posted
^ The only question I have is what exactly is the seperation between petroglyphs and what Western scholars consider as 'true' writting. There are various prehistoric symbols in other parts of the world far older than the Danubian ones of Europe yet they are regarded merely as petroglyphs and not 'true writing'.
I smell Eurocentric bias.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26280 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Djehuti - You seem to be forgetting WHO was there at the time. There can be no Eurocentric bias, because Europeans were not there YET. Though it is said that the Slavs were at the European frontier by 3,000 B.C. The first group to actually ENTER and colonize were the Hellenes (Greeks) about 1,200 B.C.
But there were many African civilizations that blossomed as a result of the Grimaldi entrance in Iberia (Spain) in 45,000 B.C. and the unknown group or groups who entered via Anatolia and the Caucasus's at about the same time.
Here are some examples of what an ANCIENT RUSSIAN looked like.
quote:Djehuti - You seem to be forgetting WHO was there at the time. Europeans were not there yet.
As usual Mike you make no sense whatsoever.
By difinition the 1st population of Europe is indigenous to Europe and therefore European.
Indigenous means 1st.
^ translation: You have absolutely no understanding of anthropology or evolution and so cannot fathom how this 30 thousand year old skeletan found in Russia could be ancestral to modern Russian.
You need to take a course in Anthropology or something.
If you refuse to do so, how can we help you?
As for the thread topic - overwrought claims of European writng, European pyramids and European civilisations predating *everything ever found elsewhere* are a dime a dozen.
I call them "Piltdown man" hypes.
Ignore them, and they go away.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
This writing is of African origin. We deciphered this writing years ago.
Reading the Tartarian inscription from left to right in Magyar we have:
Jo taj dogo ko.
"Goodness here adheres(to you from) the Deity.
Taj-a to bo.
Here the source of abundance.
To egybe .
(The Deity is) the source of Unity.
Ko ne.
The Deity (is) for me.
Mi ont ke
Which integrates (me) into one Unity (with the Deity)."
This Magyar decipherment corresponds to the Manding reading of the same signs:
Yo ta togo Ko
"(Make my) Present state of Existence here the Refuge[of] God
Ne Ko
My God
fo to
(is a) pleasant Refuge
Mi nde Ge
to consume indeed Purity."
The use of the term Ko to denote God, by the Proto-Magyar in the Tartarian amulet, supports the Kushite origin of the Magyar people who made this amulet.
posted
Rasol - In you haste to sound knowledgeable, you miss the obvious. These ancient Africans were NOT the first Europeans, Homo-Erectus and Neanderthal were also Europeans. But be that as it may, the salient point is that in modern vernacular European is synonymous with Caucasian or "White" if you wish.
However the more pathetic point is how you managed to confuse the issues at hand. I made no claim that the Black original inhabitants of Russia were ancestral to modern White Russians, nor was it implied. But what YOU did was fail to explain what in the world this statement means.
Your Quote: translation: You have absolutely no understanding of anthropology or evolution and so cannot fathom how this 30 thousand year old skeletan found in Russia could be ancestral to modern Russian.
So are you saying that they ARE ancestral to modern Russians??? If so, WHY?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rasol - In you haste to sound knowledgeable, you miss the obvious. These ancient Africans were NOT the first Europeans, Homo-Erectus and Neanderthal were also Europeans.
This statement is incorrect and shows why you should take my advice and read and anthropology book instead of arguing.
Neanderthal and Homo-Erectus are different species from Homo-sapiens.
They are neither homo-sapien nor ancestral to homo-sapien.
European(s) is and ethnic reference to Homo Sapiens of Europe, not to other species of plant or animal that may also be native to Europe.
If you choose to be dense about this, and claim that European might refer to any species native to Europe - then your statement is even more foolish since there are thousands of "European" species, mammal, reptile, fish, DINOSAUR, that predate Neanderthal.
Trying to teach you appears to be a thankless task.
quote:So are you saying that they are ancestral to modern Russians???
Yes.
quote:If so, WHY?
Here's why [note carefully the article's correct title]:
FIRST EUROPEANS AP, 2000 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.,
^ Now how about answering Djehuti's question - if you believe that the ancestors of Russians did not live in Russia 25 thousand years ago..... then pray tell - *where do you think they were at that time?* - Africa? Neptune?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rasol – I can see that you are a bit overwrought on this subject, so I will stay with the facts. But I will say to you, that science should be pursued dispassionately and with an open mind.
I will certainly not debate Neanderthal and Homo-Erectus with you, you lack the necessary knowledge, and in any event, anyone with an interest will find it easy enough to look up.
You failed to cite the source for your claim about the “First Europeans”. However, it is an article that I am quite familiar with. Below I have the complete article and the answer that was written to it.
“The British Have changed little Since the Ice Age, a new Gene Study Says”. July 19, 2005
Despite invasions by Saxons, Romans, Vikings, Normans, and others, the genetic makeup of today's white Britons is much the same as it was 12,000 ago, a new book claims.
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.
Miles, research fellow at the Institute of Archaeology in Oxford, England: says recent genetic and archaeological evidence puts a new perspective on the history of the British people. "There's been a lot of arguing over the last ten years, but it's now more or less agreed that about 80 percent of Britons' genes come from hunter-gatherers who came in immediately after the Ice Age," Miles said. These nomadic tribes-people followed herds of reindeer and wild horses northward to Britain as the climate warmed. "Numbers were probably quite small—just a few thousand people," Miles added. These earliest settlers were later cut off as rising sea levels isolated Britain from mainland Europe.
New evidence for the genetic ancestry of modern Britons comes from analysis of blood groups, oxygen traces in teeth, and DNA samples taken from skeletal remains. These Ice Age hunter-gathers also colonized the rest of northwest Europe, spreading through what are now the Netherlands, Germany, and France. But Miles said differences between populations can be detected in random genetic mutations, which occurred over time. The most visible British genetic marker is red hair, he added. The writer Tacitus noted the Romans' surprise at how common it was when they arrived 2,000 years ago. "It's something that foreign observers have often commented on," Miles said. "Recent studies have shown that there is more red hair in Scotland and Wales than anywhere else in the world. It's a mutation that probably occurred between 8,000 and 10,000 years ago."
One Writers Answer: (this article was really about Cave paintings, but the answer still fits).
Chimps and Man
Genetic analysis suggest that humans and chimps diverged four to eight million years ago; and that at least 98 percent of the human and chimpanzee genomes are identical. Chimpanzees are classified taxonomically as a single species, Pan troglodytes. (The so-called pygmy chimpanzee, or bonobo, is a distinct and separate species, P. paniscus.) Three subspecies of P. troglodytes have traditionally been recognized: the tschego, or Central African chimpanzee (P. t. troglodytes), also known as the common chimpanzee in continental Europe; the West African, or masked, chimpanzee, known as the common chimpanzee in Great Britain; and the East African, or long-haired, chimpanzee (P. t. schweinfurthii). A fourth subspecies, the Nigerian chimpanzee (P. t. vellerosus), has also been proposed. Many studies with these results have been done; therefore no particular study is cited.
So it would seem that modern White Britons, and White Europeans in general, genetically have more in common with the chimpanzee than they do with Cro-Magnon Man: (just like the rest of us). Of course that’s not to say that we, as Modern Man, are fundamentally just overgrown Chimpanzees, certainly not. Though we do share many anatomical attributes, we are still very different.
Which is just the point: if Modern Man and the Chimpanzee are within 2% of being identical, and yet, are so different. Then, just how different are White Britons from Cro-Magnon man, where the difference is ten times as great at 20%. This of course, renders all of these new contrivances meaningless, and returns us to the well established understanding that modern Europeans are fundamentally Eurasians: Who as they migrated into Europe, starting at about 2,000 -1,500 B.C, displaced and perhaps in many cases, absorbed Cro-Magnon Man.
Which brings us to the next contrivance: The deluge of Cave paintings and drawing, as well as other artifacts, from as far back as 40,000 B.C. These are all attributed to White Europeans, but in a few cases, the more honest of the bunch, admit that they are really talking about Cro-Magnon man, modern Europeans weren't there yet.
Which in turn, brings us to the whole point of all of these contrivances. You see: All agree that the ability to create art: is fundamentally the domain of modern Man. So if you wish to attribute works of art, and other such things to Cro-Magnon man: {it’s understood and accepted that modern Europeans weren’t in Europe yet – they were still in the Eurasian Plains}. Then in order to do that, you must first elevate Cro-Magnon man, to the status of fully Human Modern Man. Below are examples of Cave artifacts attributed to Cro-Magnon man, a creature nine times less Human than even a Chimpanzee.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: [b]So it would seem that modern White Britons, and White Europeans in general, genetically have more in common with the chimpanzee than they do with Cro-Magnon Man: (just like the rest of us). Of course that’s not to say that we, as Modern Man, are fundamentally just overgrown Chimpanzees, certainly not. Though we do share many anatomical attributes, we are still very different.
Which is just the point: if Modern Man and the Chimpanzee are within 2% of being identical, and yet, are so different. Then, just how different are White Britons from Cro-Magnon man, where the difference is ten times as great at 20%. This of course, renders all of these new contrivances meaningless, and returns us to the well established understanding that modern Europeans are fundamentally Eurasians: Who as they migrated into Europe, starting at about 2,000 -1,500 B.C, displaced and perhaps in many cases, absorbed Cro-Magnon Man.
You are comparing apples and oranges. The 2% difference between humans and chimpanzees is looking at the total genome. The 20% difference, if its really valid, is comparing the mtDNA or y-chromosome markers between modern Britons and their presumed ancestors. Two quite different things.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^ Regardless of benchmark, the ratio remains the same.
No. because they are measuring different things. For example in the folowing paper Latter ,B.H.D. 1980 "Genetic Differences Within and Between Populations of the Major Human Subgroups," The American Naturalist 116 (2): 220-237.
Latter finds that there is 6% genetic difference between East Africans and West Africans. This is 3 times as much as the 2% human/chimpanzee number. Do you realy think that East and West Africans are 3 times more different from each other than human differ from chimpanzees?
Perhaps the terminology has confused the issue. The hunter/gatherers in Europe 40,000 years ago are the Cro-magnon and, yes, they are truly modern humans, i.e. Homo sapiens sapiens just like you and me.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Quetzalcoatl - Yes; I am sure you believe that. Over the years, I have watched with bemusement as White people have elevated Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon especially; from sub-human to Homo-Sapien and then creating the totally B.S. designation "Homo-Sapien-sapien". All in an attempt to explain the existence of White people and their place in the Human family.
[For the uninitiated]: Neanderthal is the first Humanoid to exhibit anatomical changes that would suggest acclamation to cold climate, therefore perhaps a lightning of the skin. It is thought by some, that perhaps Cro-Magnon carried this forward, which is indeed possible. However, the mechanism by which White people became modern Humans like Africans, is still unknown, hence the games with Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon.
My advice to White people is rather than use your power over the worlds information systems to promote this trumped-up theory, why not simply wait, sooner or later, a discovery will be made that will connect the dots. No one argues that you are modern Humans (NOI aside), so what's the rush?
In any event, you are looking in the wrong place. You already know that modern White people evolved in the Eurasian Plains, so why are you messing around in Europe? Is this some misguided attempt to establish some sort of legitimacy in Europe? Who cares, you got it, you can keep it.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Here's why [note carefully the article's correct title]:
FIRST EUROPEANS AP, 2000 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.,
^ Now how about answering Djehuti's question - if you believe that the ancestors of Russians did not live in Russia 25 thousand years ago..... then pray tell - *where do you think they were at that time?* - Africa? Neptune?
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
Rasol – I can see that you are a bit overwrought on this subject
^ We can see you have no answer for the facts presented and will try to distract with nonsense.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Quetzalcoatl - Yes; I am sure you believe that. Over the years, I have watched with bemusement as White people have elevated Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon especially; from sub-human to Homo-Sapien and then creating the totally B.S. designation "Homo-Sapien-sapien". All in an attempt to explain the existence of White people and their place in the Human family.
[For the uninitiated]: Neanderthal is the first Humanoid to exhibit anatomical changes that would suggest acclamation to cold climate, therefore perhaps a lightning of the skin. It is thought by some, that perhaps Cro-Magnon carried this forward, which is indeed possible. However, the mechanism by which White people became modern Humans like Africans, is still unknown, hence the games with Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon.
My advice to White people is rather than use your power over the worlds information systems to promote this trumped-up theory, why not simply wait, sooner or later, a discovery will be made that will connect the dots. No one argues that you are modern Humans (NOI aside), so what's the rush?
In any event, you are looking in the wrong place. You already know that modern White people evolved in the Eurasian Plains, so why are you messing around in Europe? Is this some misguided attempt to establish some sort of legitimacy in Europe? Who cares, you got it, you can keep it.
This is not really about white people. The Africans who left East Africa to settle the rest of the world 90-60,000 years ago as well as those who stayed behind are all Homo sapiens sapiens. Cro-Magnons in Europe as well as humans all over the world, by whatever local name, are H.s.s. We are Hs.s. The people who migrated from Eurasia bringing agriculture to Europe are H.s.s.
Can you cite any physical anthropologist or geneticist who supports your position? To be clear in my mind-- Are you claiming that the inhabitants of Europe 40,000 years ago were not modern human beings, i.e. descendants of the Out of Africa exodus of people originally carrying haplotype L3?
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:One Writers Answer: (this article was really about Cave paintings, but the answer still fits).
^ Please name the source for whatever you are going to claim.
quote: Chimps and Man
Already this reply is a nonsensical distraction.
Peter Underhill's study of 1st Europeans has nothing to do with -chimps-.
For the 3rd time - you need to crack open and anthropology book.
Your replies only prove to others that you have *no* idea what you are talking about.
quote:Genetic analysis suggest that humans and chimps diverged four to eight million years ago; and that at least 98 percent of the human and chimpanzee genomes are identical. Chimpanzees are classified taxonomically as a single species, Pan troglodytes. (The so-called pygmy chimpanzee, or bonobo, is a distinct and separate species, P. paniscus.) Three subspecies of P. troglodytes have traditionally been recognized: the tschego, or Central African chimpanzee (P. t. troglodytes), also known as the common chimpanzee in continental Europe; the West African, or masked, chimpanzee, known as the common chimpanzee in Great Britain; and the East African, or long-haired, chimpanzee (P. t. schweinfurthii). A fourth subspecies, the Nigerian chimpanzee (P. t. vellerosus), has also been proposed. Many studies with these results have been done; therefore no particular study is cited.
^ Yes, and completely irrelevant to the topic of homo-sapiens.
quote:So it would seem that modern White Britons, and White Europeans in general, genetically have more in common with the chimpanzee than they do with Cro-Magnon Man
^ ??
You present and uncredited source, with and off topic quote, and then make and utterly looney remark that has nothing to do with your off topic citation.
For the last time: READ AND ANTHROPOLOGY BOOK.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Quetzalcoatl writes: [Mike] You are comparing apples and oranges. The 2% difference between humans and chimpanzees is looking at the total genome. The 20% difference, if its really valid, is comparing the mtDNA or y-chromosome markers between modern Britons and their presumed ancestors. Two quite different things.
Correct. But Mike's problem is that he is like someone attempting to comprehend algebra while not knowing arithmetics.
All Homo sapien start by being 99.8% genetically identical. The percentiles of differences are measured within the last 2 tenths of one percent of the genome.
The chimpanzee line split from the hominid line 5 to 7 million years ago.
It is by definition impossible therefore for any individual human being to be any closer or further away from a chimpanzee or any other non Homo Sapien.
Again - mathamatically every single human on earth has *exactly the same genetic distance as any other human* from any species that isn't human.
This might be a factor say - "3" for our closest relative the Chimp, 4 for a Gorilla, and say 10,000 for and ant, but the point is....the resultant number is always the same for any human being on earth.
If you crack open and anthropology book.... you will understand.
But Mike would rather argue, than learn, so here we are....
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Quetzalcoatl Quote - This is not really about white people. The Africans who left East Africa to settle the rest of the world 90-60,000 years ago as well as those who stayed behind are all Homo sapiens sapiens. Cro-Magnons in Europe as well as humans all over the world, by whatever local name, are H.s.s. We are Hs.s. The people who migrated from Eurasia bringing agriculture to Europe are H.s.s.
Can you cite any physical anthropologist or geneticist who supports your position? To be clear in my mind-- Are you claiming that the inhabitants of Europe 40,000 years ago were not modern human beings, i.e. descendants of the Out of Africa exodus of people originally carrying haplotype L3?
""The people who migrated from Eurasia bringing agriculture to Europe are H.s.s.""
You are out of your frigging mind!! Since when do illiterate Nomads bring anything but violence. For an answer to the rest of your questions: re-read my posts above, there is no ambiguity.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Quetzalcoatl Quote - This is not really about white people. The Africans who left East Africa to settle the rest of the world 90-60,000 years ago as well as those who stayed behind are all Homo sapiens sapiens. Cro-Magnons in Europe as well as humans all over the world, by whatever local name, are H.s.s. We are Hs.s. The people who migrated from Eurasia bringing agriculture to Europe are H.s.s.
Can you cite any physical anthropologist or geneticist who supports your position? To be clear in my mind-- Are you claiming that the inhabitants of Europe 40,000 years ago were not modern human beings, i.e. descendants of the Out of Africa exodus of people originally carrying haplotype L3?
""The people who migrated from Eurasia bringing agriculture to Europe are H.s.s.""
You are out of your frigging mind!! Since when do illiterate Nomads bring anything but violence. For an answer to the rest of your questions: re-read my posts above, there is no ambiguity.
Two points. 1) the people who brought agriculture to Europe by definition are not nomads but farmers. One of the latest studies places the start about 10,000 years ago in Eastern Asia. See:
Pinhasi, R., J. Fort, and A. J. Ammerman 2005 “Tracing the Origin and Spread of Agriculture in Europe,” Plos Biology 3(12) | e410
The origins of early farming and its spread to Europe have been the subject of major interest for some time. The main controversy today is over the nature of the Neolithic transition in Europe: the extent to which the spread was, for the most part, indigenous and animated by imitation (cultural diffusion) or else was driven by an influx of dispersing populations (demic diffusion). We analyze the spatiotemporal dynamics of the transition using radiocarbon dates from 735 early Neolithic sites in Europe, the Near East, and Anatolia. We compute great-circle and shortest-path distances from each site to 35 possible agricultural centers of origin—ten are based on early sites in the Middle East and 25 are hypothetical locations set at 58 latitude/longitude intervals. We perform a linear fit of distance versus age (and vice versa) for each center. For certain centers, high correlation coefficients (R . 0.8) are obtained. This implies that a steady rate or speed is a good overall approximation for this historical development. The average rate of the Neolithic spread over Europe is 0.6–1.3 km/y (95% confidence interval). This is consistent with the prediction of demic diffusion (0.6–1.1 km/y). An interpolative map of correlation coefficients, obtained by using shortest-path distances, shows that the origins of agriculture were most likely to have occurred in the northern Levantine/Mesopotamian area.
The second point is that nomadic hunter/gatherers are some of the least violent people around. Don't go by movies like 10,000 B.C.
You should really read some basic anthropology textbooks/
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Quetzalcoatl Quote - This is not really about white people. The Africans who left East Africa to settle the rest of the world 90-60,000 years ago as well as those who stayed behind are all Homo sapiens sapiens. Cro-Magnons in Europe as well as humans all over the world, by whatever local name, are H.s.s. We are Hs.s. The people who migrated from Eurasia bringing agriculture to Europe are H.s.s.
Can you cite any physical anthropologist or geneticist who supports your position? To be clear in my mind-- Are you claiming that the inhabitants of Europe 40,000 years ago were not modern human beings, i.e. descendants of the Out of Africa exodus of people originally carrying haplotype L3?
""The people who migrated from Eurasia bringing agriculture to Europe are H.s.s.""
You are out of your frigging mind!! Since when do illiterate Nomads bring anything but violence. For an answer to the rest of your questions: re-read my posts above, there is no ambiguity.
posted by Rasol on another thread:
By posting facts, you take other peoples hatreds and lunacy and turn it against them.....
The Origin of the Europeans; Combining Genetics and Archaeology, Scientists Rough Out Continent's 50,000-Year-Old Story
By NICHOLAS WADE
Some 6 percent of Europeans are descended from the continent's first founders, who entered Europe from the Near East in the Upper Paleolithic era 45,000 years ago, Dr. Richards calculates. The descendants of these earliest arrivals are still more numerous in certain regions of Europe that may have provided them with refuge from subsequent waves of immigration. One is the mountainous Basque country, where people still speak a language completely different from all other European languages. Another is in the European extreme of Scandinavia. Another 80 percent arrived 30,000 to 20,000 years ago, before the peak of the last glaciation, and 10 percent came in the Neolithic 10,000 years ago, when the ice age ended and agriculture was first introduced to Europe from the Near East.
It used to be thought that the most important human dispersals occurred in the Neolithic, prompted by the population increases made possible by the invention of agriculture. But it now seems that the world filled up early and the first inhabitants were quite resistant to displacement by later arrivals.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is what bothers me. People come to these forums to learn, but it seems that Marc came hear to promote his *ideology*. Why these people refuse to learn is beyond me. All what posters are saying to Marc and now Mike are the Facts. The only good thing about this schooling, is that I get to learn something New every time. But People Like Mike, and xyyman seem like they are smart enough to understand the Facts. The truth is that *Facts* don't change to serve your purpose. This is why I try and learn *ALL* truth without bias, I am open to any and all Truth. People need to free themselves from Bias, stop trying to force Truth to conform to your ideas, learn truth and accept it, don't fight against it. Credit to the posters in this thread for teaching, no matter what happens at least realize that people who have been following this thread have learned. One important *TRUTH* is that Europeans are majority Indeginous to Europe and the Neolithic Immigrants did not replace the Europeans as once thought. Europe's history is European, not African. Europe during the Neolithic gained African Genes and migrants, but not enough to replace the people who were first there.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Quetzalcoatl, Djehuti, rasol – There you have it: Kingfish – sorry I mean King, agrees with you. The case is now closed. Of course, exactly what he basses his opinion on is unknown, he didn’t say. But I’m sure it is something extra-ordinary.
But it does provide an abject lesson in what your people have done to AAs and others. Thought I’m sure you are laughing with glee, especially rasol, who is reported to be a South African. If you had any Humanity, you would instead be filled with shame, they are Human beings too – even before you.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Quetzalcoatl, Djehuti, rasol – By now you must have seen what happened to the “North Africa and Egypt” thread on the Egyptology board. Do you “Really” want to be a part of that? Is fooling the simple-minded and gullible, really worth your own sense of self-worth? Think of how you see the moderators after such a deed, would you like to be seen as such a pathetic creature that you can’t even stand to have someone truthfully detail your own ethnic background? If you did, what does that say about who you really are?
Trying to hide the truth is a road that leads to nowhere, the information that I posted about the ethnic make-up of the middle-east and North Africa isn’t a secret, careful reading of any good encyclopedia produces the same information. The only possible benefit is in continuing to fool the simple-minded, but hell, you never had anything to fear from them in the first place, so why bother?
Instead, let us pursue truthful research into what happened in prehistoric Europe. As you know, that information is closely guarded in European circles, but the possibility exists for information from Russia, that is where I am looking.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
My post speaks for itself, I said what I said, reread my post, From this thread like I said, Europe did not have a big demographic shift in it's population during the Neolithic. This debunks anyones arguement that Europe's population was "Changed" because of the Neolithic migrants. It says in the post by Quetzalcoatl that europeans are 10% from the neolithic. You attack me and make fun of my name because I see the Facts in the other posters posts as truth. I should believe your foolish views which have been refuted and just accept it as facts?
Why not refute what quetzalcoatl has posted instead of making offtopic attacks.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also Mike no matter how you try and twist and distort truth to serve your stupid agenda, Europes history is European, *NOT* African. Keep that in mind when you post from now on.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's always good to see that things don't change around this forum. When peoples ideology are challenged and the facts refute there arguements, these people are quick to pick at something to change the topic of the thread. Attack a poster instead of attacking the post of the Facts they don't like.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What a shame RW&B C put a lot of work and effort into that thread to have it just blown away. Why bother to do other than chat here when if you after you take the time to present a researched essay someone less able than you is the big boss who will rip it up and flush it.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: By now you must have seen what happened to the “North Africa and Egypt” thread on the Egyptology board. Do you “Really” want to be a part of that? ... Think of how you see the moderators after such a deed, ...
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: What a shame RW&B C put a lot of work and effort into that thread to have it just blown away. Why bother to do other than chat here when if you after you take the time to present a researched essay someone less able than you is the big boss who will rip it up and flush it.
posted
I really don't know. RW&B+C made one of his usual threads based a little on trailblazing research marred by a lot of bad pseudo-archaeology. It did have a few nourishing tidbits. He got a few response and I guess things eventually got out of hand enough that Lazy Chicken the moderator threw out baby, dirty water, and the whole damn tub too.
Little remainders of it can be GOOGLEd keying site:egyptsearch.com connections north west africa egypt.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: What a shame RW&B C put a lot of work and effort into that thread to have it just blown away. Why bother to do other than chat here when if you after you take the time to present a researched essay someone less able than you is the big boss who will rip it up and flush it.
I never read the thread.
What happened?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic