests - based on the distribution of languages in the region - that the shared ancestor of the Korean and Japanese languages has its roots in northeast China. The speakers of proto-Chinese likely came from the Himalayan region after rice-growing had become established, and made the original inhabitants of their new homeland drop their old languages in favor of the invaders'.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Yes, since the ancestors of Europeans like the ancestral groups of *ALL* populations were African they were all black. Of course those humans who settled Europe eventually became 'white' and were effectively white by the time of the Neolithic where people of African descent immigrated to Europe and introduced Neolithic culture. Speaking of which...
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Um ..., please note the below underscored relevant sentence from the abstract you provided. Cro-Magnon was paleolithic.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
________________________________________
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.
LOL Winters as usual does not understand the material he posts. When the article says modern Europeans aren't related to ancient Europeans, by ancient Europeans they specifically meant the Neolithic settlers of Europe. Of course modern Europeans descend from the aboriginal populations who settled Europe during the Paleolithic.
Posts: 26311 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is no way the Europeans were white by Neolithic times. Modern European speakers speak Indo-European languages. Languages which show no evidence of being spoken in Europe during Neolithic times.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Yes, since the ancestors of Europeans like the ancestral groups of *ALL* populations were African they were all black. Of course those humans who settled Europe eventually became 'white' and were effectively white by the time of the Neolithic where people of African descent immigrated to Europe and introduced Neolithic culture. Speaking of which...
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Um ..., please note the below underscored relevant sentence from the abstract you provided. Cro-Magnon was paleolithic.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
________________________________________
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.
LOL Winters as usual does not understand the material he posts. When the article says modern Europeans aren't related to ancient Europeans, by ancient Europeans they specifically meant the Neolithic settlers of Europe. Of course modern Europeans descend from the aboriginal populations who settled Europe during the Paleolithic.
posted
So far; we have not achieved an agreeable scenario. It seems that everyone is thinking in one or two dimensions. The fact is; there were THREE dimensions. To refresh everyones mind I have listed the pertinent Humanoids by "AGE". Which is something that must be taken into consideration. Who went where, and who was already there is important. The definitions are encyclopedia type standard as far as I know.
Modern Man The Genus and species to which all modern human beings (Homo-sapiens-sapiens), belong and to which are attributable fossil remains of humans in Africa, from 400,000 years ago or more. Homo sapiens are distinguished from other animals and from earlier humanoid species by characteristics and habits such as bipedal stance and gait, brain capacity averaging about 82 cubic inches, high forehead, small teeth and jaw, defined chin, construction and use of tools, and the ability to make use of symbols such as used in language and writing. Some of these features were possessed by the immediate ancestor, Homo erectus; but in the aggregate they are characteristic only of Homo sapiens.
Neanderthal Neanderthal: was an early form of Homo-sapien that inhabited much of Europe and the Mediterranean lands during the late Pleistocene Epoch, (about 100,000 to 30,000 years ago). Neanderthal remains have also been found in the Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia.
Neanderthals were the first human group to survive in northern latitudes during the cold (glacial) phases of the Pleistocene. They had domesticated fire, as indicated by concentrations of charcoal and reddened earth in their sites. Yet, their hearths were simple and shallow and must have cooled off quickly, giving little warmth throughout the night. Not surprisingly, they exhibit anatomic adaptations to cold, especially in Europe, such as large body cores and relatively short limbs, which maximize heat production and minimize heat loss. (The following is editorial)- The evidence of Neanderthal’s body adaptations to cold weather also makes it safe to assume that there was also a change in skin color from dark, with lots of melanin, to light (or white) with very little melanin.
Cro-Magnon Though Cro-Magnon is found all over Europe, Asia and the Mediterranean, The tendency now is to locate the origin of the Cro-Magnon type Humanoid in the Middle-east: as typified by the remains found at the Jebel Qafzeh and Skhul sites in what is now Israel.
Just as complex as the origin of Cro-Magnons, is that of the duration of Cro-Magnons. It appears that they flourished during the Upper Paleolithic (old stone age, 40,000 - 4,000 years ago). Individuals with at least some Cro-Magnon characteristics - (these are called Cro-Magnoids), are found during the stone age in Europe, roughly from 5000 to about 2000 B.C.
As we all know; Man of any species, will F**K a Duck, but are particularly fond of other Humanoids. We can therefore assume that rape (or perhaps not) of the females of the weaker species was VERY common. That has to be taken into consideration too.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Weren't the prognathous long limbed paleolithics once labeled "Grimaldi" also cave people? How does place of residence disallow any skill set?
Paleolithic Europeans did vary in phenotype, increasingly so as micro-evolution kicked in over the millenia.
The first skull is older dating to 30kya while the second skull lower limit is 10kya. 20,000 years is long enough for climatic adaptations to have occured. What was the climate like from France into German between 30ybp and 10ybp?
So Cro Magnon of 30kya with the short and medium broad nasal aperature would have encountered increasing cold leading to the LGM after 12ky of residency. Then at least by 10kya the long and large nosed Cro Magnon could have developed and become more numerous in Europe while the older type of Cro Magnon probably would have migrated or returned to the warmer climes of their theoretic home origins.
But again, the issue is not one of colour and looks but of genetics. And what has been shot down by genetics is idea that modern Europeans descend from Neanderthals.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ... Cro-Magnon didn't do it, because a "Cave Man" couldn't do it. They can call Cro-Magnon "Homo-sapien-sapien" till the Cows come home, and he will still have been a Cave Man, incapable of "Art" (the cave paintings), or agriculture.
However, you implied that ALL Cro-Magnon were Black, I don't believe that to be the case, though undoubtedly some were (Cro-Magnon's also inhabited the middle-east and both sides of the Mediterranean). To me; Cro-Magnoids suggest wide variety in the Cro-Magnon type.
