posted
A look at ancient artifacts, seems to indicate that the Grimaldi Africans of Europe and Anatolia/Turkey were advanced artistically and technologically much earlier than Africans in the south. Any thoughts?
The Lion Man 30,000 B.C. - Germany.
Gobekli Tepe - 11,500 B.C. The oldest known shrine or temple complex in the world, and the planet's oldest known example of monumental architecture.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: A look at ancient artifacts, seems to indicate that the Grimaldi Africans of Europe and Anatolia/Turkey were advanced artistically and technologically much earlier than Africans in the south. Any thoughts?
The Lion Man 30,000 B.C. - Germany.
Egypt Badari period (both) 5,000 - 4,000 B.C.
What do you mean by "the south"? Are we talking Southern Europe, southern hemisphere or what?
Also among your last two pics is the Badari, who came long after Grimaldi Man. The Badari are a fundamental key group in Egytian history, and are held by some to be the best represenative of what the ancient Egyptians were like, even as the Late Dynasties arrived. (J. Irish, 2006).
So if the north (I am assuming you mean Europe) was so advanced, why did this foundational people arise in the south, and why was ancient Egyptian civ and dynasties founded by peoples from the "darker" South?
Also if Africa is considered south, and its populations eventially moved farther north, arent the initial northern cultures basically derivatives or sub-sets of the original "southern" stock?
Also monumental construction like megaliths is found in the Nabta Playa of the Nubian Desert. Nabta is younger than Göbekli Tepe but still considered fundamental to the rise of Egyptian civilization. (Wendorf 1998, 2001)
Also could it not be argued that the European Neolithic was spurred by the Natufians, peoples deriving from Africa, into Israel?
SO I don;t really see how the "north" was more advanced than the "south". If anything it looks like the south was the originator of a lot of advances. But you'll have to clarify.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
So if the north (I am assuming you mean Europe) was so advanced, why did this foundational people arise in the south, and why was ancient Egyptian civ and dynasties founded by peoples from the "darker" South?
Also if Africa is considered south, and its populations eventially moved farther north, arent the initial northern cultures basically derivatives or sub-sets of the original "southern" stock?
Yep, you heard it right; that Africa supposedly represents this technologically inferior "south" and Europe, the "north". Of course, this is what one comes to conclude, when he/she is ignorant of the archaeology of either region. Just as a mere sample, these fellows, whom might I add were not anatomically modern humans [aka Homo Erectus], must have been technologically advanced even before modern humans allegedly made their first appearance. That is interesting, because did *early* anatomically modern humans have the kind of villages being described here?...
Now, from the remote shores of Budrinna on Lake Fezzan in Libya, and Melka Konture on the banks of the River Awash in Ethiopia, a series of stunning discoveries are set to challenge the originality of the Neolithic Revolution. After 39 years of surveys and excavations, Professor Helmut Ziegert of Hamburg University presents his results as a world exclusive in Minerva (pp. 8-9). In both African locations he has discovered huts and sedentary village life dating between an astonishing 400,000 and 200,000 Before Present - if correct, literally a quantum leap in our understanding of man's evolution. - Jerome M. Eisenberg, Ph.D. and Dr Sean Kingsley
Oh, btw, these were located in Africa. I guess there wasn't anything like it found in Europe, dating to that time frame.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Guys; there is NO racial context to the question, everybody involved was Black. The Grimaldi Africans were the first Modern humans in Europe. They entered through Gibraltar at about 45,000 B.C. and then migrated across Europe and Asia. The last confirmed Grimaldi site was Ma’lta Siberia, (just north of China and Mongolia) at about 24,000 B.C. We know that it was them, because they always left behind some Venus figures that looked like this:
They probably looked something like this: (note: there is no way of knowing if they had straight hair like the Australians who left Africa a few thousand years earlier, or curly hair).
You can learn more about Grimaldi here, at Myra Wysingers website.
Back to the question: It is assumed, that at some point, you realized that what they taught you in school was pure bunk; (I prefer to say lies). So presumably you are here in search of the truth. All I am doing; is pursuing a logical progression dictated by what appears to be the more advanced look of artifacts from Europe and Anatolia.
When I said “In the South” I mean the presumed centers of advancement i.e. Sumer and Egypt.
You have to admit; this is some pretty impressive artwork. (I don’t know to what extent they were touched up; obviously paintings that are many thousand of years old, don’t look this good).
Then there is the housing and technology.
Catal Huyuk (Anatolia) At the site of Çatal hüyük, there is evidence of a town that was occupied from about 7,500 B.C. Here, apart from extensive evidence of the obsidian tool industry, we find an early form of metallurgy, Lead and copper were shaped into ornaments like pendants, beads and rings and small utilitarian tools. Like at Lake Burdur, we find houses, with very elaborate recurring architectural features in each space, like wall paintings, platforms, and cult spaces. Small family houses are knitted together with the absence of streets, occasional open spaces between the buildings were used as garbage disposal areas. The houses had their entrances through a hole in the roof of the building, which was accessed by a ladder. The hearth and the oven were placed directly below this hole in the roof, so that the hole in the roof also acted as the chimney for the house.
As far as I know, there are no comparable artifacts in the “South” for those times.
posted
lamin, Any conversation you have with Mike is a waste of time. I cannot remember a poster on this board who was more ignorant. He just bounces off the walls with wild crazy ideas.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: lamin, Any conversation you have with Mike is a waste of time. I cannot remember a poster on this board who was more ignorant. He just bounces off the walls with wild crazy ideas.
Yes I know TAP, they were White Cro-Magnons. I have been told that often enough, you would think that by now I would remember that - sorry.
From Wiki
Surviving Cro-Magnon artifacts include huts, cave paintings, (Lascaux, France, Pech Merle, La Marche,in Lussac-les-Chateaux, Chauvet Cave etc.) carvings and antler-tipped spears. The remains of tools suggest that they knew how to make woven clothing.
So this is the real artist!
But you know how silly I am, I still can't figure out how a hybrid "Mutt" of modern man, can be smarter than modern man. Especially considering that modern man is over 300,000 years older than his own half breed "Mutt". Then of course there is that tiny little issue; White females are not known to be capable of Steatopygia.
Oops, I forgot something else, Cro-Magnon wasn't White, but White people ARE telling the story.
Gotta hand it to you TAP, you are a true White Patriot - you never miss an opportunity to perpetuate the White myth.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
So if the north (I am assuming you mean Europe) was so advanced, why did this foundational people arise in the south, and why was ancient Egyptian civ and dynasties founded by peoples from the "darker" South?
Also if Africa is considered south, and its populations eventially moved farther north, arent the initial northern cultures basically derivatives or sub-sets of the original "southern" stock?
Yep, you heard it right; that Africa supposedly represents this technologically inferior "south" and Europe, the "north". Of course, this is what one comes to conclude, when he/she is ignorant of the archaeology of either region. Just as a mere sample, these fellows, whom might I add were not anatomically modern humans [aka Homo Erectus], must have been technologically advanced even before modern humans allegedly made their first appearance. That is interesting, because did *early* anatomically modern humans have the kind of villages being described here?...
Now, from the remote shores of Budrinna on Lake Fezzan in Libya, and Melka Konture on the banks of the River Awash in Ethiopia, a series of stunning discoveries are set to challenge the originality of the Neolithic Revolution. After 39 years of surveys and excavations, Professor Helmut Ziegert of Hamburg University presents his results as a world exclusive in Minerva (pp. 8-9). In both African locations he has discovered huts and sedentary village life dating between an astonishing 400,000 and 200,000 Before Present - if correct, literally a quantum leap in our understanding of man's evolution. - Jerome M. Eisenberg, Ph.D. and Dr Sean Kingsley
Oh, btw, these were located in Africa. I guess there wasn't anything like it found in Europe, dating to that time frame.
Interesting data. Never heard of this new Paleolithic study before. Great info. Could then be even more confirmation that the "north" built on the foundations laid in the "south", which were even more advanced than previously thought. Libya and Ethiopia.. hmmm
I am glad Mike qualified to note that the "northern" folks in questions were all clearly African derived. Elsewhere on ES you have rounded up a lot of research to this effect- that early "Europeans" looked like Africans- helping us expose the north-south distortions being pushed by certain "Aryan" bloggers and their sympathizers. Until the ES info broke it down, they were running wild with distorted claims about CL Brace's work for example. How the hell for example, do ancient Scandanivians seem to cluster more with Upper Egyptians than Nubians? Thanks to ES putting the info out where it could be easily understood, we now know.
Mike's info combined with yours shows that advances across the board, those crucial early developments, are an "All African" thang, whether north or south, no matter how they slice it.
---------------------------------- Text Recap
"The absence of mtDNA haplogroup J in the ancient Portuguese Neolithic sample suggests that this population was not derived directly from Near Eastern farmers. The Mesolithic and Neolithic groups show genetic discontinuity implying colonisation at the Neolithic transition in Portugal." (CHANDLER, H.; SYKES, B.; ZILHÃO, J. (2005) — Using ancient DNA to examine genetic continuity at the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in Portugal, in ARIAS, P.; ONTAÑÓN, R.; GARCÍA-MONCÓ, C. (eds.) — «Actas del III Congreso del Neolítico en la Península Ibérica», Santander, Monografías del Instituto Internacional de Investigaciones Prehistóricas de Cantabria 1, p. 781-786.)
“Early Europeans still resembled modern tropical peoples - some resemble modern Australian and Africans, more than modern Europeans.. Nor does the picture get any clearer when we move on to the Cro-Magnons, the presumed ancestors of modern Europeans. Some were more like present-day Australians or Africans, judged by objective anatomical observations." (Christopher Stringer, Robin McKie (1998). African Exodus. Macmillan, p. 162)
"Body proportions covary with climate, apparently as the result of climatic selection. Ontogenetic research and migrant studies have demonstrated that body proportions are largely genetically controlled and are under low selective rates; thus studies of body form can provide evidence for evolutionarily short-term dispersals and/or gene flow. Replacement predicts that the earliest modern Europeans will possess “tropical” body proportions (assuming Africa is the center of origin), while Regional Continuity permits only minor shifts in body shape, due to climatic change and/or improved cultural buffering. .. results refute the hypothesis of local continuity in Europe, and are consistent with an interpretation of elevated gene flow (and population dispersal?) from Africa, followed by subsequent climatic adaptation to colder conditions." (Holliday, Trenton (1997) Body proportions in Late Pleistocene Europe and modern human origins. Journal of Human Evolution, Volume 32, Issue 5, 1997, Pages 423-447)
".. while the Late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic humans have significantly higher (i.e., tropically-adapted) brachial and crural indices than do recent Europeans, they also have shorter (i.e., cold-adapted) limbs. The somewhat paradoxical retention of “tropical” indices in the context of more “cold-adapted” limb length is best explained as evidence for Replacement in the European Late Pleistocene, followed by gradual cold adaptation in glacial Europe." (Holliday, Trenton (1999) Brachial and crural indices of European Late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic humans. Journal of Human Evolution. Volume 36, Issue 5, May 1999, Pages 549-566)
"Stature, body mass, and body proportions are evaluated for the Cheddar Man (Gough's Cave 1) skeleton. Like many of his Mesolithic contemporaries, Gough's Cave 1 evinces relatively short estimated stature (ca. 166.2 cm [5' 5']) and low body mass (ca. 66 kg [146 lbs]). In body shape, he is similar to recent Europeans for most proportional indices. He differs, however, from most recent Europeans in his high crural index and tibial length/trunk height indices. Thus, while Gough's Cave 1 is characterized by a total morphological pattern considered ‘cold-adapted’, these latter two traits may be interpreted as evidence of a large African role in the origins of anatomically modern Europeans." (TRENTON W. HOLLIDAY a1 and STEVEN E. CHURCHILL. (2003). Gough's Cave 1 (Somerset, England): an assessment of body size and shape, Bulletin of the Natural History Museum: Geology, 58:37-44 Cambridge University Press)
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nice post zarahan; I would like to follow-up on some of the things that you mentioned. As I see it, part of the problem, is that scientist always use language and terms that ordinary people cannot understand. They do this on purpose, they know that other scientist will understand it just fine, but ordinary people will be confused, so then teachers and other academics have free rein to teach whatever racist nonsense they want, because ordinary people will not know any better. To show you what I mean; I am going to de-construct the study abstract that you posted.
"The absence of mtDNA haplogroup J in the ancient Portuguese Neolithic sample suggests that this population was not derived directly from Near Eastern farmers. The Mesolithic and Neolithic groups show genetic discontinuity implying colonisation at the Neolithic transition in Portugal." (CHANDLER, H.; SYKES, B.; ZILHÃO, J. (2005) — Using ancient DNA to examine genetic continuity at the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in Portugal, in ARIAS, P.; ONTAÑÓN, R.; GARCÍA-MONCÓ, C. (eds.) — «Actas del III Congreso del Neolítico en la Península Ibérica», Santander, Monografías del Instituto Internacional de Investigaciones Prehistóricas de Cantabria 1, p. 781-786.)
First, he talks about the absence of mtDNA haplogroup J (which is a young haplogroup) in the samples. So what groups WERE there? I looked; they were H, V, U, N.
So what time-frames was he talking about?
Mesolithic or Middle Stone Age – 11,500 years ago. The Neolithic – 9,500 ya.
West Eurasian (see below) – This is a fine example of trying to fool people, (there is no such thing as West Eurasian in this context). West Asia is the Middle east i.e. the Levant. (Canaan etc.).
So who were the people of Haplogroup J?
The Haplotree:
Haplogroup R 55000 years before present Place of origin Near East
Haplogroup R is a descendant of macro-Haplogroup N. Among its descendant haplogroups are B, UK (and thus U and K), F, pre-HV (and thus HV, H, and V), and the ancestral haplogroup of J and T.
Haplogroup J
Around 45,000 years before present, a mutation took place in the DNA of a woman who lived in the Near East or Caucasus. Further mutations took place in the J line which can be identified as J1a1 (27,000 yrs ago), J2a (19,000 yrs ago), J2b2 (16,000 years ago), J2b3 (5,800 yrs ago), etc.
Haplogroup J (along with ‘T’) is associated with the spread of farming and herding in Europe during the Neolithic Era (8,000-10,000 yrs ago). All other West Eurasian-origin groups (H, V, U, K, W, I, X) were previously given to hunting and gathering.
(Near East is the same as West Asia, which is the same as the Levant). But what about this “Caucasus” area? Where is it and who was there? The Caucasus area is what they call South Eastern Europe today. These were the people who lived there……
To continue: So what the study is REALLY saying is that THESE PEOPLE, of Haplogroup U5.
Grimaldi – (the Khoisan type Africans of Europe) Haplogroup U5. (from the study, the groups present in the Mesolithic or Middle Stone Age – 11,500 years ago. Were H, V, U, N).
Were replaced in the Neolithic – 9,500 years ago. By Another People, possibly these:
The “Ice Man” haplogroup K, which is in the same line as U, just younger.
Then: So exactly “WHO” were these “J” Haplogroup people that the author were so eager to find?
Well THESE are The “J” Haplogroup people:
THE ETRUSCANS OF ITALY. (Haplogroup JT)
[This is a link to the study that proves that the Etruscans, the original civilization of Italy, and the people from whom the Romans obtained their civilization, were Africans.]
AND THE CELTS (Gaul’s are a Celt subgroup) OF NORTHERN ITALY, FRANCE AND IBERIA (SPAIN).
Note: Spain and Portugal were originally one country.
So what about the European “White People” that he made it sound like he was talking about?
They were called the Visigoths or just plain Goths. The Visigoths were one of two main branches of the Goths, an East Germanic tribe, the Ostrogoths being the other. Together these tribes were among the barbarians who disturbed the late Roman Empire during the Migration Period. The Visigoths first emerge as a distinct people during the fourth century, initially in the Balkans, where they participated in several wars with Rome. A Visigothic army under Alaric I eventually moved into Italy and famously sacked Rome in 410. Eventually the Visigoths were settled in southern Gaul as foederati of the Romans, the reasons for which are still subjects for debate among scholars. They soon fell out with their hosts and established their own kingdom with its capital at Toulouse. They slowly extended their authority into Hispania (Spain), displacing the Vandals and Alans. Their rule in Gaul was cut short in 507 at the Battle of Vouillé, when they were defeated by the Franks under Clovis I. Thereafter the only territory north of the Pyrenees that the Visigoths held was Septimania and their kingdom was limited to Hispania, which came completely under the control of their small governing elite, at the expense of the Byzantine province of Spania and the Suebic Kingdom of Galicia.
The Vandals were an East Germanic tribe that entered the late Roman Empire during the 5th century. The Goth Theodoric the Great, king of the Ostrogoths and regent of the Visigoths, was allied by marriage with the Vandals as well as with the Burgundians and the Franks under Clovis I.
The Alans were also a White tribe from Central Asia (All White People are originally from Central Asia – see the Kurgan hypothesis. With the Hellenes of Greece being the first to arrive at about 1,200 B.C.), they probably arrived in Spain at about 300 A.D.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yep, you heard it right; that Africa supposedly represents this technologically inferior "south" and Europe, the "north". Of course, this is what one comes to conclude, when he/she is ignorant of the archaeology of either region
Yep, the "Afrocentrist" who thinks Asians 'gain' their straight hair from 'mixing' with whites.
The "Afrocentrist" who thinks the Slavs get their name, not because they were *in fact* a source of forced servants from whom the term "slave" is derived, but rather....becaused they "owned so many African slaves".
^ Just consider what kind of twisted irrational mind, and shattered Euro-phobic ego, you are dealing with in Marc Washington, and his remarks then explain themselves.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Yep, the "Afrocentrist" who thinks Asians 'gain' their straight hair from 'mixing' with whites
And how is this different from believing that Chinese looking Asians and "Forest Negros" mixed to create a Caucasoid "hybrid"? LOL
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Sorry Assopen but nobody said what you just said above. Europeans genetically are the result of Asians (NOT Chinese, but their prehistoric ancestors) later mixing with Africans (not "forest negroes") from the Neolithic. I know that as a European that bothers you, but we don't care. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Sorry Assopen but nobody said what you just said above. Europeans genetically are the result of Asians (NOT Chinese, but their prehistoric ancestors) later mixing with Africans (not "forest negroes") from the Neolithic. I know that as a European that bothers you, but we don't care.
That is a very interesting theory; I have for years been trying to figure out where Mongols and Caucasians came from, and how they evolved. Could you please school me in your knowledge.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ First of all, scientifically speaking there's no such thing as 'race' or racial groups. 'Caucasians' and 'Mongols' only exist as ethnic groups only-- Caucasians of the Caucasus mountains and Mongols of Mongolia. The reason why race doesn't exist is because phenotypical features such as skin color, facial features, hair form, etc. are independent of lineage. For example. *All* humans originated in Africa and so all humans were initially black. Some humans left Africa and as time went on these populations began to split and migrate further. Phenotype like many things changes over time, and with adaptation to environment. It's called evolution. Those Eurasian populations who remained in the tropics remained black while those who moved further north away from the equator into more temperate zones became lighter in color due to less sunlight. Facial features etc.
Indigenous European lineages are merely derived from the same ancestral lineages as other Asians, hence Europeans or 'pure' Europeans are really Asian. The so-called European continent itself is merely a subcontinent of Asia. The lineage split between ancestral Europeans and ancestral Asians had NOTHING to do with how modern day Europeans and modern day East Asians like Chinese look like! Assopen knows this but like all Euronuts, is just in deep denial of it.
Furthermore, it was during the Neolithic that another wave of emmigration from Africa hit both Southwest Asia as well as southern Europe across the Mediterranean which is why modern Europeans today genetically are 1/3 African and 2/3 Asian.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^Thank you, but I already knew that Mongols and Whites come from Asia. And I also already knew that they were related:
Quote: Asians (Mongols) and Europeans (Caucasians) may have shared a common ancestry with each other, some 40,000 years ago and a common ancestry with African populations, some 120,000 years ago. Moreover, investigations of human mitochondrial DNA reveals that there is a distinction between African and other human mitochondrial DNA types, suggesting that African peoples are very old, and that Asians (Mongols) and Europeans (Caucasians) are relatively young.
Note: the above study suggests that they were ALREADY a separate group BEFORE they left Africa (50,000 ya). Therefore CLIMATE could not have had anything to do with the evolution of the differences.
I also already knew that Whites migrated from Asia quite recently, (less that 2,000 ya), see Kurgan hypothesis.
But as you may recall, my question was NOT if they were separate races, but merely, how they evolved. And I wonder if you are in agreement or disagreement with the eminent meninarmer, denizen of ES, and researcher par-excellence.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Pure Asian is someone with Asian lineages only. Modern Europeans (like YOU) would be pure Asian if not for their recent African mixture during the Neolithic.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
BTW - Wouldn't it be more accurate to say "Central Asian" after all, as far as we know; the Turks were the only group to foray into East Asia in a meaningful way.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ The Turks (original Turks not Anatolians) were from East Asia. As for everything else, I have no idea what you're trying to say.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ The Turks (original Turks not Anatolians) were from East Asia. As for everything else, I have no idea what you're trying to say.
I am saying that you place Whites in Europe TOO early. They did not enter in the Neolithic, they entered in the Iron age.
Before you start with your usual nonsense, give me a NAME of a group or tribe of White people who were in Europe BEFORE the Iron age. On the other hand, I can account for EVERY White tribe AFTER the Iron began.
Turks WERE from East Asia? You got a source for that?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Pure Asian is someone with Asian lineages only. Modern Europeans (like YOU) would be pure Asian if not for their recent African mixture during the Neolithic.
Your child like stupidity was surely missed.
You don't believe in races yet you speak of "pure" this and that! lol
Please post pictures of these "pure" Asian, European and even Africans so I can see them.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
He's speaking of lineage. People of lineages that originate purely in Asia. People with such lineages are not of a different race from Africans.
posted
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2009. RACE: A category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits.
BLACK SKIN WHITE SKIN YELLOW SKIN
Would seem to be distinctive physical traits. Where do you jokers get off deciding that the concept of race no longer applies? I mean did that ethereal vision, and right to decide, come with your GEDs.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Freehand: He's speaking of lineage. People of lineages that originate purely in Asia. People with such lineages are not of a different race from Africans.
Argument done, confusion over.
Jeeves, put down the tray and:
Please post pictures of these "pure" Asian, European and even Africans so I can see them.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Where do you jokers get off deciding that the concept of race no longer applies?
^ same place you got it....
Anthropology. a. any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics: no longer in technical use. b. an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes.
Some feel that the term has no biological validity; others use it to specify only a partially isolated reproductive population whose members share a considerable degree of genetic similarity. In certain broader or less technical senses race is sometimes used interchangeably with people. People refers to a body of persons united usually by common interests, ideals, or culture but sometimes also by a common history, language, or ethnic character
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Yep, the "Afrocentrist" who thinks Asians 'gain' their straight hair from 'mixing' with whites
And how is this different from believing that Chinese looking Asians and "Forest Negros" mixed to create a Caucasoid "hybrid"? LOL
^ The difference is that the 1st is a quote from a neurotic - > Marc Washington.
The second is a quote from a jackass named akoben, who likes to say stupid things and then attribute them to other people, because he thinks it can frustrates them.
So, you're right, ultimately, not much "difference" at all. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
How about the Ishango bones 18000~20000yrs old.and again the so called Adams Calender a 200,000yrs old magalithic structure in Southern Africa,oriented to Orion's belt.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
rasol - As usual, you make it Toooo easy for me; but thank you anyway.
The Basques are a people who inhabit a region spanning over parts of north-central Spain and southwestern France.
The name Basque derives from the ancient tribe of the Vascones, described by Ancient Greek historian Strabo as living south of the western Pyrenees and north of the Ebro River, in modern day Navarre and northern Aragon. This tribal name, of unknown etymology, was extended in late Antiquity and the early Middle Ages to cover all Basque-speaking people on either side of the Pyrenees
The Vascones were an ancient people who, at the arrival of the Romans, inhabited the region of present day Navarre, Lower La Rioja and north-western Aragon. It is likely that they are ancestors of the present-day Basques, to whom they left their name.
Since the Basques speak a non-Indo-European language and have the highest proportion of the Rh negative blood type of all the peoples of the world, they were widely considered to be a genetically isolated population, preserving the genes of European Palaeolithic hunter-gatherers, until recent genetic studies found that modern Basques have a common ancestry with other Western Europeans. The similarity includes the predominance in their male populations of Y-chromosome (Haplogroup R1b), now considered to have been spread through Europe by new arrivals in the Neolithic period or later.
mtDNA (Haplogroup V) was initially thought to have spread through Europe after the last Ice Age from a refuge in what is now the Basque Country. However studies have found no V in ancient remains from three prehistoric sites in the Basque Country dating to 4000-5000 years ago. In addition, haplogroup K (mtDNA), found at frequencies of 16%-23% in the prehistoric sites, is nearly absent from modern Basques., while haplogroup J (mtDNA) (thought to have arrived in Europe with Neolithic farmers), found in two prehistoric sites at a frequency of 16% and the early medieval necropolis at Aldaieta at 14.7%, has suffered a major reduction to 2.4% in modern Basques.
Bottom line - The Basque sh1t, is just the usual White bullsh1t, trying to say that White people are Europeans instead of Asians.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another off-topic discussion that's degenerated. What does this have to do with Ancient Egypt? Take it to the other, unmoderated forum "Ancient Egypt."
Posts: 113 | From: Dayr al-Barsha | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic