posted
^ Obviously you simply don't care how inaccurate your information is, so I'm not going to bother to correct it.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And obviously this f**ker has lost what was left of his decrepit mind a long time ago!!
The only question I have is why this lunatic's posts of ridiculous sh*t have picture frames around them??
Please tell me this fool does not have all this stupid sh*t as pictures hanging around his house!! LMAOPosts: 26307 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Sad to say, such a claim has already been made!!-- There are Afrocentrics who believe that ancient Africans invented space travel and colonized Mars ROTFL
Hikuptah is right about there being an information war, and as I've said before Marc is just one of the casualties of this war that folks like Winters leads.
Posts: 26307 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Marc thanks for these pictures of ancient Europeans and the San/Hottentot people. There have been numerous "Negroid skeletons" found in Europe which support a connection between the South Africans and ancient Europeans.
Marcellin Boule and Henri Vallois, in Fossil Man, provide an entire chapter on the Africans/Negroes of Europe Anta Diop also discussed the Negroes of Europe in Civilization or Barbarism , pp.25-68. Also W.E. B. DuBois, discussed these Negroes in the The World and Africa , pp.86-89. DuBois noted that "There was once a an "uninterrupted belt' of Negro culture from Central Europe to South Africa" (p.88).
Boule and Vallois, note that "To sum up, in the most ancient skeletons from the Grotte des Enfants we have a human type which is readily comparable to modern types and especially to the Negritic or Negroid type" (p.289). They continue, "Two Neolithic individuals from Chamblandes in Switzerland are Negroid not only as regards their skulls but also in the proportions of their limbs. Several Ligurian and Lombard tombs of the Metal Ages have also yielded evidences of a Negroid element. Since the publication of Verneau's memoir, discoveries of other Negroid skeletons in Neolithic levels in Illyria and the Balkans have been announced. The prehistoric statues, dating from the Copper Age, from Sultan Selo in Bulgaria are also thought to protray Negroids. In 1928 Rene Bailly found in one of the caverns of Moniat, near Dinant in Belgium, a human skeleton of whose age it is difficult to be certain, but seems definitely prehistoric. It is remarkable for its Negroid characters, which give it a reseblance to the skeletons from both Grimaldi and Asselar (p.291).
Boule and Vallois, note that "We know now that the ethnography of South African tribes presents many striking similarities with the ethnography of our populations of the Reindeer Age. Not to speak of their stone implements which, as we shall see later , exhibit great similarities, Peringuey has told us that in certain burials on the South African coast 'associated with the Aurignacian or Solutrean type industry...."(p.318-319). They add, that in relation to Bushman art " This almost uninterrupted series leads us to regard the African continent as a centre of important migrations which at certain times may have played a great part in the stocking of Southern Europe. Finally, we must not forget that the Grimaldi Negroid skeletons sho many points of resemblance with the Bushman skeletons". They bear no less a resemblance to that of the fossil Man discovered at Asslar in mid-Sahara, whose characters led us to class him with the Hottentot-Bushman group.
As you can see there is skeletal evidence supporting Marc's evidence of the ancient African presence in Europe. Marc keep up the great work.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Thus we end up with the nordic negroes vs. rift valley africa caucazoids.
Some nordic people were African. This was especially true of some Vikings. It appears that some Vikings were Negroes/Africans or Blacks.
The Danish Vikings were Blacks according to David MacRitchie, in Ancient and Modern Britons (Volume 1),he wrote that "Here there is perfect unanimity. The 'cum nigris gentibus' of the Annals, and Powel's "blacke armie" , are at one. Thus we have as evidence these terms-dubh (used with four different nouns), niger and black--all applied in the most natural and matter-of-fact way to the Danish pirates by men persumable white race. Can anything be clearer?
What may be called genealogical evidence of the existence of black-skinned races exisiting in Scotland within historic times, has already been adduced in considering the "Moors"."(page 116)
MacRitchies book can give you valuable information on the ancient Blacks that ruled Europe in historic times.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Thanks, Yazid. The above is an old poster of mine that I made before giving explanatory notes on the pages and I need to go back one day and do that with this one.
I will use some of your information in the future, if you don't mind. So, above is another page of hints of the African presence in Eurasia. I think the history is fascinating. In the Upper Paleolithic, African arrival in North Europe was an event that had to be named and it was named the Pleistocene. Then lots of important history centered on Africans in Northern Europe. They travelled to Japan and Southeast Asia and geneticists write this very day about the connection between Northern European ancient peoples and those in SE Asia and onto (I believe) New Guinea also (so, it was approached from both Africa and maybe also, ultimately, Northern Europe via routes along the way.
Then came the Neolithic and I hold the belief that early agriculture in the Sudan of 12,000 - 14,000 BC laid the foundation for what would become the Middle East farmers who'd travel to and transform Europe from a society of hunter-gatherers to agro-pastoralists. In Eastern and Central Europe at this time were those from Northern Europe who populated Central Europe at the same speed that the glaciers melted. And it was these people in the Mesolithic who met the Middle East farmers and adopted their pottery and ways.
Many other interesting movements happened in later history but these early days all that happened was of African import either from the phenotpypes themselves, to movements directly or indirectly from Africa. Very interesting history disrupted and destroyed by the outset of Western society that got all it had from the early Africans.
The most fascinating thing of the picture showing a possible North African connection is picture 16 with the peppercorn hair. One of the senior archeologists in Hungary (in fact, I am going to call him today about the following) gave me this picture. In my files, I have maybe 60 images of this peppercorn style in African phenotypes from around the Neolithic and Bronze Age world. But picture 16 shows that it was in use in the Neolithic from 7000 BC or something here in Hungary.
That's amazing as there must have been a connection between all the people worldwide who spent hours or maybe days carving these little thumb-sized figures out of rock and getting the details of the peppercorn African hair. Picture14 shows it was in Africa near 4000 BC. That picture comes from the British Museum. But, I rather have doubts about it. The artist drew it to look European. I'd like to see the original.
All the best to you, Yazid,
Marc W.
.
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Damn. What a mistake. I am sorry Dr. Winters. In browsing quickly through the post, I saw Yazid's name and scrolled down the text thinking it was his contribution but it was yours.
Solid research again. I offer you my deep respect for taking the time to uncover these important facts showing African foundations of world history. A history that was intentionally buried and would have remained had not scholars such as yourself taken the time to dig it up.
This is not to say I agree with every position you take and I for one am sad to see quibbling here at the site. But where your cited research is concerned, that is a diamond and one with eternal value; and I thank you for sharing it.
Respectfully yours,
Marc Washington
.
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dr. Winters. Thanks again for the citations. I re-did the poster adding these citations. The text is inserted below in the event it is not clearly legible on the web page. Excellent information. I wish I was as well-read in these areas as you. I changed the title from "Hints of African Presence in Europe and Asia" to "The African Presence in Europe and Asia."
TEXT FROM WEB PAGE
There has been a long recognized African presence in Eurasia. As Dr. Clyde Winters writes: “Marcellin Boule and Henri Vallois, in Fossil Man, provide an entire chapter on the Africans/Negroes of Europe. Anta Diop also discussed the Negroes of Europe in Civilization or Barbarism , pp.25-68. Also W.E. B. DuBois, discussed these Negroes in the The World and Africa , pp.86-89. DuBois noted that ‘There was once a an ’uninterrupted belt' of Negro culture from Central Europe to South Africa’ (p.88).”
[Marc continues]
[I] Steatophygia is an African trait. It was the African population in Bulgaria [11] that produced the ceramics in [1] and the African population in Hungary [5, 6] that produced the elated ceramics in Hungary [2]. There was a huge geographical sphere with the Kung / San population spanning Africa [8, 9], the Ancient Near East [7, 8], and Europe [5, 6, 11, 12]. [II] Peppercorn hair as an African artistic trait is found also in Africa with Ptah Hotep [20], with Gudea in Mesopotamia [19], with Hercules in Syria [18], the first Viking Thor in Scandiinavia - and African [13], and elsewhere [14. 15. 16, 17]. [III] African Home arts span the millenniums and continents via Hungary of 6000 BC [3] and Ghana today [4] where in both instances, the water-sign motif is used to decorate exterior walls."
If it is all right with you, perhaps we can collaborate more in the future with these web pages? I don't have so much time but occasionally I will be able to put some together. What do you think?
Marc Washington
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
If it is all right with you, perhaps we can collaborate more in the future with these web pages? I don't have so much time but occasionally I will be able to put some together. What do you think?
Sounds great to me. If I can help let me know.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Nordic: Of or relating to, or characteristic of Scandinavia or its peoples, languages, or cultures.
African: Of or relating to Africa or its peoples, languages, or cultures. A native or inhabitant of Africa.
quote:MacRitchies book can give you valuable information on the ancient Blacks that ruled Europe in historic times.
Which would be completely irrelevant to the lie that that the original Nordic population was "African".
quote:Most assume that 100 thousand years ago, when Africans entered northern Europe
^ Appalling ignorance as a 'teaching tool'.
There were *no homo sapiens in Europe 100 thousand years ago* - only Neanderthal.
All humans including Europeans are descendant from 60kya ~ East Africans.
Aboriginal Europeans are descendant from central Asians circa 35kya~.
Modern Europeans are today descendant of these people.
Winters tries to circulate the lie that the original Europeans are 'africans' and so unrelated to modern Europeans who are descendant from [space monkeys?] who knows - when you ask him, he won't say, because he knows any lie he makes up will sound ridiculous, possibly even to his target audience, who are presumably completely uneducated in modern anthropology.
Winters continues his 'afrocentric' war against truth and intelligence.
Serious students of African history will continue to dismiss his nonsense. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
And very sad to say, but unfortunately Hore's prediction came true!!
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: We are waiting for the negroid danes to show up on this board. i come here every day for a good laugh. this board is scholarship out of a cereal box.
Well Hore, we finally have it! Clyde and Marc claim to have evidence of negroid Danes and other Nordic peoples! Posts: 26307 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Well Hore, we finally have it! Clyde and Marc claim to have evidence of negroid Danes and other Nordic peoples!
This claim was made by David MacRitchie, in Ancient and Modern Britons (Volume 1). Just because you don't believe this person that is your right. This book was written by a European not an Afrocentrist.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Your point? There were African scholars who wrote of caucasoid Nilotes and Horn Africans, but that does not mean it was any accurate.
Question: If the original inhabitants were "negroid", where did whites come from??
Posts: 26307 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Winters continues his 'afrocentric' war against truth and intelligence.
Serious students of African history will continue to dismiss his nonsense.
This claim was made by David MacRitchie, in Ancient and Modern Britons (Volume 1). You always claim that somethings is made up and pretend you are a serious student of African history. Although you make this claim you never present any evidence disputing what I have written.
Instead of dismissing this claim of MacRitchie, why don't you present counter evidence that his sources are unreliable. Until this is done your comments are jibberish. Moreover, please produce any information disputing the discovery of African skeletons in Europe and the fincing that the Grimaldi people were related to the South Africans.
You claim that Marc and I are wrong in suggesting that Blacks founded civilization in Europe. This is not supported by DNA research that make it clear that the present Europeans are hg R, while the ancient Cro-Magnon and European neolithic and pre-Indo-European speaking people belong to hg N, which is decendant of hg L3.
Brace et al note that
quote:
Many human craniofacial dimensions are largely of neutral adaptive significance, and an analysis of their variation can serve as an indication of the extent to which any given population is genetically related to or differs from any other. When 24 craniofacial measurements of a series of human populations are used to generate neighbor-joining dendrograms, it is no surprise that all modern European groups, ranging all of the way from Scandinavia to eastern Europe and throughout the Mediterranean to the Middle East, show that they are closely related to each other. The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants, although the prehistoric/modern ties are somewhat more apparent in southern Europe. It is a further surprise that the Epipalaeolithic Natufian of Israel from whom the Neolithic realm was assumed to arise has a clear link to Sub-Saharan Africa. Basques and Canary Islanders are clearly associated with modern Europeans. When canonical variates are plotted, neither sample ties in with Cro-Magnon as was once suggested. The data treated here support the idea that the Neolithic moved out of the Near East into the circum-Mediterranean areas and Europe by a process of demic diffusion but that subsequently the in situ residents of those areas, derived from the Late Pleistocene inhabitants, absorbed both the agricultural life way and the people who had brought it.
Brace et al also note that: "When the maximum number of twigs is plotted, despite the very small numbers involved, the Late Pleistocene samples from Israel, Europe, and North Aftica tend to link to each other before they tie to the modern representatives of each of the areas in question, as shown in Fig. 1. In that run, the Natufian of Israel ties to the French Mesolithic and then to the Afalou Taforalt sample from North Africa. These then link with the European Upper Palaeolithic sample and, somewhat surprisingly, with the Chandman (the Mongolian Bronze Age sample) and finally, at the next step, with the Danish Neolithic. One of the things that these geographically diverse groups clearly have in common is a degree of robustness that sets them apart from the recent inhabitants of the areas in which they are found."
Brace et al conclude that "The assessment of prehistoric and recent human craniofacial dimensions supports the picture documented by genetics that the extension of Neolithic agriculture from the Near East westward to Europe and across North Africa was accomplished by a process of demic diffusion (11–15). If the Late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, then there was clearly a Sub-Saharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element. At the same time, the failure of the Neolithic and Bronze Age samples in central and northern Europe to tie to the modern inhabitants supports the suggestion that, while a farming mode of subsistence was spread westward and also north to Crimea and east to Mongolia by actual movement of communities of farmers, the indigenous foragers in each of those areas ultimately absorbed both the agricultural subsistence strategy and also the people who had brought it. The interbreeding of the incoming Neolithic people with the in situ foragers diluted the Sub-Saharan traces that may have come with the Neolithic spread so that no discoverable element of that remained. This picture of a mixture between the incoming farmers and the in situ foragers had originally been supported by the archaeological record alone (6, 9, 33, 34, 48, 49), but this view is now reinforced by the analysis of the skeletal morphology of the people of those areas where prehistoric and recent remains can be metrically compared.'
This finding supports the research of Boule of the same race of people from Europe to Africa.
Boule and Vallois, note that "We know now that the ethnography of South African tribes presents many striking similarities with the ethnography of our populations of the Reindeer Age. Not to speak of their stone implements which, as we shall see later , exhibit great similarities, Peringuey has told us that in certain burials on the South African coast 'associated with the Aurignacian or Solutrean type industry...."(p.318-319). They add, that in relation to Bushman art " This almost uninterrupted series leads us to regard the African continent as a centre of important migrations which at certain times may have played a great part in the stocking of Southern Europe. Finally, we must not forget that the Grimaldi Negroid skeletons sho many points of resemblance with the Bushman skeletons". They bear no less a resemblance to that of the fossil Man discovered at Asslar in mid-Sahara, whose characters led us to class him with the Hottentot-Bushman group.
This is additional support for Marc's great poster.
Question: If the original inhabitants were "negroid", where did whites come from??
This is a good question. The evidence of European origins is contradictory. Originally Europeans were proud of the fact that they were nomads. As a symbol of their heritage they made the creation of the wheel and the domestication of the horse as symbols of Indo-European civilization.
In the 19th Century linguist began to "reconstruct" Proto-Indo-European the imagined ancestral language of people speaking these related languages. I say that Proto-Indo-European , like my Paleo-African reseaches is imagined because we have no text supporting the Proto /Paleo-languages we reconstruct. This research suggested that Indo-Europeans may have come from the Black Sea area. The only problem with the linguistic discoveries is that much of the cultural lexical is of unknown origin.
Renfrew attempted to link the IE people to the early farmers in Anatolia and Europe. This view was rejected because there is no evidence for farming playing a major role in IE civilization. Moreover, if farming terms are limited to geographically neighboring IE languages they suggest that these terms could be either innovations for this group of languages or borrowing from a a former language spoken in the area when the IE speakers arrived. This conflicted with the popular view that the first IE speakers were Kurgan nomads . And in recent years some researchers have pointed out the fact that the Kurgan people may not have even domesticated the horse.
The Anatolia hypothesis had a good fit for Indo-European origin, because of Hittite. Indo-Europeanist claim that Hittite was the first IE language. The Hittite language is called Nesa. The only problem with this theory was it was later found that the earliest rulers of the land were Kaska and Hatti speakers who spoke non-IE languages called Khattili. The gods of the Hattic people were Kasku and Kusuh (< Kush).
The Hattic people, may be related to the Hatiu, one of the Delta Tehenu tribes. Many archaeologist believe that the Tehenu people were related to the C-Group people. The Hattic language is closely related to African and Dravidian languages for example: English ...Hattic..Egyptian ......Malinke
powerful...ur.... wr'great,big'......fara
protect...$uh..... swh............ solo-
head ...tup....... tp .............tu 'strike the head'
up,upper....tufa ...tp .............dya, tu 'raising ground'
The languages have similar syntax Hattic le fil 'his house'; Mande a falu 'his father's house'.
This suggest that the first Anatolians were Kushites, a view supported by the Hattic name for themselves: Kashka.
The Hittites adopted much of Hattic culture. There were other languages spoken in Anatolia, including Palaic Luwian and Hurrian.
The languages of the Hittites: Nesa, was a lingua franca used by the Luwian and Palaic speakers. The Hurrians spoke a non-IE language. Formerly, linguist suggested that the Hurrians were dominated by Indic speakers. Linguist of the IE languages were fond of this theory because some of the names for the earliest Indo-Aryan gods, chariots and horsemenship are found in Hurrian.
Hurrian........ Sanscrit
Mi-it-ra...... Mitra
Aru-na......... Varuna
In-da-ra........ Indra
This made the Indo-Aryan domination of Hurrians good support for an Anatolia origin for the IE speakers. This theory held high regrads until Bjarte Kaldhol studied 500 Hurrian names and found that only 5, were Indo-Aryan sounding. This made it clear that the IA people probably learned horsemenship from the Hurrians, and not the other way around.
At the base of Nesite, the language of the Hittites is Hattic. Since this language was used as a lingua franca, Nesa was probably not an IE language as assumed by IE linguist. This along with the fact that Diakonoff and Kohl never defeated the Kaska; and the Hurrians introduced horse-drawn war chariots for military purposes indicate that Anatolia probably was not a homeland for the IE speakers.
Finally, this review of the theories about IE languages is complicated and on-going and make it clear we need more research to determine where Europeans came from.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's no evidence that blacks "ruled Europe in historic times."
This quote
quote: "Here there is perfect unanimity. The 'cum nigris gentibus' of the Annals, and Powel's "blacke armie" , are at one. Thus we have as evidence these terms-dubh (used with four different nouns), niger and black--all applied in the most natural and matter-of-fact way to the Danish pirates by men persumable [sic] white race. Can anything be clearer?
from Mac Ritchie wasn't in reference to Negroes or Africans. Mac Ritchie wrote of various blacks and distinguished Negroes as but one kind of black. What kind of black were these Black Danes?
Unfortunately this very valuable book written in 1884 has no index and the reprint publishers neglected to compile an index for it. It follows the then current style of listing chapter subject matter in the table of contents. Book I chapter vii and Book III chapter xvi have material on the Black Danes.
Mac Ritchie speculates on the origin of Black Danes thusly:
quote: Therefore, it becomes evident that some race of Scandinavians must have been Black Huns also, with physical characteristics approaching those of the Pictish Moors, either in the Australoid or in the Mongoloid direction. And since the Mongoloid belt stretches generally north of the Australoid, it seems likely that any possible Scandinavian Picts belonged to the former, rather than to the latter type. There really happens to be a tradition of a "Hungarian" invasion of Scotland.
After giving a physical description of the Huns from Gibbon, "... dark complexion, almost black; ... broad shoulders, flat noses, and small black eyes deeply buried in the head; ... almost destitute of beards," Mac Ritchie forthrightly declares these were the people under Attila who disappeared from European history after 454 CE.
They had occupied Gothic territory from the Euxine to the Baltic. Mac Ritchie then writes of the Cimbri, a people whom he says once inhabited lands "which now form the modern kingdom of Denmark. He draws a corelation between the Black Huns and the Cimbri noting the Cimbri were the original Danes and were known as, "Dani, iidem qui Cimbri." He goes on to surmise that the 8th century Danes who invaded Scotland were confused with "Hungarians."
In the 11th century these Danes (Danari) were distinguished from and competitors of the Norwegians. The former being Eastmen and the latter Northmen. The Danari are styled "'black Danars,' or 'black Danes' ... As black, at any rate (let us suppose), as the Black Huns, who were 'of a dark complexion; almost black."
Mac Ritchie, right or wrong, posits that his "Moors" of the British Isles were Picts and Danes. "Therefore, when a black man is discovered on a family tree of a thousand years ago, he may be either a 'Dane' or a 'Pict'"
These are his * cum nigris gentibus * blacke armie * dubh * niger "all applied in the most natural and matter-of-fact way to the Danish pirates by men of presumably white race. Can anything be clearer?"
Mac Ritchie mentions the "'Black Celts to the west of Shannon' -- are, as likely as not, the living representatives of the Black Danes. While, on the other hand, the Celtic tibes ... are ... the fair skinned Germans of the Romans."
In conclusion Mac Ritchie "... consider[s] the ... Danish pirates as a swarthy, half-Mongoloid people, ..."
Whites were already inhabiting Europe when the Huns invaded it. Whoever else may be, Black Danes aren't evidence of a "pre-whites" historic era "black Europe."
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:The interbreeding of the incoming Neolithic people with the in situ foragers diluted the Sub-Saharan traces that may have come with the Neolithic spread so that no discoverable element of that remained.
Brace's whole point is that the modern white people of Europe physically resemble and descend from the native PRE neolithic population, who subsequently interbred with Africans and Levantines.
Hence: Sub-Saharan traces that may have come with the Neolithic spread.
In the extremely simplistic terms you seem to require in order to stop you from intentionally distorting it for the benefit of the miseducation of others:
Paleolithic: Original Europeans settle in ICE AGE Europe - lose their pigmentation due to adaptation to climate and vitamin poor diet by the mesolithic.
Pre-Neolithic: Europeans absorb mixture from Africans and Levantines.
Post-Neolithic: Native Europeans assimilate African influence so that Europeans of today appear more like their Paleolithic/Mesolithic ancestors than their more heavily admixed and more recent neolithic ones.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Brace's whole point is that the modern white people of Europe physically resemble and descend from the native PRE neolithic population, who subsequently interbred with Africans and Levantines.
Hence: Sub-Saharan traces that may have come with the Neolithic spread.
In the extremely simplistic terms you seem to require in order to stop you from intentionally distorting it:
Paleolithic: Original Europeans settle in ICE AGE Europe - turn white due to adaptation to climate by the mesolithic.
Pre-Neolithic: Europeans absorb mixture from Africans and Levantines.
Post-Neolithic: Native Europeans assimilate African influence so that Europeans of today appear more like their Paleolithic/Mesolithic ancestors than their more heavily admixed and more recent neolithic ones.
This is false. The data indicates that the ancient European foragers, since they agreed with the North African samples were one and the same .Brace et al also note that: "When the maximum number of twigs is plotted, despite the very small numbers involved, the Late Pleistocene samples from Israel, Europe, and North Africa tend to link to each other before they tie to the modern representatives of each of the areas in question, as shown in Fig. 1. In that run, the Natufian of Israel ties to the French Mesolithic and then to the Afalou Taforalt sample from North Africa. These then link with the European Upper Palaeolithic sample and, somewhat surprisingly, with the Chandman (the Mongolian Bronze Age sample) and finally, at the next step, with the Danish Neolithic. One of the things that these geographically diverse groups clearly have in common is a degree of robustness that sets them apart from the recent inhabitants of the areas in which they are found." Boule and Vallois made it clear that these skeletal remains from Europe were analogous to the African type, just as the Afalou which is also an African group make it clear that the the ancient Euorpean foragers were already Black when the Natufians entered the area.
It is clear that Brace et al, are claiming that the earlier European population was replaced by the contemporary Europeans who absorbed the original European farmers. They even noted that the Baques, who are often alleged to be related to the original Europeans craniometrically were dissimilar.
Brace et al conclude that
quote: "The assessment of prehistoric and recent human craniofacial dimensions supports the picture documented by genetics that the extension of Neolithic agriculture from the Near East westward to Europe and across North Africa was accomplished by a process of demic diffusion (11–15). If the Late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, then there was clearly a Sub-Saharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element. "
Brace et al add: "At the same time, the failure of the Neolithic and Bronze Age samples in central and northern Europe to tie to the modern inhabitants supports the suggestion that, while a farming mode of subsistence was spread westward and also north to Crimea and east to Mongolia by actual movement of communities of farmers, the indigenous foragers in each of those areas ultimately absorbed both the agricultural subsistence strategy and also the people who had brought it.
As a result, Brace observed that:" The interbreeding of the incoming Neolithic people with the in situ foragers diluted the Sub-Saharan traces that may have come with the Neolithic spread so that no discoverable element of that remained. This picture of a mixture between the incoming farmers and the in situ foragers had originally been supported by the archaeological record alone (6, 9, 33, 34, 48, 49), but this view is now reinforced by the analysis of the skeletal morphology of the people of those areas where prehistoric and recent remains can be metrically compared."
A skeletal morphology that does not link contemporary Europeans with the ancient inhabitants. The contemporary Europeans are descendants of the Indo-European speakers. There is no evidence that the Indo-European speaking people originated in Europe.
In addition, there is no way that you can claim that the ancient Europeans were "white". Skeletons, bones can not tell the color of anyone. But bones can tell your race. And the bones from ancient Europe make it clear these people were Blacks and not whites.
Given the double talk from Rasol, I would suggest that anyone interested in this matter should read the original paper.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Winters writes: It is clear that Brace et al, are claiming that the earlier European population was replaced by the contemporary Europeans who absorbed the original European farmers.
lol. W R O N G.
You've managed to completely screw this up, "reversing" what Brace actually stated.
There are *no original European farmers* - the farmers are neolithic demic diffusive migrants from Africa and the Middleast.
The in-situ Europeans - WHITES, were foragers, not farmers.
A complete citation of Brace conclusions corrects your misrepresentation and miscomprehensionn
CONCLUSION:
The assessment of prehistoric and recent human craniofacial dimensions supports the picture documented by genetics that the extension of Neolithic agriculture from the Near East westward to Europe and across North Africa was accomplished by a process of demic diffusion (11–15).
If the Late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread, then there was clearly a Sub- Saharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element.
At the same time, the failure of the Neolithic and Bronze Age samples in central and northern Europe to tie to the modern inhabitants supports the suggestion that, while a farming mode of subsistence was spread westward and also north to Crimea and east to Mongolia by actual movement of communities of farmers, the indigenous FORAGERS in each of those areas ultimately absorbed both the agricultural subsistence strategy and also the people who had brought it.
The interbreeding of the incoming Neolithic people with the in situ foragers diluted the Sub-Saharan traces that may have COME WITH THE NEOLITHIC spread so that no discoverable element of that remained.
This picture of a mixture between the incoming farmers and the IN SITU FORAGERS had originally been supported by the archaeological record alone (6, 9, 33, 34, 48, 49), but this view is now reinforced by the analysis of the skeletal morphology of the people of those areas where prehistoric and recent remains can be metrically compared.Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:In addition, there is no way that you can claim that the ancient Europeans were "white". Skeletons, bones can not tell the color of anyone.
According to Brace, whom you are citing, skin color corelates to skeletal structure and limb ratio, therefore by studying the loss of tropical adaptation in European skeletal remains over time - we can draw some inference in concordance to loss of pigmentation.
quote: But bones can tell your race.
According to Brace whom you are citing- race is and incoherent ideology, not a fact of anthropology. You lend additional credence to Brace correct statement with each new bizarre racialist claim.
quote:And the bones from ancient Europe make it clear these people were Blacks and not whites.
^Not according to Brace, whom you are citing.
quote: Given the double talk from Rasol
But, double talk is your forte' Dr. Winters, isn't it?
Consider: You claim that pre-historic Northern Europeans were Black,
but then turn around and claim that 'there is no way to prove they were White.
What is that, if not doubletalk? ? ?
It's also bad debate semantics. I'm beginning to understand why you target your "arguments" to the lowest common denominator.
quote: I would suggest that anyone interested in this matter should read the original paper.
The people of central European ancestry are largely the descendants of "Old Stone Age," Paleolithic hunter-gatherers who arrived in Europe around 40,000 years ago rather than *the first farmers who arrived tens of thousands of years later during the Neolithic Age.* http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/310/5750/1016
quote:rasol wrote: Brace's whole point is that the modern white people of Europe physically resemble and descend from the native PRE neolithic population, who subsequently interbred with Africans and Levantines.
Hence: Sub-Saharan traces that may have *come with the Neolithic spread.*
posted
There is disagreement over where the Europeans originated and when they spread across Europe. Dr. M. Gimbutas maintains that Europeans had their origin in the Pontic steppe country on the north coast of the Black Sea and began to expand into Europe as Kurgan nomads after 4000 B.C.
In 1987, Dr. C. Renfrew hypothesized that the Indo-Europeans lived in eastern Anatolia and spread into Europe around 7000 years ago with the spread of agriculture. Both of these views have little support based upon the ancestral culture terms used by the Proto-Indo-European which are predominately of non Indo-European (I-E) origin.
After a comparison of the linguistic, agricultural and genetic evidence researchers have found little support for both of these theories. Sokal et al, noted that:
"If the IEs originated in situ by local differentiation only, there should be no significant partial correlation , since geography should fully explain the observed genetic and linguistic distances. This was not the case.
If the genetics-language correlation were entirely due to the spread of populations accompanying the origin of agriculture, then the origin-of-agriculture model should suffice, or at least there should be some effect due to origin of agriculture. But we saw that origin-of- agricuture distances (OOA) cannot reduce the partial correlations remaining after geography has been held constant."
There were no whites in Europe until the coming of the Indo-European speaking people.
Sokal et al
quote: Origins of the Indo-Europeans: Genetic Evidence
RR Sokal, NL Oden and BA Thomson
Two theories of the origins of the Indo-Europeans currently compete. M. Gimbutas believes that early Indo-Europeans entered southeastern Europe from the Pontic Steppes starting ca. 4500 B.C. and spread from there. C. Renfrew equates early Indo-Europeans with early farmers who entered southeastern Europe from Asia Minor ca. 7000 BC and spread through the continent. We tested genetic distance matrices for each of 25 systems in numerous Indo-European-speaking samples from Europe. To match each of these matrices, we created other distance matrices representing geography, language, time since origin of agriculture, Gimbutas' model, and Renfrew's model. The correlation between genetics and language is significant. Geography, when held constant, produces a markedly lower, yet still highly significant partial correlation between genetics and language, showing that more remains to be explained. However, none of the remaining three distances-time since origin of agriculture, Gimbutas' model, or Renfrew's model-reduces the partial correlation further. Thus, neither of the two theories appears able to explain the origin of the Indo-Europeans as gauged by the genetics- language correlation.
The "whites" or Caucasians are not native to Europe as noted by Sokal. Although this was written in 1992, Haak et al (2006) make it clear that the IE speakers are not related to the ancient Europeans who were Negroes/Sub-Saharan Africans.
Brace et al wrote: “What does come as a surprise is that the Neolithic samples tend to tie with Neolithic samples across the entire range from east to west but do not cluster with the living people in many of the areas tested."
In the next line Brace et al contradicts themselves in an attempt to make it appear that continuity exist between the ancient and contemporary groups when they write: "There is more of a link between the prehistoric and modern samples in southern Europe as opposed to the picture in central and northern Europe. Much the same is true for the Bronze Age samples, although these do tend to tie to the preceding Neolithic in the same part of the range tested. Unlike the Neolithic, Bronze Age, and modern samples, the Palaeolithic samples are not from single sites. There is no single European Upper Palaeolithic sample large enough to run as a single twig in a dendrogram. Instead, we had to use Cro-Magnon 1, La Ronde du Barry, Abri Pataud, Saint Germain-La Rivie`re, and Le Placard, all from southwestern France, plus Obercassel 1 from western Germany, and Predmostı3 and 4 from the Czech Republic. Measurements of the latter two specimens were taken on casts because the originals had been destroyed by retreating Germans near the end of World War II (33). The same kind of problem of finding more than one individual in a burial site also tended to be true for some of the available Mesolithic of Europe. Individual specimens from Brittany to Monaco (Gramat, Rastel, Recheril and Téviec) were lumped together to make the European Mesolithic sample. There are larger Mesolithic samples, but we were not able to get permission to work on them. The North African Epipalaeolithic sample was made on the basis of specimens from Afalou in Algeria and Taforalt in Morocco. The Natufian sample from Israel is also problematic because it is so small, being constituted of three males and one female from the Late Pleistocene Epipalaeolithic (34) of Israel, and there was no usable Neolithic sample for the Near East. The difficulty in making comparisons with Neolithic and Palaeolithic samples is the result of the very different treatment of the deceased. Neolithic communities established cemeteries where the remains of the departed accumulated in some numbers. Most Upper Palaeolithic peoples tended to bury the dead singly and in widely separated locations. Furthermore, Neolithic pottery became fractured with considerable frequency, leaving potsherds in quantity at Neolithic sites. Consequently there may well have been a tendency to overestimate the size of Neolithic populations vis-a`-vis the contemporary surviving foragers (6, 35, 36). Despite the small numbers and scattered locations of the Late Pleistocene specimens, they tend to cluster with each other rather than with any groups of more recent date.”
Although Brace et al , found no relationship between the ancient Europeans and contemporary group he still tries to maintain that these people were not related to Sub-Saharan Africans by implying that the Egyptians and other African groups were non-African.
Brace et al wrote: “When the samples used in Fig. 1 are compared by the use of canonical variate plots as in Fig. 2, the separateness of the Niger-Congo speakers is again quite clear. Interestingly enough, however, the small Natufian sample falls between the Niger-Congo group and the other samples used. Fig. 2 shows the plot produced by the first two canonical variates, but the same thing happens when canonical variates 1 and 3 (not shown here) are used. This placement suggests that there may have been a Sub-Saharan African element in the make-up of the Natufians (the putative ancestors of the subsequent Neolithic), although in this particular test there is no such evident presence in the North African or Egyptian samples. As shown in Fig. 1, the Somalis and the Egyptian Bronze Age sample from Naqada may also have a hint of a Sub-Saharan African component. That was not borne out in the canonical variate plot (Fig. 2), and there was no evidence of such an involvement in the Algerian Neolithic (Gambetta) sample.”
This is false Keita and others have already proven that these people were related to Sub –Saharan Africans.
Brace et al continue and note that: “ There are some generalizations that are apparent from the picture presented in both the greater individual numbers of twigs shown in Fig. 1 and the combined pattern shown in Fig. 3. When the maximum number of twigs is plotted, despite the very small numbers involved, the Late Pleistocene samples from Israel, Europe, and North Aftica tend to link to each other before they tie to the modern representatives of each of the areas in question, as shown in Fig. 1. In that run, the Natufian of Israel ties to the French Mesolithic and then to the Afalou Taforalt sample from North Africa. These then link with the European Upper Palaeo- lithic sample and, somewhat surprisingly, with the Chandman (the Mongolian Bronze Age sample) and finally, at the next step, with the Danish Neolithic. One of the things that these geo- graphically diverse groups clearly have in common is a degree of robustness that sets them apart from the recent inhabitants of the areas in which they are found.” Apart from the quantitative relationships shown in Figs. 1–4, most of the Neolithic samples in Europe share nonmetric features of the lateral edge of the orbit, the shape of the gonial angle of the mandible, and the configuration of menton that are present even when degrees of size and robustness vary between the regions represented. These nonmetric attributes all support the view that most of the Neolithic inhabitants of Europe tie more closely together with each other than with the living representatives of the areas in question.”
Brace adds that the only skeletal remains that link contemporary Europeans to an ancient population come from A late Neolithic site in Germany:
“The principal exception to this generalization is one of the two small samples of the German Neolithic, the Mühlhausen sample, which ties closer metrically to the living inhabitants of the Middle East and North Africa. Metrically the other German Neolithic sample, Tauber- bischofsheim, links with the living Central European samples. Nonmetrically, those two small German Neolithic samples also appear strikingly different from each other.”
The findings of Brace et al make it clear that there were no “whites’ in ancient Europe as you claim. There were only Negroes living there until the coming of the Europeans as noted by DuBois, Diop and Boule & Vallois.
The Paleolithic Europeans were Blacks. This is supported by the fact that the ancient genes of these Blacks both as Cro-Magnon and farmers belong to hg N. This gene is rarely found in contemporary Europeans. It originated in Africa and is an indication of African people.
The skeletal remains of these people as noted by Boule and Vallois were Negro, and Brace et al mention that these Negroes were supplemented by Sub-Saharan Africans as represented by the Natufians. There are no skeletons of the Caucasian type. Brace et al make it clear that the craniometrics for ancient European foragers and farmers are not analogous to contemporary Europeans. As a result, there were no "whites" in Europe until the coming of the Europeans.
Rasol
quote: quote:Winters writes: It is clear that Brace et al, are claiming that the earlier European population was replaced by the contemporary Europeans who absorbed the original European farmers.
rotfl! W R O N G!!
You've managed to completely screw this up, "reversing" what Brace actually stated.
There are *no original European farmers* - the farmers are neolithic demic diffusive migrants from Africa and the Middleast.
The in-situ Europeans - WHITES, were foragers, not farmers.
Brace unedited conclusions corrects your misrepresentation and miscomprehensionn
CONCLUSION:
The assessment of prehistoric and recent human craniofacial dimensions supports the picture documented by genetics that the extension of Neolithic agriculture from the Near East westward to Europe and across North Africa was accomplished by a process of demic diffusion (11–15).
If the Late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread, then there was clearly a Sub- Saharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element. At the same time, the failure of the Neolithic and Bronze Age samples in central and northern Europe to tie to the modern inhabitants supports the suggestion that, while a farming mode of subsistence was spread westward and also north to Crimea and east to Mongolia by actual movement of communities of farmers, the indigenous FORAGERS in each of those areas ultimately absorbed both the agricultural subsistence strategy and also the people who had brought it.
The interbreeding of the incoming Neolithic people with the in situ foragers diluted the Sub-Saharan traces that may have come with the Neolithic spread so that no discoverable element of that remained.
This picture of a mixture between the incoming farmers and the IN SITU FORAGERS had originally been supported by the archaeological record alone (6, 9, 33, 34, 48, 49), but this view is now reinforced by the analysis of the skeletal morphology of the people of those areas where prehistoric and recent remains can be metrically compared.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: There is disagreement over where the Europeans originated and when they spread across Europe.
Nope. There is virtually no disagreement in current scholarship over the fact that modern Europeans directly descend of Paleolithic migrants who entered Europe from central Asia and sheltered in ICE refugees circa 35kya~.
And there is no serious scholarship that profers the notion that Europeans were "Africans" who were mysteriously replaced by whites.
Such a notion is childish fantasy that you indulge via distortion, misrepresentation and mindless repetition.
You attempt to justify your ignorance and falsehood with irrelevant oudated fake-references which you then either distort or go off the deep end with, as you were again exposed to having done with Brace and McRitchie.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
The people of central European ancestry are largely the descendants of "Old Stone Age," Paleolithic hunter-gatherers who arrived in Europe around 40,000 years ago rather than *the first farmers who arrived tens of thousands of years later during the Neolithic Age.* http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/310/5750/1016
The in-situ Europeans - WHITES, were foragers, not farmers.
This is what we know about this population. Boule and Vallois, note that "We know now that the ethnography of South African tribes presents many striking similarities with the ethnography of our populations of the Reindeer Age. Not to speak of their stone implements which, as we shall see later , exhibit great similarities, Peringuey has told us that in certain burials on the South African coast 'associated with the Aurignacian or Solutrean type industry...."(p.318-319). They add, that in relation to Bushman art " This almost uninterrupted series leads us to regard the African continent as a centre of important migrations which at certain times may have played a great part in the stocking of Southern Europe. Finally, we must not forget that the Grimaldi Negroid skeletons sho many points of resemblance with the Bushman skeletons". They bear no less a resemblance to that of the fossil Man discovered at Asslar in mid-Sahara, whose characters led us to class him with the Hottentot-Bushman group.
^ Fallacy ad nauseum - empty repetition but no proof.
^^ pseudo-science - terms with no definition, or contradictory definitions, misrepresented and misunderstood citations that lend no credence to your wild conclusions.
quote: One of the things that these geo graphically diverse groups clearly have in common is a degree of robustness that sets them apart from the recent inhabitants of the areas in which they are found.”
Paleolithic humans tend to be more robust, many modern humans in the same areas tend to be more gracile.
According to Brace, whom you cite, this possibly reflects adaptation to sedantism in the Neolithic and away from hunter gatherer lifestyle.
This is true in places like Nubia and Australia as well as Europe. It's not racial - "Pygme" are robust, Neanderthal are even more robust, Eskimo are robust...Somali are gracile, Dinka are gracile, Afghans are gracile, Dravidians are gracile.
Please get your head out of the 19th century and study modern anthropology or youwill continue to make a fool of yourself......
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Nope. There is virtually no disagreement in current scholarship over the fact that modern Europeans directly descend of Paleolithic migrants who entered Europe from central Asia and sheltered in ICE refugees circa 35kya~.
And there is no serious scholarship that profers the notion that Europeans were "Africans" who were mysteriously replaced by whites.
You attempt to justify your ignorance and falsehood with irrelevant oudated fake-references which you then either distort or go off the deep end with, as you were again exposed to having done with Brace and McRitchie
Rasol you are just supporting the lie perpetuated by Brace et al, that the early Europeans were "whites" eventhough the evidence they present in their own articles shows otherwise.
You are a joke. You maintain that my references are outdated, and yet Brace et al mentions the same samples studied by Boule and Vallois that were found to be Negroes. Just because you can present reference that talk around the ethnic identity of the ancient Europeans, Boule and Vallois had no desire to decieve, they admitted that these people were Africans.
Rasol it is a shame that you will spread a lie just to be right. Below I will present the truth to counter the lies you are spreading.
Shame on You.
There is disagreement over where the Europeans originated and when they spread across Europe. Dr. M. Gimbutas maintains that Europeans had their origin in the Pontic steppe country on the north coast of the Black Sea and began to expand into Europe as Kurgan nomads after 4000 B.C.
In 1987, Dr. C. Renfrew hypothesized that the Indo-Europeans lived in eastern Anatolia and spread into Europe around 7000 years ago with the spread of agriculture. Both of these views have little support based upon the ancestral culture terms used by the Proto-Indo-European which are predominately of non Indo-European (I-E) origin.
After a comparison of the linguistic, agricultural and genetic evidence researchers have found little support for both of these theories. Sokal et al, noted that:
"If the IEs originated in situ by local differentiation only, there should be no significant partial correlation , since geography should fully explain the observed genetic and linguistic distances. This was not the case.
If the genetics-language correlation were entirely due to the spread of populations accompanying the origin of agriculture, then the origin-of-agriculture model should suffice, or at least there should be some effect due to origin of agriculture. But we saw that origin-of- agricuture distances (OOA) cannot reduce the partial correlations remaining after geography has been held constant."
There were no whites in Europe until the coming of the Indo-European speaking people.
Sokal et al
quote: Origins of the Indo-Europeans: Genetic Evidence
RR Sokal, NL Oden and BA Thomson
Two theories of the origins of the Indo-Europeans currently compete. M. Gimbutas believes that early Indo-Europeans entered southeastern Europe from the Pontic Steppes starting ca. 4500 B.C. and spread from there. C. Renfrew equates early Indo-Europeans with early farmers who entered southeastern Europe from Asia Minor ca. 7000 BC and spread through the continent. We tested genetic distance matrices for each of 25 systems in numerous Indo-European-speaking samples from Europe. To match each of these matrices, we created other distance matrices representing geography, language, time since origin of agriculture, Gimbutas' model, and Renfrew's model. The correlation between genetics and language is significant. Geography, when held constant, produces a markedly lower, yet still highly significant partial correlation between genetics and language, showing that more remains to be explained. However, none of the remaining three distances-time since origin of agriculture, Gimbutas' model, or Renfrew's model-reduces the partial correlation further. Thus, neither of the two theories appears able to explain the origin of the Indo-Europeans as gauged by the genetics- language correlation.
The "whites" or Caucasians are not native to Europe as noted by Sokal. Although this was written in 1992, Haak et al (2006) make it clear that the IE speakers are not related to the ancient Europeans who were Negroes/Sub-Saharan Africans.
Brace et al wrote: “What does come as a surprise is that the Neolithic samples tend to tie with Neolithic samples across the entire range from east to west but do not cluster with the living people in many of the areas tested."
In the next line Brace et al contradicts themselves in an attempt to make it appear that continuity exist between the ancient and contemporary groups when they write: "There is more of a link between the prehistoric and modern samples in southern Europe as opposed to the picture in central and northern Europe. Much the same is true for the Bronze Age samples, although these do tend to tie to the preceding Neolithic in the same part of the range tested. Unlike the Neolithic, Bronze Age, and modern samples, the Palaeolithic samples are not from single sites. There is no single European Upper Palaeolithic sample large enough to run as a single twig in a dendrogram. Instead, we had to use Cro-Magnon 1, La Ronde du Barry, Abri Pataud, Saint Germain-La Rivie`re, and Le Placard, all from southwestern France, plus Obercassel 1 from western Germany, and Predmostı3 and 4 from the Czech Republic. Measurements of the latter two specimens were taken on casts because the originals had been destroyed by retreating Germans near the end of World War II (33). The same kind of problem of finding more than one individual in a burial site also tended to be true for some of the available Mesolithic of Europe. Individual specimens from Brittany to Monaco (Gramat, Rastel, Recheril and Téviec) were lumped together to make the European Mesolithic sample. There are larger Mesolithic samples, but we were not able to get permission to work on them. The North African Epipalaeolithic sample was made on the basis of specimens from Afalou in Algeria and Taforalt in Morocco. The Natufian sample from Israel is also problematic because it is so small, being constituted of three males and one female from the Late Pleistocene Epipalaeolithic (34) of Israel, and there was no usable Neolithic sample for the Near East. The difficulty in making comparisons with Neolithic and Palaeolithic samples is the result of the very different treatment of the deceased. Neolithic communities established cemeteries where the remains of the departed accumulated in some numbers. Most Upper Palaeolithic peoples tended to bury the dead singly and in widely separated locations. Furthermore, Neolithic pottery became fractured with considerable frequency, leaving potsherds in quantity at Neolithic sites. Consequently there may well have been a tendency to overestimate the size of Neolithic populations vis-a`-vis the contemporary surviving foragers (6, 35, 36). Despite the small numbers and scattered locations of the Late Pleistocene specimens, they tend to cluster with each other rather than with any groups of more recent date.”
Although Brace et al , found no relationship between the ancient Europeans and contemporary group he still tries to maintain that these people were not related to Sub-Saharan Africans by implying that the Egyptians and other African groups were non-African.
Brace et al wrote: “When the samples used in Fig. 1 are compared by the use of canonical variate plots as in Fig. 2, the separateness of the Niger-Congo speakers is again quite clear. Interestingly enough, however, the small Natufian sample falls between the Niger-Congo group and the other samples used. Fig. 2 shows the plot produced by the first two canonical variates, but the same thing happens when canonical variates 1 and 3 (not shown here) are used. This placement suggests that there may have been a Sub-Saharan African element in the make-up of the Natufians (the putative ancestors of the subsequent Neolithic), although in this particular test there is no such evident presence in the North African or Egyptian samples. As shown in Fig. 1, the Somalis and the Egyptian Bronze Age sample from Naqada may also have a hint of a Sub-Saharan African component. That was not borne out in the canonical variate plot (Fig. 2), and there was no evidence of such an involvement in the Algerian Neolithic (Gambetta) sample.”
This is false Keita and others have already proven that these people were related to Sub –Saharan Africans.
Brace et al continue and note that: “ There are some generalizations that are apparent from the picture presented in both the greater individual numbers of twigs shown in Fig. 1 and the combined pattern shown in Fig. 3. When the maximum number of twigs is plotted, despite the very small numbers involved, the Late Pleistocene samples from Israel, Europe, and North Aftica tend to link to each other before they tie to the modern representatives of each of the areas in question, as shown in Fig. 1. In that run, the Natufian of Israel ties to the French Mesolithic and then to the Afalou Taforalt sample from North Africa. These then link with the European Upper Palaeo- lithic sample and, somewhat surprisingly, with the Chandman (the Mongolian Bronze Age sample) and finally, at the next step, with the Danish Neolithic. One of the things that these geo- graphically diverse groups clearly have in common is a degree of robustness that sets them apart from the recent inhabitants of the areas in which they are found.” Apart from the quantitative relationships shown in Figs. 1–4, most of the Neolithic samples in Europe share nonmetric features of the lateral edge of the orbit, the shape of the gonial angle of the mandible, and the configuration of menton that are present even when degrees of size and robustness vary between the regions represented. These nonmetric attributes all support the view that most of the Neolithic inhabitants of Europe tie more closely together with each other than with the living representatives of the areas in question.”
Brace adds that the only skeletal remains that link contemporary Europeans to an ancient population come from A late Neolithic site in Germany:
“The principal exception to this generalization is one of the two small samples of the German Neolithic, the Mühlhausen sample, which ties closer metrically to the living inhabitants of the Middle East and North Africa. Metrically the other German Neolithic sample, Tauber- bischofsheim, links with the living Central European samples. Nonmetrically, those two small German Neolithic samples also appear strikingly different from each other.”
The findings of Brace et al make it clear that there were no “whites’ in ancient Europe as you claim. There were only Negroes living there until the coming of the Europeans as noted by DuBois, Diop and Boule & Vallois.
The Paleolithic Europeans were Blacks. This is supported by the fact that the ancient genes of these Blacks both as Cro-Magnon and farmers belong to hg N. This gene is rarely found in contemporary Europeans. It originated in Africa and is an indication of African people.
The skeletal remains of these people as noted by Boule and Vallois were Negro, and Brace et al mention that these Negroes were supplemented by Sub-Saharan Africans as represented by the Natufians. There are no skeletons of the Caucasian type. Brace et al make it clear that the craniometrics for ancient European foragers and farmers are not analogous to contemporary Europeans. As a result, there were no "whites" in Europe until the coming of the Europeans.
quote: the findings of Brace et al do not support the conclusion of their paper
Of course they do - it's not Brace fault that you lack the grounding in modern anthropology to follow along. He simply talks over your head, while you address a lowest common denominator of ill educated folk, who 'you hope', don't know the difference.
quote:Rasol you are just supporting the lie perpetuated by Brace et al
lol, lol, lol.
You are the one who cited Brace to begin with, now you call him a liar when we painstakingly demonstrate that he completely refutes your nonsense.
Since you cited him in a rioteously misguided attempt to find support for your scientific illiteracy - the liar is you.
As for Brace - he is many things, but unlike you he is *not scientifically illiterate*.
That's the real source of the disagreement between you two.
Sorry, just tellin' it like it is. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Paleolithic humans tend to be more robust, many modern humans in the same areas tend to be more gracile.
According to Brace, whom you cite, this possibly reflects adaptation to sedantism in the Neolithic and away from hunter gatherer lifestyle.
This is true in places like Nubia and Australia as well as Europe. It's not racial - "Pygme" are robust, Neanderthal are even more robust, Eskimo are robust...Somali are gracile, Dinka are gracile, Afghans are gracile, Dravidians are gracile.
Please get your head out of the 19th century and study modern anthropology lest you will continue to make a fool of yourself.
[/quote}
You are such a lier. Stop trying to be an apologists for the Eurocentric Brace et al.Please quote directly where Brace et al claimed that sedantism led to the disocntinuity between modern and ancient Europeans plus their supporting evidence.
Yes the ancient Europeans were more robust, they were related to the Bushman and other South African people as noted by Boule and Vallois.
Also please present the evidence that the ancient Europeans were "white skinned " as you claim.
The fact remains:
There is disagreement over where the Europeans originated and when they spread across Europe. Dr. M. Gimbutas maintains that Europeans had their origin in the Pontic steppe country on the north coast of the Black Sea and began to expand into Europe as Kurgan nomads after 4000 B.C.
In 1987, Dr. C. Renfrew hypothesized that the Indo-Europeans lived in eastern Anatolia and spread into Europe around 7000 years ago with the spread of agriculture. Both of these views have little support based upon the ancestral culture terms used by the Proto-Indo-European which are predominately of non Indo-European (I-E) origin.
After a comparison of the linguistic, agricultural and genetic evidence researchers have found little support for both of these theories. Sokal et al, noted that:
"If the IEs originated in situ by local differentiation only, there should be no significant partial correlation , since geography should fully explain the observed genetic and linguistic distances. This was not the case.
If the genetics-language correlation were entirely due to the spread of populations accompanying the origin of agriculture, then the origin-of-agriculture model should suffice, or at least there should be some effect due to origin of agriculture. But we saw that origin-of- agricuture distances (OOA) cannot reduce the partial correlations remaining after geography has been held constant."
There were no whites in Europe until the coming of the Indo-European speaking people.
Sokal et al [QUOTE] Origins of the Indo-Europeans: Genetic Evidence
RR Sokal, NL Oden and BA Thomson
Two theories of the origins of the Indo-Europeans currently compete. M. Gimbutas believes that early Indo-Europeans entered southeastern Europe from the Pontic Steppes starting ca. 4500 B.C. and spread from there. C. Renfrew equates early Indo-Europeans with early farmers who entered southeastern Europe from Asia Minor ca. 7000 BC and spread through the continent. We tested genetic distance matrices for each of 25 systems in numerous Indo-European-speaking samples from Europe. To match each of these matrices, we created other distance matrices representing geography, language, time since origin of agriculture, Gimbutas' model, and Renfrew's model. The correlation between genetics and language is significant. Geography, when held constant, produces a markedly lower, yet still highly significant partial correlation between genetics and language, showing that more remains to be explained. However, none of the remaining three distances-time since origin of agriculture, Gimbutas' model, or Renfrew's model-reduces the partial correlation further. Thus, neither of the two theories appears able to explain the origin of the Indo-Europeans as gauged by the genetics- language correlation.
The "whites" or Caucasians are not native to Europe as noted by Sokal. Although this was written in 1992, Haak et al (2006) make it clear that the IE speakers are not related to the ancient Europeans who were Negroes/Sub-Saharan Africans.
Brace et al wrote: “What does come as a surprise is that the Neolithic samples tend to tie with Neolithic samples across the entire range from east to west but do not cluster with the living people in many of the areas tested."
In the next line Brace et al contradicts themselves in an attempt to make it appear that continuity exist between the ancient and contemporary groups when they write: "There is more of a link between the prehistoric and modern samples in southern Europe as opposed to the picture in central and northern Europe. Much the same is true for the Bronze Age samples, although these do tend to tie to the preceding Neolithic in the same part of the range tested. Unlike the Neolithic, Bronze Age, and modern samples, the Palaeolithic samples are not from single sites. There is no single European Upper Palaeolithic sample large enough to run as a single twig in a dendrogram. Instead, we had to use Cro-Magnon 1, La Ronde du Barry, Abri Pataud, Saint Germain-La Rivie`re, and Le Placard, all from southwestern France, plus Obercassel 1 from western Germany, and Predmostı3 and 4 from the Czech Republic. Measurements of the latter two specimens were taken on casts because the originals had been destroyed by retreating Germans near the end of World War II (33). The same kind of problem of finding more than one individual in a burial site also tended to be true for some of the available Mesolithic of Europe. Individual specimens from Brittany to Monaco (Gramat, Rastel, Recheril and Téviec) were lumped together to make the European Mesolithic sample. There are larger Mesolithic samples, but we were not able to get permission to work on them. The North African Epipalaeolithic sample was made on the basis of specimens from Afalou in Algeria and Taforalt in Morocco. The Natufian sample from Israel is also problematic because it is so small, being constituted of three males and one female from the Late Pleistocene Epipalaeolithic (34) of Israel, and there was no usable Neolithic sample for the Near East. The difficulty in making comparisons with Neolithic and Palaeolithic samples is the result of the very different treatment of the deceased. Neolithic communities established cemeteries where the remains of the departed accumulated in some numbers. Most Upper Palaeolithic peoples tended to bury the dead singly and in widely separated locations. Furthermore, Neolithic pottery became fractured with considerable frequency, leaving potsherds in quantity at Neolithic sites. Consequently there may well have been a tendency to overestimate the size of Neolithic populations vis-a`-vis the contemporary surviving foragers (6, 35, 36). Despite the small numbers and scattered locations of the Late Pleistocene specimens, they tend to cluster with each other rather than with any groups of more recent date.”
Although Brace et al , found no relationship between the ancient Europeans and contemporary group he still tries to maintain that these people were not related to Sub-Saharan Africans by implying that the Egyptians and other African groups were non-African.
Brace et al wrote: “When the samples used in Fig. 1 are compared by the use of canonical variate plots as in Fig. 2, the separateness of the Niger-Congo speakers is again quite clear. Interestingly enough, however, the small Natufian sample falls between the Niger-Congo group and the other samples used. Fig. 2 shows the plot produced by the first two canonical variates, but the same thing happens when canonical variates 1 and 3 (not shown here) are used. This placement suggests that there may have been a Sub-Saharan African element in the make-up of the Natufians (the putative ancestors of the subsequent Neolithic), although in this particular test there is no such evident presence in the North African or Egyptian samples. As shown in Fig. 1, the Somalis and the Egyptian Bronze Age sample from Naqada may also have a hint of a Sub-Saharan African component. That was not borne out in the canonical variate plot (Fig. 2), and there was no evidence of such an involvement in the Algerian Neolithic (Gambetta) sample.”
This is false Keita and others have already proven that these people were related to Sub –Saharan Africans.
Brace et al continue and note that: “ There are some generalizations that are apparent from the picture presented in both the greater individual numbers of twigs shown in Fig. 1 and the combined pattern shown in Fig. 3. When the maximum number of twigs is plotted, despite the very small numbers involved, the Late Pleistocene samples from Israel, Europe, and North Aftica tend to link to each other before they tie to the modern representatives of each of the areas in question, as shown in Fig. 1. In that run, the Natufian of Israel ties to the French Mesolithic and then to the Afalou Taforalt sample from North Africa. These then link with the European Upper Palaeo- lithic sample and, somewhat surprisingly, with the Chandman (the Mongolian Bronze Age sample) and finally, at the next step, with the Danish Neolithic. One of the things that these geo- graphically diverse groups clearly have in common is a degree of robustness that sets them apart from the recent inhabitants of the areas in which they are found.” Apart from the quantitative relationships shown in Figs. 1–4, most of the Neolithic samples in Europe share nonmetric features of the lateral edge of the orbit, the shape of the gonial angle of the mandible, and the configuration of menton that are present even when degrees of size and robustness vary between the regions represented. These nonmetric attributes all support the view that most of the Neolithic inhabitants of Europe tie more closely together with each other than with the living representatives of the areas in question.”
Brace adds that the only skeletal remains that link contemporary Europeans to an ancient population come from A late Neolithic site in Germany:
“The principal exception to this generalization is one of the two small samples of the German Neolithic, the Mühlhausen sample, which ties closer metrically to the living inhabitants of the Middle East and North Africa. Metrically the other German Neolithic sample, Tauber- bischofsheim, links with the living Central European samples. Nonmetrically, those two small German Neolithic samples also appear strikingly different from each other.”
The findings of Brace et al make it clear that there were no “whites’ in ancient Europe as you claim. There were only Negroes living there until the coming of the Europeans as noted by DuBois, Diop and Boule & Vallois.
The Paleolithic Europeans were Blacks. This is supported by the fact that the ancient genes of these Blacks both as Cro-Magnon and farmers belong to hg N. This gene is rarely found in contemporary Europeans. It originated in Africa and is an indication of African people.
The skeletal remains of these people as noted by Boule and Vallois were Negro, and Brace et al mention that these Negroes were supplemented by Sub-Saharan Africans as represented by the Natufians. There are no skeletons of the Caucasian type. Brace et al make it clear that the craniometrics for ancient European foragers and farmers are not analogous to contemporary Europeans. As a result, there were no "whites" in Europe until the coming of the Europeans.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
You are the one who cited Brace to begin with, now you call him a liar when we painstakingly demonstrate that he completely refutes your nonsense.
Since you cited him in and misguided attempt to support your scientific illiteracy - the liar is you.
As for Brace - he is many things, but unlike you he is *not scientifically illiterate*.
That's the real source of the disagreement between you two.
Sorry, just tellin' it like it is.
Your scientific illiteracy is noted by your failure to read critically published works. If you could analyze research papers you would clearly see that the findings of Brace et al do not support the conclusion of their paper. I have presented an analysis of this paper and the evidence makes it clear that there were no whites in ancient Europe. The contemporary whites are Indo-European speakers.
There is disagreement over where the Europeans originated and when they spread across Europe. Dr. M. Gimbutas maintains that Europeans had their origin in the Pontic steppe country on the north coast of the Black Sea and began to expand into Europe as Kurgan nomads after 4000 B.C.
In 1987, Dr. C. Renfrew hypothesized that the Indo-Europeans lived in eastern Anatolia and spread into Europe around 7000 years ago with the spread of agriculture. Both of these views have little support based upon the ancestral culture terms used by the Proto-Indo-European which are predominately of non Indo-European (I-E) origin.
After a comparison of the linguistic, agricultural and genetic evidence researchers have found little support for both of these theories. Sokal et al, noted that:
"If the IEs originated in situ by local differentiation only, there should be no significant partial correlation , since geography should fully explain the observed genetic and linguistic distances. This was not the case.
If the genetics-language correlation were entirely due to the spread of populations accompanying the origin of agriculture, then the origin-of-agriculture model should suffice, or at least there should be some effect due to origin of agriculture. But we saw that origin-of- agricuture distances (OOA) cannot reduce the partial correlations remaining after geography has been held constant."
There were no whites in Europe until the coming of the Indo-European speaking people.
Sokal et al
quote: Origins of the Indo-Europeans: Genetic Evidence
RR Sokal, NL Oden and BA Thomson
Two theories of the origins of the Indo-Europeans currently compete. M. Gimbutas believes that early Indo-Europeans entered southeastern Europe from the Pontic Steppes starting ca. 4500 B.C. and spread from there. C. Renfrew equates early Indo-Europeans with early farmers who entered southeastern Europe from Asia Minor ca. 7000 BC and spread through the continent. We tested genetic distance matrices for each of 25 systems in numerous Indo-European-speaking samples from Europe. To match each of these matrices, we created other distance matrices representing geography, language, time since origin of agriculture, Gimbutas' model, and Renfrew's model. The correlation between genetics and language is significant. Geography, when held constant, produces a markedly lower, yet still highly significant partial correlation between genetics and language, showing that more remains to be explained. However, none of the remaining three distances-time since origin of agriculture, Gimbutas' model, or Renfrew's model-reduces the partial correlation further. Thus, neither of the two theories appears able to explain the origin of the Indo-Europeans as gauged by the genetics- language correlation.
The "whites" or Caucasians are not native to Europe as noted by Sokal. Although this was written in 1992, Haak et al (2006) make it clear that the IE speakers are not related to the ancient Europeans who were Negroes/Sub-Saharan Africans.
Brace et al wrote: “What does come as a surprise is that the Neolithic samples tend to tie with Neolithic samples across the entire range from east to west but do not cluster with the living people in many of the areas tested."
In the next line Brace et al contradicts themselves in an attempt to make it appear that continuity exist between the ancient and contemporary groups when they write: "There is more of a link between the prehistoric and modern samples in southern Europe as opposed to the picture in central and northern Europe. Much the same is true for the Bronze Age samples, although these do tend to tie to the preceding Neolithic in the same part of the range tested. Unlike the Neolithic, Bronze Age, and modern samples, the Palaeolithic samples are not from single sites. There is no single European Upper Palaeolithic sample large enough to run as a single twig in a dendrogram. Instead, we had to use Cro-Magnon 1, La Ronde du Barry, Abri Pataud, Saint Germain-La Rivie`re, and Le Placard, all from southwestern France, plus Obercassel 1 from western Germany, and Predmostı3 and 4 from the Czech Republic. Measurements of the latter two specimens were taken on casts because the originals had been destroyed by retreating Germans near the end of World War II (33). The same kind of problem of finding more than one individual in a burial site also tended to be true for some of the available Mesolithic of Europe. Individual specimens from Brittany to Monaco (Gramat, Rastel, Recheril and Téviec) were lumped together to make the European Mesolithic sample. There are larger Mesolithic samples, but we were not able to get permission to work on them. The North African Epipalaeolithic sample was made on the basis of specimens from Afalou in Algeria and Taforalt in Morocco. The Natufian sample from Israel is also problematic because it is so small, being constituted of three males and one female from the Late Pleistocene Epipalaeolithic (34) of Israel, and there was no usable Neolithic sample for the Near East. The difficulty in making comparisons with Neolithic and Palaeolithic samples is the result of the very different treatment of the deceased. Neolithic communities established cemeteries where the remains of the departed accumulated in some numbers. Most Upper Palaeolithic peoples tended to bury the dead singly and in widely separated locations. Furthermore, Neolithic pottery became fractured with considerable frequency, leaving potsherds in quantity at Neolithic sites. Consequently there may well have been a tendency to overestimate the size of Neolithic populations vis-a`-vis the contemporary surviving foragers (6, 35, 36). Despite the small numbers and scattered locations of the Late Pleistocene specimens, they tend to cluster with each other rather than with any groups of more recent date.”
Although Brace et al , found no relationship between the ancient Europeans and contemporary group he still tries to maintain that these people were not related to Sub-Saharan Africans by implying that the Egyptians and other African groups were non-African.
Brace et al wrote: “When the samples used in Fig. 1 are compared by the use of canonical variate plots as in Fig. 2, the separateness of the Niger-Congo speakers is again quite clear. Interestingly enough, however, the small Natufian sample falls between the Niger-Congo group and the other samples used. Fig. 2 shows the plot produced by the first two canonical variates, but the same thing happens when canonical variates 1 and 3 (not shown here) are used. This placement suggests that there may have been a Sub-Saharan African element in the make-up of the Natufians (the putative ancestors of the subsequent Neolithic), although in this particular test there is no such evident presence in the North African or Egyptian samples. As shown in Fig. 1, the Somalis and the Egyptian Bronze Age sample from Naqada may also have a hint of a Sub-Saharan African component. That was not borne out in the canonical variate plot (Fig. 2), and there was no evidence of such an involvement in the Algerian Neolithic (Gambetta) sample.”
This is false Keita and others have already proven that these people were related to Sub –Saharan Africans.
Brace et al continue and note that: “ There are some generalizations that are apparent from the picture presented in both the greater individual numbers of twigs shown in Fig. 1 and the combined pattern shown in Fig. 3. When the maximum number of twigs is plotted, despite the very small numbers involved, the Late Pleistocene samples from Israel, Europe, and North Aftica tend to link to each other before they tie to the modern representatives of each of the areas in question, as shown in Fig. 1. In that run, the Natufian of Israel ties to the French Mesolithic and then to the Afalou Taforalt sample from North Africa. These then link with the European Upper Palaeo- lithic sample and, somewhat surprisingly, with the Chandman (the Mongolian Bronze Age sample) and finally, at the next step, with the Danish Neolithic. One of the things that these geo- graphically diverse groups clearly have in common is a degree of robustness that sets them apart from the recent inhabitants of the areas in which they are found.” Apart from the quantitative relationships shown in Figs. 1–4, most of the Neolithic samples in Europe share nonmetric features of the lateral edge of the orbit, the shape of the gonial angle of the mandible, and the configuration of menton that are present even when degrees of size and robustness vary between the regions represented. These nonmetric attributes all support the view that most of the Neolithic inhabitants of Europe tie more closely together with each other than with the living representatives of the areas in question.”
Brace adds that the only skeletal remains that link contemporary Europeans to an ancient population come from A late Neolithic site in Germany:
“The principal exception to this generalization is one of the two small samples of the German Neolithic, the Mühlhausen sample, which ties closer metrically to the living inhabitants of the Middle East and North Africa. Metrically the other German Neolithic sample, Tauber- bischofsheim, links with the living Central European samples. Nonmetrically, those two small German Neolithic samples also appear strikingly different from each other.”
The findings of Brace et al make it clear that there were no “whites’ in ancient Europe as you claim. There were only Negroes living there until the coming of the Europeans as noted by DuBois, Diop and Boule & Vallois.
The Paleolithic Europeans were Blacks. This is supported by the fact that the ancient genes of these Blacks both as Cro-Magnon and farmers belong to hg N. This gene is rarely found in contemporary Europeans. It originated in Africa and is an indication of African people.
The skeletal remains of these people as noted by Boule and Vallois were Negro, and Brace et al mention that these Negroes were supplemented by Sub-Saharan Africans as represented by the Natufians. There are no skeletons of the Caucasian type. Brace et al make it clear that the craniometrics for ancient European foragers and farmers are not analogous to contemporary Europeans. As a result, there were no "whites" in Europe until the coming of the Indo-Europeans.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
*sigh* Again, Winters is getting humiliated but not by Rasol so much as by himself.
Here are just a few points to help Clyde out.
Indo-European languages did likely originate in Europe, specifically eastern Europe around Russia and Ukraine.
Indo-European languages are NOT the only language group to be associated with white peoples, since white Europeans spoke OTHER languages before the spread of IE languages to the rest of Europe.
And most of all, Rasol is right that you are outright distorting all these anthropological sources you cite since they ALL agree that white Europeans descend from the aboriginal-- first modern humans to inhabit Europe. Indo-European languages spread to the rest of Europe in the Bronze to early Iron Age. Newsfash: There WERE white peoples living in these other parts of Europe LONG BEFORE then!
White peoples are white in the first place because of adaptation to glacier climates of Europe during the Paleolithic.
"Negroid" features say little to nothing because ALL human populations had such features. If white peoples as you claim originated from Central Asia and Siberia (which they did, before they entered Europe during the Paleolithic) then how do you explain Marc's evidence of "negroid" remains there as well?!
Poor Clyde is being ever more imprisoned and confined by his own ignorance. At this rate, he will soon not have any space to breathe! Posts: 26307 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
There were no whites in Europe until the coming of the Indo-European speaking people.
Sokal et al
quote: Origins of the Indo-Europeans: Genetic Evidence
RR Sokal, NL Oden and BA Thomson
Two theories of the origins of the Indo-Europeans currently compete. M. Gimbutas believes that early Indo-Europeans entered southeastern Europe from the Pontic Steppes starting ca. 4500 B.C. and spread from there. C. Renfrew equates early Indo-Europeans with early farmers who entered southeastern Europe from Asia Minor ca. 7000 BC and spread through the continent. We tested genetic distance matrices for each of 25 systems in numerous Indo-European-speaking samples from Europe. To match each of these matrices, we created other distance matrices representing geography, language, time since origin of agriculture, Gimbutas' model, and Renfrew's model. The correlation between genetics and language is significant. Geography, when held constant, produces a markedly lower, yet still highly significant partial correlation between genetics and language, showing that more remains to be explained. However, none of the remaining three distances-time since origin of agriculture, Gimbutas' model, or Renfrew's model-reduces the partial correlation further. Thus, neither of the two theories appears able to explain the origin of the Indo-Europeans as gauged by the genetics- language correlation.
The "whites" or Caucasians are not native to Europe as noted by Sokal. Although this was written in 1992, Haak et al (2006) make it clear that the IE speakers are not related to the ancient Europeans who were Negroes/Sub-Saharan Africans.
Brace et al wrote: “What does come as a surprise is that the Neolithic samples tend to tie with Neolithic samples across the entire range from east to west but do not cluster with the living people in many of the areas tested."
In the next line Brace et al contradicts themselves in an attempt to make it appear that continuity exist between the ancient and contemporary groups when they write: "There is more of a link between the prehistoric and modern samples in southern Europe as opposed to the picture in central and northern Europe. Much the same is true for the Bronze Age samples, although these do tend to tie to the preceding Neolithic in the same part of the range tested. Unlike the Neolithic, Bronze Age, and modern samples, the Palaeolithic samples are not from single sites. There is no single European Upper Palaeolithic sample large enough to run as a single twig in a dendrogram. Instead, we had to use Cro-Magnon 1, La Ronde du Barry, Abri Pataud, Saint Germain-La Rivie`re, and Le Placard, all from southwestern France, plus Obercassel 1 from western Germany, and Predmostı3 and 4 from the Czech Republic. Measurements of the latter two specimens were taken on casts because the originals had been destroyed by retreating Germans near the end of World War II (33). The same kind of problem of finding more than one individual in a burial site also tended to be true for some of the available Mesolithic of Europe. Individual specimens from Brittany to Monaco (Gramat, Rastel, Recheril and Téviec) were lumped together to make the European Mesolithic sample. There are larger Mesolithic samples, but we were not able to get permission to work on them. The North African Epipalaeolithic sample was made on the basis of specimens from Afalou in Algeria and Taforalt in Morocco. The Natufian sample from Israel is also problematic because it is so small, being constituted of three males and one female from the Late Pleistocene Epipalaeolithic (34) of Israel, and there was no usable Neolithic sample for the Near East. The difficulty in making comparisons with Neolithic and Palaeolithic samples is the result of the very different treatment of the deceased. Neolithic communities established cemeteries where the remains of the departed accumulated in some numbers. Most Upper Palaeolithic peoples tended to bury the dead singly and in widely separated locations. Furthermore, Neolithic pottery became fractured with considerable frequency, leaving potsherds in quantity at Neolithic sites. Consequently there may well have been a tendency to overestimate the size of Neolithic populations vis-a`-vis the contemporary surviving foragers (6, 35, 36). Despite the small numbers and scattered locations of the Late Pleistocene specimens, they tend to cluster with each other rather than with any groups of more recent date.”
Although Brace et al , found no relationship between the ancient Europeans and contemporary group he still tries to maintain that these people were not related to Sub-Saharan Africans by implying that the Egyptians and other African groups were non-African.
Brace et al wrote: “When the samples used in Fig. 1 are compared by the use of canonical variate plots as in Fig. 2, the separateness of the Niger-Congo speakers is again quite clear. Interestingly enough, however, the small Natufian sample falls between the Niger-Congo group and the other samples used. Fig. 2 shows the plot produced by the first two canonical variates, but the same thing happens when canonical variates 1 and 3 (not shown here) are used. This placement suggests that there may have been a Sub-Saharan African element in the make-up of the Natufians (the putative ancestors of the subsequent Neolithic), although in this particular test there is no such evident presence in the North African or Egyptian samples. As shown in Fig. 1, the Somalis and the Egyptian Bronze Age sample from Naqada may also have a hint of a Sub-Saharan African component. That was not borne out in the canonical variate plot (Fig. 2), and there was no evidence of such an involvement in the Algerian Neolithic (Gambetta) sample.”
This is false Keita and others have already proven that these people were related to Sub –Saharan Africans.
Brace et al continue and note that: “ There are some generalizations that are apparent from the picture presented in both the greater individual numbers of twigs shown in Fig. 1 and the combined pattern shown in Fig. 3. When the maximum number of twigs is plotted, despite the very small numbers involved, the Late Pleistocene samples from Israel, Europe, and North Aftica tend to link to each other before they tie to the modern representatives of each of the areas in question, as shown in Fig. 1. In that run, the Natufian of Israel ties to the French Mesolithic and then to the Afalou Taforalt sample from North Africa. These then link with the European Upper Palaeo- lithic sample and, somewhat surprisingly, with the Chandman (the Mongolian Bronze Age sample) and finally, at the next step, with the Danish Neolithic. One of the things that these geo- graphically diverse groups clearly have in common is a degree of robustness that sets them apart from the recent inhabitants of the areas in which they are found.” Apart from the quantitative relationships shown in Figs. 1–4, most of the Neolithic samples in Europe share nonmetric features of the lateral edge of the orbit, the shape of the gonial angle of the mandible, and the configuration of menton that are present even when degrees of size and robustness vary between the regions represented. These nonmetric attributes all support the view that most of the Neolithic inhabitants of Europe tie more closely together with each other than with the living representatives of the areas in question.”
Brace adds that the only skeletal remains that link contemporary Europeans to an ancient population come from A late Neolithic site in Germany:
“The principal exception to this generalization is one of the two small samples of the German Neolithic, the Mühlhausen sample, which ties closer metrically to the living inhabitants of the Middle East and North Africa. Metrically the other German Neolithic sample, Tauber- bischofsheim, links with the living Central European samples. Nonmetrically, those two small German Neolithic samples also appear strikingly different from each other.”
The findings of Brace et al make it clear that there were no “whites’ in ancient Europe as you claim. There were only Negroes living there until the coming of the Europeans as noted by DuBois, Diop and Boule & Vallois.
The Paleolithic Europeans were Blacks. This is supported by the fact that the ancient genes of these Blacks both as Cro-Magnon and farmers belong to hg N. This gene is rarely found in contemporary Europeans. It originated in Africa and is an indication of African people.
The skeletal remains of these people as noted by Boule and Vallois were Negro, and Brace et al mention that these Negroes were supplemented by Sub-Saharan Africans as represented by the Natufians. There are no skeletons of the Caucasian type. Brace et al make it clear that the craniometrics for ancient European foragers and farmers are not analogous to contemporary Europeans. As a result, there were no "whites" in Europe until the coming of the Indo- Europeans.
Below the LIE Rasol
quote:
And most of all, Rasol is right that you are outright distorting all these anthropological sources you cite since they ALL agree that white Europeans descend from the aboriginal-- first modern humans to inhabit Europe. Indo-European languages spread to the rest of Europe in the Bronze to early Iron Age. Newsfash: There WERE white peoples living in these other parts of Europe LONG BEFORE then!
White peoples are white in the first place because of adaptation to glacier climates of Europe during the Paleolithic.
"Negroid" features say little to nothing because ALL human populations had such features. If white peoples as you claim originated from Central Asia and Siberia (which they did, before they entered Europe during the Paleolithic) then how do you explain Marc's evidence of "negroid" remains there as well?!
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
"Negroid" features say little to nothing because ALL human populations had such features. If white peoples as you claim originated from Central Asia and Siberia (which they did, before they entered Europe during the Paleolithic) then how do you explain Marc's evidence of "negroid" remains there as well?!
Please list and reference the skeletal series from Central Asia and Serbia that craniometricaly illustrate continuity between ancient and modern West Eurasians (whites).
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The Truth:
There were no whites in Europe until the coming of the Indo-European speaking people.
Sokal et al
quote: Origins of the Indo-Europeans: Genetic Evidence
RR Sokal, NL Oden and BA Thomson
Two theories of the origins of the Indo-Europeans currently compete. M. Gimbutas believes that early Indo-Europeans entered southeastern Europe from the Pontic Steppes starting ca. 4500 B.C. and spread from there. C. Renfrew equates early Indo-Europeans with early farmers who entered southeastern Europe from Asia Minor ca. 7000 BC and spread through the continent. We tested genetic distance matrices for each of 25 systems in numerous Indo-European-speaking samples from Europe. To match each of these matrices, we created other distance matrices representing geography, language, time since origin of agriculture, Gimbutas' model, and Renfrew's model. The correlation between genetics and language is significant. Geography, when held constant, produces a markedly lower, yet still highly significant partial correlation between genetics and language, showing that more remains to be explained. However, none of the remaining three distances-time since origin of agriculture, Gimbutas' model, or Renfrew's model-reduces the partial correlation further. Thus, neither of the two theories appears able to explain the origin of the Indo-Europeans as gauged by the genetics- language correlation.
The "whites" or Caucasians are not native to Europe as noted by Sokal. Although this was written in 1992, Haak et al (2006) make it clear that the IE speakers are not related to the ancient Europeans who were Negroes/Sub-Saharan Africans.
Brace et al wrote: “What does come as a surprise is that the Neolithic samples tend to tie with Neolithic samples across the entire range from east to west but do not cluster with the living people in many of the areas tested."
In the next line Brace et al contradicts themselves in an attempt to make it appear that continuity exist between the ancient and contemporary groups when they write: "There is more of a link between the prehistoric and modern samples in southern Europe as opposed to the picture in central and northern Europe. Much the same is true for the Bronze Age samples, although these do tend to tie to the preceding Neolithic in the same part of the range tested. Unlike the Neolithic, Bronze Age, and modern samples, the Palaeolithic samples are not from single sites. There is no single European Upper Palaeolithic sample large enough to run as a single twig in a dendrogram. Instead, we had to use Cro-Magnon 1, La Ronde du Barry, Abri Pataud, Saint Germain-La Rivie`re, and Le Placard, all from southwestern France, plus Obercassel 1 from western Germany, and Predmostı3 and 4 from the Czech Republic. Measurements of the latter two specimens were taken on casts because the originals had been destroyed by retreating Germans near the end of World War II (33). The same kind of problem of finding more than one individual in a burial site also tended to be true for some of the available Mesolithic of Europe. Individual specimens from Brittany to Monaco (Gramat, Rastel, Recheril and Téviec) were lumped together to make the European Mesolithic sample. There are larger Mesolithic samples, but we were not able to get permission to work on them. The North African Epipalaeolithic sample was made on the basis of specimens from Afalou in Algeria and Taforalt in Morocco. The Natufian sample from Israel is also problematic because it is so small, being constituted of three males and one female from the Late Pleistocene Epipalaeolithic (34) of Israel, and there was no usable Neolithic sample for the Near East. The difficulty in making comparisons with Neolithic and Palaeolithic samples is the result of the very different treatment of the deceased. Neolithic communities established cemeteries where the remains of the departed accumulated in some numbers. Most Upper Palaeolithic peoples tended to bury the dead singly and in widely separated locations. Furthermore, Neolithic pottery became fractured with considerable frequency, leaving potsherds in quantity at Neolithic sites. Consequently there may well have been a tendency to overestimate the size of Neolithic populations vis-a`-vis the contemporary surviving foragers (6, 35, 36). Despite the small numbers and scattered locations of the Late Pleistocene specimens, they tend to cluster with each other rather than with any groups of more recent date.”
Although Brace et al , found no relationship between the ancient Europeans and contemporary group he still tries to maintain that these people were not related to Sub-Saharan Africans by implying that the Egyptians and other African groups were non-African.
Brace et al wrote: “When the samples used in Fig. 1 are compared by the use of canonical variate plots as in Fig. 2, the separateness of the Niger-Congo speakers is again quite clear. Interestingly enough, however, the small Natufian sample falls between the Niger-Congo group and the other samples used. Fig. 2 shows the plot produced by the first two canonical variates, but the same thing happens when canonical variates 1 and 3 (not shown here) are used. This placement suggests that there may have been a Sub-Saharan African element in the make-up of the Natufians (the putative ancestors of the subsequent Neolithic), although in this particular test there is no such evident presence in the North African or Egyptian samples. As shown in Fig. 1, the Somalis and the Egyptian Bronze Age sample from Naqada may also have a hint of a Sub-Saharan African component. That was not borne out in the canonical variate plot (Fig. 2), and there was no evidence of such an involvement in the Algerian Neolithic (Gambetta) sample.”
This is false Keita and others have already proven that these people were related to Sub –Saharan Africans.
Brace et al continue and note that: “ There are some generalizations that are apparent from the picture presented in both the greater individual numbers of twigs shown in Fig. 1 and the combined pattern shown in Fig. 3. When the maximum number of twigs is plotted, despite the very small numbers involved, the Late Pleistocene samples from Israel, Europe, and North Aftica tend to link to each other before they tie to the modern representatives of each of the areas in question, as shown in Fig. 1. In that run, the Natufian of Israel ties to the French Mesolithic and then to the Afalou Taforalt sample from North Africa. These then link with the European Upper Palaeo- lithic sample and, somewhat surprisingly, with the Chandman (the Mongolian Bronze Age sample) and finally, at the next step, with the Danish Neolithic. One of the things that these geo- graphically diverse groups clearly have in common is a degree of robustness that sets them apart from the recent inhabitants of the areas in which they are found.” Apart from the quantitative relationships shown in Figs. 1–4, most of the Neolithic samples in Europe share nonmetric features of the lateral edge of the orbit, the shape of the gonial angle of the mandible, and the configuration of menton that are present even when degrees of size and robustness vary between the regions represented. These nonmetric attributes all support the view that most of the Neolithic inhabitants of Europe tie more closely together with each other than with the living representatives of the areas in question.”
Brace adds that the only skeletal remains that link contemporary Europeans to an ancient population come from A late Neolithic site in Germany:
“The principal exception to this generalization is one of the two small samples of the German Neolithic, the Mühlhausen sample, which ties closer metrically to the living inhabitants of the Middle East and North Africa. Metrically the other German Neolithic sample, Tauber- bischofsheim, links with the living Central European samples. Nonmetrically, those two small German Neolithic samples also appear strikingly different from each other.”
The findings of Brace et al make it clear that there were no “whites’ in ancient Europe as you claim. There were only Negroes living there until the coming of the Europeans as noted by DuBois, Diop and Boule & Vallois.
The Paleolithic Europeans were Blacks. This is supported by the fact that the ancient genes of these Blacks both as Cro-Magnon and farmers belong to hg N. This gene is rarely found in contemporary Europeans. It originated in Africa and is an indication of African people.
The skeletal remains of these people as noted by Boule and Vallois were Negro, and Brace et al mention that these Negroes were supplemented by Sub-Saharan Africans as represented by the Natufians. There are no skeletons of the Caucasian type. Brace et al make it clear that the craniometrics for ancient European foragers and farmers are not analogous to contemporary Europeans. As a result, there were no "whites" in Europe until the coming of the Indo- Europeans.
Below the LIE
ROTFL Sokal, Gimbutas, and the other scholars you cite speak of Indo-European speakers! Exactly where in their writings do they mention anything about 'race' let alone associating Indo-Europeans with 'whites' while non-IE Europeans with non-whites or even "negroids"?!!
All you're doing is adding or really putting your ridiculous words into the mouths of these scholars.
LOL You even got Brace's info backwards!-- Neolithic agriculturalists are the ones who resemble modern Europeans the least while pre-Neolithic Europeans resemble them the most!
REAL TRUTH:
Harding et al (2000:1355) analyzed the amino acid sequences in the receptor proteins from 106 individuals from Africa and 524 individuals from outside Africa to find why the color of all the Africans' skin was black.
Harding found that there were zero differences among the Africans for the amino acid sequences in their receptor proteins, so the skin of each individual from Africa was black.
In contrast, among the non-African individuals, there were 18 different amino acid sites in which the receptor proteins differed, and each amino acid that differed from the African receptor protein resulted in skin lighter than the skin of the African individuals.
Harding (2000:1359-1360) concluded that the intense sun in Africa created an evolutionary constraint that reduced severely the survival of progeny with any difference in the 693 sites of the MC1R gene that resulted in even one small change in the amino acid sequence of the receptor protein--because any variation from the African receptor protein produced significantly whiter skin that gave less protection from the intense African sun.
In contrast, in Sweden, for example, the sun was so weak that no mutation in the receptor protein reduced the survival probability of progeny.
Indeed, for the individuals from Ireland, England, and Sweden, the mutation variations among the 693 gene sites that caused changes in amino acid sequence was the same as the mutation variations in the 261 gene sites at which silent mutations still produced the same amino acid sequence.
Thus, Harding concluded that the intense sun in Africa selectively killed off the progeny of individuals who had a mutation in the MC1R gene that made the skin whiter.
However, the mutation rate toward whiter skin in the progeny of those African individuals who had moved North to areas with weaker sun was comparable to the MC1R mutation rate of the white folks whose ancient ancestors grew up in Sweden.
Hence, Harding concluded that the whiteness of human skin was a direct result of random mutations in the MC1R gene that were non-lethal at the latitudes of Ireland, England, and Sweden. Even the mutations that produce red hair with little ability to tan were non-lethal in the northern latitudes.
And Nina Jablonsky:
"Black skin was the original human condition, but for some of those populations that moved out of Africa, black skin became a disadvantage in living in higher latitudes with less sunlight. Europeans are a special case in which they became especially adapted to glacial climes with very little sunlight and so developed major depigmentation. [in Europe]"
And as for languages, these remnants of pre-Indo-European languages are Etruscan, Iberian, Uralic languages, and Basque.
Posts: 26307 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rasol is absolutely correct about some Afrocentrics (like Clyde) being an exact reflection of racist Eurocentrics.
In fact, I dare say that Clyde Winters is the refracted antithesis of the racist troll Evil-Euro in that everything Clyde says is just the inverted facsimile of what Evil-Euro says.
Evil-Euro claimed that "negroids didn't exist in Africa until historic times," while Clyde claims that "there were no whites in Europe until the coming of the Indo-European speaking people (also in historic times)."
Clyde Winters and Evil-Euro-- 2 opposite sides of the same coin, and that coin is called ridiculous psuedo-scholarly nonsensical B.S. *sigh*
And again I ask, which does more damage to the minds and integrity of African Americans, the BS passed on here as "scholarly truth" by the likes of Clyde and his followers like Marc and former poster, Lion or this trashy simpleton buffoonery of a cartoon??
Posts: 26307 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Rasol is absolutely correct about some Afrocentrics (like Clyde) being an exact reflection of racist Eurocentrics.
In fact, I dare say that Clyde Winters is the refracted antithesis of the racist troll Evil-Euro in that everything Clyde says is just the inverted facsimile of what Evil-Euro says.
^ The above is exactly the case.
Euro: Africa was originally k-zoid.
Winters: Europe was originally n-groid.
Euro: Bantu replaced the original k-zoid Africans.
Winters: Indo Europeans replaced the original n-groid Europeans.
Euro: Prehistoric Africans were not African.
Winters: Prehistoric Europe was African.
And the loser is......
Euro and Winters and anyone stupid enough to take their self evident lying seriously.
And both of them lie wihout remorse because they see themselves as being in a propaganda battle in which truth is irrelevant and victory goes to those who can convert and army of idiots to their lies.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^ Oh God, as sad and pathetic as it is you may be right. *sigh* Posts: 26307 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rasol and Djehuti both of your are liers and have not presented any evidence that the ancient Europeans were "white", Here is the true reality of the ancient European population.
The Truth:
There were no whites in Europe until the coming of the Indo-European speaking people.
Sokal et al
quote: Origins of the Indo-Europeans: Genetic Evidence
RR Sokal, NL Oden and BA Thomson
Two theories of the origins of the Indo-Europeans currently compete. M. Gimbutas believes that early Indo-Europeans entered southeastern Europe from the Pontic Steppes starting ca. 4500 B.C. and spread from there. C. Renfrew equates early Indo-Europeans with early farmers who entered southeastern Europe from Asia Minor ca. 7000 BC and spread through the continent. We tested genetic distance matrices for each of 25 systems in numerous Indo-European-speaking samples from Europe. To match each of these matrices, we created other distance matrices representing geography, language, time since origin of agriculture, Gimbutas' model, and Renfrew's model. The correlation between genetics and language is significant. Geography, when held constant, produces a markedly lower, yet still highly significant partial correlation between genetics and language, showing that more remains to be explained. However, none of the remaining three distances-time since origin of agriculture, Gimbutas' model, or Renfrew's model-reduces the partial correlation further. Thus, neither of the two theories appears able to explain the origin of the Indo-Europeans as gauged by the genetics- language correlation.
The "whites" or Caucasians are not native to Europe as noted by Sokal. Although this was written in 1992, Haak et al (2006) make it clear that the IE speakers are not related to the ancient Europeans who were Negroes/Sub-Saharan Africans.
Brace et al wrote: “What does come as a surprise is that the Neolithic samples tend to tie with Neolithic samples across the entire range from east to west but do not cluster with the living people in many of the areas tested."
In the next line Brace et al contradicts themselves in an attempt to make it appear that continuity exist between the ancient and contemporary groups when they write: "There is more of a link between the prehistoric and modern samples in southern Europe as opposed to the picture in central and northern Europe. Much the same is true for the Bronze Age samples, although these do tend to tie to the preceding Neolithic in the same part of the range tested. Unlike the Neolithic, Bronze Age, and modern samples, the Palaeolithic samples are not from single sites. There is no single European Upper Palaeolithic sample large enough to run as a single twig in a dendrogram. Instead, we had to use Cro-Magnon 1, La Ronde du Barry, Abri Pataud, Saint Germain-La Rivie`re, and Le Placard, all from southwestern France, plus Obercassel 1 from western Germany, and Predmostı3 and 4 from the Czech Republic. Measurements of the latter two specimens were taken on casts because the originals had been destroyed by retreating Germans near the end of World War II (33). The same kind of problem of finding more than one individual in a burial site also tended to be true for some of the available Mesolithic of Europe. Individual specimens from Brittany to Monaco (Gramat, Rastel, Recheril and Téviec) were lumped together to make the European Mesolithic sample. There are larger Mesolithic samples, but we were not able to get permission to work on them. The North African Epipalaeolithic sample was made on the basis of specimens from Afalou in Algeria and Taforalt in Morocco. The Natufian sample from Israel is also problematic because it is so small, being constituted of three males and one female from the Late Pleistocene Epipalaeolithic (34) of Israel, and there was no usable Neolithic sample for the Near East. The difficulty in making comparisons with Neolithic and Palaeolithic samples is the result of the very different treatment of the deceased. Neolithic communities established cemeteries where the remains of the departed accumulated in some numbers. Most Upper Palaeolithic peoples tended to bury the dead singly and in widely separated locations. Furthermore, Neolithic pottery became fractured with considerable frequency, leaving potsherds in quantity at Neolithic sites. Consequently there may well have been a tendency to overestimate the size of Neolithic populations vis-a`-vis the contemporary surviving foragers (6, 35, 36). Despite the small numbers and scattered locations of the Late Pleistocene specimens, they tend to cluster with each other rather than with any groups of more recent date.”
Although Brace et al , found no relationship between the ancient Europeans and contemporary group he still tries to maintain that these people were not related to Sub-Saharan Africans by implying that the Egyptians and other African groups were non-African.
Brace et al wrote: “When the samples used in Fig. 1 are compared by the use of canonical variate plots as in Fig. 2, the separateness of the Niger-Congo speakers is again quite clear. Interestingly enough, however, the small Natufian sample falls between the Niger-Congo group and the other samples used. Fig. 2 shows the plot produced by the first two canonical variates, but the same thing happens when canonical variates 1 and 3 (not shown here) are used. This placement suggests that there may have been a Sub-Saharan African element in the make-up of the Natufians (the putative ancestors of the subsequent Neolithic), although in this particular test there is no such evident presence in the North African or Egyptian samples. As shown in Fig. 1, the Somalis and the Egyptian Bronze Age sample from Naqada may also have a hint of a Sub-Saharan African component. That was not borne out in the canonical variate plot (Fig. 2), and there was no evidence of such an involvement in the Algerian Neolithic (Gambetta) sample.”
This is false Keita and others have already proven that these people were related to Sub –Saharan Africans.
Brace et al continue and note that: “ There are some generalizations that are apparent from the picture presented in both the greater individual numbers of twigs shown in Fig. 1 and the combined pattern shown in Fig. 3. When the maximum number of twigs is plotted, despite the very small numbers involved, the Late Pleistocene samples from Israel, Europe, and North Aftica tend to link to each other before they tie to the modern representatives of each of the areas in question, as shown in Fig. 1. In that run, the Natufian of Israel ties to the French Mesolithic and then to the Afalou Taforalt sample from North Africa. These then link with the European Upper Palaeo- lithic sample and, somewhat surprisingly, with the Chandman (the Mongolian Bronze Age sample) and finally, at the next step, with the Danish Neolithic. One of the things that these geo- graphically diverse groups clearly have in common is a degree of robustness that sets them apart from the recent inhabitants of the areas in which they are found.” Apart from the quantitative relationships shown in Figs. 1–4, most of the Neolithic samples in Europe share nonmetric features of the lateral edge of the orbit, the shape of the gonial angle of the mandible, and the configuration of menton that are present even when degrees of size and robustness vary between the regions represented. These nonmetric attributes all support the view that most of the Neolithic inhabitants of Europe tie more closely together with each other than with the living representatives of the areas in question.”
Brace adds that the only skeletal remains that link contemporary Europeans to an ancient population come from A late Neolithic site in Germany:
“The principal exception to this generalization is one of the two small samples of the German Neolithic, the Mühlhausen sample, which ties closer metrically to the living inhabitants of the Middle East and North Africa. Metrically the other German Neolithic sample, Tauber- bischofsheim, links with the living Central European samples. Nonmetrically, those two small German Neolithic samples also appear strikingly different from each other.”
The findings of Brace et al make it clear that there were no “whites’ in ancient Europe as you claim. There were only Negroes living there until the coming of the Europeans as noted by DuBois, Diop and Boule & Vallois.
The Paleolithic Europeans were Blacks. This is supported by the fact that the ancient genes of these Blacks both as Cro-Magnon and farmers belong to hg N. This gene is rarely found in contemporary Europeans. It originated in Africa and is an indication of African people.
The skeletal remains of these people as noted by Boule and Vallois were Negro, and Brace et al mention that these Negroes were supplemented by Sub-Saharan Africans as represented by the Natufians. There are no skeletons of the Caucasian type. Brace et al make it clear that the craniometrics for ancient European foragers and farmers are not analogous to contemporary Europeans. As a result, there were no "whites" in Europe until the coming of the Indo- Europeans.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Djehuti when are you going to answer this question.
Djehuti
quote:
"Negroid" features say little to nothing because ALL human populations had such features. If white peoples as you claim originated from Central Asia and Siberia (which they did, before they entered Europe during the Paleolithic) then how do you explain Marc's evidence of "negroid" remains there as well?!
Clyde response:
Please list and reference the skeletal series from Central Asia and Serbia that craniometricaly illustrate continuity between ancient and modern West Eurasians (whites).
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL And again, Sokal's writings make reference to IE speakers and non IE speakers, NOT whites and negroids.
Specifically point out exactly where did Sokal say anything about the pre-IE peoples of Europe being "negroid"?!
You can't, because he never even mentioned any racial term!!
Brace et al wrote: “What does come as a surprise is that the Neolithic samples tend to tie with Neolithic samples across the entire range from east to west but do not cluster with the living people in many of the areas tested."
^Correct, the Neolithic bearers of the Near-East which in part is derived from Africa, NOT the PRE-Neolithic inhabitants of Europe!
Where in his writing does Brace ascribe the pre-Neolithic/Paleolithic peoples of Europe to be "negroid"??
Again, you cite sources but then your imagination takes over and you think that these sources somehow support you.
quote:Clyde response: Please list and reference the skeletal series from Central Asia and Serbia that craniometricaly illustrate continuity between ancient and modern West Eurasians (whites).
By "Serbia" I take it you mean SIBERIA (?). Why don't YOU cite any references to these areas showing skeletal continuity with whites since it was YOU who attributed their origin from these areas!
If whites did not originate in Europe, where did they come from?! And please, this time cite sources that actually speak of the origins of WHITE people NOT Indo-European speakers!
Posts: 26307 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^^ Oh God, as sad and pathetic as it is you may be right. *sigh*
Winters tries to cite Gimbutas, but of course he's lying *again* because he knows very well that she states:
The Process of Indo-Europeanization was a cultural, not a physical transformation. It must be understood as a military victory in terms of imposing a new administrative system, language and religion upon the indigenous groups.
posted
^^ You know what they say: Habitual and chronic liars eventually get caugh in their own net of lies. Posts: 26307 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Hikuptah is right about there being an information war, and as I've said before Marc is just one of the casualties of this war that folks like Winters leads.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
You know what they say: Habitual and chronic liars eventually get caugh in their own net of lies. 
Printer-friendly view of this topic