posted
In light of the nonsensical threads on outrageous topics (such as europeans being new to europe since the 5th century) its clear that the people starting these threads are looking for attention and not for serious intellectual inquiry.
They post their fringe theories and photoshopped spam in hope of some dopes on here "taking the bait" and not just those they agree with.
It seems they thrive off of the negative attention you give them rasol. When we give them what they want (attention positive or negative) it encourages them.
If the intelligent, serious posters simply ignored their threads I think they would eventually stop as they would no longer receive the stimluation and attention they desire.
Ofcourse they will see this thread but it matters not because sooner or later they will get the message.
Posts: 426 | From: Cali-for-nia | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Below is a research paper by Ellen Levy-Coffman; which dissects and discredits the work of those pathetic White Boys and Girls who use science and their stature as scientist to desperately try to hold on to their self-generated myth of a White prehistoric past in Europe. They try to do this by purposefully using inappropriate samples, and then purposefully misinterpreting the results of their already dishonest data. But even with all of those efforts to lie and mislead, the proof of the pudding, is in how easily the lies are detected and exposed.
My posting is of what I consider pertinent excerpts, the complete paper can be found here..
If you wish to read the entire text, be forewarned, the authors writing style is a bit awkward, and it does require some knowledge of White peoples lives in their former homeland (the Eurasian Plains). As well as, some knowledge of the first Whites to venture out of the plains; the Scythians and the Arians. Ms. Levy-Coffman is I believe, White: We can only wonder what she DOESN’T say.
So how pathetic is it that the Negroes in academia are so worried about keeping their jobs, that they don’t do this kind of research and analysis.
We Are Not Our Ancestors: Evidence for Discontinuity between Prehistoric and Modern Europeans
Ellen Levy-Coffman
The model of European genetic ancestry has recently shifted away from the Neolithic diffusion model towards an emphasis on autochthonous Paleolithic origins. However, this new paradigm utilizes genetic reconstructions based primarily on contemporary populations and, furthermore, is often promoted without regard to the findings of ancient DNA studies. These ancient DNA studies indicate that contemporary European ancestry is not a living fossil of the Paleolithic maternal demographic; rather, demographic events during the Neolithic and post-Neolithic periods appear to have had substantial impact on the European genetic record. In addition, evolutionary processes, including genetic drift, adaptive selection and disease susceptibility, may have altered the patterns of maternal lineage frequency and distribution in existing populations. As a result, the genetic history of Europe has undergone significant transformation over time, resulting in genetic discontinuity between modern-day Europeans and their ancient maternal forbearers.
Thus, the picture presented by this model is one of substantial genetic continuity between modern groups and the Paleolithic hunter-gatherers who inhabited the same region thousands of years ago.
Yet the DNA evidence suggests a more complex picture than a direct and undisturbed genetic link between contemporary Europeans and their Paleolithic forbearers. A significant and as of yet unexplained genetic discontinuity exists between present and past populations. Since the recent advent of techniques allowing the extraction of DNA from ancient remains (“aDNA”), in particular mtDNA, the actual genetic background of the ancient maternal inhabitants of Europe can now be compared to their contemporary counterparts. Rather than using contemporary European DNA to reconstruct the genetic histories of populations from the past, this new technique allows researchers to determine to what extent later European populations truly do retain the genetic legacy of the earlier group.
In contrast to the Paleolithic paradigm, these studies indicate an unexpected and significant genetic discontinuity exists between contemporary Europeans and their Paleolithic predecessors. They also suggest that the exclusive use of contemporary DNA samples in the reconstruction of earlier population histories has created a misleading picture of the European genetic legacy.
Various demographic and evolutionary mechanisms may have led to this genetic break with the past, including the strong likelihood of genetic contributions from migratory peoples that occurred during the Neolithic, and into the Bronze and Iron Ages. This gene flow may have been so significant that genetic signals from the earlier inhabitants of Europe have been all but obliterated, even amounting to wholesale population replacement. Founder effects, genetic drift and bottlenecks also have had a dramatic impact. In addition, Darwinian principles of natural selection and resistance against disease may have changed the face of Europe over time, causing certain genetic groups to disappear while others have come to dominate the genetic landscape. These events, either alone or in combination, have resulted in a striking genetic discontinuity between past and present populations.
As a result, contemporary Europeans should not be viewed as descending entirely or even significantly from either Neolithic farmers or the indigenous Paleolithic inhabitants of Europe. Rather, Europeans appear to be an entirely new and modern genetic mix formed as a result of a number of demographic and evolutionary events over time, including the continual movement of peoples across the European continent over the millennia.
Nor did the authors address the possibility of a post-Neolithic replacement scenario, noting only that “[a]rchaeological evidence for such an event is as of yet scant.” Yet large-scale movement of peoples throughout Europe is recorded in both the archaeological record and numerous historical accounts. Given the lack of genetic continuity between modern Europeans and Paleolithic samples as evidenced by other aDNA studies, impact from post-Neolithic migrations is not only reasonable but highly likely.
Intermixture between Paleolithic and Neolithic peoples is further supported by the fact that burial orientation also correlated with place of origin. (Price 2001) This intermixture becomes especially apparent at Schwetzingen, at site also tested by Haak and representing the later phase of the LBK, when the process of contact between the farmers and hunter-gatherers appears to become more complex. At Schwetzingen, all but two of the immigrant burials are oriented in directions from north to east. At Flomborn, 4 of the 5 west-facing burials were of immigrants. Yet in Haak’s samples, the Flomborn and Derenburg individuals were buried in an East-West direction, while in Halberstadt, the burial orientation was West-East. One study suggested that immigrant brides may have been incorporated into the community and given a local identity, including burial in a northeastern direction. (Bentley 2003)
The failure of Haak’s genetic study to incorporate important archaeological data along with other ancient DNA results leaves the question of N1a’s ultimate origins unanswered. Nor is the mystery of N1a’s disappearance among Europeans today adequately addressed. The idea that N1a represents a Neolithic farming lineage that failed to impart a genetic legacy is not supported by the evidence. Based on the limited N1a findings, Haak made a sweeping generalization that the Neolithic farmers overall failed to have a significant genetic impact on Europe. But the evidence suggests a much more complex picture, even the possibility that N1a may represent a Paleolithic European lineage that has mysteriously diminished over time.
Conclusion: Why We Are Not Our Ancestors
The ancient DNA studies present a picture of genetic break or “discontinuity” between ancient and modern-day European maternal histories. This evidence indicates that modern-day mtDNA haplogroup frequencies and distributions should not be considered living fossils of Europe’s Paleolithic past.
Currently, the genetic picture presented by the aDNA studies is based exclusively on mitochondrial DNA results. This form of DNA, unlike that of the Y chromosome, is generally preserved in a form that allows for testing of ancient remains. However, the Y chromosome genetic picture of Europe may also have undergone significant change similar to that impacting the ancient maternal lineages. The ancient DNA results provide a cautionary framework for geneticists in their reconstruction of the distribution and frequency of ancient European Y chromosome lineages. Modern-day Europeans cannot accurately be used as genetic proxies for their prehistoric counterparts.
These findings stand in stark contrast to the model presented by many DNA studies of an undisturbed genetic link between contemporary and Paleolithic European groups. Yet evidence of such genetic continuity is sparse, even among populations such as the Basque. More problematically, it contradicts the findings of the ancient DNA studies. These studies indicate that populations have indeed changed dramatically over time, with some ancient lineages suffering reductions and even extinctions from the European gene pool.
Extinction appears to be the fate suffered by the Etruscans maternal lineages. Many other ancient groups appear to have suffered a similar fate, the continuity of their genetic lineages extinguished for future generations. Only the archaeological record remains a testament to their existence. Certain genetic lineages, like mtDNA haplogroup H, came to dominate the genetic landscape over time. The contemporary European genetic picture is thus a reflection of these complex demographic and evolutionary processes, changing and adapting until it is no longer a mere reflection of its genetic past, but a new and constantly evolving population.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mmmkay, you don't seem to understand that Rasol's ego cannot allow theories no matter how wild to go unchallenged as he has to prove that he is of superior intellect and can "refute" them. Hence the long winded spamming between himself and Washington in some other thread. LOL However as Mike has shown academic studies about the origins of man and populations are constantly being revised and updated so I see nothing wrong with healthy debate when both sides present evidence and compare. We can only learn from them. But what I find fascinating is that "recent" studies, whether on crania or genetics, only confirm what scholars such as Dr. Ben and Diop had said long ago.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh Jesus, I hope you are not being contrary. I mean whether the origins of man, peopling of the world, southern origins of Egypt, African phenotypic diversity etc you name it contemporary (ie late 90s to present) studies like Keita, Brace, et al have all confirmed them.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alive-(What Box) - I see that you have taken it upon yourself to bring logic and order to the board. That is very commendable, however you might need to do some homework first.
Any master of logic must know that the term "indigenous" must necessarily be relative to a time-frame; otherwise Africans would be the only undisputed indigenous people.
On the Topic: This nonsense has to end. You let slip that you don't always actually read the posts. Then how are you to learn anything, and how are you going to give a logical and reasoned response?
But most surprising and disappointing, is you asked the question: If 'modern whites' somehow aren't European, who are they and where do they come from?
How could you possibly NOT know that? There have been innumerable posts on this board, which clearly identify the origin of White people. It seems your habit of not actually reading posts thoroughly has a price, continued ignorance.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mmmkay - So Occams Razor is you new favorite toy? That's nice. But you need to get a few things straight: MY time-frame for Whites entering Europe is straight from the Encyclopedia, I can't speak for anyone else.
As you have no doubt seen, I have little patience with intellectually lazy Negroes, But intellectually lazy Whites like you, are another story. I like you, I think that you are fine just the way you are, so therefore I will educate you. But please don't be like you-know-who, try actually reading the material. Rather then use my own material, I just did a yahoo search for "Eurasian" naturally there were millions of hits, I will post just two. BTW - Eurasian Plains and Eurasian Steppes mean the same. If there are any White people left out in the material below, just do a yahoo search of your own. Happy Reading!
Eurasian nomads From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Eurasian nomads are a large group of peoples of the Eurasian Steppe. This generic title encompasses the ethnic groups inhabiting the steppes of Central Asia, Mongolia, and Eastern Europe. They domesticated the horse, and their economy and culture emphasizes horse breeding and horse riding. They developed the chariot, cavalry, and horse archery, introducing innovations such as the bridle, bit, and stirrup, and often appear in history as invaders of Europe, Anatolia, and China. Horse people is a generalized and somewhat obsolete term for such nomads. The Roman army hired Sarmatians as elite cavalrymen. Europe was exposed to several waves of invasions by horse people, from the Cimmerians in the 8th century BC, down to the Migration period, and the Mongols and Seljuks in the High Middle Ages, and the Kalmuks and the Kazakhs down into modern times. The earliest example of an invasion by a horse people may have been by the Proto-Indo-Europeans themselves, following the domestication of the horse in the 4th millennium BC (see Kurgan hypothesis). Cimmerian is the first invasion of equestrian steppe nomads that we can grasp from historical sources. The "Huns" of the Migration period were not a single ethnicity, but a conglomerate of Mongolian, Turkic, Iranian and Germanic and Slavic warbands. Hermannus Contractus in the entry for the year 379 in his Chronicon lists Gothos, Hunnos, Alanosque as virtual synonyms. The concept of "horse people" was of some importance in 19th century scholarship, in connection with the rediscovery of Germanic pagan culture by Romanticism (see Viking revival), which idealized the Goths in particular as a heroic horse-people. J. R. R. Tolkien's Rohirrim may be seen as an idealized Germanic people influenced by these romantic notions. These peoples gave rise to the myth of the Amazons from the practise of some women being horse archers. They can be divided into several large groups, on linguistic grounds: · Indo-European o Proto-Indo-Europeans (Chalcolithic/Bronze Age) o Indo-Iranians (Bronze Age/Iron Age) § Indo-Aryans § Iranians · Altaic o Mongols o Tungusic o Turkic · Uralic o Ugric (Magyar) o Finnic Chronological list: · Iron Age/Classical Antiquity o Cimmerians | Issedones / Wusun | Parthians / Parni | Saka / Issedones / Massagetae / Scythians / Sarmatians | Sigynnae | Yuezhi / Hephthalites · Migration period o Alans | Avars | Gepids | Goths | Huns | Rugians | Xiongnu · Middle Ages o Bashkirs | Burtas | Bulgars | Jurchen | Kalmuks | Khazars | Kimaks | Kipchaks | Magyars | Mongols | Nogais | Petchenegs | Seljuks | Slavs | Tartars · Modern times o Kalmuks | Kazakhs | Kyrgyz | Qaraqalpaqs
The Mysterious Scythians Burst Into History
"Behold, the eyes of the Lord God are on the sinful kingdom, and I will destroy it from the face of the earth; yet I will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob, says the Lord" (Amos 9:8). · Key historical clues · The Scythians' sudden appearance · A Scythian tribal alliance emerges · Scythian origins · Links to biblical prophecy · The Sythian-Celtic connection · The language link · Scythian-Celtic interaction
When the northern kingdom of Israel suffered destruction at the hands of the Assyrians, its people found themselves forced into exile. Yet God had promised they would survive to become some of the world's major powers in the last days.
Where did they go from there? How can we find them?
Tracing the ancestry of ancient peoples is an extremely difficult task. Archaeologists, historians and distinguished professors in famous universities often differ on the interpretation of artifacts and historical documents.
This is because full knowledge of any ancient people's origins is almost always clouded by the mists of time. This is especially true when written records have vanished, been destroyed or never existed. Therefore, to deter-mine what happened to the ancient Israelites, we must carefully compare the available historical and archaeological evidence to the history and prophecies in the Bible.
Archaeologists and historical researchers have accumulated a substantial base of information we can fit together as pieces of the historical puzzle. The more pieces on the table, the easier it is to accurately connect the information. By assembling enough parts we can obtain a reasonably good picture of the past.
(back to top)
Key historical clues
Historians accept that most of the ancestors of today's Western democracies once lived as nomadic tribes roaming the vast grassland plains of antiquity known as the Eurasian steppes.
One particular group of these migratory peoples, identified as Scythians by the Greeks, suddenly appeared on the Eurasian steppes about the same time the 10 tribes of Israel disappeared from history. Is there a connection? Here are some of the more pertinent facts and discoveries concerning the two peoples.
The vast Eurasian steppes stretch some 4,350 miles from the base of the Carpathian Mountains in Europe to Mongolia in eastern Asia. They formed a single geographic unit of natural grassland that every spring were transformed into spectacular seas of wildflowers stretching as far as the eye could see.
This vast plain was perfectly suited to a ranching and grain-raising economy.
Archaeologists have discovered ample evidence to prove that, in antiquity, nomadic tribes regularly traversed it while following grazing herds and flocks in great cyclical routes during the spring, summer and fall.
However, climatic changes about 2,000 years ago turned large sections of the central-Asian steppes into a desert waste. It became so dry that it could no longer support the earlier pastoral way of life practiced from 2,700 to 2,100 years ago (Tamara Talbot Rice, The Scythians, 1961, p. 33).
(back to top)
The Scythians' sudden appearance
Some modern scholars suggest three theories to explain the sudden and mysterious appearance of the Scythians in the steppe region adjacent to the Black Sea. Some believe they migrated there from the north, others from the east. A third opinion suggests the migrations came from the south.
Although the geographic origins of the Scythian people are hotly debated, evidence for the time of their first appearance in history is not. They suddenly appeared at the same time and near the same area of the Israelites' disappearance.
The Encyclopaedia Britannica says: "The Scythians were a people who during the 8th-7th centuries BC moved from Central Asia to southern Russia" (15th edition, Vol. 16, macropaedia, "Scythians," p. 438). The Encyclopedia Americana explains that the Scythians first occupied the territory around the Black Sea around 700 B.C. and that, from their first beginnings, they presented a "cohesive political entity" (Vol. 24, 2000 edition, "Scythians," p. 471).
Historian Tamara Talbot Rice confirms that "the Scythians did not become a recognizable national entity much before the eighth century B.C. ... By the seventh century B.C. they had established themselves firmly in southern Russia ... And analogous tribes, possibly even related clans, though politically entirely distinct and independent, were also centred on the Altai (where the eastern border of Russia meets the western border of Mongolia and China) ...
"Assyrian documents place their appearance there (between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea) in the time of King Sargon (722-705 B.C.), a date which closely corresponds with that of the establishment of the first group of Scythians in southern Russia" (Rice, pp. 19-20, 44). This date also corresponds with the disappearance of the captives from Israel's northern kingdom.
During the late eighth century B.C., records from the Caucasian kingdom of Urartu, which controlled the northern reaches of the Euphrates River, also noted the appearance of a group called Cimmerians.
The book From the Lands of the Scythians explains: "... Two groups, Cimmerians and Scythians, seem to be referred to in Urartean and Assyrian texts, but it is not always clear whether the terms indicate two distinct peoples or simply mounted nomads ... Beginning in the second half of the eighth century B.C., Assyrian sources refer to nomads identified as the Cimmerians; other Assyrian sources say these people were present in the land of the Mannai (or Mannea, south of Lake Urmia) and in Cappadocia for a hundred years (that is, about 750 to 650 B.C.), and record their advances into Asia Minor and Egypt.
"The Assyrians used Cimmerians in their army as mercenaries; a legal document of 679 B.C. refers to an Assyrian 'commander of the Cimmerian regiment'; but in other Assyrian documents they are called 'the seed of runaways who know neither vows to the gods nor oaths'" (Boris Piotrovsky, 1975, pp. 15, 18).
Historian Samuel Lysons spoke of "the Cimmerians seeming to be the same people as the Gauls or Celts under a different name" (John Henry and James Parker, Our British Ancestors: Who and What Were They?, 1865, pp. 23, 27).
Anne Kristensen, a respected Danish linguistic scholar, recently reached the conclusion that the Cimmerians (who later became known as the Celts) can positively be identified as the deported Israelites. In the beginning of her research Dr. Kristensen was skeptical and subscribed to the traditional theory that the Cimmerians were "Aryan" tribes the Scythians had chased out of the north, as Herodotus had theorized.
But, as she dug more and more into the Assyrian sources, she found the Cimmerians first appeared in history in 714 B.C. in the region of Iran south of Armenia where the kings of Assyria had settled many of the deported Israelites. She came to the conclusion that the Gimira, or Cimmerians, represented at least a part of the lost 10 tribes of Israel.
Dr. Kristensen writes: "There is scarcely reason, any longer, to doubt the exciting and verily astonishing assertion propounded by the students of the Ten Tribes that the Israelites deported from Bit Humria, of the House of 'Omri, are identical with the Gimirraja of the Assyrian sources. Everything indicates that Israelite deportees did not vanish from the picture but that, abroad, under new conditions, they continued to leave their mark on history" (Who Were the Cimmerians, and Where Did They Come From?: Sargon II, the Cimmerians, and Rusa I, translated from the Danish by Jørgen Læssøe, The Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters, No. 57, 1988, pp. 126-127).
It is also worth noting that Assyrian crown prince Sennacherib wrote a secret intelligence report that archaeologists found during the excavation of the royal archives at Nineveh. Sennacherib's report passed on news from his spies that Cimmerian nomads had invaded Urartu and had defeated their forces. On the strength of that report the Assyrians made preparations to invade their northern rival, Urartu, which they successfully accomplished in 714 B.C.
(back to top)
A Scythian tribal alliance emerges
But in the end it was the Scythians who profited most from the conflicts that weakened Urartu. By 700 B.C. the Scythians had gained control over the territory of the old Urartean kingdom. There they formed a tribal alliance the Greeks called the Scythian Kingdom.
Using the central Kreuzberg Pass (also known as the Caucasus Gate), the Scythians mastered crossing the steep Caucasus Mountains. The pass was passable most of the year; it was relatively ice-free even though its elevation is higher than many passes in the Alps.
The Scythians had a remarkable ability to move large armies back and forth through the pass. In antiquity it was even known as the "Scythian route."
Before their exile the 10 Israelite tribes of the north would have been fully aware of the kingdom of Urartu and its strategic location. Why? Because in the first half of the eighth century B.C. the northern kingdom of Israel, before its captivity, was heavily invested in export-import trade, and Urartu was a key to that trade. Urartu had made an alliance with the small states of northern Syria that bordered on the territory of Israel during the reign of Jeroboam II.
Many of those Aramaeans had been allied with King Pekah during his invasion of Judah around 735 B.C. During that time the Urarteans had gained the strategic domination of the Euphrates down to its western bend, allowing them to control the main trade route to the Mediterranean from the southern Caucasus. Archaeological excavations in Urartu have uncovered artifacts from Egypt, Assyria and Persia as well as from the Mediterranean region.
(back to top)
Scythian origins
The term Scythic, wrote historian George Rawlinson, was originally more the designation of a way of life than a reference to blood relationships. He explained that the term was "applied by the Greeks and Romans to Indo-European and Turanian races indifferently," providing that their habits and customs conformed to the nomadic way of life (George Rawlinson, Seven Great Monarchies, Vol. 3, 1884, p. 11).
Today, however, historians use the term Scythian mostly in reference to the Saka, or Sacae, Scyths. These people became the leading tribes of the Scythian culture. They inspired its dynamic way of life and its political, artistic, economic and social leadership. From the seventh century B.C. forward, it was the Saka, or Sacae, tribes that defined what it meant to be Scythian from the Black Sea all the way to the mountains of Mongolia.
Before the early 20th century, European and American historians assumed the Scythians were of the Mongol people from Asia. Modern anthropological research, however, has shown this idea to be false. Most scholars are convinced that no ethnic links exist between the Saka Scythians and the Mongols or the Slavic peoples.
However, this doesn't mean the scattered former tribes on the Eurasian steppes-the peoples the Greeks first labeled Scythians before the eighth century B.C.-all suddenly disappeared. Rather, the Saka Scyths simply began to dominate the steppe region from 700 to 500 B.C. During that time the Saka Scyths-accompanied by a smaller mixture of other tribes of Middle Eastern origin such as displaced Medes, Elamites and Assyrians-became the predominant peoples on the Eurasian plains.
In fact, until sometime in the fifth or fourth century B.C. the predominant inhabitants of even western Siberia were "a fair-haired people of European origin, and ... it was after that date that an influx of Mongoloids resulted in a very mixed type of population" (Rice, p. 77). Close examination of 20th-century archaeological discoveries plainly and consistently portray the Saka Scythians as physically like the present-day people of Europe.
(back to top)
Links to biblical prophecy
Let's compare what we have learned to the promises God made to the exiled Israelites. Addressing them as the "house of Isaac" (Amos 7:16), He promised that during their captivity they would not be destroyed as a people (Amos 9:8,14; compare Hosea 11:9; 14:4-7). Instead He promised to greatly multiply them after their exile (Hosea 1:10) and show them loving-kindness and mercy because of His covenant.
The Scriptures plainly tell us that the Israelites, after the Assyrians forcibly deported them from their homeland, relocated "in Halah, on the Habor, the river of Gozan (in northern Assyria), and in the cities of the Medes" (2Kings 18:11). This is not far from the region of Urartu, between the Black and Caspian seas, where the Scythians had established a temporary kingdom.
Through Hosea God had foretold that the Israelites would become "wanderers among the nations" (Hosea 9:17). This explains why the exiled Israelites seem to have vanished as a people. They didn't really vanish; they simply reappeared in history under new names-as a vagabond people, separated into independent clans, wandering over the Eurasian plains.
Obviously no one could any longer identify them as citizens of their former Middle Eastern kingdom. So they acquired a new identity. Only their old subtribal, or clan, names remained mostly the same. Those names have proven to be important in preserving their identity as the lost 10 tribes of Israel. (Be sure to read "Linguistic Links: What's in a Name?," page 30.)
(back to top)
The Sythian-Celtic connection
At the same general time the Scythians burst on the scene around the Black Sea, another civilization was emerging to the west in Europe. In his book The Ancient World of the Celts historian Peter Ellis notes: "At the start of the first millennium BC, a civilisation which had developed from its Indo-European roots around the headwaters of the Rhine, the Rhône and the Danube suddenly erupted in all directions through Europe. Their advanced use of metalwork, particularly their iron weapons, made them a powerful and irresistible force. Greek merchants, first encountering them in the sixth century BC, called them Keltoi and Galatai ... Today we generally identify them as Celts" (1999, p. 9.).
Considerable evidence connects the Celts of Europe with the Cimmerians who fled from the Near East to Asia Minor at the time the armies of Babylon were conquering the Assyrian Empire. From Asia Minor the Cimmerians migrated by way of the Danube River into Europe, where they became known as the Celts. Many historians have concluded that the Celts and Scythians have a common background.
The Greeks and Romans called all people beyond the northern boundaries of the old Roman Republic and the Greek city-states barbarians. They used the term to describe foreigners who dared challenge their political and cultural leadership, regardless of how educated or technologically advanced they might have been. These people represented many extended-family clans known by a variety of names. Among them, no doubt, were clans of unrelated ethnic origin that had fled from eastern territories of the old Assyrian Empire at about the same time.
But the more significant fact is that many, if not most, of these so-called barbarian tribes were racially and culturally related. For that reason we should expect that the language of these related tribes could be traced to a common parent language-and that is exactly what we find.
(back to top)
The language link
Languages are identified by families. The language family common to the Northwestern European people falls within what is classified as the Germanic branch of Indo-European languages. The history of the Indo-European language family provides us with excellent clues to the relationships between the barbarian tribes that engendered the Northwestern European democracies.
When we look at the nations of Europe we see delineated nation-state boundaries with distinctly different languages such as English, French, Danish and Swedish as well as localized dialects (such as High and Low German). However, in the days of these so-called barbarians such obvious distinctions did not exist. The people settling Northwestern Europe at that time spoke mainly different dialects of the same parent language.
English is part of the Indo-European family of languages that is usually broadly labeled as Teutonic or Germanic. But such labeling does not imply that the modern German language (German) is the parent language or that the German people came from the same ethnic stock as the Scythians. To the contrary, modern German is only one branch of the original parent language. The same is true of the English, Danish, Dutch and Scandinavian languages. All are branches of one original language.
As Cambridge University professor H. Munro Chadwick explains: "Down to the fifth century the German, English and Scandinavian languages differed but slightly from one another ... In the fifth and following centuries differentiation took place very quickly within the north-western group. English developed in general on lines about midway between German and Scandinavian, but with many special features of its own. Frisian (Dutch) seems to have differed little from English for a long time ... The differentiation of the languages was obviously governed by their geographical position" (The Nationalities of Europe and the Growth of National Ideologies, 1966, p. 145).
If we go back 500 years from the point when the Teutonic languages began to differentiate, we discover that great swaths of northern, western and eastern Europeans spoke similar dialects of a common Indo-European language. When scholars try to pin a label on a particular European barbarian tribe as being Germanic or Celtic or Scythian, they often find themselves in a quandary: Distinctions are often unclear and can easily become arbitrary.
The ancient Romans rarely bothered to learn barbarian languages, preferring to use interpreters. They couldn't tell the difference between the language spoken in Gaul and that spoken on the other side of the Rhine. So Latin writers habitually began to label barbarian tribes east of the Rhine as the "Germani," lumping them into one group.
Some modern archaeologists, however, describe the dominant people of Northern Europe during the period ca. 500 B.C. as broadly divided between Celts and Scytho-Teutons. Even this distinction was more geographic and cultural than ethnic.
The farther back in history we go the less distinction we find between the Celtic and Teutonic peoples who settled Western and Northwestern Europe.
Professor Chadwick writes: "In any discussion as to the origin of the Teutonic (or Germanic) languages it must of course be borne in mind that these languages are merely a branch of the Indo-European languages ... and consequently that their original home-as distinct from the area in which they acquired their special characteristics-was that of the whole Indo-European family. The same remark applies to the Celtic languages ... No one doubts that these languages, or rather the parent language from which they are derived, were once limited to a much smaller area than that of their present distribution" (Chadwick, p. 157).
These people burst into view along the edge of the old Assyrian Empire in the last half of the eighth century B.C.-at the same time and in the same area where the lost 10 tribes of Israel disappeared. Until about the fourth century A.D. their dialects of a common language remained similar enough for them to easily communicate with each other.
Scythians and Celts are closely related by language. But were the Celts a distinct people unrelated to the Scythians? Or are there indications of a strong relationship between them?
(back to top)
Scythian-Celtic interaction
Historians and archaeologists report that during the second half of the first millennium B.C. the area of Europe north of the Mediterranean world shared two related cultures. From the British Isles to the headwaters of the Danube to the eastern fringe of the Alps existed what historians label as the Hallstatt Celtic culture and, later, the La Tène Celtic culture.
But further east, occupying a vast area of Eastern Europe, was the strong horse-centered traditional Scythic culture based on a way of life suited to grasslands rather than mountains and forests. Each of these provided ideas and inspiration for the other. According to the archaeological evidence, the two groups freely intermarried.
The separate Celtic and Scythian cultures interacted with each other much like modern Britain and America. Each was adapted to the geography of its own region. But the people themselves interacted as if they shared an ancestry.
Archaeologists have uncovered some remarkable sites of Celtic and Scythian cultures that demonstrate how closely the two peoples worked with each other (see "The Geography of Celtic-Scythian Commerce," page 27).
The distinction between Scythian and Celtic cultures is probably best explained by two factors. First, the geography supporting each culture was generally different. But, equally important, 10 Israelite tribes were exiled from the Middle East. Each of these had its own culture within the larger culture of Israel's northern kingdom. Also, each tribe was further subdivided into clans (1Samuel 10:19; compare Exodus 6:14-25, NIV).
Therefore, one would expect these exiled Israelite tribes to continue exhibiting some cultural differences in the lands of their exile. Such distinctions would also explain the clans and subclans existing among the Scythians and Celts.
Israeli Talmudic scholar Yair Davidy, in his book The Tribes: The Israelite Origins of Western Peoples, presents convincing evidence that the displaced Israelites retained their subtribal clan names during and after their captivity.
"Proofs adduced," he writes, "are derived from Biblical, Talmudic, Historical, Archaeological, and Linguistic sources as well as Folklore, Mythology, National Symbols, and National Characteristics" (1993, p. xiv). As a resident of Jerusalem, Mr. Davidy had access to the historical and biblical sources on the shelves of Jerusalem's National Library.
Tribal and subtribal names, he points out, are a key to tracing the Israelites' wanderings. In his introduction he summarizes his conclusion: "'The Tribes' produces evidence that most of the ancient Israelites assimilated to foreign cultures and forgot their origins. In the course of time they reached the British Isles and north-west Europe whence related nations (such as the U.S.A.) were founded" (ibid.).
For thorough coverage of this aspect of Israel's migratory history we refer you directly to his books The Tribes: The Israelite Origins of Western Peoples (1993) and Lost Israelite Identity (1996).
Between 200 B.C. and A.D. 500 enemy tribes and drastic climatic changes drove the Scythian clans from the Eurasian steppes to the northern and western regions of Europe. For another 1,000 years the former Scythians were alternately allies and enemies in feudal Europe under a variety of clan names. This lasted until modern nations as we know them began to take shape in Europe.
In the next chapter we pick up the amazing story of the scattered descendants of ancient Israel rising to the international prominence that God had long ago promised to the offspring of Joseph.
quote:Yet the DNA evidence suggests a more complex picture than a direct and undisturbed genetic link between contemporary Europeans and their Paleolithic forbearers.
No kidding.
quote: A significant and as of yet unexplained genetic discontinuity exists between present and past populations.
...these studies indicate an unexpected and significant genetic discontinuity exists between contemporary Europeans and their Paleolithic predecessors.
quote:These findings stand in stark contrast to the model presented by many DNA studies of an undisturbed genetic link between contemporary and Paleolithic European groups. Yet evidence of such genetic continuity is sparse, even among populations such as the Basque. More problematically, it contradicts the findings of the ancient DNA studies. These studies indicate that populations have indeed changed dramatically over time, with some ancient lineages suffering reductions and even extinctions from the European gene pool.
Something 'smells fishy' here. It definitely smells like a misleading artical written by a politically driven person with an agenda.
I have read about a Eurasian invasion of European farmers.
Do you agree with the following from Brace:
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
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.
- C.L. Brace
Oh, and I was going to ask you for the data in support of the article's assertions, since you were the one that made the claim, but I clicked on the provided link and it's chalk full of sources.
So I'll investigate.
Plus, given your interpretation of the above, you probably either haven't read the information, don't understand it, or can't provide any supporting citations so I figure why bother.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alive-(What Box)- "or can't provide any supporting citations so I figure why bother".
Are you serious?? I am citing an article written by someone else, why would I need to provide supporting citations? You are new to this.
BTW - For anyone who actually read the above articles, the quote in the Wiki piece "They developed the chariot" you gotta know to ignore that. Sumerians invented the wheel, you have to figure that they had a wagon to use it with. White people always lie about something. Those thinking of the character in the BC comic - forget it.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mmmkay – You didn’t read the post did you! Either that or you don’t know the names of the original White tribes. Because the Wiki piece clearly identifies where they come from, the only major people missing are the Hellenes, I told you what to do in the case that some were missing. Your quote: “Purposeless babblement on the Scythians” One is an encyclopedia article, the other is a scholarly piece from a respected religious organization; you ARE full of yourself!
You wrote: Your above post illustates nothing. Have have'nt made a single point and have'nt addressed the issue. That is: ---> Europeans are recent immigrants since the 5th century and not native to europe.
I never said anything about the 5th century: BUT if you had actually read the material above, you would have found that the articles CLEARLY indicate that the people being discussed were of the Eurasian plains.
You wrote: BTW I'm black lol.
Mmmkay – You broke my heart, you friggin broke my heart: Until you came along, there I was feeling like the only dumb-asses in the world, were young Negro males. Then you came along, and I thought: Hey he’s dumb, and he seems White! Halleluiah – White people have the same problem. Hell, I was even doing a Snoopy dance in the Daisy’s. And now you tell me this; What in the world am I to do now? You know what Kay, I will NOT accept your being Black, I insist that you call Michael, and get the number of his dermatologist.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Mmmkay – You didn’t read the post did you! Either that or you don’t know the names of the original White tribes. Because the Wiki piece clearly identifies where they come from, the only major people missing are the Hellenes, I told you what to do in the case that some were missing. Your quote: “Purposeless babblement on the Scythians” One is an encyclopedia article, the other is a scholarly piece from a respected religious organization; you ARE full of yourself!
You wrote: Your above post illustates nothing. Have have'nt made a single point and have'nt addressed the issue. That is: ---> Europeans are recent immigrants since the 5th century and not native to europe.
I never said anything about the 5th century: BUT if you had actually read the material above, you would have found that the articles CLEARLY indicate that the people being discussed were of the Eurasian plains.
You wrote: BTW I'm black lol.
Mmmkay – You broke my heart, you friggin broke my heart: Until you came along, there I was feeling like the only dumb-asses in the world, were young Negro males. Then you came along, and I thought: Hey he’s dumb, and he seems White! Halleluiah – White people have the same problem. Hell, I was even doing a Snoopy dance in the Daisy’s. And now you tell me this; What in the world am I to do now? You know what Kay, I will NOT accept your being Black, I insist that you call Michael, and get the number of his dermatologist.
Mmmkay has to stick to that strawman or he will be forced to engage you on what you are actually arguing. It's obvious that replacements were in phases, I don’t think there was any abrupt 5 or 15th century displacement of indigenous peoples. Even Washington had to revise what he said ("I'd meant, though, to say that from the 5th to 15th centuries the ancestors of the bulk of today's population in Europe arrived at that time.") this could have saved an almost endless spamming with rasol. lol My personal position on this particular debate is more or less with the thesis found in books such as Van Sertima's Africans in early Europe.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mmmkay - It occured to me that you might not be the only one challenged by the terminology: Here is a quick list of the people in question.
Slavic peoples - Macedonians (Alexanders the Greats Greeks), Czechs, Poles and Slovaks), Belarusians, Russians, and Ukrainians), Bosniaks, Bulgarians, Croats, Montenegrins, Serbs
Turkish people – You won’t recognize the following names, so here are the common Modern Names: Egyptian, Berber, Jew, Algerian, Libyan, Palestinian, Lebanize, Syrian, Turkian, Jordanian, Iraqe, Iranian, Saudi Arabian, Bulgarians, Albanian. Etc. {encyclopedia names: Kazakhs, Uzbeks, Kyrgyz, Uyghur, Azerbaijani, Turkmen, and Turkish peoples, as well as historical societies such as the Kipchaks, Bulgars, Huns, Seljuks, Khazars, Ottomans and Timurids}.
Uralic people - Estonia, Finnland, and Hungary.
Celts – England, and all of western Europe.
Anglo-Saxons – are Germanic
Do try to read the material now.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
[Alive Box writes: *Europeans* not being indigenous to Europe ..."
[Marc writes]: I assume you are referring to something I said? Lord. Please get it right the spirit of the matter right. Back in January I stated that whites were indigenous to Europe from the Upper Paleolithic. Are you making a strawman argument, too? I have stated probably a dozen times at least that whites are indigenous to Europe. Remember that from January? Here it is below to refresh your memory:
And in the Upper Paleolithic you find a likely African ancestor of whites.
(1) Wikipedia states something easy to find when browsing for “Nordic, long-headed." You will find, "Nordic people were typified by: tall stature, wide shoulders, long headed …”
I’d say that we can see the transition from Africans with long heads to whites with long heads (Nordic peoples) where V. P. Alexeev in his Harvard lectures wrote of the cranium in the picture below from 25,000 years ago in Sungir: “The nose is very broad, similar to African or Australian. This strong development around the nose is not typical for Europoid but is similar to East African populations.”
25,000 years ago Sungir, near Moscow
Whites should be proud that now they can point physically to the above likely African ancestor who 20,000 years before their emergence dwelt in nearly the exact vicinity they would later call genesis in the Volga area.
Are we friends now that you can see that the spirit of what I said was quite the opposite of what you stated? Does it make a difference? Can you give a friendly smile now?
Archeological evidence of phenotypic whites doesn’t seem to predate 1000 BC. No one at this site has produced anything more than (empty) words on this point.
THREAD PURPOSE: European nations established only from Medieval times - whites are very new to (Western) Europe.
(Whites descended from the African Aurignacians of the Upper Paleolithic to first appear in the archeological record as a white phenotype near 5 – 6000 BC in the Russian Steppes from where they eventually entered Western Europe, the Near East, Africa, and so on.)
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Mmmkay - It occured to me that you might not be the only one challenged by the terminology: Here is a quick list of the people in question.
Slavic peoples - Macedonians (Alexanders the Greats Greeks), Czechs, Poles and Slovaks), Belarusians, Russians, and Ukrainians), Bosniaks, Bulgarians, Croats, Montenegrins, Serbs
Turkish people – You won’t recognize the following names, so here are the common Modern Names: Egyptian, Berber, Jew, Algerian, Libyan, Palestinian, Lebanize, Syrian, Turkian, Jordanian, Iraqe, Iranian, Saudi Arabian, Bulgarians, Albanian. Etc. {encyclopedia names: Kazakhs, Uzbeks, Kyrgyz, Uyghur, Azerbaijani, Turkmen, and Turkish peoples, as well as historical societies such as the Kipchaks, Bulgars, Huns, Seljuks, Khazars, Ottomans and Timurids}.
Uralic people - Estonia, Finnland, and Hungary.
Celts – England, and all of western Europe.
Anglo-Saxons – are Germanic
Do try to read the material now.
quote:^ Your above post illustates nothing. Have have'nt made a single point and have'nt addressed the issue.
^ Try again.
But actually nevermind. Don't try again. Because you'll take the same brain-dead actions and never address the point. Posting irrelevant language groupiings certainly is;nt helping your case. If it is tell me how so.
Posts: 426 | From: Cali-for-nia | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^ He has no issue, just the typical tantrum like rasol often has. Hey wait a minute! Where IS rasol? Why is it that you never see Mmmkay and rasol together? Great Cesar’s Ghost! Could it be that they are one and the same? And they don't even need a phone booth, amazing.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Mmmkay = Rasol? It never dawned on me before but makes sense. You never see the two together and aside from that, they are like peas in a pod: remove the names and the persona is the same.
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Alive-(What Box)- "or can't provide any supporting citations so I figure why bother".
Are you serious?? I am citing an article written by someone else, why would I need to provide supporting citations?
The reason I said it was because I assumed you thought it endorsed your claims.
Basically, the article is dubious and repetitive, and just vaguely hints at "modern Euros not being ancient Euros".
I say vaguely because I had it there were episodes of mass demographic change. Though, this isn't like clearly and concisely laying it out that there were Africans settled to Europe (aboriginal or not) and that modern Europeans aren't decended from them -- which would be false.
By the way:
quote:Conclusion: Why We Are Not Our Ancestors
Modern Africans aren't ancient Africans.
And Marc: It was actually the title of your thread, and I believe it's been said a couple times on this board.
It wasn't particularly in response to you, other than the words used were the words typed apparently by you right off of your keyboard.
When you make a claim and change it, we aren't necissarily in disagreement any longer.
For those of you who need to catch up on Marc's thread, and it's purpose:
Page four:
Even Clyde Winters stated:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: This is bull****.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
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.
quote:Originally posted by Tyrann0saurus: Oh. My. F**king. God.
Marc now claims that 16-17th century Holy Roman Emperor Rudolf II was a black man! I thought he said the "white conquest of Europe" was finished by the Middle Ages. Will this madness never end?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ LOL His madness has gone on for how many years that he has been on this forum as well as 7 pages of this thread alone, what do you think?!
He even claims the Vikings were black, even though they were a Germanic people!!
Mods, the entertainment has passed. Please delete this thread.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [ ^ So Celts (who spoke an Indo-European language closely related to Germanic peoples) are African but Germanics are not?
The original Germanics were also Afrikan, before they were replaced by the European Germanics.
Europeans are new to Germania.
Germany was actually African until the NAZI's replaced the true/Black Germans with white Germans, from the steppes.
Actually Hitler was African originally until he was replaced by white Hitler.
This is why there are no photographs of Hitler before the 20th century.
Just like with Charlemagne.
Really Djehuti, I don't see why you have such a hard time understanding this.
quote:Originally posted by Willing Thinker {What Box}:
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by Willing Thinker {What Box}: ROTFL
Someone forgot about the original replaced Africans in the Steppes, but I forgive them.
^ Ooops. My bad.
That's fine, this time.
quote:Originally posted by markellion:
quote:Well if you believe that Whites displace the original Africans in Europe then where do Caucasians originate from?
Upon first glance I thought this was Marc's comment - of course I did a double take like "What?"! LOL
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ This was the truth on page one, on page ten, and will still be the truth on page 1 thousand.
So let the thread continue.
Dissemblers, distorters and delusives are welcomed to offer their *best fibs* against the facts denoted above.
^^
quote:Originally posted by markellion:
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: Does the entrance of Caesar to England give an idea through the massacres which occurred?
Are you saying Caesar was.... white European???
So you caught this too?
You should really try to employ your mind for better use - that is to better serve master Marc.
You see, it's simple:
Caesar was Roman, but evil, so he was white.
Charlemagne was a Franc, albeit a germanic people, he was a good savior and therefore African.
xxy man
A Quick Summary:
How does Northern Europe's white skin make them non-african, while the rest of Europe is African?
Especially when most of their lineage is the indigenous R1b, I, and R1a?
Oh wait, the lineage is really African. ... but then how is it in higher percentages in Northern Europeans?
African miscegination?
Leading us right into rasol's question which remains unanswered.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Since R1b, R1a and I make up almost the ENTIRE male ancestry of much of Northern Europe, what do you imagine it is *miscegenation,* with?
quote:Caesar was Roman, but evil, so he was white.
Charlemagne was a Franc, albeit a germanic people, he was a good savior and therefore African.
Charlemagane, my brotha. Caesar, whitey.
I like it.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ROTFL
So how the hell is Caesar evil but Charlemagne wasn't, even though 'brotha Charles' committed genocide also, particularly against the pagan Saxons!
quote:Originally posted by markellion: I was thinking the same thing but logic doesn't apply here
Still waiting to know how the white Romans/Macedonians and their evil overlords Caeser and Alexander the Great got to the mediterranean and then to Europe
posted
I dont understand nor do I accept or comprehend the absolute absurdity of Europeans not being European.
first off, EVEN IF the original Europeans were some how AFRICAN which is really Ignorant it you think about it..., these supposed Africans FAILED to make an impact on European culture like the Leukoderm Europeans, I/E The Greeks, The Romans, The Vikings, The Normans, The Goths, ect.
Also WHERE are these African Europeans...What did they do signifigantly...???
Posts: 8805 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^All of us have African ancestors, however, this is in the context that we are all homo sapien sapiens, the same species. Even today, sub-species of homo sapien sapiens have yet to diverge/evolve, which may not even happen at the rate we misceginate.
In this context, trying to say a group of people or their ancestors are different from say other contemporary Asians or Europeans because they are African is arbitrary or meaningless.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Three points.
1) European Origins:
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
Here is the answer, courtesy Geneticist, Peter Underhill:
The First Europeans
About 80 percent of Europeans arose from primitive hunters who arrived about 40,000 years ago, endured the long ice age and then expanded rapidly to dominate the continent, a new study shows.
Researchers analyzing the Y chromosome taken from 1,007 men from 25 different locations in Europe found a pattern that suggests four out of five of the men shared a common male ancestor about 40,000 years ago.
Peter A. Underhill, a senior researcher at the Stanford Genome Technology Center in Palo Alto, Calif., and co-author of the study, said the research supports conclusions from archaeological, linguistic and other DNA evidence about the settlement of Europe by ancient peoples.
When we can get different lines of evidence that tell the same story, then we feel we are telling the true history of the species. The researchers used the Y chromosome in the study because its rare changes establish a pattern that can be traced back hundreds of generations, thus helping to plot the movement of ancient humans.
The Y chromosome is inherited only by sons from their fathers. When sperm carrying the Y chromosome fertilizes an egg it directs the resulting baby to be a male. An X chromosome from the father allows a fertilized egg to be female.
"The Y chromosome has about 60 million DNA base pairs. Changes in those base pairs happen infrequently, but they occur often enough to establish patterns that can be used to trace the ancestry of people. Researchers looking at the 1,007 chromosome samples from Europe identified 22 specific markers that formed a specific pattern of change. Underhill said the researchers found that about 80 percent of all European males shared a single pattern, suggesting they had a common ancestor thousands of generations ago.
"The basic pattern had some changes that apparently developed among people who once shared a common ancestor and then were isolated for many generations. This scenario supports other studies about the Paleolithic European groups. Those studies suggest that a primitive, stone-age human came to Europe, probably from Central Asia and the Middle East, in two waves of migration beginning about 40,000 years ago. Their numbers were small and they lived byhunting animals and gathering plant food. They used crudely sharpened stones and fire.
"About 24,000 years ago, the last ice age began, with mountain-sized glaciers moving across most of Europe. The Paleolithic Europeans retreated before the ice, finding refuge for hundreds of generations in three areas: what is now Spain, the Balkans and the Ukraine.
"When the glaciers melted, about 16,000 years ago, the Paleolithic tribes resettled the rest of Europe. Y chromosome mutations occurred among people in each of the ice age refuges, said Underhill. He said the research shows a pattern that developed in Spain is now most common in northwest Europe, while the Ukraine pattern is mostly in Eastern Europe and the Balkan pattern is most common in Central Europe.