The quote: Our finding lends weight to a proposed Paleolithic ancestry for modern Europeans.
posted
alTakruri wrote: Weren't the prognathous long limbed paleolithics once labeled "Grimaldi" also cave people? How does place of residence disallow any skill set?
You seem to be suggesting that Grimaldi had a particular skill set. What might that be?
If on the other hand: you are suggesting that just because they were “Cave People” why couldn’t they have painted pictures.
The answer is very simple: At the time the Cave paintings were done, there were two types of Humanoids in Europe; Cro-Magnon and Modern man. To believe that Cro-Magnons were busily painting pictures, while the much more advanced “Modern Man” (The African), was merely looking on, is ridicules and fundamentally Racist.
alTakruri wrote: But again, the issue is not one of colour and looks but of genetics. And what has been shot down by genetics is the idea that modern Europeans descend from Neanderthals.
I have never seen an article ascribing modern Europeans to Neanderthal, and I certainly didn’t allude to such a thing in my post.
In any event, Grimaldi would be a poor choice for Europeans to hang their hats on, please note the following.
Arthur C. Custance, Ph.D. Grimaldi Man is almost universally admitted to have been Negroid even though his remains lie in Europe. But indeed, so widespread is the Negroid type that even Pithecanthropus erectus was identified as Negroid by Buyssens.
Marcus Carvey Thus, the first humans were probably quite simply Negritic. The existence of an archaic Homo sapiens (Swanscombe man and Fontechevade man*), as early as the Lower Paleolithic, would not change these facts one iota. In the Upper Paleolithic, the archaic Homo sapiens either disappeared or else evolved into the Grimaldi man, for only the latter has been found, without any parallel branch of Homo sapiens until the belated appearance of the Cro-Magnon and Chancelade races.
Thus making this picture Racist and Inaccurate. But the true extent of White Racist B.S. is beautifully illustrated by the object in the lower right of the picture. That is a tablet with "writing" on it; the clear suggestion is that white Cro-Magnons had written language and could WRITE! (This takes Racist B.S. to new heights).
BTW - The picture is from the "INDIAN" museum of Natural History. He He.
posted
^ If you don't like the answers provided, then too bad. All evidence shows modern white Europeans are the direct descendants of the first settlers of Europe despite whatever phenotypic change they experienced and it had nothing to do with Neanderthals.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: There is no way the Europeans were white by Neolithic times. Modern European speakers speak Indo-European languages. Languages which show no evidence of being spoken in Europe during Neolithic times.
First of all, it has been shown to you ad-naseum that Europeans were white by 10,000 BP before the Neolithic.
Second, it has also been explained to you that being white has NOTHING to do with Indo-European languages. The oldest languages spoken in Europe are non-Indo-European and are spoken by the whitest Europeans whereas black south Indians speak Indo-European languages.
And lastly, your source does not support your claims since the source you cited showed that it was the forebearers of Neolithic culture who don't share lineages with modern Europeans which is not surprising because we've explained numerous times that Neolithic culture was introduced to Europe by non-Europeans.
So stop distorting.
Posts: 26311 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Djehuti wrote: If you don't like the answers provided, then too bad. All evidence shows modern white Europeans are the direct descendants of the first settlers of Europe despite whatever phenotypic change they experienced and it had nothing to do with Neanderthals.
Please refresh my memory; exactly what evidence was that? There were a lot of statements made by posters, but I don't recall any evidence.
Quote: First of all, it has been shown to you ad-naseum that Europeans were white by 10,000 BP before the Neolithic.
Here again, I don't recall any evidence, what was it again?Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, gotcha. I'm playing with a poker deck and you're playing with a pinochle deck if Cro-Magnon isn't a modern man. Being we're not on the same page or even reading the same book I can't possibly discuss this with you. Carry on with the idea that Cro-Magnon is not a secondary descendant of OoA humanity who was painting, singing, dancing, etc., before even leaving Africa.
P.S. Peruse the archive if you want my take on Grimaldi.
BTW - the quote you attribute to Marcus Garvey is actually from Cheikh Anta Diop, the website's domain where you got it from is named after Marcus Garvey.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
You seem to be suggesting that Grimaldi had a particular skill set. What might that be?
If on the other hand: you are suggesting that just because they were “Cave People” why couldn’t they have painted pictures.
The answer is very simple: At the time the Cave paintings were done, there were two types of Humanoids in Europe; Cro-Magnon and Modern man. To believe that Cro-Magnons were busily painting pictures, while the much more advanced “Modern Man” (The African), was merely looking on, is ridicules and fundamentally Racist.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do the Fins speak an Indo-European language?
Finland
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: There is no way the Europeans were white by Neolithic times. Modern European speakers speak Indo-European languages. Languages which show no evidence of being spoken in Europe during Neolithic times.
posted
alTakruri - The reason that White people attribute the cave art to Cro-Magnon is purely racial gamesmanship. If you search any source in the west you will still find busts and paintings depicting Cro-Magnon as White; even though scientific data clearly defines him as Black.
It is this ignorance on the part of the public that they take advantage of. On the other hand, if you search sources in Russia, you will find Cro-Magnon correctly depicted as Black. There is no way, that they could correctly attribute the art to Grimaldi without causing riots in the streets.
In a way I sympathize with the Western racists, after generations of spewing racist propaganda, how can they now turn around and say; never mind, we don't really belong here, this land really belongs to the Niggers.
As to Cro-Magnon, the proof that he was an inferior creature, is in the fact that he didn't survive.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
More ridiculousness from Clyde. By the way, Cro-magnons are bound to have the same genetic markers or similar as contemporary Euroepans for the simple fact that they are the direct ancestors of contemporary Europeans. ![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic