...
EgyptSearch Forums Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» EgyptSearch Forums » Ancient Egypt » More proof of "black" Moors (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   
Author Topic: More proof of "black" Moors
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 11 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:

You cannot use art images to establish historical fact. Even a highly trained specialist would have a difficult time doing that. None of these images is legitimate evidence to deal with the question being debated.

So, you're saying artistic depictions made of an entire people which served as potraits until the invention of photography can't be valid??! And this coming from the same person who tried to prove that the Egyptians weren't black based on a few sculptures whose paint was either partially or entirely worn off. [Roll Eyes]

quote:
Boy we have some real scholars here. Blacks have zero role in the development of Europe Doug.....not a scrap. You are a racist bigot with zero academic ability who lives his entire life dedicated to promoting racist propaganda.
LMAO You call Doug a racist bigot even though he has not even said anything racist or even the slightest thing negative about any racial or ethnic group, while YOU continuouly spout insulting and disparaging lies about blacks and their history. [Embarrassed]

quote:
You want to tell us that the poorest, most backward section of the world is a pimary driver in the development of western civilization. To do this you will lie, distort, and warp facts while you insult hard working historians around the world.
Again as was told you a million times, Africa was the wealthiest continent before European colonialist parasites drained her of its wealth and economic power. You are the only one who continues to lie and distort even when you are literally faced with the many facts that we present to you everyday including artistic depictions of black Moors by Europeans!

quote:
The only thing worse than ignorance is ignorance combinde with arrogance.
Indeed! Yet this perfectly describes YOURSELF and other pathetic white males whose sole 'racial' and ethnic pride is based on LIES. [Wink]

Professor, you keep complaining about facts and scholarly consensus, well the below is well established scholarly and historical facts.

the etymology of the word 'moor'

the actual Islamic dysnasties that controlled Spain:

Almoravid

and

Almohad

Again, I say the above is not some 'afrocentric' wishful ficton but established historical FACT. But I doubt you even have the gall to click on the links above, and if so you are still too delusioned to believe them.

Posts: 22569 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:
Spanish historians are not going to agree that the Muslim conquest of Spain was a black African driven event.


Nobody said that. Stop making stuff up.
quote:
Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:

Nobody is saying that black africans had no part to play in the ancient world. The Med basin was not populated by black Africans in ancient times, or modern times for that matter.


Which is a lie and shows that you are saying that black Africans had no role to play in the civilizing of Europe in the Islamic period. Yet and still you have yet to refute any of the evidence posted thus far in any way. And your statements about black Africans not being in the Sahara is a sign of your ignorance considering the ample scientific evidence of black Africans in and North of the Sahara both in ancient times and today. All of which points to the fundamental truth of your position not being based on any sort of serious analysis of facts or evidence as opposed to blind faith in an idea that you simply refuse to give up, which is normally referred to as histrionics or dogma. Suffice to say you don't care about facts especially those facts can't refute. So keep talking about those scholars who disagree with what has been said without actually citing any references or evidence.
quote:
Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:

With some exceptions black africans were and are primarily south of the desert.

Which is backed up by what proof and evidence? You claim people are going "too far" for providing facts and evidence, but what have you offered except whining and complaining? People provide you the facts to demolish the nonsense you speak with nothing to back it up and then we have to listen to you groan and moan about people "going too far". Actually, what you are really saying is that people should accept the nonsense histrionics passed off as history by some Europeans as fact with no argument. Therefore, actually proving such histrionics to be a pack of lies is "going too far" because it is all a lie to begin with that you simply want people to accept with no question.

Sorry. I don't believe in bullsh*t.
quote:
Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:

Some of the stuff posted here is so diffuse you could not reply to it in any sensible manner if you wanted to. An example is trying to build an entire history around a gene marker from 10,000 years ago and tie that into the modern history of Europe.
I could care less how many black people lived in North Africa 2000 years ago. If every single oine of them were black it would not change history nor would it do a single thing for a modern black person living today. What I suggest is more mature examination of information.

There is nothing diffuse about this simple fact which you have not refuted:
Africa is a cradle of humanity and civilization.

Europe is not.

The first modern humans were born in Africa and were black. These black people migrated out of Africa and settled the entire planet. It is from these aboriginal blacks that all humans get their features from.

There is nothing diffuse about it.

Please cite scholars who say otherwise.

Posts: 6126 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheAmericanPatriot
Member
Member # 15824

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for TheAmericanPatriot     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Doug, Africa is NOT the cradle of European civiliZation, Greece is. There you go again, back into the mists of history to make a meaningless point. My answer is, and the correct answer is....so what. That the human race began in Africa, if that is the case, has nothing to do with European civilization. This is what I mean by "going too far."
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well since you flunked history 101 of course you cannot see the obvious. If Europe is not a cradle of civilization it cannot develop civilization separate from the influences of those who did, especially those who were very close and whom they interacted with. European civilization is the result of the influence of those cultures from which civilization did originate. Greece is not a cradle of civilization and is the result of influences from Asia and Africa. And this pattern of influence of influence on European cultures has been continuous from ancient times to the modern day. European histrionics is based on the denial of this fact, which includes the myth of Greece as a primary source of civilization for Europe when European civilization is the result of Asian influences from central Asia and Turkey, Levantine influences from the Levant and Mesopotamia along with African influences, this includes farming, cooking, writing, mathematics, horse riding, animal husbandry, warfare, government, speech, language, writing, religion, entertainment, art and everything else. None of this originated in Greece, so it doesn't matter if Greece is the first European "civilization", it is still a late comer to the game and only a rehashing of patterns in civilization and culture that were already old before they got there.

Here are some Africans from the extreme North of Africa, Riffian Berbers:

 -
http://pro.corbis.com/search/Enlargement.aspx?CID=isg&mediauid=%7B002E508D-9110-4F11-90F2-C4A4DC76D37D%7D

Some more black Africans north of the Sahara:

 -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fenetre_ouverte/2926713790/in/photostream/

 -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fenetre_ouverte/2925862581/in/photostream/

Rif Berbers (about as far north as you can get in Africa):
 -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fenetre_ouverte/2914128947/sizes/l/

 -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fenetre_ouverte/2912272833/

Souk in the Rif:
 -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fenetre_ouverte/2875054720/

Souss Morocco:
 -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fenetre_ouverte/2925864987/

 -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fenetre_ouverte/2926715214/

Posts: 6126 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)
Member
Member # 15400

Icon 1 posted      Profile for AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
American patsy,

The point is that southern Europeans (Greece, Rome etc..) would have never arose without influence originally from Africa, and the so called near East, why do you think southern Europe advanced as opposed to northern Europe?

Take note;

quote:
Prehistoric contacts over the Straits of Gibraltar
indicated by genetic analysis of Iberian
Bronze Age cattle

Link

Previously, the appearance of the Late Atlantic Neolithic culture had been placed at a significantly later date than the Egyptian culture, and this chronology and the cultural similarity were interpreted as implying that Egypt was the original source (14). However, more accurate radiocarbon dates obtained from Late Atlantic Neolithic culture sites subsequently redated the origin of this culture to being approximately the same as that of the predynastic Badarian Egyptian culture (15), leading to the hypothesis that these two cultures might derive from a common area, perhaps through pastoral groups living in the Sahara. The culture linked to the Late Atlantic Neolithic period is known to have been dedicated almost exclusively to cattle breeding, secondarily complemented by sheep and goat breeding (14), suggesting that an investigation of the origin of Iberian cattle may offer further insight into early Iberian–African cultural contacts.

These early Neolithic populations of Andalusia appear to have consisted of a number of distinct groups (12), one of which is suggested to have African origin due to finds of characteristic red ochre ceramics (13, 14). Similarities have also been noted between the predynastic Badarian Egyptian culture dated to the 5th millennium B.C. and the Late Atlantic Neolithic culture in western Andalusia (14). Previously, the appearance of the Late Atlantic Neolithic culture had been placed at a significantly later date than the Egyptian culture, and this chronology and the cultural similarity were interpreted as implying that Egypt was the original source (14). However, more accurate radiocarbon dates obtained from Late Atlantic Neolithic culture sites subsequently redated the origin of this culture to being approximately the same as that of the predynastic Badarian Egyptian culture (15), leading to the hypothesis that these two cultures might derive from a common area, perhaps through pastoral groups living in the Sahara. The culture linked to the Late Atlantic Neolithic period is known to have been dedicated almost exclusively to cattle breeding, secondarily complemented by sheep and goat breeding (14), suggesting that an investigation of the origin of Iberian cattle may offer further insight into early Iberian–African cultural contacts.

quote:
Testing the Hypothesis of an African Cattle Contribution in Southern
European Breeds (H2).

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/21/8113.full.pdf+html?sid=5a7e2127-600a-4e72-90e9-e4ae9c1f1ffd

However, even if 63 and 11 different T1 haplotypes are observed in Africa and Europe,
respectively, only two of them are present in both regions. In addition, (i) T1 haplotypes can be found well beyond the area of maximum Moorish expansion, (ii) recent introductions of exotic cattle are usually male mediated (not affecting mtDNA) (34), and (iii) one T1 haplotype has been
recently observed in a sample of 16 Bronze Age cattle remains from Spain.

So, the hypothesis of a recent and geographically restricted introduction of African cattle does not seem sufficient to explain the T1 distribution in Europe. On the contrary, DNA data are compatible with earlier gene flow into several Mediterranean regions. There is evidence of early diffusion of cattle pastoralism by people crossing arms of sea (21–23), and, hence, the same process may have led to the dispersal in Europe of breeds carrying the T1 haplotype.

Conclusions

The modern and ancient mtDNA sequences we present here do not support the currently
accepted hypothesis of a single Neolithic origin in the Near East. The processes of livestock
domestication and diffusion were certainly more complex than previously suggested, and our data provide some evidence in favor of the hypothesis that the origin of European cattle is multiple. Breeds domesticated in the Near East and introduced in Europe during the Neolithic diffusion probably intermixed, at least in some regions, with local wild animals and with African cattle introduced by maritime routes.

quote:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12392505?dopt=Abstract

1) Greeks share an important part of their genetic pool with sub-Saharan Africans (Ethiopians and west Africans) also supported by Chr 7 Markers. The gene flow from Black Africa to Greece may have occurred in Pharaonic times or when Saharan people emigrated after the present hyperarid conditions were established (5000 years B.C.).


Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheAmericanPatriot
Member
Member # 15824

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for TheAmericanPatriot     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You are as crazy as a loon mindover. Africa had nothing, actually less than nothing, with the development of European civilization.
This is where you people go right over the cliff.

Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheAmericanPatriot
Member
Member # 15824

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for TheAmericanPatriot     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So again Doug, You are trying to make a historical point from 1000 years ago by showing me a modern photograph? You should be banned from ever holding a history book in your hands.

Either learn how to do this stuff or get a day job, you are not that stupid.

Can you imagine what would happen if you walked into an ancient history seminar and your proof was MODERN PHOTOGRAPHS !!!!!

Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)
Member
Member # 15400

Icon 1 posted      Profile for AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:
You are as crazy as a loon mindover. Africa had nothing, actually less than nothing, with the development of European civilization.
This is where you people go right over the cliff.

It's fairly obvious with your cheap illogical one liner denials, no logical human being (especially since you call yourself a history teacher [Roll Eyes] ) in their right mind would over look this established genetic, and archaeological evidence by actual scientists in the field...

You have some nerve, but no credibility to call these scholars liars, when you have no counter evidence other than mere one liner denials in the face of actual hard evidence.


quote:
Prehistoric contacts over the Straits of Gibraltar
indicated by genetic analysis of Iberian
Bronze Age cattle

Link

Previously, the appearance of the Late Atlantic Neolithic culture had been placed at a significantly later date than the Egyptian culture, and this chronology and the cultural similarity were interpreted as implying that Egypt was the original source (14). However, more accurate radiocarbon dates obtained from Late Atlantic Neolithic culture sites subsequently redated the origin of this culture to being approximately the same as that of the predynastic Badarian Egyptian culture (15), leading to the hypothesis that these two cultures might derive from a common area, perhaps through pastoral groups living in the Sahara. The culture linked to the Late Atlantic Neolithic period is known to have been dedicated almost exclusively to cattle breeding, secondarily complemented by sheep and goat breeding (14), suggesting that an investigation of the origin of Iberian cattle may offer further insight into early Iberian–African cultural contacts.

These early Neolithic populations of Andalusia appear to have consisted of a number of distinct groups (12), one of which is suggested to have African origin due to finds of characteristic red ochre ceramics (13, 14). Similarities have also been noted between the predynastic Badarian Egyptian culture dated to the 5th millennium B.C. and the Late Atlantic Neolithic culture in western Andalusia (14). Previously, the appearance of the Late Atlantic Neolithic culture had been placed at a significantly later date than the Egyptian culture, and this chronology and the cultural similarity were interpreted as implying that Egypt was the original source (14). However, more accurate radiocarbon dates obtained from Late Atlantic Neolithic culture sites subsequently redated the origin of this culture to being approximately the same as that of the predynastic Badarian Egyptian culture (15), leading to the hypothesis that these two cultures might derive from a common area, perhaps through pastoral groups living in the Sahara. The culture linked to the Late Atlantic Neolithic period is known to have been dedicated almost exclusively to cattle breeding, secondarily complemented by sheep and goat breeding (14), suggesting that an investigation of the origin of Iberian cattle may offer further insight into early Iberian–African cultural contacts.


Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LOL! Faced with undeniable evidence Mr Patriot reveals his true colors as a racist knee jerk intellectual light weight.
Posts: 6126 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)
Member
Member # 15400

Icon 1 posted      Profile for AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
American patsy you provide clear example of an ad hominem argument.


quote:
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheAmericanPatriot
Member
Member # 15824

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for TheAmericanPatriot     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Mindover, You leave me no room to make an argument because you gave me no evidence to refute. First you trot out some ancient genetic markers that you cannot tie to a single historical event that has anything to do with Greece or southern Europe. Secondly, if I found some way to give credit of some kind to your data you cannot tie it to a single historical event in European history or the history of any place else.
The people you speak of may not even have been black africans by the time you speak of, you cannot even prove that for Christ's sake.

Doug, It is interesting that you call me a light weight. I would never use modern photos to prove a point from 1000 years ago. Who does that make the light weight?

Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)
Member
Member # 15400

Icon 1 posted      Profile for AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:
Mindover, You leave me no room to make an argument because you gave me no evidence to refute. First you trot out some ancient genetic markers that you cannot tie to a single historical event that has anything to do with Greece or southern Europe.

The genetic fact that African cattle were in southern Europe from Neolithic times and still show prevalent genetic frequencies in these said areas is nothing? [Roll Eyes]

Btw, this is just one piece of evidence, whereas there is a lot more where it comes from.

quote:
Testing the Hypothesis of an African Cattle Contribution in Southern
European Breeds (H2).

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/21/8113.full.pdf+html?sid=5a7e2127-600a-4e72-90e9-e4ae9c1f1ffd

T1 sequences are relatively common (with
frequencies ranging from 5% to 30%) in different breeds from Portugal, Spain, Italy, and Greece.
The presence of T1 mainly along the Mediterranean shores of Europe (near Africa), but not in central and northern Europe, is suggestive
of the occasional introduction of cattle by boat from North Africa into southern Europe and is difficult to reconcile with any gene flow process
unrelated with the sea.

However, even if 63 and 11 different T1 haplotypes are observed in Africa and Europe,
respectively, only two of them are present in both regions. In addition, (i) T1 haplotypes can be found well beyond the area of maximum Moorish expansion, (ii) recent introductions of exotic cattle are usually male mediated (not affecting mtDNA) (34), and (iii) one T1 haplotype has been recently observed in a sample of 16 Bronze Age cattle remains from Spain.

So, the hypothesis of a recent and geographically restricted introduction of African cattle does not seem sufficient to explain the T1 distribution in Europe. On the contrary, DNA data are compatible with earlier gene flow into several Mediterranean regions. There is evidence of early diffusion of cattle pastoralism by people crossing arms of sea (21–23), and, hence, the same process may have led to the dispersal in Europe of breeds carrying the T1 haplotype.

Conclusions

The modern and ancient mtDNA sequences we present here do not support the currently
accepted hypothesis of a single Neolithic origin in the Near East. The processes of livestock
domestication and diffusion were certainly more complex than previously suggested, and our data provide some evidence in favor of the hypothesis that the origin of European cattle is multiple. Breeds domesticated in the Near East and introduced in Europe during the Neolithic diffusion probably intermixed, at least in some regions, with local wild animals and with African cattle introduced by maritime routes.


Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)
Member
Member # 15400

Icon 1 posted      Profile for AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:
The people you speak of may not even have been black africans by the time you speak of, you cannot even prove that for Christ's sake.

Proven a million times over....


E-M78* migrated from Africa into the middle east (maybe Europe), where it mutated into a sub-clade E-V13.

One cannot be certain about the morphology of the folks, among whom the mutation occurred. What is certain, is that there were clear sub-Saharan affinities among the Neolithic populations of the "Near Easterners" who spread the Neolithic culture into Europe. Sub-Saharan affinities were also found in the Balkans, **from where the alpha derivatives appear to have spread elsewhere westward**

quote:
"Against this background of disease, movement and pedomorphic reduction of body size one can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and **in Anatolian** and Macedonian first farmers, probably from Nubia via the unknown predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians....". - J. L. Angel
quote:
"a Mesolithic population carrying Group III lineages with M35/M215 mutation [E3b] expanded northwards from sub-Saharan to north Africa and the Levant" (Underhill et al., 2001, p. 55; see also Bosch et al., 2001; Bar-Yosef, 1987) [Keita, 2005, p. 562]

The M35/M215 sub-clade cluster of haplotypes fragments a lineage (Ht 4) described previously (Hammer et al. 1997). We suggest that a population with this sub-clade of the African YAP/M145/M203/PN2 cluster expanded into the southern and eastern Mediterranean at the end of the Pleistocene...These lineages would have been introduced then from the Middle East into southern Europe (and to a lesser extent northern India and Pakistan) by farmers during the Neolithic expansion. [Underhill et al., 2001, p. 51]

quote:

The Levant versus the Horn of Africa: Evidence for Bidirectional Corridors of Human Migrations

A more recent dispersal out of Africa, represented by the E3b-M35 chromosomes, expanded northward during the Mesolithic (Underhill et al. 2001b). The East African origin of this lineage is supported by the much larger variance of the E3b-M35 males in Egypt versus Oman (0.5 versus 0.14; table 3).

Since the E3b*-M35 lineages appear to be confined mostly to the sub-Saharan populations, it is conceivable that the initial migrations toward North Africa from the south primarily involved derivative E3b-M35 lineages.


Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheAmericanPatriot
Member
Member # 15824

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for TheAmericanPatriot     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That does not make your point. there is a sub saharan marker in some neolithic peoples and you want to try to morph this into the founding of western civilization. Do you have any earthly idea of how looney that sounds? First of all you are thousands of years before the fact. this is all mumbo jumbo. You have no point.

It is as nutty as Doug's contention that since man began in Africa blacks invented western civilization. Try again.

Mindover, What you are doing is like trying to say that since the Souix Indians were here 800 years ago they founded modern American civilization.

Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)
Member
Member # 15400

Icon 1 posted      Profile for AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:
That does not make your point. there is a sub saharan marker in some neolithic peoples and you want to try to morph this into the founding of western civilization. Do you have any earthly idea of how looney that sounds? First of all you are thousands of years before the fact. this is all mumbo jumbo. You have no point.

It is as nutty as Doug's contention that since man began in Africa blacks invented western civilization. Try again.

Do you suffer from mental retardation?

These mentioned places (Greece, Spain etc..) in southern Europe were first, and only places in Europe to receive contact from Africans, and so called near Easterners, and these genetic markers from Africa are still found in these southern European populations to this day ever since they were introduced over 6000 years ago.

Along with the cattle genetic sequences, and you have the audacity to say Africans had nothing to do with the development of said areas?


You are completely deluded!

It's really no wonder that civilization arises outside of Europe, and then places in south Europe where influence from non Europeans occurred, in turn is the only place where civilization arose in ancient Europe.


You must be very slow, or just plain and simply intentionally ignorant.

Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)
Member
Member # 15400

Icon 1 posted      Profile for AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:
Mindover, What you are doing is like trying to say that since the Souix Indians were here 800 years ago they founded modern American civilization.

Wrong. What I am saying is that civilization arose outside of Europe, in Africa, and the so called near east.

Europeans then received influxes of migrations from Africa and the near east, which is evident in the modern European gene pool, as well as confirmed through ancient remains.

Like I said, it's no wonder that the only places in Europe (southern Europe) which received outside influence is the only part in ancient Europe to advance; no?

Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheAmericanPatriot
Member
Member # 15824

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for TheAmericanPatriot     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
nonsense. First of all you do not know that the Greeks came into contact with africans. The very best you can do is to say that they came into contact with people with an african genetic marker.
You present no evidence that any Greek scholar believes. This is what I mean by over reaching. The desire to simply make up history simply cannot be resisted.

Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
akoben
Member
Member # 15244

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for akoben     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:
Originally posted by Assopen:

I see Mary giving misleading information as usual. Saracens were not connected to any race.

And where have I said anything about 'race', nitwit?? And again, will you quit referring to me by the name of your madam madonna you fear so much.

You already suffered a humiliating failure in denying the mixed-ancestry of your European heritage, don't make a fool of yourself here. [Embarrassed]

Now getting back to the topic...

Lmao @ Mary trying to recover from her latest slip up exposing her latent Eurocentrism, this time on the Saracens. You can add this to your cowardly dismissal of Professor James and your Egyptian/Nubian dichotomy kid. I'll just sit back and wait for you to **** up again.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)
Member
Member # 15400

Icon 1 posted      Profile for AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:
nonsense. First of all you do not know that the Greeks came into contact with africans.

Seriously, do you suffer from some kind of mental retardation?

Africans were in Europe before Greece arose.


quote:
"Against this background of disease, movement and pedomorphic reduction of body size one can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and **in Anatolian** and Macedonian first farmers , probably from Nubia via the unknown predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians....". - J. L. Angel
quote:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12392505?dopt=Abstract

1) Greeks share an important part of their genetic pool with sub-Saharan Africans (Ethiopians and west Africans) also supported by Chr 7 Markers. The gene flow from Black Africa to Greece may have occurred in Pharaonic times or when Saharan people emigrated after the present hyperarid conditions were established (5000 years B.C.).


Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheAmericanPatriot
Member
Member # 15824

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for TheAmericanPatriot     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In terms of your last post.

1. The Souix analogy is exactly what you are saying

2. You cannot prove Europeans recieved migrations from africa and you certanily cannot prove that they recieved the basis of their culture from Africa.

3. Africa was no more advanced during the neolithic period than northern Europe so that point makes no sense. Further you have failed to connect in any way ANY african civilization to the development of what we call western civilization.

4. You need to drop the genetic marker argument, it takes you nowhere. Classical Greek scholars reject every argument you have made.

Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)
Member
Member # 15400

Icon 1 posted      Profile for AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:
You cannot prove Europeans recieved migrations from africa

The genetic fact that southern Europeans carry an African genetic marker at high frequencies, of which these African lineages are also found in ancient European remains, anthropological evidence identifies clear sub Saharan affinities amongst early farmers in Europe.

African cattle genetic sequences found in ancient Europe and still prevalent to this day is irrelevant to you?

You do indeed suffer from mental retardation, I'm starting to feel sorry for you.


quote:
Y-chromosomal evidence of the cultural diffusion of agriculture in southeast Europe.

Battaglia et al.

“The presence of E-M78* Y chromosomes in the Balkans (two Albanians) , previously described virtually only in northeast Africa, upper Nile, gives rise to the question of what the original source of the E-M78 may have been. Correlations between human-occupation sites and radiocarbon-dated climatic fluctuations in the eastern Sahara and Nile Valley during the Holocene provide a framework for interpreting the main southeast European centric distribution of E-V13. A recent archaeological study reveals that during a desiccation period in North Africa, while the eastern Sahara was depopulated, a refugium existed on the border of present-day Sudan and Egypt, near Lake Nubia, until the onset of a humid phase around 8500 BC (radiocarbon-calibrated date). The rapid arrival of wet conditions during this Early Holocene period provided an impetus for population movement into habitat that was quickly settled afterwards. Hg E-M78* representatives, although rare overall, still occur in Egypt, which is a hub for the distribution of the various geographically localized M78-related sub-clades. The northward-moving rainfall belts during this period could have also spurred a rapid migration of Mesolithic foragers northwards in Africa, the Levant and ultimately onwards to Asia Minor and Europe, where they each eventually differentiated their regionally distinctive branches.”


Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheAmericanPatriot
Member
Member # 15824

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for TheAmericanPatriot     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The marker does not prove that. They could carry that marker and be as white as a sheet.
Historians reject your data. I challenge you to find me a single classical historian who supports your view, just one.

Are you telling me that a cow establishes the fact that Africans created western civilization.
This gets wilder all the time.

Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:
That does not make your point. there is a sub saharan marker in some neolithic peoples and you want to try to morph this into the founding of western civilization. Do you have any earthly idea of how looney that sounds? First of all you are thousands of years before the fact. this is all mumbo jumbo. You have no point.

It is as nutty as Doug's contention that since man began in Africa blacks invented western civilization. Try again.

Mindover, What you are doing is like trying to say that since the Souix Indians were here 800 years ago they founded modern American civilization.

THe only nut here is you as there is no such thing as Western civilization.

Again history 101 dunce, what is civilization?

Math, writing, architecture, art, government, religion, organized institutions.

Does any of this originate in Europe?

No.

Does any of this originate in Africa?
Yes.

Again, you fail history 101.

Western has nothing to do with the origin of and development of civilization as it developed and was advanced thousands of years before a Greece existed. Therefore, Greece is not a defining moment in civilization. Greece became a power in about 800 B.C., which is 2 to 3 thousand years after all the patterns and fundamental elements of civilization were developed and perfected in Africa and Asia. Both Greece and Rome were heavily influenced by Persia and Babylon as well as Africa. Therefore, civilization does not come from Greece and the development of civilization there and a thousand years later in Europe does not mark the beginning of or a special moment in the development of civilization as it was already thousands of years old every where else.

Posts: 6126 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)
Member
Member # 15400

Icon 1 posted      Profile for AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TheAmericanPatsy:
The marker does not prove that.

The marker simply proves Africans have been in Europe for over 6000 years.


quote:
Originally posted by TheAmericanPatsy:
Are you telling me that a cow establishes the fact that Africans created western civilization.
This gets wilder all the time.

Nope, but it establishes that Africans were in Europe over 6000 years ago, and influenced said areas, and both African cattle and human genetic markers are still found in high frequencies in these southern European populations in this present day.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)
Member
Member # 15400

Icon 1 posted      Profile for AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TheAmericanPatsy:
They could carry that marker and be as white as a sheet.

Well, the genetic mutation for pale skin arose after Africans migrated into said European areas, so they could not have been white as a sheet, sorry, but you can take that sheet from your head.


quote:

Researchers have disagreed for decades about an issue that is only skin-deep: How quickly did the first modern humans who swept into Europe acquire pale skin? Now a new report on the evolution of a gene for skin color suggests that Europeans lightened up quite recently, perhaps only 6000 to 12,000 years ago. This contradicts a long-standing hypothesis that modern humans in Europe grew paler about 40,000 years ago, as soon as they migrated into northern latitudes. Under darker skies, pale skin absorbs more sunlight than dark skin, allowing ultraviolet rays to produce more vitamin D for bone growth and calcium absorption. "The [evolution of] light skin occurred long after the arrival of modern humans in Europe," molecular anthropologist Heather Norton of the University of Arizona, Tucson, said in her talk.

Either way, the implication is that our European ancestors were brown-skinned for tens of thousands of years --a suggestion made 30 years ago by Stanford University geneticist L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza. He argued that the early immigrants to Europe, who were hunter-gatherers, herders, and fishers, survived on ready-made sources of vitamin D in their diet. But when farming spread in the past 6000 years, he argued, Europeans had fewer sources of vitamin D in their food and needed to absorb more sunlight to produce the vitamin in their skin. Cultural factors such as heavier clothing might also have favored increased absorption of sunlight on the few exposed areas of skin, such as hands and faces, says paleoanthropologist Nina Jablonski of PSU in State College.


Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheAmericanPatriot
Member
Member # 15824

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for TheAmericanPatriot     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
1.. The Cow does not prove that. You cannot say how the cow got there, who brought it or how many. This is weak scholarship.

2. The marker does not prove Africans were there. It proves people with an african genetic marker were there, not the same thing.

3.None of what you say has anything to do with western civilization.

4. classical historians?

Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)
Member
Member # 15400

Icon 1 posted      Profile for AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Listen dunce, you wouldn't know what scholarship was from a hole in the wall.

African cattle sequence genetics in Europe from over 6000 years ago, and still present in same places..

African human genetic lineages, in Europe from over 6000 years ago, and still present in same places..

Archaeological evidence, anthropological evidence, all proves Africans were in Europe over 6000 years ago.

The only places in Europe that advanced are these mentioned areas in southern Europe that received influence and still show this influence genetically to this day. Plain and simple.


quote:
"Against this background of disease, movement and pedomorphic reduction of body size one can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and **in Anatolian** and Macedonian first farmers , probably from Nubia via the unknown predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians....". - J. L. Angel
What do you have besides mere illogical denial; nothing!

Deny it all you want, but these facts will not change.

Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheAmericanPatriot
Member
Member # 15824

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for TheAmericanPatriot     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Classical scholar?

You spout this afrocentric crap that nobody believes but you loons.
Once again Classical scholar? Just one.

You have not made a single valid argument. You start throwing turds when you get frustrated. You are dishonest and want to distort history to suit your racist views. Again...one classical scholar.

Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)
Member
Member # 15400

Icon 1 posted      Profile for AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TheAmericanPatsy:
Classical scholar?

Classical scholars have absolutely no authority on genetic, nor anthropological material.

Why can't you refute this genetic and anthropological material, with an actual geneticist or anthropologist?

Why do you cry for classical scholars who are NOT geneticists nor anthropologists and have nothing to do with?

Btw, you're calling genetics and anthropology Afro-centrist? Nice try, Lmao [Roll Eyes]

Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheAmericanPatriot
Member
Member # 15824

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for TheAmericanPatriot     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If you do not convince the classical scholars that a bunch of african bush jumpers created western civilization then your point is lost.

As a historian I am not interested in a genetic conversation unless you can use that information to build a valid history. In this case you cannot. The history of western civilization is written by historians, not geneticists. You cannot take a genetic marker that existed 6000 years ago and morph it into Aristotle, it simply will not work.
Further, if the classical Greek historians do not accept your views, and they do not, your point will not become part of the common history.
You need much more than you have. It is not even a good start.

Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What do classical scholars have to do with the study of mans origins and spread from Africa over 100,000 years ago or the tools and techniques that they took with them? Nothing. Classical scholars do not cover such topics and therefore are irrelevant to such a discussion, which is about genetics and anthropology. But just like you failed history 101 you also fail genetics and anthropology 101, because all humans originate in Africa, therefore it would make sense that all human lineages originate there. It also would make sense that African lineages would be found in Europe as Europe is not a cradle of human beings. They had to come from somewhere else and that somewhere else is Africa and Asia. Again Europe is not a primary source of civilization, culture or humanity. It is nothing but the result of a model of cultural assimilation and domination of those ancient cultures and populations around them that they want to emulate and identify with as their own. The same with Rome and Greece vis a vis the Persians and Babylonians. Modern Europe is where it is because of the accumulated cultural elements from cultures all over the world, not because of Europe itself originating everything. But because of their histrionics they must make everyone else believe that once they adopt something they become the originators when it is not so.
Posts: 6126 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheAmericanPatriot
Member
Member # 15824

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for TheAmericanPatriot     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Doug, The subject here is western civilization and they have everything to do with that.So you are telling us that these hard working historians are all bigoted liars?

Doug, I do not give a rats behind about 100,000 years ago, or 6000 years ago. The subject is western civ. You have a hard time with that concept.

Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)
Member
Member # 15400

Icon 1 posted      Profile for AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
American patsy,

You provide perfect examples of troll posters, and all the sorts.....

Stop appealing to authority

quote:
An appeal to authority or argument by authority is a type of argument in logic. It bases the truth value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge, expertise, or position of the source asserting it. It is also known as argument from authority, argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it). [1]

It is one method of obtaining propositional knowledge, but a fallacy in regard to syllogistic logic, because the validity of a syllogism is independent of the qualities of the source putting it forward. The converse case is an ad hominem attack: to imply that a claim is false because the asserter lacks authority or is otherwise objectionable in some way.


Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheAmericanPatriot
Member
Member # 15824

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for TheAmericanPatriot     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You know Mindover you are probably a very sweet woman and I admire your interest in Genetics. The point is though that to make a valid historical construct you have to put some meat on the bones and you have not done that.
First of all the data you present is waaay to early to have an impact on classical Greece.
This is why classical historians reject this argument and in my view will continue to do so. I am not a complete hard head. If you can build me a history that is logical I would accept it. In this case the facts are simply not there.

Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)
Member
Member # 15400

Icon 1 posted      Profile for AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
American patsy,

As long as we all know that these are established gentic facts that hard working geneticists and anthropologists have dedicated their lives into is correct, and you can't refute it, you can only cry and appeal to your classical scholars for help (but to no avail).

Well, as long as you do this, everything is, and remains as always unrefuted.


African cattle sequence genetics in Europe from over 6000 years ago, and still present in same places..

African human genetic lineages, in Europe from over 6000 years ago, and still present in same places..

Archaeological evidence, anthropological evidence, all proves Africans were in Europe over 6000 years ago.

The only places in Europe that advanced are these mentioned areas in southern Europe that received influence and still show this influence genetically to this day. Plain and simple.


quote:
"Against this background of disease, movement and pedomorphic reduction of body size one can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and **in Anatolian** and Macedonian first farmers , probably from Nubia via the unknown predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians....". - J. L. Angel
Deny it all you want, but these facts will not change.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheAmericanPatriot
Member
Member # 15824

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for TheAmericanPatriot     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
6000 years ago is too far back and you have not built me a historical construct.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)
Member
Member # 15400

Icon 1 posted      Profile for AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TheAmericanPatsy:
You know Mindover you are probably a very sweet woman and I admire your interest in Genetics.

That's that backwards sexually frustrated redneck thinking there huh patsy, sorry kid, but no female here.


quote:
Originally posted by TheAmericanPatsy:
The point is though that to make a valid historical construct you have to put some meat on the bones and you have not done that.
First of all the data you present is waaay to early to have an impact on classical Greece.
This is why classical historians reject this argument and in my view will continue to do so. I am not a complete hard head. If you can build me a history that is logical I would accept it. In this case the facts are simply not there.

Are you slow? Does your brain function at a normal level? Not sure it does....

These lineages were present 6000 years ago, and are STILL present in these same exact populations (southern Europeans) where they were found 6000 years ago.

African cattle sequence genetics in Europe from over 6000 years ago, and still present in same places..

African human genetic lineages, in Europe from over 6000 years ago, and still present in same places..

Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)
Member
Member # 15400

Icon 1 posted      Profile for AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TheAmericanPatsy:
6000 years ago is too far back and you have not built me a historical construct.

These African human genetic and cattle lineages were present over 6000 years ago, and are STILL present in modern Europeans in these same exact populations and areas (southern Europe) where they were found over 6000 years ago.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheAmericanPatriot
Member
Member # 15824

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for TheAmericanPatriot     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, when you show me how a genetic marker 6000 years ago is connected to aristotle I will agree with you as will the Classical scholars. Until then every history book will continue to reflect my point of view.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)
Member
Member # 15400

Icon 1 posted      Profile for AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Listen up dunce, genetic markers from over 6000 years ago, and are still carried by the same populations in said areas southern Europe, at high frequencies as well I might add.

The only places in ancient Europe that advanced are these mentioned areas in southern Europe, that ultimately received genetic influence, and still show this African influence genetically still to this day. Plain and simple.

African cattle sequence genetics in Europe from over 6000 years ago, and still present in same places..

African human genetic lineages, in Europe from over 6000 years ago, and still present in same places..

Archaeological evidence, anthropological evidence, all proves Africans were in Europe over 6000 years ago and modern inhabitants also prove this by carrying said African markers.

Deny it all you want, but these facts will not change.

Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheAmericanPatriot
Member
Member # 15824

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for TheAmericanPatriot     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Your facts are not valid.

1. You are saying that southern europe advanced in 1900 BC after the Indo European invasion because of an african genetic marker that rolled in 20 centuries or more before? ?? You need to think about that one a bit.

2. OK the cattle were there, so what? You never answered my question. How did they get there? How many came to start with? Three, three hundred? thirty thousand? You do not know and those are all questions you have to answer to build a history.

3. The marker is there OK, again so what? Fifty prople could spread that marker to millions over a thousand years time. Again, no histotical construct.

Sorry mindover, the afrocentric genetic argument is invalid and it is not accepted by historians for all of the reasons I mentioned.

Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)
Member
Member # 15400

Icon 1 posted      Profile for AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:
Your facts are not valid.

1. You are saying that southern europe advanced in 1900 BC after the Indo European invasion because of an african genetic marker that rolled in 20 centuries or more before? ?? You need to think about that one a bit.

You do understand that these genetic markers were not just found in populations 6000 years ago, but are also found in modern times at high frequencies and make up about 25% of the modern Greek Y-dna gene pool; right?

Which means they (African lineages) were carried throughout classical Greece etc... you nitwit.

Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)
Member
Member # 15400

Icon 1 posted      Profile for AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:
2. OK the cattle were there, so what? You never answered my question. How did they get there?

Via maritime routes over the straits of Gibraltar as duly noted. Problem is, you don't read....

quote:
Testing the Hypothesis of an African Cattle Contribution in Southern
European Breeds (H2).

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/21/8113.full.pdf+html?sid=5a7e2127-600a-4e72-90e9-e4ae9c1f1ffd

There is evidence of early diffusion of cattle pastoralism by people crossing arms of sea (21–23), and, hence, the same process may have led to the dispersal in Europe of breeds carrying the T1 haplotype.


Further confirmation of course.....


quote:
Prehistoric contacts over the Straits of Gibraltar
indicated by genetic analysis of Iberian
Bronze Age cattle

Link

Previously, the appearance of the Late Atlantic Neolithic culture had been placed at a significantly later date than the Egyptian culture, and this chronology and the cultural similarity were interpreted as implying that Egypt was the original source (14). However, more accurate radiocarbon dates obtained from Late Atlantic Neolithic culture sites subsequently redated the origin of this culture to being approximately the same as that of the predynastic Badarian Egyptian culture (15), leading to the hypothesis that these two cultures might derive from a common area, perhaps through pastoral groups living in the Sahara. The culture linked to the Late Atlantic Neolithic period is known to have been dedicated almost exclusively to cattle breeding, secondarily complemented by sheep and goat breeding (14), suggesting that an investigation of the origin of Iberian cattle may offer further insight into early Iberian–African cultural contacts.



Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheAmericanPatriot
Member
Member # 15824

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for TheAmericanPatriot     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The fact that the markers were there in a non african population means nothing. 75% did not have the marker by your own data. The 25% that did got it thousands of years before . Are you trying to say that some magical gene from 5000 years before was making them do all of these great things?

The afrocentric genetic argument is invalid and is NOT accepted by historians for all of the reasons I mentioned.

Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)
Member
Member # 15400

Icon 1 posted      Profile for AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:
 -

Prehistoric contacts over the Straits of Gibraltar
indicated by genetic analysis of Iberian
Bronze Age cattle

Link

These early Neolithic populations of Andalusia appear to have consisted of a number of distinct groups (12), one of which is suggested to have African origin due to finds of characteristic red ochre ceramics (13, 14). Similarities have also been noted between the predynastic Badarian Egyptian culture dated to the 5th millennium B.C. and the Late Atlantic Neolithic culture in western Andalusia (14). Previously, the appearance of the Late Atlantic Neolithic culture had been placed at a significantly later date than the Egyptian culture, and this chronology and the cultural similarity were interpreted as implying that Egypt was the original source (14). However, more accurate radiocarbon dates obtained from Late Atlantic Neolithic culture sites subsequently redated the origin of this culture to being approximately the same as that of the predynastic Badarian Egyptian culture (15), leading to the hypothesis that these two cultures might derive from a common area, perhaps through pastoral groups living in the Sahara. The culture linked to the Late Atlantic Neolithic period is known to have been dedicated almost exclusively to cattle breeding, secondarily complemented by sheep and goat breeding (14), suggesting that an investigation of the origin of Iberian cattle may offer further insight into early Iberian–African cultural contacts.

Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Explorer
Member
Member # 14778

Icon 1 posted      Profile for The Explorer   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:
Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:

Spanish historians are not going to agree that the Muslim conquest of Spain was a black African driven event.

Nobody said that. Stop making stuff up.
Depends on which "Muslims" are being referred to here; if it was the "Moors", then yes, *I'm* saying that it was a "black African driven event". [Cool]
Posts: 7516 | From: L‘un et seulement terrain de Bennu-Ausar | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheAmericanPatriot
Member
Member # 15824

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for TheAmericanPatriot     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
75% did not have the marker, not a drop of african blood. Your agrument fails. The 25% that had the marker did not even know it.


Good night.

Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)
Member
Member # 15400

Icon 1 posted      Profile for AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:
Are you trying to say that some magical gene from 5000 years before was making them do all of these great things?

What I am saying is the only places in ancient Europe that advanced are these mentioned areas in southern Europe, that ultimately received genetic influence, and still show this African influence genetically still to this day. Plain and simple.


Northern European didn't advance, but southern Europe did, and southern Europe was ultimately the only place to receive outside influence and still show this influence to this day at high frequencies.

Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)
Member
Member # 15400

Icon 1 posted      Profile for AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:
75% did not have the marker, not a drop of african blood. Your agrument fails. The 25% that had the marker did not even know it.

What are you retarded, an African genetic marker in Greece over 6000 years ago, and is still one of the most prevalent Y haplogroups to this day reaching 25% in Greece and even higher frequencies in other European populations; is irrelevant?

You make no sense.

Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheAmericanPatriot
Member
Member # 15824

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for TheAmericanPatriot     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How exactly did this magic gene cause them to advance 2000 years later?
That is a crappy argument. It is like saying that since I do not know what that light in the sky is it must be a space ship.
Especially since 75% of the population had not a single african gene.

the afrocentric genetic argument is invalid.

Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | EgyptSearch!

(c) 2012 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3