"About 8,000 years ago a more advanced people, the Neolithic, migrated to Europe from the Middle East, bringing with them a new Y chromosome pattern and a new way of life - agriculture. About 20 percent of Europeans now have the Y chromosome pattern from this migration.
"Archaeological digs in European caves clearly show that before 8,000 years ago, most humans lived by gathering and hunting. After that, there are traces of grains and other agricultural products. Earlier studies had traced European migration patterns using the DNA contained in the mitochondria, a key part of each cell. This type is DNA is passed down from mother to daughter."
Antonio Torroni, a researcher at the University of Urbino, Italy, who first proposed that early humans retreated to Spain during the ice age, said in a separate Science report that the Y chromosome study fits completely' with the mitochondria studies.
"The Y chromosome studies are also consistent with genetic studies showing a broader picture of human migration. In general, studies show that modern humans first arose in Africa about 100,000 years ago and thousands of years later began a long series of migrations, he said. Some groups migrated eastward and humans are known to have existed in Australia about 60,000 years ago. Other groups crossed the land bridge into the Middle East. Humans appeared in Central Asia about 50,000 years ago. From there, the theory goes, some migrated west, arriving in Europe about 40,000 years ago. Later, some migrated east, across the Bering Straits, to the Americas."
2) Origin of white skin
quote:Originally posted by rasol: There were no white people in the paleolithic in Europe or anywhere else. White skin evolved in Europe, in-situ, in the mesolithic...
3) Crazed redundancy:
quote:Whites are new to Western Europe spear-headed by the recent Germanic invasions.
quote:Originally posted by Jari-Ankhamun: I dont understand nor do I accept or comprehend the absolute absurdity of Europeans not being European.
first off, EVEN IF the original Europeans were some how AFRICAN which is really Ignorant it you think about it..., these supposed Africans FAILED to make an impact on European culture like the Leukoderm Europeans, I/E The Greeks, The Romans, The Vikings, The Normans, The Goths, ect.
Also WHERE are these African Europeans...What did they do signifigantly...???
Thats the problem Jari-Ankhamun, you have neither though about it, actually read anything about it, nor investigated it in any way. Yet you would presume to criticize people who have. Whether they be right or wrong, at least they have a basis for their opinion, you have none.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've seen this type of pseudo-history before, the blackening of all of European history from Celts to Shakespeare. Every movement has fringes but this does not disprove information in books such as Africans in Early Europe concerning blacks in pre roman Britain etc. Studies posted by Mike and Rasol debating the true origins of modern Europeans can only be helpful, the extreme theories re Charlemagane and Hitler we can discard. But like I said, only an equally determined egotist like Rasol would go head to head in order to dispute them. In his world he's the master teacher of this forum out to save us all misguided new puppies, he can't help himself. lol
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^LOL I see those words have deeply affected you, have they not?
While I greatly respect rasol (as I do MS, Winters, Doug M, and others), there is no 'master teacher', this is just a discussion forum, currently under attack of (self-proclaimed 'black') fringe people (who seem to want to make tarnish this site's reputation - mission accomplished), and he [rasol] is just a person who notes the ongoing battle between the Eurocentrist field and Africanist truth.
While exposing Eurocentric distortion, we can't be having distortion of our own.
I can't speak for anyone, but the guy even appears to like to site Marry Lefkowitz against her stooges, er, I mean Lefkowites, er I mean followers. Er. (Even though she still won't admit African influences in Greece).
quote:I've seen this type of pseudo-history before, the blackening of all of European history from Celts to Shakespeare. Every movement has fringes but this does not disprove information in books such as Africans in Early Europe concerning blacks in pre roman Britain etc.
Agree.
quote:Studies posted by Mike and Rasol debating the true origins of modern Europeans can only be helpful,
Well, better put, Data on the origins of modern Europeans [instead of disguised polemics] - from whomeva - can only be helpful.
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box): ^^Perhaps Mike, if you won't listen to any of us for whatever reason, perhaps you might listen to what a 'veteren poster' like Thought or Evergreen who once stated:
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: Evergreen Writes:
Alive-(What Box), all "clowning" aside the point is there is a real Black history we find in Ancient Egypt. Eurocentrists have a vested interest in seperating Black people from their historic past in North Africa. The White Power Structure is based upon the false teaching that White people founded what we call civilization. It is obvious that what we call civilization is based and rooted in North Africa. North Africa was originally inhabited by Black people at the time so-called civilized society began. Hence they are forced to create a fictious history of ancient White North Africans. Black people have responded with the truth in our history.
quote:rudely interrupted by Alive-(What Box): ^ Yes
quote:continued by Evergreen: But they try and negate this response by making our argument seem fringe and psuedo-scientific. Hence, we have a duty to expose the psuedo-scientists in our [own] community who are like Trojan Horses, destroying our credibility from within. This goes for blatant psuedo-scientists like Marc Washington or psuedo-scientists such as alTakruri who garb their psuedo-science in anthropological rhetoric.
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box): ^LOL I see those words have deeply affected you, have they not?
While I greatly respect rasol (as I do MS, Winters, Doug M, and others), there is no 'master teacher', this is just a discussion forum, currently under attack of (self-proclaimed 'black') fringe people (who seem to want to make tarnish this site's reputation - mission accomplished), and he [rasol] is just a person who notes the ongoing battle between the Eurocentrist field and Africanist truth.
While exposing Eurocentric distortion, we can't be having distortion of our own.
I can't speak for anyone, but the guy even appears to like to site Marry Lefkowitz against her stooges, er, I mean Lefkowites, er I mean followers. Er. (Even though she still won't admit African influences in Greece).
quote:I've seen this type of pseudo-history before, the blackening of all of European history from Celts to Shakespeare. Every movement has fringes but this does not disprove information in books such as Africans in Early Europe concerning blacks in pre roman Britain etc.
Agree.
quote:Studies posted by Mike and Rasol debating the true origins of modern Europeans can only be helpful,
Well, better put, Data on the origins of modern Europeans [instead of disguised polemics] - from whomeva - can only be helpful.
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box): ^^Perhaps Mike, if you won't listen to any of us for whatever reason, perhaps you might listen to what a 'veteren poster' like Thought or Evergreen who once stated:
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: Evergreen Writes:
Alive-(What Box), all "clowning" aside the point is there is a real Black history we find in Ancient Egypt. Eurocentrists have a vested interest in seperating Black people from their historic past in North Africa. The White Power Structure is based upon the false teaching that White people founded what we call civilization. It is obvious that what we call civilization is based and rooted in North Africa. North Africa was originally inhabited by Black people at the time so-called civilized society began. Hence they are forced to create a fictious history of ancient White North Africans. Black people have responded with the truth in our history.
quote:rudely interrupted by Alive-(What Box): ^ Yes
quote:continued by Evergreen: But they try and negate this response by making our argument seem fringe and psuedo-scientific. Hence, we have a duty to expose the psuedo-scientists in our [own] community who are like Trojan Horses, destroying our credibility from within. This goes for blatant psuedo-scientists like Marc Washington or psuedo-scientists such as alTakruri who garb their psuedo-science in anthropological rhetoric.
Let's get this straight before we move on, my conclusions of him come from our exchanges whether on Brace, the Sudanese conflict, and what he thinks are my "defence" of Winters, not his insults. He is cantankerous, go look at him this very minute still arguing with winters. LOL
But I agree with everything else you said though.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Mmmkay, you don't seem to understand that Rasol's ego cannot allow theories no matter how wild to go unchallenged.
^ Any psychiatrist would tear that comment apart, since it implies that you have unhealthy concern for 'my ego', and a vindicative need to attack me personally.
And while it is not at all irrational to educate others by debunking wild theories.....
it is quite telling that you implicitly admit that Winters and Washington's 'theories' are so wild as to be unworthy in your eyes of refutation, by a rational person.
In your zeal to insult me, you really insult them instead.
But that's ok, you just go back to attacking 'my ego.'
Which you apparently regard as - YOUR NEMISIS.
Ok?
Now, I'll go back to not caring. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
[^ Any psychiatrist would tear that comment apart, since it implies that you have unhealthy concern for 'my ego', and a vindicative need to attack me personally.
lol typical self centeredness, it's all about little rasol.
And while it is not at all irrational to educate others by debunking wild theories.....
Not irrational to debunk wild theories; irrational to constantly feel the need to even though they have been debunked already. They constantly bait you in because you and they are kindred sprit. lol
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box): ^LOL I see those words have deeply affected you, have they not?
While I greatly respect rasol (as I do MS, Winters, Doug M, and others), there is no 'master teacher', this is just a discussion forum, currently under attack of (self-proclaimed 'black') fringe people (who seem to want to make tarnish this site's reputation - mission accomplished), and he [rasol] is just a person who notes the ongoing battle between the Eurocentrist field and Africanist truth.[/b]
What are you talking about this is new forum "Ancient Egypt". It has not been in existence long enough to have a tradition.
The traditions of this forum are being established now.
Here at "Ancient Egypt", their are no master teachers or moderators--only researchers discussing African civilizations world-wide.
Here at "Ancient Egypt", their are no master teachers or moderators--only researchers discussing African civilizations world-wide.
.
Actually that is not true: What we have is a few people posting material, a few more discussing that material, and the overwhelming majority responding based on their preconceived notions.
The feeling seems to be: If I don't already know it, it can't be worth knowing. Besides if it was true, they (White people) would have already told me.
Which is fair enough for me, I don't get paid by how many minds I change, hell I don't get paid at all. But I would like to educate those who wish to be educated, but the quality of discourse on the board makes that very difficult.
The habit of many, to give responses off the top of their heads, instead of as thoughtful and reasoned responses to material posted is not helpful. And as is painfully obvious, the posting of counter claims or refuting material is nonexistent.
Only the constant going around in circles, asking for proof but never providing even a theoretical counter claim, much less counter material. It would be nice if they would even bother to established a basis for the argument, instead you get the never ending: No it's NOT! No it's NOT!
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben08: [^ Any psychiatrist would tear that comment apart, since it implies that you have unhealthy concern for 'my ego', and a vindicative need to attack me personally.
lol typical self centeredness, it's all about little rasol.
And while it is not at all irrational to educate others by debunking wild theories.....
Not irrational to debunk wild theories; irrational to constantly feel the need to even though they have been debunked already. They constantly bait you in because you and they are kindred sprit. lol
^ Really what is the issue? What is the point you are trying to make directing personal attacks, but not talking about the topics discussed.
You are wasting your time.
Posts: 426 | From: Cali-for-nia | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben08: [^ Any psychiatrist would tear that comment apart, since it implies that you have unhealthy concern for 'my ego', and a vindicative need to attack me personally.
lol typical self centeredness, it's all about little rasol.
And while it is not at all irrational to educate others by debunking wild theories.....
Not irrational to debunk wild theories; irrational to constantly feel the need to even though they have been debunked already. They constantly bait you in because you and they are kindred sprit. lol
^ Really what is the issue? What is the point you are trying to make directing personal attacks, but not talking about the topics discussed.
You are wasting your time.
Avoiding topics and directing personal attacks? Looki here sweetie (apologies to Obama) you are the one diverting attention showing us all your pink panties, I know you mother raised you better. You have yet to answer my question, what is the issue?
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Akoben writes: typical self centeredness, it's all about rasol.
Only for you. Apparently rasol is all you think about. The rest of the forum finds you and your obsession a bit creepy.
quote:Originally posted by Mmmkay: ^ Really what is the issue? What is the point you are trying to make directing personal attacks, but not talking about the topics discussed.
You are wasting your time.
^ The issue this person has is *personal obsession*.
They will stop once they realise that they are only clowning themselves, just like Marc Washington, whose theories *they* ridicule as essentially absurd.
Granted trolls are sometimes 'slow', so this may take awhile.
posted
Apparently rasol is all you think about. The rest of the forum finds you and your obsession a bit creepy.
Rest of the forum? You mean you and your girlfriend Mmmkay. Please tell her to stop showing her panties to every boy she meets, that is creepy! lol
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben08: [^ Any psychiatrist would tear that comment apart, since it implies that you have unhealthy concern for 'my ego', and a vindicative need to attack me personally.
lol typical self centeredness, it's all about little rasol.
And while it is not at all irrational to educate others by debunking wild theories.....
Not irrational to debunk wild theories; irrational to constantly feel the need to even though they have been debunked already. They constantly bait you in because you and they are kindred sprit. lol
True LOL if anyone has *zeal* for anything it is the *European raised* south African gorilla rasol.
Get off Clyde's and Mark's dick dude, publish something then you can talk ****.
Posts: 343 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought Wolofi might have been a chick. She sure as heck has never stated she was a man.
And how is rasol romanian?
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Here at "Ancient Egypt", their are no master teachers or moderators--only researchers discussing African civilizations world-wide.
.
Actually that is not true: What we have is a few people posting material, a few more discussing that material, and the overwhelming majority responding based on their preconceived notions.
The feeling seems to be: If I don't already know it, it can't be worth knowing.
Farse.
I bought and learned from Black Spark, White Fire though it didn't have too much 'support' on this board, and even a conservative troller who posted as if the book was in any way misleading and full of falsities (which is absolutely false and indicative of him only having read predictably opposing critics [really just haters] of the book.
quote: Besides if it was true, they (White people) would have already told me.
Interestingly enough, Richard Poe, the author of the above book mentions Eurasion nomadic (I think nomadic) invasions that changed the demographic composition of Europe.
In pre-historic times.
*
However, this is a vastly different claim than Europeans having just arrived in Europe in the last millenium or half a millenium earlier.
No one claims this but a few looney tunes on here, who keep chaging their original claims.
When people change claims, there is no longer any reason to give them any attention.
*
By the way, for pretentious new-breed puppy posters:
It has been pointed out time and again, that Europeans are more of a mark of genetic mixture (between Africans and Asians) than a mark of purity, as was previously (and is still) *believed*.
Both Supercar and rasol have said this, and others, who aren't going to tell you this but sit back as you retreat from your original claims, and make [pretentious] fools of yourselves.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Akoben writes: typical self centeredness, it's all about rasol.
Only for you. Apparently rasol is all you think about. The rest of the forum finds you and your obsession a bit creepy.
Definitely.
quote:Originally posted by akoben08: ^^ lol look at little rasol in school!
lol yeah.. though it's not entirely funny in the way Marc probably planned
quote:Originally posted by Wolofi: Get off Clyde's and Mark's dick dude, publish something then you can talk ****.
Dude: do you know how many distortionist flunkies have their own websites?
Do you even know wtf we're talking about?
Would you like to contribute your take?
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
"Hi I'm rasol. I won the Alfred E. Neumann award in science by reading Biology For Dummies. I think it's real cool and recommend it to everyone. I'm no dummy. "
"Gawd. Doesn't the boy know there were Africans in///"
^I just now noticed there were variations. Eitherway, that quote reeks of frustration lol.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
No one debates seriously with Rasol? Really? Are you accusing the right parties for not being serious? Is he serious? These are quotes from the Rasol whose integrity you are defending, SEEKING.
posted April 25 to Xyyman: you're and incoherent fool talking in circles and making no point, as usual.
posted 01 May, 2008 12:27 PM: Because you are ignorant you completely ignore the Ice Age, and draw crooked lines on maps with complete obliviousness to the context ...
posted 01 May, 2008 12:36 PM : You argue things no educated person believes because you don't know any better.
You need to learn 1st, then argue.
posted 03 May, 2008 02:25 AM:Sarcasm only works -after- you demonstrate that you know what you're talking about. Someday in the future, when you've learned something, your past sarcasm may actually seem funny.
posted 03 May, 2008 02:28 AM: Could be worse. She could have no information and be talking but saying nothing....like you.
posted 04 May, 2008 10:46: Have you ever considered just, saying nothing?
Might get into less trouble that way.
posted 05 May, 2008 12:01 PM: This is highly amusing, and appropriate, since we regard you as a clown anyway and really don't expect you to make sense...
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic