This is topic European nations established only from Medieval times - whites are very new to Europe in forum Deshret at EgyptSearch Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=000014

---

Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
 
I hope to provide more evidence for the fact that though there are those who cling to the idea that Europeans are indigenous to Europe and were always there, facts tell otherwise. Facts have it that the Capsammochal were the original population of Europe and during the Migration Period in Early Medieval times, today's whites first entered the continent and established today's European nations between the period of the 5th and 10th centuries. Here is a quote to start the discussions that notes, as I've been saying, that the Germanic and Italic populations are extremely young entrants to Europe:

[The present paper is a] proposal providing a quantitative direct database for number and origin of migrants for [European] populations. This is possible due to recent advances in the analysis of both multiple isotropic tracers (Sr, Pb, O) from human biominerals (teeth bones) and ancient DNA both used as proxies for human migrations. Integrating these with archeological artefact analysis herein offers an unprecedented opportunity to develop a fully integrated, multidisciplinary methodology for studying past migrations. The case studies for the project include early medieval cemeteries in Switzerland, Italy, Austria, and Hungary in order to study some of the most interesting migrations of the Mieeld Ages, including those of the Germanic-speaking Alammani and Goths (into Switzerland and Italy, respectively), and the Turkic-speaking Avars (into Austria and Hungary).



http://www.beforebc.de/all_europe/01-09-800-00-02.html

And recall that the archeological record leaves no trace of "white" per se, populations in Europe prior to the time of the few centuries leading to Ceasar slaughtering and enslaving the indigenous population of Africans there and changing the face of Italy and in coming centuries Germany and Northern Europe.

http://www.beforebc.de/all_europe/05-09-05.html

There are those who feel that the white Vikings were somehow indigenous. Let the above facts be a tap-on-the-shoulder that they too were newcomers and they took over the infrastructure of pre-established commmunities, ships, lands, and life-style from the indigenous African populations there.

Over time, I will speak more to the fact that the so-called Indo-European languages are Hurranian in origin - the language spoken by an African people in the Anatolia that whites would migrate to and come to be indentified with (after inheriting its language and African foundations).

http://www.beforebc.de/Made.by.Humankind/Gods.MotherGoddeses/02-16g-400-20n-10.html
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

I hope to provide more evidence for the fact that though there are those who cling to the idea that Europeans are indigenous to Europe

---

quote:

---

and were always there

---

quote:

---

Facts have it that the Capsammochal were the original population of Europe and during the Migration Period in Early Medieval times,

---

quote:

---

today's whites first entered the continent and established today's European nations between the period of the 5th and 10th centuries.

---

quote:

---

Here is a quote to start the discussions

---

^ Uhm, care to tell us 'whom' you are quoting? Or is that too much to ask?


Like this, I mean:

The Origin of the Europeans; Combining Genetics and Archaeology, Scientists Rough Out Continent's 50,000-Year-Old Story


By NICHOLAS WADE

Some 6 percent of Europeans are descended from the continent's first founders, who entered Europe from the Near East in the Upper Paleolithic era 45,000 years ago, Dr. Richards calculates. The descendants of these earliest arrivals are still more numerous in certain regions of Europe that may have provided them with refuge from subsequent waves of immigration. One is the mountainous Basque country, where people still speak a language completely different from all other European languages. Another is in the European extreme of Scandinavia. Another 80 percent arrived 30,000 to 20,000 years ago, before the peak of the last glaciation, and 10 percent came in the Neolithic 10,000 years ago, when the ice age ended and agriculture was first introduced to Europe from the Near East.

It used to be thought that the most important human dispersals occurred in the Neolithic, prompted by the population increases made possible by the invention of agriculture. But it now seems that the world filled up early and the first inhabitants were quite resistant to displacement by later arrivals.
 

---

Posted by Tyrann0saurus (Member # 3735) on :
 
Given Marc's belief that white people migrated into Europe no earlier than the 10th century CE, I wonder what he makes of Roman mosaics like the one below?


 

---

Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
Quote: According to Anthropologist like Underhill and Wells, these peoples ancestors settled Europe 30 thousand years ago.

Rasol - No creditable anthropologist claims that modern Whites inhabited Europe 30,000 years ago. When they say ancestors: they mean Cro-Magnons, NOT modern Whites like yourselves. No creditable scientist disputes that the homeland of Modern Whites is the Eurasian plains.

Please read this link for an analysis and resolution of the available facts.
http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Minoan_Greece_1.htm
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Quote: According to Anthropologist like Underhill and Wells, these peoples ancestors settled Europe 30 thousand years ago.

---

quote:

---

Mike writes: Rasol - No creditable anthropologist claims that modern Whites inhabited Europe 30,000 years ago.

---

quote:

---

When they say ancestors: they mean Cro-Magnons, NOT modern Whites like yourselves.

---

quote:

---

No creditable scientist disputes that the homeland of Modern Whites is the Eurasian plains.

---

quote:

---

Please read this link for an analysis and resolution of the available facts.
http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Minoan_Greece_1.htm

---

quote:

---

Mike wrote:

..Rasol - No creditable anthropologist claims that modern Whites inhabited Europe 30,000 years ago..

---

ROTFL

And as for the poster who started this thread, his mind was broken a long time ago!
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike111:
No rasol - you are not Black nor are you White, you are simply; simple.

---

quote:

---

rasol asks: Please produce peer reviewed studies by credible anthropologists to support *whatever* is it you are claiming.

Thank you.

---

 

---

Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
 
Mike. Keep up the good work.

An example of African presence in Europe before the genocides at the hands of the Alammani, Goths and other "modern-day Europeans" to-be:


 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
^ Photo-chop SPAM is not discussion.

Unanswered questions....

quote:

---

Tell us, in your view then, what is the 'factual' history of 'white people' prior to medievil times?

Tell us where these peoples ancestors were 5 thousand years ago, 10 thousand, 20 thousand, 30 thousand years ago?

---

^ Evidently you have nothing to say, on the subject that you started?
 

---

Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
Don't you guys read anything besides racist trash articles designed to further muddle your already muddled minds. You are already at a computer; all you had to do was search "Eurasian Plains" or some other relevant word. What is your Problem?

From Encyclopedia Britannica


Hellenes (Greeks)
Quote: Of the Indo-European tribes of European origin, the Greeks were foremost as regards both the period at which they developed an advanced culture and their importance in further evolution. The Greeks emerged in the course of the 2nd millennium BC through the superimposition of a branch of the Indo-Europeans on the population of the Mediterranean region during the great migrations of nations that started in the region of the lower Danube. From 1800 BC onward the first early Greeks reached their later areas of settlement between the Ionian and the Aegean seas. The fusion of these earliest Greek-speaking people with their predecessors produced the civilization known as Mycenaean. They penetrated to the sea into the Aegean region and via Crete (approximately 1400 BC) reached Rhodes and even Cyprus and the shores of Anatolia. From 1200 BC onward the Dorians followed from Epirus.

Just to give you some insight into how hopeless you are. A knowledgeable person will read the above article and brand it White racist trash. Why? Because the author is trying to hold on to some of the old B.S. Modern White people had NOT reached the Danube by 2000 B.C. Combine that with his trying to make a connection between the Hellenes and Mycenaean, and other subtle lying White B.S. And it’s really a piece of White racist trash. But even with all of that racist crap: it still makes my point. You guys really need to try and catch up.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ The only one talking B.S. as usual is YOU!

First of all, the Eurasian steppes is considered the origin of Indo-European which is a language group and NOT a race. Indo-European spread into (the rest of) Europe from probably Russia during the Bronze and Iron Ages from 2,000 B.C. onward. All of that is besides the point that 'white peoples' were already living in Europe.

Why? Because white skin developed in Europe! White skin was an adaptation to the glaciel climate of Europe during the Pleistocene. Which is why indigenous Europeans are 'white'.

End of Marc's nonsense fantasy story of black aborigines of Europe being wiped out by whites from the steppes! LOL
 

---

Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
Quote: First of all, the Eurasian steppes is considered the origin of Indo-European which is a language group and NOT a race.

You seem to be suggesting that there were no people attached to the language.

That study said NOTHING about Whites turning White IN Europe.

The only Whites in Europe pre-invasion were Cro-Magnons. Close your mind all you want, but that's not going to change. You have NO ancient history. Trying to steal the history of others is sad and sick.

While you are trying to find a lie for that, also find one for this: how would you explain the pure blood Mongol, who is just as pale as you are.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

First of all, the Eurasian steppes is considered the origin of Indo-European which is a language group and NOT a race.

---

quote:

---

You seem to be suggesting that there were no people attached to the language.

---

quote:

---

That study said NOTHING about Whites turning White IN Europe.

---

^ That is exactly the case.



In contrast your article about about the Hellenistic Greeks is completely irrelevant and does not answer the question:

quote:

---

Tell us, in your view then, what is the 'factual' history of 'white people' prior to medievil times?

Tell us where these peoples ancestors were 5 thousand years ago, 10 thousand, 20 thousand, 30 thousand years ago?

---

 

---

Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
 
Mike. As you know, Africans were found far-and-wide in Eurasia. Here's a picture I'd like to share with you of the Steppe population there when whites emerged. It was for all intents and purposes the same as that you'd find in North Africa.

Couple of white kids in this thread with exotic names trying to go incognito calling themselves non-white to try to gain some mileage. Pretty cute stuff.



http://www.beforebc.de/all_europe/05-09-100-00-01.html

Here is a U-Tube presentation showing where whites emerged on the Steppes where Africans were also found. A brother here at EF shared. Whites are living in a state of denial as to their origins but this puts it straight: No European origin. But the Steppes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fxlOxU2msU


Take care,
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
^Personal attacks are not answers Marc, an merely reveal your mounting frustration.

We're still waiting.....

quote:

---

Tell us, in your view then, what is the 'factual' history of 'white people' prior to medievil times?

Tell us where these peoples ancestors were 5 thousand years ago, 10 thousand, 20 thousand, 30 thousand years ago?

---

 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
^ Times up. Marc.

Here is the answer, courtesy Geneticist, Peter Underhill:

The First Europeans

About 80 percent of Europeans arose from primitive hunters who arrived about 40,000 years ago, endured the long ice age and then expanded rapidly to dominate the continent, a new study shows.


Researchers analyzing the Y chromosome taken from 1,007 men from 25 different locations in Europe found a pattern that suggests four out of five of the men shared a common male ancestor about 40,000 years ago.

Peter A. Underhill, a senior researcher at the Stanford Genome Technology Center in Palo Alto, Calif., and co-author of the study, said the research supports conclusions from archaeological, linguistic and other DNA evidence about the settlement of Europe by ancient peoples.

When we can get different lines of evidence that tell the same story, then we feel we are telling the true history of the species. The researchers used the Y chromosome in the study because its rare changes establish a pattern that can be traced back hundreds of generations, thus helping to plot the movement of ancient humans.

The Y chromosome is inherited only by sons from their fathers. When sperm carrying the Y chromosome fertilizes an egg it directs the resulting baby to be a male. An X chromosome from the father allows a fertilized egg to be female.

"The Y chromosome has about 60 million DNA base pairs. Changes in those base pairs happen infrequently, but they occur often enough to establish patterns that can be used to trace the ancestry of people. Researchers looking at the 1,007 chromosome samples from Europe identified 22 specific markers that formed a specific pattern of change. Underhill said the researchers found that about 80 percent of all European males shared a single pattern, suggesting they had a common ancestor thousands of generations ago.

"The basic pattern had some changes that apparently developed among people who once shared a common ancestor and then were isolated for many generations. This scenario supports other studies about the Paleolithic European groups. Those studies suggest that a primitive, stone-age human came to Europe, probably from Central Asia and the Middle East, in two waves of migration beginning about 40,000 years ago. Their numbers were small and they lived byhunting animals and gathering plant food. They used crudely sharpened stones and fire.

"About 24,000 years ago, the last ice age began, with mountain-sized glaciers moving across most of Europe. The Paleolithic Europeans retreated before the ice, finding refuge for hundreds of generations in three areas: what is now Spain, the Balkans and the Ukraine.

"When the glaciers melted, about 16,000 years ago, the Paleolithic tribes resettled the rest of Europe. Y chromosome mutations occurred among people in each of the ice age refuges, said Underhill. He said the research shows a pattern that developed in Spain is now most common in northwest Europe, while the Ukraine pattern is mostly in Eastern Europe and the Balkan pattern is most common in Central Europe.

"About 8,000 years ago a more advanced people, the Neolithic, migrated to Europe from the Middle East, bringing with them a new Y chromosome pattern and a new way of life - agriculture. About 20 percent of Europeans now have the Y chromosome pattern from this migration.

"Archaeological digs in European caves clearly show that before 8,000 years ago, most humans lived by gathering and hunting. After that, there are traces of grains and other agricultural products. Earlier studies had traced European migration patterns using the DNA contained in the mitochondria, a key part of each cell. This type is DNA is passed down from mother to daughter."

Antonio Torroni, a researcher at the University of Urbino, Italy, who first proposed that early humans retreated to Spain during the ice age, said in a separate Science report that the Y chromosome study fits completely' with the mitochondria studies.

"The Y chromosome studies are also consistent with genetic studies showing a broader picture of human migration. In general, studies show that modern humans first arose in Africa about 100,000 years ago and thousands of years later began a long series of migrations, he said. Some groups migrated eastward and humans are known to have existed in Australia about 60,000 years ago. Other groups crossed the land bridge into the Middle East. Humans appeared in Central Asia about 50,000 years ago. From there, the theory goes, some migrated west, arriving in Europe about 40,000 years ago. Later, some migrated east, across the Bering Straits, to the Americas."
 

---

Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
 
And for populations no longer found in Europe and absent from Tunesia and parts of North Africa today where white populations now exist where they once did - all recent migrations under 3000 years old:



http://www.beforebc.de/all_africa/02-16-12.html
 

---

Posted by ray2006 (Member # 10891) on :
 
A man problem here is ignoring the more modern evidence being unearthed next to a daily basis..

If one goes to http://www.prehistory.it one will see that pottery,artefacts, scripts in some unknown languages were in Europe as far as 27,000 yrs BC !

What about the Bulgarian discoveries in Perperikon- a city dating to at least 5,000 yrs BC...

And the temples,sphere balls,etc,pyramids of Bosnia-now confirmed...More and more facts,artefacts,unknown symbols,scripts,etc.. are accumulated with each passing month

http://www.piramidasunca.ba
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A main problem here is ignoring the more modern evidence

---

And also that Marc has too much time on his hands.
 

---

Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
 
In 8, 14, and 15 these as representatives of African populations in Scandinavia now vanished as a result of Germanic incursion into those lands.



We see what Hitler and Germanic peoples without remorse did to the Jews. It doesn't take much immagination to know what happened to the diminuitive, small statured Africans once there.
 

---

Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
 


http://www.beforebc.de/all_europe/02-16-800-41.html
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

It doesn't take much immagination.

---

Nicely said, since it's clear to most of us by now, that you are hopelessly lost with regards ro reality, vs. things you imagine.

Have you noticed that even Winters abandons you when you go off the deep end this way?

Why do you *imagine* that is?
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
^ Maybe Dr. Winters is white?

Isn't that your usual defense mechanism, when your ludicrous pseudo-scholarship is called to task for being offensively stupid?


ps - helping your imagination along.
 

---

Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
 
Whites have made a history for themselves of denying African existence or claiming African historical figures and accomplishments as their own. Theirs is a history of deceit and theft filled with ill-will and are not to be trusted.



http://www.beforebc.de/Made.by.Humankind/Real.People/02-16-800-00-12.html
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ LMAO Another defense mechanism of Marc is to spam the thread with his hilarious photoshop pics!

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

It doesn't take much immagination.

---

Nicely said, since it's clear to most of us by now, that you are hopelessly lost with regards ro reality, vs. things you imagine.

Have you noticed that even Winters abandons you when you go off the deep end this way?

Why do you *imagine* that is?

---

ROTFL
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike111:

..The only Whites in Europe pre-invasion were Cro-Magnons...

---

quote:

---

..Close your mind all you want, but that's not going to change..

---

quote:

---

You have NO ancient history. Trying to steal the history of others is sad and sick.

---

quote:

---

While you are trying to find a lie for that, also find one for this: how would you explain the pure blood Mongol, who is just as pale as you are.

---

First of all, the only one lying is YOU. Second, fair skinned Asians like some Mongols (since many are actually darker) northern Chinese, Koreans, etc. were explained in the same thread of that article here. Fair skin among Europeans and northeast Asians is a result of convergent evolution but from different genes. European 'whiteness' was the result of a particular mutation.

And lastly, I am not fair-skinned at all. I am not even white, if that's what you thought! LOL
 

---

Posted by ray2006 (Member # 10891) on :
 
I see that Mr. Washington fails to realize that many European archeologists had in the 1800 up until recently an imperialistic attitudes towards all non white "races".

This was done BY DESIGN..If we stick with AE history we can quickly see that(this applies to Europeans):

1-most were FREEMASONS

2-power elites at that time had political /sociological reasons to show the superiority of the Europeans over the African savages/barbarians..

3-religious reasons which tied in with the Freemasonic aspects.The only entity that was capable of advancing the funds and who had the poltical clout and historical knowledge was the Roman Catholic Church or the Vatican with its Jesuit agents..

Now if you think this is far fetched how come the actual president of Sudan(muslim) recently visited the Pope giving him a MASONIC handshake and consulting him about the Darfur problem..

See this website

http://www.arcticbeacon.com

Also read my post about E.A Wallis Budge legacy and how he is still maligned today by egypotologists..

Once you start reading his books where he clearly demonstrates the African origin of the AE civilisation you will understand..

Finally any archaeological find is HIGHLY POLITICAL so never expect a clear cut opinion.

Next to all egyptologists etc are either on governmental payrolls or get their funds from specific Foundations which are controlled by the power elite,Vatican etc..

Even if a person was financially independent he could never do archeology in today's contexts without first applying for all kinds of permits,submitting to various rules,...having groups,Fondations directing their research,how to interpret these findings,etc..

In Bosnia, the Foundation,despite the backing by the PM had its 2007 excavation campaign sabotaged with ludicrous restriciting permits,money confiscated from their bank accounts,false accusations of criminal activities in regards to the funds collected by the foundation,etc..(that is right ,you have your donated funds confiscated then you are accused of putting them in your pocket !)

Only a public outcry and a near uprising by the people of Bosnia made the bought and paid politicians back up...Nonetheless not until 2008 will the real excavation campaign begin..

See the Foundation website(in many languages- Bosnia,German.English,Arabic,French,etc..)

And yes they do have the collaboration of many egyptologists from Egypt as well as from other non-European countries..

http://www.piramidasunca.ba


And for those out there even in ISRAEL archeology is a political matter.

The CFR-Council on Foreign Affairs as well as the EU and its leader Javier Selena have called for a Mediterranean Union,meaning a de facto control by the EU of all Northern Africa up to and including Turkey !
Thus paving the way to the recolonization of Africa..

So just sticking to the race aspect of it is ludicrous..

You can go to this website as well to get the real picture about Israel

http://www.thebarrychamishwebsite.com

Again I am not denying that African influences did occur in Europe well as in Mexico(re the msyterious Olmecs)etc..but just to basically level it on one's skin pigmentation is ludicrous..

Look at the Christian religions for starters-they all used European concocted images of Christ,the Apostles ,bible characters,etc..

Now why is it surprising that European egyptologists would not follow the same model in their interpretations as to how the AE looked like ?!

ryb


Note- To those that think I am a Bible/Christian basher-well just look as to what were the Commandments in the Bible BEFORE those given by God to Moses..not the popularized 10 Commandments as per the Hollywood version..

See this website:

http://www.religioustolerance.org and do a search on 10 comandments,also comparison with the Qu'ran etc..

If you want to base your religion on written documents you better stick to the original version or the oldest reliable docs one can find..

2 books are by author David Livingstone-

-The Dying God:The Hidden History of western Civilisation

-(his most recent) Terrorism and Illuminati

http://www.terrorism-illuminati.com

You will learn how so-called Jews (from Babylonia)invaded Europe,took over the countries even before the year 1,000 !

Interesting to not that all of the principal Japanese that ushered the Meijin period(opening to the West) that went to Europe to Europeanize Japan were ALL high ranking FREEMASONS.

See Jeff Rense website and do a search
http://www.rense.com
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

fair skinned Asians like some Mongols (since many are actually darker) northern Chinese, Koreans, etc. were explained in the same thread of that article here. Fair skin among Europeans and northeast Asians is a result of convergent evolution but from different genes. European 'whiteness' was the result of a particular mutation.

---

Telling that they would rather defend the scientifically illiterate/ahistorical photochop of Marc Washington, rather than the scientific assessments of geneticists Keith Chang, Rick Kittles et. al.....

 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Indeed.

By the way Ray, I don't know what "freemasonry" has to do with anything, unless you've bought into that psuedo-historical stuff of Egyptian masonry that was adopted by some Afrocentrics.

All in all, the main topic of this thread has been refuted as usual like every other silly topic the author creates.
 

---

Posted by ray2006 (Member # 10891) on :
 
The main problem here is that the first European archeologists into Egypt were financially backed by the power elite that were Freemasons.

They truly believed that they were the descendents of the AE civilisation.Hence they HAD to discard any African elements that they were uncovering

Naturally up until the 1920's the field of egyptology was more or less open,even to freelancers thus this is why TODAY we do have accounts of the origins of the AE based in Africa(read Budge et al..)

The muslims did not care about AE,in fact the early egyptologists had to bribe the authorities from preventing them to destroy any artefacts..,use kickbacks etc..

Even today we see the same attitude in most muslim countries-all that was before Islam is unpure hence it can be discarted/destroyed..

Only Turkeya nd Syria seem to have any sane policy in regards to their antiquity..

M Washington- instead of putting all the blame on the bad "Europeans" forgets that if it was NOT for them most of what we have today in various museums in Europe etcv,.. ,also in Egypt in regards to the AE would have been long destroyed..

Egytians of today-only see the AE vestiges as a way to skim off $$$ from these funny infidels(Europeans,non muslims,etc..) and eek out a living while chanting "Allah is Great "!

As for the Copts-they are only interested in preserving their monastaries,Churches-they do not care about AE except for propaganda purposes and claim that they are the real AE-sure most of their ancestors came from Asia Minor,Greece,Rome,.. etc..

Many Coptic Churches,etc where ancient AE temples that were converted;same can apply for many older mosks..

Finally can M. Washington gives us any good reasonas s to why the Sudanese government is neglecting its ancient past ?They surely do not look like Europeans to me !

And what about Lybia,Saudi Arabia,Iran,Israel,Lebanon ?

You will notice that Turkey and Syrian are more or less secular states..Need I say more ?!
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Why are you into the freemason conspiracy theory? Better yet, why are bringing such theories here?
 

---

Posted by ray2006 (Member # 10891) on :
 
To Djehuti- Simply because the PREDECESSORS of the Freemasons were the Templars and the Templars had relationships with the "Assassins sects...

But the Templars did not arise out from the blue yonder...they were a creation of the Roman Catholic Church,their official money lenderers alongside with many Jewish families that had already intermarried with nobility and "converted" to christianity..

The infamous Rotschilds- they can trace their direct ancestry to the Israeli kingdom before the Greek/Roman times..

You also have to take into account the various Crusades to liberate the Holy lands

And this is where it gets interesting..

Kings,nobles needed $$$ to do warfare just like modern states,guerilla groups need today..

Now who had that kind of financial means except the Roman Catholic Church(Vatican)..

Many authors,researchers etc agree that it was Constantine(around 325 AD) that merged the various paganistic beliefs into a new religion that was to become Roman Catholicism.

Some researchers also suggest that Roman Catholicism was the creator of buddhism as well as of islam..

And how come :

-many of the coptic monasteries,churches used AE temples,places of worships etc..

Restoration of different monasteries in Egypt have clearly shown this..

We are told that suddenly the AE all converted to catholicism then later on to islam,this from people that had followed their religion for millienia ?

That even in parts of northern Sudan remnants to the cult of Osiris still existed at the time Islam started to penetrate those areas...

And get this- "European Jews" came from the Middle East..this proving that "Europeans" were already in the region,before the Greeks/Romans ever set foot unto Egyptian shores..

Hence parts of the "white race" did come from Africa..

As for Blacks- I surmise that parts of them did come from Europe !

Places to watch for further archaeological discoveries are:
Bulgaria,Turkey,Romania,Ukraine,,Malta,Portugal,
Spain,etc..

Hence M Washington simplistic assertions are self delusional as he ONLY SEES/RETAINS that is confirming his own THEORY..

Finally get this- Egytpian archaeologists have just confirned the validity fo the Bosnian pyramids-and they are at least 12,000 yrs old,built before the last Ice Age as Bosnian,South of Europe did not have an iceshield..

I would not be surprised if they find drawings,skeletons, etc that are of African origin..clearly showing their black features..

Calculations by the Foundation is that they need around $200 millions in order to fully excavate that site but as their whole budget for this year is about $500,000 so it will take them 400 yrs..!

But if they can get more funds,many millions within a period of 20 yrs or less they could have a very good idea as to who those pyramid builders were..

http://www.piramidasunca.ba
 

---

Posted by ray2006 (Member # 10891) on :
 
Also if you go to http://www.prehistory.it on their 1st webpage you will see figurines that look very similar to African ones except those were excavated in Europe more than 20,000 yrs ago !

Also look up at the strange alphabet found on a rock- these characters look like certain African scripts...

Hence nothing wrong in assuming that Blacks were in Europe,Whites in Africa and that the Ice Age of over 12,000 yrs ago lead to massive population displacements .

And the major displacement being the creation of the Black Sea from over 6,000 yrs B.C.. the "deluge" in the Mesopotamian region,
etc..
Henceforth Blacks ,the majority ,remained in Africa and the "whites" moved to Europe this due to desertification of the Nile Valley and Northern Africa and population pressure as well..

Note-Africa as per the anthropolgists seems to be the motherland of the human race so it is illusory to believe as they do that only the Black race was to dumwitted to move out of Africa..
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Sorry, but I deal with facts NOT psedo-scholarship. Besides, didn't you hear? The Bosnian pyramids aren't manmade.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Were the Romans . . .white?

The more I re-read this study the more I am starting see Marc’s, Mike111 and others point. Indeed, were the classical Greeks . . . “White” ?

HLA genes in Macedonians and the sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks

1) Macedonians belong to the
‘‘older’’ Mediterranean substratum, like Iberians (including Basques), North
Africans, Italians, French, Cretans, Jews, Lebanese, Turks (Anatolians), Armenians
and Iranians, 2) Macedonians are not related with geographically
close Greeks, who do not belong to the ‘‘older’’ Mediterranenan substratum,
3) Greeks are found to have a substantial relatedness to sub-Saharan (Ethiopian)
people, which separate them from other Mediterranean groups.

translation – the classical Greeks were Ethiopian/East African in origin

Genetic distances are closer between Greeks and Ethiopian/sub-Saharan
groups than to any other Mediterranean group and finally Greeks cluster
with Ethiopians/sub-Saharans in both neighbour joining dendrograms and
correspondence analyses. The time period when these relationships might
have occurred was ancient but uncertain and might be related to the displacement
of Egyptian-Ethiopian people living in pharaonic Egypt.

translation – the classical Greeks were Ethiopian/East African in origin

Ancient Macedonians were among the peoples that lived between
northern Greece (Thessaly) and Thrace in the Balkans and
were considered by the classical Greeks as ‘‘non-Greek barbarians’’
that could not participate in the Greek Olympic Games (3). Hero- dotus wrote that ‘‘Macedonians’’ were ‘‘Dorians’’ and were never
admitted to the Greek community

translation – the classical Greeks were different from the Macedonian Greeks

5). Macedonians
fought against the Greeks between 357–336 B.C. under
King Philip II. They defeated the Greeks at the Battle of Chaironea
(338 B.C.). The Macedonian empire extended from the Balkan Peninsula
to the Himalayas and to North Africa during the reign of Philip’s
son, Alexander the Great (6). Thereafter, Macedonia was conquered
by the Romans.

translation – the classical Greeks were different from the Macedonian Greeks. The Macedonian Greeks eventual conquered and absorbed the original African descendant Greeks.


In addition, sub-Saharan and other
Africans were compared with all available Mediterranean groups in
order to solve the question of the unique Greek HLA profile.

Our results show that Macedonians are related to other Mediterraneans
and do not show a close relationship with Greeks; however
they do with Cretans (Tables 3, 4, Figs 1–3). This supports the
theory that Macedonians are one of the most ancient peoples
existing in the Balkan peninsula, probably long before arrival of the
Mycaenian Greeks (10) about 2000 B.C. Other possible explanation
is that they might have shared a genetic background with the
Greeks before an hypothetical admixture between Greeks and sub-
Saharans might have occurred. The cultural, historical and genetic
identity of Macedonians is established according to our results.
However, 19th century historians focused all the culture in Greece
ignoring all the other Mediterranean cultures present in the area
long before the classical Greek one (25).

translation – the classical Greeks were different from the Macedonian Greeks. The Macedonians were from the north.


Much to our surprise, the reason why Greeks did not show a close
relatedness with all the other Mediterraneans analyzed (Tables 5, 6
and Figs 1–3) was their genetic relationship with sub-Saharan ethnic
groups now residing in Ethiopia, Sudan and West Africa (Burkina-
Fasso).

translation – the classical Greeks were . . . .MODERN DAY Africans????? ie less than 2000yrsBC


The conclusion is that part of the Greek genetic
pool may be sub-Saharan and that the admixture has occurred
at an uncertain but ancient time.
The origin of the West African Black ethnic groups (Fulani, Mos
si and Rimaibe sampled in Burkina-Fasso) is probably Ethiopian
(26, 27) (Fig. 4). The Fulani are semi-nomadic hunters and gatherers
and one of the few people in the area to use cows’ milk and its byproducts
to feed themselves and to trade; their facial parameters
show a Caucasian admixture.

whites mixed with africans??? I think NOT. These features are indigenous. These people moved OUT of Africa!!

Two kinds of Nubians were described in ancient
times: Reds and Blacks, probably reflecting the degree of Caucasian
admixture.

whites mixed with africans??? I think NOT. Genetic evidence proves movement OOA. These are indigenous features


Thus, it is hypothesized that there could have been a migration
from southern Sahara which mixed with ancient Greeks to give rise
to a part of the present day Greek genetic background.

translation – the classical Greeks were Ethiopian/East African in origin

Also, the time when admixture occurred could be after the overthrown of
some of the Negroid Egyptian dynasties (Nubian or from other
periods) or after undetermined natural catastrophes (i.e.: dryness).
Indeed, ancient Greeks believed that their religion and culture came
from Egypt.

translation – the classical Greeks were Ethiopian/East African in origin. Did they(AE) migrate north to find the AG (ancient greek) civilization??
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
This is a good thread for Marc and other's to espouse their theory, about the recent Europeans, and provide evidence. But please keep it simple the picture art is hard to follow.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

The more I re-read this study the more I am starting see Marc’s, Mike111 and others point

---

quote:

---

HLA genes in Macedonians and the sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

The more I re-read this study the more I am starting see Marc’s, Mike111 and others point

---

This is because they exploit ignorance.

re:

quote:

---

HLA genes in Macedonians and the sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks

---

^ The study documents Neolithic migrations of Africans to Greece.... it is not claiming a paleolithic *African* population replaced by whites.

Like Marc, you don't know the difference between Paleolithic and Neolithic, so you can't understand the fundamental difference between what he is asserting [which is utterly ludicrous], and what this paper is saying...

hence, ignorance is exploited.


Btw: Many Eurocentrists attacked this 2002 study, but it has later been affirmed by more recent studies from other geneticists and from as late as 2005

HLA genes in Southern Tunisians (Ghannouch area) and their relationship with other Mediterraneans.Hajjej A, Hmida S, Kaabi H, Dridi A, Jridi A, El Gaa l ed A, Boukef K.

. This present study confirms the relatedness of Greeks to Sub-Saharan populations. This suggests that there was an -admixture- between the Greeks and Sub-Saharans probably during Pharaonic period or after natural catastrophes (dryness) occurred in Sahara.

-> In baby talk: Europeans were already in Greece. Africans migrated to Greece and mixed with them. The exact opposite of what Marc is saying.

---

quote:

---

Is 5000BC - Paleolithic and Neolithic??

---

quote:

---

I believe what the author is suggesting is “modern” Africans, or African type people, were living in Greece up to 5000bc

---

quote:

---

Did I miss something?????

---

quote:

---

So I don't see your point

---

^ Because you can't read.

All of your questions about the peopling of Europe in the 2 Paleolithic events and 1 Neolithic event are answered, in great detail earlier in this thread, including specifics relating time periods.....and by some of the worlds foremost anthropologists and geneticists.

All you have to do is read what has already been provided.

But if you prefer to ignore knowledge and stay igorant...go ahead.

It's your mind to waste.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:

Are you saying there were "lots" of Africans in Greece during dynastic times?

---

quote:

---

What about the neolithic times thing?? Are you BS ing me Rasol? I got the impression that Neolithic was about 10Kya. The author is saying that the African admixture in Greece was more recent ie 4-5Ky BC.

---

quote:

---

So I don't see your point. THERE WERE AFRICAN TYPE PEOPLE IN AG (CLASSICAL), in control or living there prior to the Macedonians conquest.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:

Huh?!!

---

quote:

---

African E lineage is found in Greeks 24%. Doesn't that mean there were (substantial) Africans in Greece about ~4kya? The "negroid" skulls around the same period supports this. Does this mean that the owners of the negroid skulls brought the neolithic technology as you said. So it is fair to say that the "negroid", ie African egyptians, lived freely in Greece PRIOR to their classical period.

---

quote:

---

I am not sure who the "negroid" met there. But you are saying there were indegenous Europeans(Leucoderms) present. But doesn't the aricle above say that the AG considered the Macedonians "different" or babaric? What was this differnce? I assume it was ethnic. My thinking there were "mulattoes" ie black per the one drop rule. .. running around.

---

quote:

---

It seem that the point of contention is when did these "negroids' get absorbed or . . .exterminated? You are saying from 5k BC to ~500bc the negroids were gone!! That is why there are no or very little portraites showing them(negroids).

---

quote:

---

But what about the view that the AG viewed AE as their mentor ie father figure ie direct connection. That implies to me that the AG were still had negroids running around to help build their civilization. It was only when the Macedonians took over that it became pure white. And the Genes of the Macedonins prove that.

---

quote:

---

Maybe it was during the later times the percentage (E lineage)dropped to 24%. Prior to that it was much higher.

---

quote:

---

as you know invasion, conquest and lengthy occupation can change the makeup of genes.

---

quote:

---

SO I AM STILL NOT CONVINCED. AM I BEING BSed?

---

quote:

---

Huh?!!

---

quote:

---

I don't know what was so confusing about my explanation.

---

Huh defined: I don't like the truth and prefer to make up reasons for believing in nonsense, so I will pretend not to understand a word you said.

^ Hunh?

quote:

---

But what you fail to see is that these Neolithic forebearers mixed with the indigenous European population already there.

---

^ Hunh?

lol. I don't know why you bother, Djehuti. This is explained to xyz in 4 prior posts.

You really think he didn't read this, or that he is too stupid to understand it?
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ You are probably right. I maybe just wasting my time. Huh?! LOL
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 

quote:
Maybe it was during the later times the percentage (E lineage)dropped to 24%. Prior to that it was much higher.
Or maybe they were always low, as E is not indigenous to Europe!

quote:
as you know invasion, conquest and lengthy occupation can change the makeup of genes.
True but we have no evidence of such.

Based on what you all just admitted indeed the AG did have a POSSIBLE strong African influence if they were not african themselves. Key reasons cited above. Also why is it that E is only found( ie24%) in Greeks and no other Mediterranean Europeans. Seems to me the logically explaination is that these Africans bypassed all other areas and settled in Greece resulting in high E percentage seen. They brought their knowledge from AE resulting in a "kick start" of the classical Greeks. Evenually the Macedonians took over and eradicated all evidence of the African Greeks. AND THIS IS NOT NEW. Europeans had done this in the past ie eradicate evidence of African presence in lands.

Sounds like a good theory to me. And the evidence prove that this is a possible scenario.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Maybe it was during the later times the percentage (E lineage)dropped to 24%.

---

False, for the version of haplotype E in Europe - E3b1 alpha originates, in the Neolithic.

This is why geneticists like Underhill denote it as a neolithic migration into Europe, which you were linked to earlier in the thread.

Your on going postings only prove that you really don't want to learn anything.

What you want is to -believe in something ridiculous-.

In turn, this is why you can't learn.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ So the guy (xyz) believes that Greeks were all black, but became white when Macedonians invaded?! LOL

Let's review for a second. Greece was conquered by Macedon yes, but even the Greek historical records show no mass invasion or immigration from Macedon that changed the demographics of Greece. Which is why Greeks during classical times looked 'white' well before Macedonian conquest.

Classical Greeks
]

Despite their 'white' looks, some of these Greeks had African ancestry that they inherited from immigrant during Neolithic times. Of course these immigrants of African ancestry were a minority that were absorbed into the greater indigenous European gene-pool. Hence E lineages are 24% and Greeks overall look 'white'.

Also, the HLA studies you cited even included some populations from the Macedonian region indicating that African ancestry penetrated as far north as there.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Also, the HLA studies you cited even included some populations from the Macedonian region indicating that African ancestry penetrated as far north as there.

---

^ Correct, as also indicated by Larry Angels studies of the neolithic skeletal remains in Macedonia.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Guys. Seems like you are admitting African presense in AG.

I don't have know enough info to conclude that the AG were all black. I never said so.

To me the sticklier is why the African lineage is found ONLY/MOSTLY in Greece.

Any rational person will postulate that these AE type migrated/emigrated/travelled and SETTLED in Greece. And since they were more advanced they probably brought their science and technology to Greece. Thus Greece getting their "jumo" start.

Makes perfect sense to me.


In case you missed the key points and correlation. . .they are.


Larger percentage of African genes in Greeks compared to other Europeans. This tells me their were MORE Africans there.

First advance European civilization. The connection to AE is the african presense.

Conclusion - the Africans brought/helped/started the AG civilization.
 

---

Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
 

http://www.beforebc.de/Made.by.Humankind/Gods.MotherGoddeses/02-16g-700-00-05.html




http://www.beforebc.de/all_europe/700_mediterranean/02-16-700-00-03.htm



http://www.beforebc.de/all_europe/700_mediterranean/02-16-iliad.html
 

---

Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
 
To return to the subject of the thread: whites are complete newcomers to Europe. As a rule, it was Africans that built cities, states, and nations, and civilizations at their historic outset in Europe and whites that destroyed them. Destroyed them and as Ceasar had 10,000 Hebrew (at the time, black Africans) build the Colliseum and Apia had slaves (Africans) build the Apian way where thousands of Africans were afterwards crucified (irony: today, the Apian Way is celebrated in Europe), it was Africans that built and whites that destroyed. People forget that Early Medieval Rome that attracted white migrants were built before their arrival. Christianity was completely foreign to whites and the Christianity they came to adopt was from their exposure to African religion - referred to as Christianity, the African Christ hair like lamb's wool and so on. Whites are clinging to the idea they were always in Europe and this is not true.

"A widely accepted theory assumes, that most European peoples have a common origin somewhere in Central asia. Their languages (Greek, Latin, Old German/Old English, Slavonian) are quite similar to each other and even to Persian (Iran) and Sanskrit (India!). For reasons we do not know, they decided to move to the regions of the world where they settle now.

"Frequent but smaller incidents between Roman troops and Germanic tribes did not change a balance of power for several centuries until about A.D. 400. But then the Roman Empire was challenged by severe attacks and raids carried forth to the south of the Alps. So the Romans withdrew troops from their territories north of the Alps (including Switzerland). But they could not prevent the decline of their empire."

The decline of their empire was the decline of African presence in Europe. But, that whites were so determined to enter their cities and claim African social capital and culture as their own is a testimony to black genius. And, I remind, the Indo-European language, the source of discussion here at EF and the language of communication of the world, was African at its roots and used by the Germanic peoples who'd come to dominate a continent cleared out of the forest by Africans and made suitable for the habitation of those who'd displace and come after them:

http://www.beforebc.de/Made.by.Humankind/Gods.MotherGoddeses/02-16g-400-20n-10.html
 

---

Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
 
Whites are new to Europe and displaced the original African peoples and civilizations:



http://www.beforebc.de/all_europe/05-09-000-12.html
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
^ Spamming your scientifically illiterate babble dosen't make it any less ridiculous:


Here's what a population geneticist has to say....

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:


Here is the answer, courtesy Geneticist, Peter Underhill:

The First Europeans

About 80 percent of Europeans arose from primitive hunters who arrived about 40,000 years ago, endured the long ice age and then expanded rapidly to dominate the continent, a new study shows.


Researchers analyzing the Y chromosome taken from 1,007 men from 25 different locations in Europe found a pattern that suggests four out of five of the men shared a common male ancestor about 40,000 years ago.

Peter A. Underhill, a senior researcher at the Stanford Genome Technology Center in Palo Alto, Calif., and co-author of the study, said the research supports conclusions from archaeological, linguistic and other DNA evidence about the settlement of Europe by ancient peoples.

When we can get different lines of evidence that tell the same story, then we feel we are telling the true history of the species. The researchers used the Y chromosome in the study because its rare changes establish a pattern that can be traced back hundreds of generations, thus helping to plot the movement of ancient humans.

The Y chromosome is inherited only by sons from their fathers. When sperm carrying the Y chromosome fertilizes an egg it directs the resulting baby to be a male. An X chromosome from the father allows a fertilized egg to be female.

"The Y chromosome has about 60 million DNA base pairs. Changes in those base pairs happen infrequently, but they occur often enough to establish patterns that can be used to trace the ancestry of people. Researchers looking at the 1,007 chromosome samples from Europe identified 22 specific markers that formed a specific pattern of change. Underhill said the researchers found that about 80 percent of all European males shared a single pattern, suggesting they had a common ancestor thousands of generations ago.

"The basic pattern had some changes that apparently developed among people who once shared a common ancestor and then were isolated for many generations. This scenario supports other studies about the Paleolithic European groups. Those studies suggest that a primitive, stone-age human came to Europe, probably from Central Asia and the Middle East, in two waves of migration beginning about 40,000 years ago. Their numbers were small and they lived byhunting animals and gathering plant food. They used crudely sharpened stones and fire.

"About 24,000 years ago, the last ice age began, with mountain-sized glaciers moving across most of Europe. The Paleolithic Europeans retreated before the ice, finding refuge for hundreds of generations in three areas: what is now Spain, the Balkans and the Ukraine.

"When the glaciers melted, about 16,000 years ago, the Paleolithic tribes resettled the rest of Europe. Y chromosome mutations occurred among people in each of the ice age refuges, said Underhill. He said the research shows a pattern that developed in Spain is now most common in northwest Europe, while the Ukraine pattern is mostly in Eastern Europe and the Balkan pattern is most common in Central Europe.

"About 8,000 years ago a more advanced people, the Neolithic, migrated to Europe from the Middle East, bringing with them a new Y chromosome pattern and a new way of life - agriculture. About 20 percent of Europeans now have the Y chromosome pattern from this migration.

"Archaeological digs in European caves clearly show that before 8,000 years ago, most humans lived by gathering and hunting. After that, there are traces of grains and other agricultural products. Earlier studies had traced European migration patterns using the DNA contained in the mitochondria, a key part of each cell. This type is DNA is passed down from mother to daughter."

Antonio Torroni, a researcher at the University of Urbino, Italy, who first proposed that early humans retreated to Spain during the ice age, said in a separate Science report that the Y chromosome study fits completely' with the mitochondria studies.

"The Y chromosome studies are also consistent with genetic studies showing a broader picture of human migration. In general, studies show that modern humans first arose in Africa about 100,000 years ago and thousands of years later began a long series of migrations, he said. Some groups migrated eastward and humans are known to have existed in Australia about 60,000 years ago. Other groups crossed the land bridge into the Middle East. Humans appeared in Central Asia about 50,000 years ago. From there, the theory goes, some migrated west, arriving in Europe about 40,000 years ago. Later, some migrated east, across the Bering Straits, to the Americas."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

The First Europeans

About 80 percent of Europeans arose from primitive hunters who arrived about 40,000 years ago, endured the long ice age and then expanded rapidly to dominate the continent, a new study shows.


Researchers analyzing the Y chromosome taken from 1,007 men from 25 different locations in Europe found a pattern that suggests four out of five of the men shared a common male ancestor about 40,000 years ago.

Peter A. Underhill, a senior researcher at the Stanford Genome Technology Center in Palo Alto, Calif., and co-author of the study, said the research supports conclusions from archaeological, linguistic and other DNA evidence about the settlement of Europe by ancient peoples.

When we can get different lines of evidence that tell the same story, then we feel we are telling the true history of the species. The researchers used the Y chromosome in the study because its rare changes establish a pattern that can be traced back hundreds of generations, thus helping to plot the movement of ancient humans.

The Y chromosome is inherited only by sons from their fathers. When sperm carrying the Y chromosome fertilizes an egg it directs the resulting baby to be a male. An X chromosome from the father allows a fertilized egg to be female.

"The Y chromosome has about 60 million DNA base pairs. Changes in those base pairs happen infrequently, but they occur often enough to establish patterns that can be used to trace the ancestry of people. Researchers looking at the 1,007 chromosome samples from Europe identified 22 specific markers that formed a specific pattern of change. Underhill said the researchers found that about 80 percent of all European males shared a single pattern, suggesting they had a common ancestor thousands of generations ago.

"The basic pattern had some changes that apparently developed among people who once shared a common ancestor and then were isolated for many generations. This scenario supports other studies about the Paleolithic European groups. Those studies suggest that a primitive, stone-age human came to Europe, probably from Central Asia and the Middle East, in two waves of migration beginning about 40,000 years ago. Their numbers were small and they lived byhunting animals and gathering plant food. They used crudely sharpened stones and fire.

"About 24,000 years ago, the last ice age began, with mountain-sized glaciers moving across most of Europe. The Paleolithic Europeans retreated before the ice, finding refuge for hundreds of generations in three areas: what is now Spain, the Balkans and the Ukraine.

"When the glaciers melted, about 16,000 years ago, the Paleolithic tribes resettled the rest of Europe. Y chromosome mutations occurred among people in each of the ice age refuges, said Underhill. He said the research shows a pattern that developed in Spain is now most common in northwest Europe, while the Ukraine pattern is mostly in Eastern Europe and the Balkan pattern is most common in Central Europe.

"About 8,000 years ago a more advanced people, the Neolithic, migrated to Europe from the Middle East, bringing with them a new Y chromosome pattern and a new way of life - agriculture. About 20 percent of Europeans now have the Y chromosome pattern from this migration.

"Archaeological digs in European caves clearly show that before 8,000 years ago, most humans lived by gathering and hunting. After that, there are traces of grains and other agricultural products. Earlier studies had traced European migration patterns using the DNA contained in the mitochondria, a key part of each cell. This type is DNA is passed down from mother to daughter."

Antonio Torroni, a researcher at the University of Urbino, Italy, who first proposed that early humans retreated to Spain during the ice age, said in a separate Science report that the Y chromosome study fits completely' with the mitochondria studies.

"The Y chromosome studies are also consistent with genetic studies showing a broader picture of human migration. In general, studies show that modern humans first arose in Africa about 100,000 years ago and thousands of years later began a long series of migrations, he said. Some groups migrated eastward and humans are known to have existed in Australia about 60,000 years ago. Other groups crossed the land bridge into the Middle East. Humans appeared in Central Asia about 50,000 years ago. From there, the theory goes, some migrated west, arriving in Europe about 40,000 years ago. Later, some migrated east, across the Bering Straits, to the Americas."

---

quote:

---

It seems the argument is European were there 30Kya. Or was it the Africans.

---

There is no such argument among educated people.

Only among hard harded ignorant people who can't read and don't want to learn, and silly internet trolls who get their jollies from spreading ignorance for the same reason that self-hating prostitutes enjoy spreading their STD's.

If you disagree, don't whine, simply name 1 anthropologist who disputes the following:

The First Europeans

About 80 percent of Europeans arose from primitive hunters who arrived about 40,000 years ago, endured the long ice age and then expanded rapidly to dominate the continent, a new study shows.


Researchers analyzing the Y chromosome taken from 1,007 men from 25 different locations in Europe found a pattern that suggests four out of five of the men shared a common male ancestor about 40,000 years ago. - Peter Underhill.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Bro or sista . . .since you are whining like a biaaatch. Or cousin . .since you may be white. In case you missed it. The evidence is here. . .

"Both Kostenki II and Kostenki XIV produced burials of Upper Paleolithic man. Skeletal remains from Kostenki II are of an adult male, tall, and approximately fifty years of age. Reconstruction of the head reveals a broad face and narrow brow. The head from Kostenki XIV is the best preserved; no bones were destroyed except for the end of the nasal bone which had been crushed by the investigator. Reconstruction reflects a very strong adult individual with a combination of morphological features. The nose is very broad, similar to African or Australian. This strong development around the nose is not typical for Europoid but is similar to East African populations; however, Negroid nasal bones are flat while Kostenki XIV is strong. This find is a combination of features whose origin is different from other groups.

Thus, at Kostenki, we have both stone and bone tools and sculptures as well as houses, female figurines similar the "Venus of Villendorf", and the remains of Upper Paleolithic man. From Kostenki II we have a broad head and narrow brow and from Kostenki XIV we have a tall adult exhibiting a combination of strong physical features which differ from typical Europoid."

Checking the link Marc referenced. Looks like East Africans were roaming Europe(Russia) about 25kya. That is deep within Europe so imagine the amount that were along the southern coast of Europes ie Greece.

As I maintain man(Africans) moved NORTH - OOA. South migration is recent.

Not sure what you are so upset about. We are all Africans under the skin.. . .to some extent.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Here is an idea. Someone can put a chronological chart showing presence of Ancient African artifacts/skeletons found in Europe. It should be very simple. Date and what was found – on a simple time line. Similar to what Myra has on a website for AE.

In addition below the time-line show estimated period of genetic changes in human Haplo Groups.

Even further below that time line show “European” civilizations.

That should give some idea on the impact of African influence in Europe.


I don’t know enough to put this together. . . but most EDUCATED people may be to draw some insight from it.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ And those paleolithic European remains you speak of are the direct ancestors of white Europeans! *All* humans outside of Africa descend from Africans-- from white Europeans, to East Asians, to Native Americans. So the fact that early Europeans have African features is nothing amazing!

There is nothing to dispute this fact. Such a fact has not even been argued with except by a few Afrocentric lunatics whose arguments are akin to the white racists who claim prehistoric African remains are caucasoid!!

Whites are indigenous to Europe! White skin evolved in Europe in response to the glacial climate and little sunlight. End of Story.

Blacks are not indigenous to Europe. The first people who entered Europe were likely not even black anymore because of adaptation to lesser sunlight in Central Asia. Once they settled Europe, they developed 'white skin'.

The Neolithic was then introduced by recent immigrants from Africa as denoted by E lineages. Which is why some Greeks today carry some of these E lineages. Most Greek lineages are indigenous to Europe.

I'm sorry but xyz, and Kemson remind me of those white losers who are easily brainwashed by the white supremacist garbage. Only this time it is Marc's black racist garbage that has ensnared your minds! LOL
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
R_ASS-OL- just kidding - I don't get caught in that type of nonsense

Here is what I found out. Seems that the White Nords are really new to Europe. Really fascinating stuff. Question is who were the Iberians (Mediterraneans)? Since they were pushed out by the White Nords after 300AD. Were they the Africans Marc was talking about? Here are the pieces to the puzzle. Any more evidence anyone?

The Völkerwanderung, the forceful expansion of the Germanic tribes into France, England, Northern Italy and Iberia, is seen an indication of cultural energy and dynamism. This analysis became associated with nineteenth century German Romantic nationalism.
The Migration Period, also called Barbarian Invasions or Völkerwanderung, is a name given by historians to a human migration which occurred within the period of roughly AD 300–700 in Europe,[1] marking the transition from Late Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages. Due to the Hun encroachment - Atila the Hun of "short of stature, with a broad chest and a large head; his eyes were small, his beard thin and sprinkled with gray; and he had a flat nose and a swarthy complexion, showing the evidences of his origin
The migration included the Goths, Vandals, and Franks, among other Germanic, Bulgar and Slavic tribes.
Migrations would continue well beyond 1000 AD, successive waves of Slavs, Alans, Avars, Bulgars, Hungarians, Pechenegs, Cumans, and Tatars radically changing the ethnic makeup of Eastern Europe. Western European historians, however, tend to emphasize the migrations most relevant to Western Europe.
The migration movement may be divided into two phases; the first phase, between AD 300 and 500, largely seen from the Mediterranean perspective of Greek and Latin historians,[2] with the aid of some archaeology, put Germanic peoples in control of most areas of the former Western Roman Empire.
The Völkerwanderung, the forceful expansion of the Germanic tribes into France, England, Northern Italy and Iberia, is seen an indication of cultural energy and dynamism.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
^ And those paleolithic European remains you speak of are the direct ancestors of white Europeans! *All* humans outside of Africa descend from Africans-- from white Europeans, to East Asians, to Native Americans. So the fact that early Europeans have African features is nothing amazing!

Whoaaa! What I get from Marc is that the present day Europeans came from the Völkerwanderung .. . so those African features you speak about that on Europeans . . .are REALLY African people. He may suggesting that all these remains are from AFRICAN people.

There is nothing to dispute this fact. Such a fact has not even been argued with except by a few Afrocentric lunatics whose arguments are akin to the white racists who claim prehistoric African remains are caucasoid!!

Whites are indigenous to Europe! White skin evolved in Europe in response to the glacial climate and little sunlight. End of Story.

Are you saying black is NOT indigenous to Europe. It seems like the article from Upenn on skin turning white noted that all skin tone was dark or brown prior to 6kya. So white skin is NOT indigenous Europe . . .cousin. I am beginning to think you are BSing . . .Huti. 6ky vs 35ky. Who is your daddy!! Get outta here with that pseudo logic!!


Blacks are not indigenous to Europe. The first people who entered Europe were likely not even black anymore because of adaptation to lesser sunlight in Central Asia. Once they settled Europe, they developed 'white skin'.

More nonsense from you. Here is a tip. .. . draw your OWN conclusions from the data. If there were africans occupying the area for 45ky. I will say they are belong there. With your logic then the EuroAmericans are indigenous to America ie climate matches skin tone.

The Neolithic was then introduced by recent immigrants from Africa as denoted by E lineages. Which is why some Greeks today carry some of these E lineages. Most Greek lineages are indigenous to Europe.

we discussed this already. Up and down the Mediterranean coast only the Greeks carry as much E. What is your conclusion bro. .. . keeping in mind it had a civilization that followed AE. Let me help. One time had a strong African presense. Last Stand by the AE type before being overrun by the . . .you know who.

I'm sorry but xyz, and Kemson remind me of those white losers who are easily brainwashed by the white supremacist garbage. Only this time it is Marc's black racist garbage that has ensnared your minds! LOL

I am a sensible man. That looks at evidence and come to conclusion on my OWN. And I am no racist… .my wife is white. Got the jungle fever.
 

---

Posted by KemsonReloaded (Member # 14127) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
I'm sorry but xyz, and Kemson remind me of those white losers who are easily brainwashed by the white supremacist garbage. Only this time it is Marc's black racist garbage that has ensnared your minds! LOL

---

Insults help no one. I've learned and reminded myself of this over and over again. Now, I'm reminding anyone besides myself. For now, in particular to you member Djehuti, you should exercise some constraints on your insults to other members. Instead of tantrums, present as many solid and truthful facts for your arguments as you possibly can. Anything less would be intellectually derailed forcing you to return to a cycle of tantrums and insults again. There are so many wonderful things to learn from EgyptSearch and that’s why I like it a lot. So let’s act grown and keep it moving.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ I'm sorry if you consider it an insult. I never called you guys any names, I was just making a comparison and a perfectly valid one at that.

Rasol and I have given you guys all the facts regarding the bio-history of Europeans and that whites are indeed aboriginal to Europe. If you choose to ignore facts in favor of fantasy (just like white supremacists) then that is not our problem.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
More BS Djehuti. I am starting to wonder about you. I NEVER said white were MOT indegenous to Europe. I am looking at the evidence presented and saying that East African type(maybe unchanged) were present in Europe 45kya to 4kya. More so along the southern European coast ie Greece, Italy, Iberia. These Africans are indegenous to Europe also. Infact moreso. But they were wiped out/overrun by the recent peoples from further north

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ I'm sorry if you consider it an insult. I never called you guys any names, I was just making a comparison and a perfectly valid one at that.

Rasol and I have given you guys all the facts regarding the bio-history of Europeans and that whites are indeed aboriginal to Europe. If you choose to ignore facts in favor of fantasy (just like white supremacists) then that is not our problem.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
The evidence is here. . .
"Both Kostenki II and Kostenki XIV produced burials of Upper Paleolithic man. Skeletal remains from Kostenki II are of an adult male, tall, and approximately fifty years of age. Reconstruction of the head reveals a broad face and narrow brow.

---

quote:

---

I NEVER said white were NOT indegenous to Europe.

---

quote:

---

I am looking at the evidence presented and saying that East African type(maybe unchanged) were present in Europe 45kya

---

You continue to FLUNK BASIC ANTHROPOLOGY.

When you will you get it thru your thick-slow head that the entire human population lived in Africa and only in Africa as little as 60 thousand years ago.

Before 40kya~ their were -no- people living in Europe, at all.

By definition then the 1st people to migrate to Europe, or indigenous Europeans descend from Africans, to Asia, to Europe from 60kya~.

At this time - there are no cold adapted peoples, regardless of the shapes of their skulls.

And variable skull shapes 'pre-date' the outmigrations of Non-Africans, as we know now, well at least those of us who read current anthropology instead of stinking our minds with outdated and misunderstood, misinformation from the internet.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ ROTFL @ xyz's ignorance exposed!

Xyz, you are a

 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
I am the first to admit that I am no Anthropologist. But I noticed you convenient ignored this article. What it is saying is

White Nords are “recent”. ie the Western Europeans you are see today eventually overran Rome and Greece. There were NOT the original peoples there.

Also, Rasol you are playing word games, slight of hands tricks. Indigenous/aboriginal. The piece you cited implies that African type people WERE in Europe 45ya – 4kya. It may be old, I don’t know, that‘s why I suggested in the thread that a timeline with “African” finds in Europe should be published. Then we can get a clearer picture of up to when they were there as Africans.

Besides the words - yes white people may of originated in Europe but the fact maybe that African type(modern/unchanged) we there also. And was there LONG before. Hence “who is your daddy comment”. Who are the true Europeans the ones adapted or the ones who were there LONG before. Hence my EuroAmerican response.

Sooooo . . . .Based on the evidence I will still have to conclude that Africans belong/indigenous/Aboriginal/occupied Europe. What ever word you want to use . . . . .cousin

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
R_ASS-OL- just kidding - I don't get caught in that type of nonsense

Here is what I found out. Seems that the White Nords are really new to Europe. Really fascinating stuff. Question is who were the Iberians (Mediterraneans)? Since they were pushed out by the White Nords after 300AD. Were they the Africans Marc was talking about? Here are the pieces to the puzzle. Any more evidence anyone?

The Völkerwanderung, the forceful expansion of the Germanic tribes into France, England, Northern Italy and Iberia, is seen an indication of cultural energy and dynamism. This analysis became associated with nineteenth century German Romantic nationalism.
The Migration Period, also called Barbarian Invasions or Völkerwanderung, is a name given by historians to a human migration which occurred within the period of roughly AD 300–700 in Europe,[1] marking the transition from Late Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages. Due to the Hun encroachment - Atila the Hun of "short of stature, with a broad chest and a large head; his eyes were small, his beard thin and sprinkled with gray; and he had a flat nose and a swarthy complexion, showing the evidences of his origin
The migration included the Goths, Vandals, and Franks, among other Germanic, Bulgar and Slavic tribes.
Migrations would continue well beyond 1000 AD, successive waves of Slavs, Alans, Avars, Bulgars, Hungarians, Pechenegs, Cumans, and Tatars radically changing the ethnic makeup of Eastern Europe. Western European historians, however, tend to emphasize the migrations most relevant to Western Europe.
The migration movement may be divided into two phases; the first phase, between AD 300 and 500, largely seen from the Mediterranean perspective of Greek and Latin historians,[2] with the aid of some archaeology, put Germanic peoples in control of most areas of the former Western Roman Empire.
The Völkerwanderung, the forceful expansion of the Germanic tribes into France, England, Northern Italy and Iberia, is seen an indication of cultural energy and dynamism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:

I am the first to admit that I am no Anthropologist. But I noticed you convenient ignored this article. What it is saying is

White Nords are “recent”. ie the Western Europeans you are see today eventually overran Rome and Greece. There were NOT the original peoples there.

Also, Rasol you are playing word games, slight of hands tricks. Indigenous/aboriginal. The piece you cited implies that African type people WERE in Europe 45ya – 4kya. It may be old, I don’t know, that‘s why I suggested in the thread that a timeline with “African” finds in Europe should be published. Then we can get a clearer picture of up to when they were there as Africans.

Besides the words - yes white people may of originated in Europe but the fact maybe that African type(modern/unchanged) we there also. And was there LONG before. Hence “who is your daddy comment”. Who are the true Europeans the ones adapted or the ones who were there LONG before. Hence my EuroAmerican response.

Sooooo . . . .Based on the evidence I will still have to conclude that Africans belong/indigenous/Aboriginal/occupied Europe. What ever word you want to use . . . . .cousin

---

You still don't get it, do you?! The Europeans who were there LONG before ARE THE ONES WHO ADAPTED, you moron!!

Hence, white skin EVOLVED IN EUROPE.

Germanic invasions or any movement of Norsemen have NOTHING to do with WHITES. Since *ALL* ancient Europeans were WHITE.

Hence these ancient southern Europeans

Greeks


Romans


Were not black, but have been white since at least Mesolithic times.

I must ask, what exactly is your IQ??
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Here is another angle to the evidence. Here are the facts/evidence.

1- white skin appeared ~6kya. Prior to that everyone(in Europe) else was brown/dark/brown.
2- The piece I am citing is saying that these Nords appeared and spread from deep within Europe starting from about AD .. .give or take
3- These White Nords are the majority in western Europe today.
4- It appears that the present today western European may not be a good representation of what the Iberians/Greeks/Romans looked like.
5- The Genetic evidence says that the ¼ Greeks were Africans at one time. The same HLA study piece is saying that the Macedonian Greeks DO NOT have this African blood but the original(coastal) Greeks DO
6- The Macedonian Greeks eventually controlled Greece. So pictures of Macedonian Greeks is not going to fool anyone. They are what they are. I believe the Gods and original inhabitants were revered as Africans. See some of Marc’s work.
7- Common sense will tell that since Africa is so close to Europe that the Africans traveled along the coast of Europe pre- 5kya.


So cousin.. . . . a few pictures(of Macedonians) doesn’t prove anything!!!.

You got to find European skulls in Africa. . . . . .European genes in Africa . . . . . . European culture in Africa. So far we have it the other way around. OOA

So I have to conclude - the Ancient Greeks were probably. . .. .E3b ie East Africans who were overrun by R1a and R1b.

Let’s look at “absolute” time. To prove this I need a timeline for the R1a, R1b and E3b appearance along with African artifacts found in Europe. Please point me in the direction!!
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ And again your brain has missed it. 'White' or fair skin is not associated with only "Nords" or nordic Europeans but is something held in common by all Europeans.

You are right Northwest Europeans have nothing to do with the appearance of Southern Europeans because they are different peoples from different parts of Europe, but they all share common ancestry as Europeans and they all share the trait of fair-skin with southern Europeans being darker since they recieve more sunlight in the south as well as greater diet of vitamin from fish and yes recen African ancestry is another factor as well!

There were no East Africans in Greece "overrun" by whites. R1 carriers were *aboriginal* to Greece as they are to the rest of Europe. There were Neolithic immigrants carrying African E and Asiatic J lineages who were absorbed by the indigenous people!

Your bias brain cannot accept this fact, can it?
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:

I am the first to admit that I am no Anthropologist. But I noticed you convenient ignored this article. What it is saying is

White Nords are “recent”. ie the Western Europeans you are see today eventually overran Rome and Greece. There were NOT the original peoples there.

Also, Rasol you are playing word games, slight of hands tricks. Indigenous/aboriginal. The piece you cited implies that African type people WERE in Europe 45ya – 4kya. It may be old, I don’t know, that‘s why I suggested in the thread that a timeline with “African” finds in Europe should be published. Then we can get a clearer picture of up to when they were there as Africans.

Besides the words - yes white people may of originated in Europe but the fact maybe that African type(modern/unchanged) we there also. And was there LONG before. Hence “who is your daddy comment”. Who are the true Europeans the ones adapted or the ones who were there LONG before. Hence my EuroAmerican response.

Sooooo . . . .Based on the evidence I will still have to conclude that Africans belong/indigenous/Aboriginal/occupied Europe. What ever word you want to use . . . . .cousin

---

quote:

---

Djehuti: You still don't get it, do you?! The Europeans who were there LONG before ARE THE ONES WHO ADAPTED, you moron!!

---

xyz in engaging in what I call crap-eating-grin trolling .

It translates as - i'm wrong and i know it, so i will make a series of more and more ridiculous statements until it reaches the point where i can pretend i was never serious to begin with, thereby mitigated some of the embarrassment, over having made a complete fool of myself.

Keep grinning, xyz.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ More like the grin of a child with down-syndrome, or as it is popularly called, the 'retard grin'!
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ And again your brain has missed it. 'White' or fair skin is not associated with only "Nords" or nordic Europeans but is something held in common by all Europeans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Here is another angle to the evidence. Here are the facts/evidence.

1- white skin appeared ~6kya. Prior to that everyone(in Europe) else was brown/dark/brown.
2- The piece I am citing is saying that these Nords appeared and spread from deep within Europe starting from about AD .. .give or take
3- These White Nords are the majority in western Europe today.
4- It appears that the present today western European may not be a good representation of what the Iberians/Greeks/Romans looked like.
5- The Genetic evidence says that the ¼ Greeks were Africans at one time. The same HLA study piece is saying that the Macedonian Greeks DO NOT have this African blood but the original(coastal) Greeks DO
6- The Macedonian Greeks eventually controlled Greece. So pictures of Macedonian Greeks is not going to fool anyone. They are what they are. I believe the Gods and original inhabitants were revered as Africans. See some of Marc’s work.
7- Common sense will tell that since Africa is so close to Europe that the Africans traveled along the coast of Europe pre- 5kya.


So cousin.. . . . a few pictures(of Macedonians) doesn’t prove anything!!!.

You got to find European skulls in Africa. . . . . .European genes in Africa . . . . . . European culture in Africa. So far we have it the other way around. OOA

So I have to conclude - the Ancient Greeks were probably. . .. .E3b ie East Africans who were overrun by R1a and R1b.

Let’s look at “absolute” time. To prove this I need a timeline for the R1a, R1b and E3b appearance along with African artifacts found in Europe. Please point me in the direction!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
A drawing is needed showing the African artifacts.

---

In this case, it would be a childish attempt to use pictures to substitute for and inability to read.

There are many websites on the internet where you can find really dumb people who will believe anything you say.

ES isn't that place.

You should really take your mindless prattle elsewhere.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Why do I have to spoon feed you? What is you agenda? I never said I need pictures. I assume your are a college grad.. .so you would undersand the usefulllness of timelines, charts and ovelays. Geeeesh. What are you on? Steriods?

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
A drawing is needed showing the African artifacts.

---

In this case, it would be a childish attempt to use pictures to substitute for and inability to read.

There are many websites on the internet where you can find really dumb people who will believe anything you say.

ES isn't that place.

You should really take your mindless prattle elsewhere.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
A drawing is needed showing the African artifacts/skulls found in Europe and tie that into the genetics and drop in the time line to get the point across. Give it to a geneticist/historian/linguist/anthroplogist/archeaologist to TELL ME WHAT IT MEANS. Bros and cousins take the data and draw YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS.

You guys probable think WMDs were in Iraq also.

In the mean time I will make it easy for you guys. Which one of these are FALSE?

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Here is another angle to the evidence. Here are the facts/evidence.

1- white skin appeared ~6kya. Prior to that everyone(in Europe) else was brown/dark/brown.
2- The piece I am citing is saying that these Nords appeared and spread from deep within Europe starting from about AD .. .give or take
3- These White Nords are the majority in western Europe today.
4- It appears that the present today western European may not be a good representation of what the Iberians/Greeks/Romans looked like.
5- The Genetic evidence says that the ¼ Greeks were Africans at one time. The same HLA study piece is saying that the Macedonian Greeks DO NOT have this African blood but the original(coastal) Greeks DO
6- The Macedonian Greeks eventually controlled Greece. So pictures of Macedonian Greeks is not going to fool anyone. They are what they are. I believe the Gods and original inhabitants were revered as Africans. See some of Marc’s work.
7- Common sense will tell that since Africa is so close to Europe that the Africans traveled along the coast of Europe pre- 5kya.


So cousin.. . . . a few pictures(of Macedonians) doesn’t prove anything!!!.

You got to find European skulls in Africa. . . . . .European genes in Africa . . . . . . European culture in Africa. So far we have it the other way around. OOA

So I have to conclude - the Ancient Greeks were probably. . .. .E3b ie East Africans who were overrun by R1a and R1b.

Let’s look at “absolute” time. To prove this I need a timeline for the R1a, R1b and E3b appearance along with African artifacts found in Europe. Please point me in the direction!!

---

---

quote:

---

xyz: Why do I have to spoon feed you?

---

quote:

---

And you still haven't denied any of this....

---

quote:

---

What is you agenda?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

The First Europeans

About 80 percent of Europeans arose from primitive hunters who arrived about 40,000 years ago, endured the long ice age and then expanded rapidly to dominate the continent, a new study shows.


Researchers analyzing the Y chromosome taken from 1,007 men from 25 different locations in Europe found a pattern that suggests four out of five of the men shared a common male ancestor about 40,000 years ago.

Peter A. Underhill, a senior researcher at the Stanford Genome Technology Center in Palo Alto, Calif., and co-author of the study, said the research supports conclusions from archaeological, linguistic and other DNA evidence about the settlement of Europe by ancient peoples.

When we can get different lines of evidence that tell the same story, then we feel we are telling the true history of the species. The researchers used the Y chromosome in the study because its rare changes establish a pattern that can be traced back hundreds of generations, thus helping to plot the movement of ancient humans.

The Y chromosome is inherited only by sons from their fathers. When sperm carrying the Y chromosome fertilizes an egg it directs the resulting baby to be a male. An X chromosome from the father allows a fertilized egg to be female.

"The Y chromosome has about 60 million DNA base pairs. Changes in those base pairs happen infrequently, but they occur often enough to establish patterns that can be used to trace the ancestry of people. Researchers looking at the 1,007 chromosome samples from Europe identified 22 specific markers that formed a specific pattern of change. Underhill said the researchers found that about 80 percent of all European males shared a single pattern, suggesting they had a common ancestor thousands of generations ago.

"The basic pattern had some changes that apparently developed among people who once shared a common ancestor and then were isolated for many generations. This scenario supports other studies about the Paleolithic European groups. Those studies suggest that a primitive, stone-age human came to Europe, probably from Central Asia and the Middle East, in two waves of migration beginning about 40,000 years ago. Their numbers were small and they lived byhunting animals and gathering plant food. They used crudely sharpened stones and fire.

"About 24,000 years ago, the last ice age began, with mountain-sized glaciers moving across most of Europe. The Paleolithic Europeans retreated before the ice, finding refuge for hundreds of generations in three areas: what is now Spain, the Balkans and the Ukraine.

"When the glaciers melted, about 16,000 years ago, the Paleolithic tribes resettled the rest of Europe. Y chromosome mutations occurred among people in each of the ice age refuges, said Underhill. He said the research shows a pattern that developed in Spain is now most common in northwest Europe, while the Ukraine pattern is mostly in Eastern Europe and the Balkan pattern is most common in Central Europe.

"About 8,000 years ago a more advanced people, the Neolithic, migrated to Europe from the Middle East, bringing with them a new Y chromosome pattern and a new way of life - agriculture. About 20 percent of Europeans now have the Y chromosome pattern from this migration.

"Archaeological digs in European caves clearly show that before 8,000 years ago, most humans lived by gathering and hunting. After that, there are traces of grains and other agricultural products. Earlier studies had traced European migration patterns using the DNA contained in the mitochondria, a key part of each cell. This type is DNA is passed down from mother to daughter."

Antonio Torroni, a researcher at the University of Urbino, Italy, who first proposed that early humans retreated to Spain during the ice age, said in a separate Science report that the Y chromosome study fits completely' with the mitochondria studies.

"The Y chromosome studies are also consistent with genetic studies showing a broader picture of human migration. In general, studies show that modern humans first arose in Africa about 100,000 years ago and thousands of years later began a long series of migrations, he said. Some groups migrated eastward and humans are known to have existed in Australia about 60,000 years ago. Other groups crossed the land bridge into the Middle East. Humans appeared in Central Asia about 50,000 years ago. From there, the theory goes, some migrated west, arriving in Europe about 40,000 years ago. Later, some migrated east, across the Bering Straits, to the Americas."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
A drawing is needed showing the African artifacts/skulls found...

---

quote:

---

You guys probable think WMDs were in Iraq also.

---

quote:

---

In the mean time I will make it easy for you guys. Which one of these are FALSE?

---

quote:

---

And . . . .in case you missed the point "white nords" are most western europeans and cited by my reference. Which Google/internet/wikipedia says originated about 300AD.!!!!!!!!


So I maintain. These modern Europeans are NOT the same as the pre- 5kya southern europeans.

---

quote:

---

Why do I have to spoon feed you? What is you agenda?

---

quote:

---

I never said I need pictures. I assume your are a college grad.. .so you would undersand the usefulllness of timelines, charts and ovelays.

---

quote:

---

Geeeesh. What are you on? Steriods?

---

No, but I can only guess that you've been smoking to many trees or something for you to be so confused over simple scientific explanations. LOL
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Not going anywhere with this. You cite a source and I cite a few sources. Leave this for now. Will be back on this topic. When work on other sources
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Here is more. It seems this is a ongoing topic -
From another thread

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:


Thought, what do you mean by "whites"??

Do you mean European-looking, or overall light-skinned Eurasians because that is a good question.

---

Thought Writes:

Indeed, you pose a very thoughtfull question
Djehuti. I think relative to a discourse about back migration from Western Northern Eurasia into the Middle East and eventually Africa it is first neccessary to establish a POSSIBLE chronology for said event. Then we can examine what possible physical characteristics were existent in Northern Eurasia (specifically Western Northern Eurasia). For example many of the first Europeans carried a phenotype similar to modern Sub-Saharan Africans. It is safe to assume that by the Bronze Age (3300 BC) Europeans had phenotypes similar to what we see today in Western Northern Eurasia (for example see Ötzi the Ice-Man). These sorts of haplogroup I carrying Europeans represent the "Real Whites". Greeks look very different from these people because Greeks have substantial Sub-Saharan and Middle Eastern lineages. Then we can look for evidence of said physical characteristics in northern AE. This would be a proper approach to such a topic.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:


According to Spencer Wells, all northern Eurasians share a common ancestry in western Central Asia. Could this be where "caucasian" Near-Easterners come from or from another source like Anatolia or something?

---

Thought Writes:

Probably NOT. The first Europeans and the first East Asians had physical similarities to modern Sub-Saharan Africans, Melaneseans and Andaman Islanders. There is an attempt to sweep this baseline phenotype under the rug by labeling it "GENERALIZED". Modern European phenotype probably had derived bi the late mesolithic. Their population was small and grew when they were instructed on how to reap and sow by people whose ancerstors came out of Sub-saharan Africa within the last 10,000 years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:

Not going anywhere with this. You cite a source and I cite a few sources. Leave this for now. Will be back on this topic. When work on other sources

---

quote:

---

Thought:

...For example many of the first Europeans carried a phenotype similar to modern Sub-Saharan Africans. It is safe to assume that by the Bronze Age (3300 BC) Europeans had phenotypes similar to what we see today in Western Northern Eurasia (for example see Ötzi the Ice-Man). These sorts of haplogroup I carrying Europeans represent the "Real Whites". Greeks look very different from these people because Greeks have substantial Sub-Saharan and Middle Eastern lineages. Then we can look for evidence of said physical characteristics in northern AE. This would be a proper approach to such a topic.

---

^ The last part where he talked about Greeks, he was referring specifically to Neolithic remains in Greece that represent immigration from outside of Greece, hence *recent* Sub-Saharan (E) and Middle-Eastern (J) lineages-- neither of which are indigenous to Greece! Therefore, Marc's posts are B.S. and you are and have been only B.Sing yourself with it!

I'm sorry but I you do not understand any of the above you are a nitwit. I can explain that to an elementary school child and he/she would understand it at least after I explain it twice. We have been explaining this stuff to you a dozen times already!
 

---

Posted by Tyrann0saurus (Member # 3735) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
It appears that the present today western European may not be a good representation of what the Iberians/Greeks/Romans looked like.

---

quote:

---

The Macedonian Greeks eventually controlled Greece. So pictures of Macedonian Greeks is not going to fool anyone.

---

Those images Djehuti posted are self-depictions made by Greeks and Romans, not Macedonians (who BTW have never been Greek and actually loathe it when you confuse them with Greeks). We could show you dozens of such images proving their whiteness, but those suffice. Bottom line, Greeks and Romans were white, not black. So were Charlemagne, the Vikings, Beethoven (who came up with the idea that he was black anyway?), and almost all other indigenous, post-Mesolithic Europeans.

While we're at it, the Olmecs, Mayans, Chinese, Japanese, Easter Islanders, Mongols, Hebrews, and Babylonians weren't black either. But the ancient Egyptians, Kushites, Ethiopians, Malinese, Songhayians, Ghanaians were. Why not claim those civilizations instead of those of Native Americans, East Asians, Europeans, and other non-blacks?
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ T-rex, don't encourage him, and for heaven-sake let's not include other peoples and cultures into the discussion. It might prove to be too much for the poor guy.

I posted pics of Classical pre-Hellenic, that is pre-Macedon conquered Greeks, and he dismisses them as Macedonian! LOL

I even told the guy that Macedon conquered Greece, there weren't any mass invasions that altered the Greek population.

Since the guy recieves his education from Marc, I think it would be better to leave him alone and let him join Marc's Make-Believe History world. LMAO
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Thought writes: The first Europeans and the first East Asians had physical similarities to modern Sub-Saharan Africans, Melaneseans and Andaman Islanders. There is an attempt to sweep this baseline phenotype under the rug by labeling it "GENERALIZED". Modern European phenotype probably had derived by the late mesolithic. .

---

quote:

---

Thought writes: Their population was small and grew when they were instructed on how to reap and sow by people whose ancerstors came out of Sub-saharan Africa within the last 10,000 years.

---

quote:

---

XYZ: You cite a source and I cite a few sources.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Here is more. It seems this is a ongoing topic -
From another thread

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:


Thought, what do you mean by "whites"??

Do you mean European-looking, or overall light-skinned Eurasians because that is a good question.

---

Thought Writes:

Indeed, you pose a very thoughtfull question
Djehuti. I think relative to a discourse about back migration from Western Northern Eurasia into the Middle East and eventually Africa it is first neccessary to establish a POSSIBLE chronology for said event. Then we can examine what possible physical characteristics were existent in Northern Eurasia (specifically Western Northern Eurasia). For example many of the first Europeans carried a phenotype similar to modern Sub-Saharan Africans. It is safe to assume that by the Bronze Age (3300 BC) Europeans had phenotypes similar to what we see today in Western Northern Eurasia (for example see Ötzi the Ice-Man). These sorts of haplogroup I carrying Europeans represent the "Real Whites". Greeks look very different from these people because Greeks have substantial Sub-Saharan and Middle Eastern lineages. Then we can look for evidence of said physical characteristics in northern AE. This would be a proper approach to such a topic.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:


According to Spencer Wells, all northern Eurasians share a common ancestry in western Central Asia. Could this be where "caucasian" Near-Easterners come from or from another source like Anatolia or something?

---

Thought Writes:

Probably NOT. The first Europeans and the first East Asians had physical similarities to modern Sub-Saharan Africans, Melaneseans and Andaman Islanders. There is an attempt to sweep this baseline phenotype under the rug by labeling it "GENERALIZED". Modern European phenotype probably had derived bi the late mesolithic. Their population was small and grew when they were instructed on how to reap and sow by people whose ancerstors came out of Sub-saharan Africa within the last 10,000 years.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrann0saurus:
Why should Greeks and Romans look like western Europeans? They were southern Europeans.

---

They also have African and SouthWest Asian lineages that Northern Europeans don't have.

There were no Northern Europeans during the Ice Age.

All Europeans [proper] descend from ice refugeum in the South.



This corresponds to the following genetic lineages....



^ However the *main* male lineage in Greece, is actually Neolithic dervied E3b, so modern Greeks are paternally Afro-Asian and European. Greeks are not fully European genetically, period.

There is no mystery regarding where Europeans come from.

Marc Washington, as Djehuti notes, is simply someone who photo-chops a make-believe history for anyone uneducated enough to take him seriously.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
Below is the pictorial evidence of the Olmec and Maya. It is clear that the Maya were native Americans but the Olmecs were Africans.




We claim the Olmecs as Africans because they came from Africa and spoke an African langauage.


Secondly, there is no evidence that all of the post mesolithic Europeans were white. It is clear that the Europeans were not native to Europe and that they originated in Anatolia, in the Caucasus mountains.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrann0saurus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
It appears that the present today western European may not be a good representation of what the Iberians/Greeks/Romans looked like.

---

Why should Greeks and Romans look like western Europeans? They were southern Europeans.

quote:

---

The Macedonian Greeks eventually controlled Greece. So pictures of Macedonian Greeks is not going to fool anyone.

---

Those images Djehuti posted are self-depictions made by Greeks and Romans, not Macedonians (who BTW have never been Greek and actually loathe it when you confuse them with Greeks). We could show you dozens of such images proving their whiteness, but those suffice. Bottom line, Greeks and Romans were white, not black. So were Charlemagne, the Vikings, Beethoven (who came up with the idea that he was black anyway?), and almost all other indigenous, post-Mesolithic Europeans.

While we're at it, the Olmecs, Mayans, Chinese, Japanese, Easter Islanders, Mongols, Hebrews, and Babylonians weren't black either. But the ancient Egyptians, Kushites, Ethiopians, Malinese, Songhayians, Ghanaians were. Why not claim those civilizations instead of those of Native Americans, East Asians, Europeans, and other non-blacks?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:

From the piece

---

quote:

---

“establish a POSSIBLE chronology for said event” –

ie timeline .. .which I have been asking for.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

There were no Northern Europeans during the Ice Age.

All Europeans [proper] descend from ice refugeum in the South.



This corresponds to the following genetic lineages....



^ However the *main* male lineage in Greece, is actually Neolithic dervied E3b, so modern Greeks are paternally Afro-Asian and European. Greeks are not fully European genetically, period.

There is no mystery regarding where Europeans come from.

Marc Washington, as Djehuti notes, is simply someone who photo-chops a make-believe history for anyone uneducated enough to take him seriously.

---

quote:

---

many of the first Europeans carried a phenotype similar to modern Sub-Saharan Africans

---

quote:

---

– African looking people living in Europe ie black Europeans

---

quote:

---

It is safe to assume that by the Bronze Age (3300 BC) Europeans had phenotypes similar to what we see today in Western Northern Eurasia –

---

quote:

---

ie modern Europeans appeared. Supported by the Upenn study

---

quote:

---

These sorts of haplogroup I carrying Europeans represent the "Real Whites". Greeks look very different from these people because Greeks have substantial Sub-Saharan

---

quote:

---

ie the Greek were NOT considered “real” white in 3300BC!!!!

---

quote:

---

My speculation is they remained that way for a long time that is why there still have african blood

---

quote:

---

There you go Rasol/Djehuti - Guys!! No need to reply.

---

quote:

---

Keep working on that degree. Because if you cannot read between the lines you have a HARD road ahead. Regurgitating stuff you read does not imply intelligence. ANALYZING the data is where there is proof in the pudding.

---

ROTFLH One must first know how to comprehend what the data says in order for it to be properly analyzed! Sorry but you FAIL in that regard!

quote:

---

Furthermore – it does matter what the topic is about it is what was said, once not taken out of context. My claim is out there again sustained in the piece. Greeks WERE NOT “real whites. Only about 3300BC there were “real whites’’ what was there before were AFRICANS.

Summary – AFRICANS inhabited Europe for several thousand years before the “real whites’ appeared. End of Story.

---

quote:

---

The truth is out now.

---

Of course! The truth has been out. And the truth is you are a complete idiot.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Below is the pictorial evidence of the Olmec and Maya. It is clear that the Maya were native Americans but the Olmecs were Africans.

---

^ It is clear that this is hot air due to a penchant for wishfull thinking.

The broadfaced phenotypes of the Olmec can be found in the Paleolithic Pacific, Australia and South Asia, so phenotype per se cannot prove that Olmec came across the Atlantic/Africa as opposed to Pacific/Asia.

Pacific Islander
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Don’t misunderstand. . I am with you on the issue of there are no “races” of humanity but just different ethnic groups evolved/adapted best to survive in their particular environment. My aim is to understand the “truth” without prejudice. I had my doubts when Marc and others put out that stuff but the more I read the more I understand “some” of their point of view. To me the Greeks had/have a strong African influence/population. Looking at the genes and archaeological finds, and the eventual appearance and expansion of Germanic people. I get an idea of what they are talking about. That said let’s get back on topic.

When did the E3b lineage appear . . . in Africa. . . .. then Greece? When did the R* and R1a and R1b appear? Absolute time please. No ###lithic. Someone said this is a technology. And technology can appear in a civilization thousand of years after it appears in another group.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
^

quote:

---

When did the E3b lineage appear . . . in Africa.

---

quote:

---

. . .. then Greece?

---

quote:

---

When did the R* and R1a and R1b appear?

---

quote:

---

Absolute time please. No ###lithic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Below is the pictorial evidence of the Olmec and Maya. It is clear that the Maya were native Americans but the Olmecs were Africans.

---

^ It is clear that this is hot air due to a penchant for wishfull thinking.

The broadfaced phenotypes of the Olmec can be found in the Paleolithic Pacific, Australia and South Asia, so phenotype per se cannot prove that Olmec came across the Atlantic/Africa as opposed to Pacific/Asia.

Pacific Islander

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
The best evidence for African Olmecs is the Cascajal tablet. This tablet was found last year in Mexico.


The Olmec writing on the Cascajal tablet is an obituary for a King Bi Po. This writing is written in Hieroglyphic Olmec (Winters,2006). Hieroglyphic Olmec includes multiple linear Olmec signs which are joined together to make pictures of animals, faces and other objects.


Some researchers have recognized insects and other objects in the signs. In reality these signs are made up several different Olmec linear signs (Winters,1998).

To read the Olmec writing I use the Vai script. The Vai script includes a number of syllabic signs that have been used to engrave rocks in the Sahara for the past 4000 years. I read the signs in Malinke-Bambara which was the spoken language of the Olmec.


The Olmec writing is read right to left top to bottom. Each segment of the Olmec sign has to be broken down into its individual syllabic sign. In most cases the Olmec signs includes two or more syllabic characters. The Olmec signs can be interpreted as follows:

• 1. La fe ta gyo
  2. Bi yu
  3. Pa po yu
  4. Se ta I su
  5. Ta kye
  6. Beb be
  7. Bi Po Yu to
  8. Tu fa ku
  9. Tu pa pot u
  10. Ta gbe pa
  11. i-tu
  12. Bi Yu yo po
  13. Kye gyo
  14. Po lu
  15. Fe ta yo i
  16. Be kye
  17. Fe gina
  18. Po bi po tu
  19. Lu kye gyo to
  20. Kye tu a pa
  21. Yu gyo i
  22. Pa ku pa
  23. Po yu
  24. Day u kye da
  25. Po ta kye tap o
  26. Ta gbe
  27. Bi Fa yu
  28. Bi Yu / Paw

Translation
Reading the Cascajal Tablet from right to left we have the following:

• (8) Bi Po lays in state in the tomb, (7) desiring to be endowed with mysterious faculties.
  
  (6) This abode is possessed by the Governor . (5)…. (4) Bi Po Po.
  
  (3) Bi (was), (2) an Artisan desires to be consecrated to the divinity. (1) (and He) merits thou offer of libations.
  
  (14). Admiration (for) the cult specialist’s hemisphere tomb. (13) The inheritance of thou vital spirit is consecration to the divinity.
  
  (12) In a place of righteous admiration, (11) Pure Bi (in a) pure abode
  
  (10) A pure mark of admiration (is) this hemispheric tomb.
  
  (9) [Here] lays low (the celebrity) [he] is gone.
  
  (22) The place of righteousness, [is] (21) the pure hemispheric tomb
  
  (20)
  (19) Thou (art) obedient to the Order. (18) Hold upright the Order (and) the divinity of the sacred cult.
  
  (17) Pure Admiration this place of, (16) Bi the Vital Spirit. (15) [Truly this is ] a place consecrated to the divinity and propriety.
  
  27) Lay low (the celebrity) to go to , (26) love the mystic order—thou vivid image of the race,
  
  (25) The pure Govenor and (24) Devotee [of the Order lies in this] hemispheric tomb ,desires [to be] a talisman effective in providing one with virtue, (23) [He] merits thou offer of Libations.
  
  (34) Command Respect. (33)….this place of admiration. (32) Thou sacred inheritance is propriety. (31) The Govenor commands existence in a unique state, (31) [in] this ruler’s hemispheric tomb. (29) The Royal (28) [was] a vigorous man.
  
  (36) The pure habitation (35) [of a ]Ruler obedient to the Order.
  (37) This abode is possessed by the governor.
  (38) Admiration to you [who art] obedient to the Order.
  (49) Pure admiration [for this] tomb.
  (48) Thou hold upright the pure law.
  (47). Pure admiration [for this tomb].
  (46) [It] acts [as] a talisman effective in providing one with virtue.
  (45) Bi Po, (44) a pure man, (43) of wonder, (42) [whose] inheritance is consecration to the Divinity.
  (41) Bi Po lays in state in the tomb, (40) desiring to be endowed with mysterious faculties.
  (62) Bi Po lays in state in the tomb.
  (61) [This] tomb [is a] sacred object, (60) a place of righteous wonder.
  (59) Bi’s tomb (58) [is in] accord [with] the law (57) Bi exist in a unique (and) pure state the abode of the Govenor is pure..
  (56) The inheritance of [this] Ruler is joy.
  (55) [In] this tomb of King Bi (54) lays low a celebrity, [he] is gone.
  (53) The tomb of Bi (52) is a dormitory [of] love. A place consacreted to the divinity.
  (51) Thou the vivid image of the race love(d) the mystic order.
  (50) [He] merits [your] offer of Libations.

This translation of the Cascajal tablet makes it clear that the tablet was written for a local ruler at San Lorenzo called Bi Po. This tablet indicates that Bi Po’s tomb was recognized as a sacred site. It also indicates that the Olmecians believed that if they offered libations at the tombs of their rulers they would gain blessings.

The Cascajal Tablet according to the road builders at the village was found in a mound. The fact that a mound existed where the tablet was found offers considerable support to the idea that the mound where the tablet was found is the tomb of BiPoPo.

The obituary on the Cascajal Tablet may be written about one of the Royals among Olmec heads found at San Lorenzo. The Cascajal Tablet may relate to the personage depicted in San Lorenzo monument 3.
Head 3 San Lorenzo



We have found that the names of these rulers is probably found among the symbols associated with the individual Olmec heads. The headband on monument 3 is made up of four parallel ropes encircling the head. In the parallel ropes there are two serrated figures that cross the ropes diagonally.


There is also a plaited diadem or four braids on the back of the figure covered with serrated element. On the side of the head of monument 3, two serrated elements on four parallel lines hang. This element ends with a three-tiered element hanging.


In the Olmec writing the serrated elements means Bi, while the boxes under the serrated element within the four parallel lines would represent the words PoPo. This suggest that the name for monument 3 was probably BiPoPo.

The hanging element on monument 3 is similar to one of the signs on the Cascajal tablet. Although symbol 57 on the Cascajal monument is hard to recognize it appears to include the Bi sign on the top of the symbol. This finding indicates that the BiPoPo of monument 3, is most likely the BiPo(Po) mentioned in the Cascajal Tablet.


Cascajal Sign 57


Stirling said that monument 3 was found at the bottom of a deep ravine half-a-mile southwest of the principal mound of San Lorenzo, along with ceramic potsherds. This is interesting because the village of Cascajal is situated southwest of San Lorenzo.

According to reports of the discovery of the road builders who found the Cascajal Tablet, the tablet came from a mound at Cascajal which was located about a mile from San Lorenzo. The coincidence of finding San Lorenzo Monument 3 in the proximity of the Cascajal mound where the Cascajal Tablet was found suggest that these artifacts concern the same personage. This leads to the possibility that the Cascajal mound was the tomb of BiPoPo.


In conclusion the Cascajal Tablet is an obituary for a Olmec ruler named BiPoPo.


Given the presence of similar signs on the Olmec head called San Lorenzo monument 3, which also read BiPoPo suggest that the Cascajal Tablet was written for the personage depicted in Olmec head 3.


Head 3 San Lorenzo



If the Cascajal Tablet really corresponds to one of the Olmec heads suggest that Cascajal may have been a royal burial site. If this is the case it is conceivable that other tablets relating to Olmec rulers may also be found at this locale, since some of these other mounds may be the “hemispheric” tombs of other Olmec rulers.

References to African Inscriptions:

M. Delafosse, Vai leur langue et leur ysteme d'ecriture,L'Anthropologie, 10 (1910).

Lambert, N. (1970). Medinet Sbat et la Protohistoire de Mauritanie Occidentale, Antiquites Africaines, 4, pp.15-62.

Lambert, N. L'apparition du cuivre dans les civilisations prehistoriques. In C.H. Perrot et al Le Sol, la Parole et 'Ecrit (Paris: Societe Francaise d'Histoire d'Outre Mer) pp.213-226.

R. Mauny, Tableau Geographique de l'Ouest Afrique Noire. Histoire et Archeologie (Fayard);

Kea,R.A. (2004). Expansion and Contractions: World-Historical Change and the Western Sudan World-System (1200/1000BC-1200/1250A.D.) Journal of World-Systems Research, 3, pp.723-816

Winters, Clyde. (1998). The Decipherment of the Olmec Writing System. Retrieved 09/25/2006 at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/8919/Rtolmec2.htm

Winters,Clyde.(2006). The Olmec Hieroglyphic Script. Retrieved 09/25/2006 at:

http://geocities.com/olmec982000/hieromec.pdf

.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:

I am beginning to think that your game is to use words to create a “smoke and mirrors” effect. Because what is the point referencing the Neolithic period when the African Neolithics period may be different to the African Greek Neolithic. Absolute time makes it clearer. Are you a gamesman? Thinking you are smart because you know the difference between Neolithic and Paleolithic but refuse to admit that Greek were African type pre-3300bc.. . . regardsless of ####lithic.

---

LMAO @ "use words to create a smoke and mirrors affect"

Nope. Sorry Xyz, but our words are clear. If you have a difficult (and an extremely difficult time at that) understanding us, then either you have a learning disability, or you refuse to believe it and rather go for Marc's whimsical world of Afro-nonsense.

quote:

---

What we are trying to determine is . . .were the Greek originally Africans who were eventually overrun by the R1a and R1b. And how and when did this occur.

---

quote:

---

Some sources point to pre-3300bc the Greeks were mostly E3b (african). The Greeks could not of been R1a or R1b becasue it did not originate there but in north central europe. The R1a and R1b travelled south and west. The R1a and R1b eventually overcame the E3b, in Greece and south europe, which today makes up the 24% in Greece.

The R1a and R1b eventually overan ALL of Europe post-AD 300.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:


There were no Northern Europeans during the Ice Age.

All Europeans [proper] descend from ice refugeum in the South.



This corresponds to the following genetic lineages....

---

quote:

---

Some sources point to pre-3300bc the Greeks were mostly E3b (african).

---

quote:

---

The Greeks could not of been R1a or R1b becasue it did not originate there but in north central europe.

---

And where pray tell would Northern Europeans have lived during the Ice Age?

-->

quote:

---

I am beginning to think that your game is to use words to create a “smoke and mirrors” effect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
[qb] [QUOTE] Below is the pictorial evidence of the Olmec and Maya. It is clear that the Maya were native Americans but the Olmecs were Africans.

---

^ It is clear that this is hot air due to a penchant for wishfull thinking.

The broadfaced phenotypes of the Olmec can be found in the Paleolithic Pacific, Australia and South Asia, so phenotype per se cannot prove that Olmec came across the Atlantic/Africa as opposed to Pacific/Asia.

Pacific Islander

---

quote:

---

You're right they could be pacific Islanders but they're not. They were Africans as proven by their language.

---

Yes, but according to you, everything from Meso-American Olmec, to Indo-European Kushana is really some kind of Mande-West African language.

Mosts linguists do not agree with this, and unfortunately, since you make so many broad and literally far-fetched connections via -linguistics- you aren't a reliable source, and we can't say Olmec language comes from West Africa.
 

---

Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
 
This thread has unravelled into several different offshoots and comes back on target from time-to-time. Not a problem. The offshoot I want to bring attention to is the prehistoric African presence in the Grecian islands and even into Eurasia with Bulgaria as an example - this evidence is just a small portion of what could be used to show the point and topic numbers 1 through 6 in the web page below are the case-in-point:



Whites weren't along for a long time. And when they came, they came leaving a path of mayhem and destruction behind them. At least there was some reprieve in the world before they came. We did have relative peace at one time.

The map on the page shows some white entry into the region starting at 3800 BC and this was initially in tiny movements with isolated tribes. But, archeologists speak of this entry as a period of destruction of existing civilizations, villages, and settlements.

But, to keep the focus, Aegean prehistory is by the lion's share African prehistory. Not white.
 

---

Posted by Stone (Member # 14116) on :
 
Hi,
MW forgot to integrate these images of Etruscan Sarcophaguses and other Etruscan objects in his photo collage…
6th century BC.


Menead Antefix, 6th B.C.


Apollo of Veii c. 520 - 550 BCE



Bust of Pedimental Statue of Juno, Temple at Lo Scasato, Falerii, 5th B.C.

 

---

Posted by Stone (Member # 14116) on :
 
Sarcophagus of Larthia Seianti from Chiuisi, 2nd B.C



Mother and Child from Chianciano, Limestone Cinerary Urn, 400 B.C.



Irene Papas “Greek” and these women from Asia Minor resembles Minoan and Etruscan images.


 

---

Posted by Still_Not_Done (Member # 14230) on :
 
Stone posted:

quote:

---

---

Those people that you posted have high Africanidid admixture.

Some of those pictures clearly have African Northernadoids, African Easternopiopiads, and African Westernadids phenotopicalcal genominomes.
 

---

Posted by Stone (Member # 14116) on :
 
Some ancient Greek Art.
Notice the black skin color.
Poseidon of Artemision” (460 B.C.)



Charioteer from Delphi (c470 BC)


 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Are these Macedonian Greeks?? They look diffrent ethnically to what Marc posted.

Marc can you simplify this? ie clearer picture as these and include the time(dating/period). You have the period but it is difficult to see what you are showing.

Marc from what you are showing these portraits do look like African Greeks.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone:
Some ancient Greek Art.
Notice the black skin color.
Poseidon of Artemision” (460 B.C.)



Charioteer from Delphi (c470 BC)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Huh?!!

---

quote:

---

This thread has unravelled into several different offshoots.

---

quote:

---

There were no Northern Europeans during the Ice Age.

All Europeans [proper] descend from ice refugeum in the South.



This corresponds to the following genetic lineages....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Still_Not_Done:

Those people that you posted have high Africanidid admixture.

Some of those pictures clearly have African Northernadoids, African Easternopiopiads, and African Westernadids phenotopicalcal genominomes.

---

Since you complain I don't offer any fact in my posts, here is a fact-- all of those terms you posted are utter rubbish! What the heck is an "Easternopiopiads" and what are "genominomes"?! LMAO

It looks like you are making up your own scientific terms. Now how pathetic is that?!
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone:
Some ancient Greek Art.
Notice the black skin color.
Poseidon of Artemision” (460 B.C.)



Charioteer from Delphi (c470 BC)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Are these Macedonian Greeks?? They look diffrent ethnically to what Marc posted.

---

LOL Either you are joking or you are in serious need of educational if not intellectual help! Those statues are early Classical Greek and have NOTHING to do with Macedonians. As for what Marc posted, everything that the guy posts is crap! Unless you believe in African vikings and African Charlemagne!

quote:

---

Marc can you simplify this? ie clearer picture as these and include the time(dating/period). You have the period but it is difficult to see what you are showing.

Marc from what you are showing these portraits do look like African Greeks.

---

I take that back. You are just as looney as Marc if not twice more for recieving education from that guy!
 

---

Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
 
Stone. I can appreciate the pictures you have posted and want to avoid passing judgement on them. I'll share my criteria for art collection with you and when I bend it and why. Then I'll make some comment about the ethnic transition in, for this instance, Grecian art as I see it. And I'm open to being corrected from any corner - my views aren't fixed in stone and I'll alter them if the proof makes sense.

DEFINITION: My short definition of African omits color and focues on phenotypes that often exist regardless of color. They are persons with a full nose and mouth with wooly or wiry hair. Whites won't have any of these features unless they have a black parent and then they would be classified as neither white nor African, per se, but mixed. Ancient Near Eastern populations, also called Asians, fall into this category.

MY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING AFRICAN ART: Others specialize in whatever they find suitable and all other fields being covered, my choice is the collection of African-featured individuals: full noses and mouths and when it's shown, wooly hair. I go for this "purity" as it can't be disputed except by people who argue for arguments sake (many do) and such pictures form my primary collection.

Secondary collection: So, I try to stay away from art showing individuals with African-white parentage. However, I will include some such individuals in my secondary collection as substitutes until I find something better for the category they represent (I know I didn't explain the details here). And, as I intend staying in this line of research for the next fifty or sixty years, my collection should become purer over time.

ETHNIC TRANSITION IN GREEK ART and Phase 1: Unfortunately, when the Christian Crusade hit Greece, they destroyed tens of thousands of statues, figurine, everything they could lay their hands on; so, we are left with a paltry remainder of a once flourishing, ubiquitous African art. Still, decimated though it is, there is enough to show that in its earliest phases, Grecian art featured Africans.

The tide turns: Now, The Iliad and the Odyessy (The I&O) recounts the steady influx of whites into the Grecian lands and islands and as they entered, they took servants and slaves (it's all in The I&O) and part of what happened is that whites started appearing more in art. And when they'd slay all the indigenous African men and take their women, they fathered children who were mixed.

Phase 2: So, for a millennium, maybe, we had art shifting from (1) African to (2) African and also appearing pure whites (straight hair), and tons of mulatto (wavy hair).

Phase 3: When Alexander the Mass Murderer came in the fourth century, he slaughtered untold tens of thousands of African men and from one day to the next, African art ceased to be produced in, for instance, Athens, after Alexander and just as suddenly there is an appearance of white art. [Note that they had wavy hair showing African mothers. Today, only straight hair is seen in Greece mostly!]. Now, it's this phase of art that I think characterizes some of the pictures you show (I'm not being critical and do support your efforts and will surely add those pictures to my secondary collection and some into the primary).

If you are going to begin amassing African art and make it your life-long ambition as I have done, let me suggest focusing on primary art while being diligent as you are widening your secondary art, too.

Thank you for this opportunity to see these beautiful pictures you've shared. As I stated, I have downloaded them and will from time-to-time use them.

Kind thanks,


Marc
 

---

Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
 
Stone. Those pictures you've shown are long after whites began entering Etrusca and wiping out the African population. Here are pictures spanning the earliest populations to those to the time of Hannibal. Note that they have undisputable African features - kinky hair, big lips, full noses like Hannibal [1] and pictures 6, 7, and 8 in particular:



http://www.beforebc.de/all_africa/02-16-12.html

All the best,


Marc
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
^ Self delusion.


Truth ->







The Origin of the Europeans; Combining Genetics and Archaeology, Scientists Rough Out Continent's 50,000-Year-Old Story


By NICHOLAS WADE

Some 6 percent of Europeans are descended from the continent's first founders, who entered Europe from the Near East in the Upper Paleolithic era 45,000 years ago, Dr. Richards calculates. The descendants of these earliest arrivals are still more numerous in certain regions of Europe that may have provided them with refuge from subsequent waves of immigration. One is the mountainous Basque country, where people still speak a language completely different from all other European languages. Another is in the European extreme of Scandinavia. Another 80 percent arrived 30,000 to 20,000 years ago, before the peak of the last glaciation, and 10 percent came in the Neolithic 10,000 years ago, when the ice age ended and agriculture was first introduced to Europe from the Near East.

It used to be thought that the most important human dispersals occurred in the Neolithic, prompted by the population increases made possible by the invention of agriculture. But it now seems that the world filled up early and the first inhabitants were quite resistant to displacement by later arrivals.
 

---

Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
 


http://www.beforebc.de/all_europe/05-09-05.html



http://www.beforebc.de/all_europe/05-09-000-12.html
 

---

Posted by Stone (Member # 14116) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marc Washington:
Stone. I can appreciate the pictures you have posted and want to avoid passing judgement on them. I'll share my criteria for art collection with you and when I bend it and why. Then I'll make some comment about the ethnic transition in, for this instance, Grecian art as I see it. And I'm open to being corrected from any corner - my views aren't fixed in stone and I'll alter them if the proof makes sense.

DEFINITION: My short definition of African omits color and focues on phenotypes that often exist regardless of color. They are persons with a full nose and mouth with wooly or wiry hair. Whites won't have any of these features unless they have a black parent and then they would be classified as neither white nor African, per se, but mixed. Ancient Near Eastern populations, also called Asians, fall into this category.

MY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING AFRICAN ART: Others specialize in whatever they find suitable and all other fields being covered, my choice is the collection of African-featured individuals: full noses and mouths and when it's shown, wooly hair. I go for this "purity" as it can't be disputed except by people who argue for arguments sake (many do) and such pictures form my primary collection.

Secondary collection: So, I try to stay away from art showing individuals with African-white parentage. However, I will include some such individuals in my secondary collection as substitutes until I find something better for the category they represent (I know I didn't explain the details here). And, as I intend staying in this line of research for the next fifty or sixty years, my collection should become purer over time.

ETHNIC TRANSITION IN GREEK ART and Phase 1: Unfortunately, when the Christian Crusade hit Greece, they destroyed tens of thousands of statues, figurine, everything they could lay their hands on; so, we are left with a paltry remainder of a once flourishing, ubiquitous African art. Still, decimated though it is, there is enough to show that in its earliest phases, Grecian art featured Africans.

The tide turns: Now, The Iliad and the Odyessy (The I&O) recounts the steady influx of whites into the Grecian lands and islands and as they entered, they took servants and slaves (it's all in The I&O) and part of what happened is that whites started appearing more in art. And when they'd slay all the indigenous African men and take their women, they fathered children who were mixed.

Phase 2: So, for a millennium, maybe, we had art shifting from (1) African to (2) African and also appearing pure whites (straight hair), and tons of mulatto (wavy hair).

Phase 3: When Alexander the Mass Murderer came in the fourth century, he slaughtered untold tens of thousands of African men and from one day to the next, African art ceased to be produced in, for instance, Athens, after Alexander and just as suddenly there is an appearance of white art. [Note that they had wavy hair showing African mothers. Today, only straight hair is seen in Greece mostly!]. Now, it's this phase of art that I think characterizes some of the pictures you show (I'm not being critical and do support your efforts and will surely add those pictures to my secondary collection and some into the primary).

If you are going to begin amassing African art and make it your life-long ambition as I have done, let me suggest focusing on primary art while being diligent as you are widening your secondary art, too.

Thank you for this opportunity to see these beautiful pictures you've shared. As I stated, I have downloaded them and will from time-to-time use them.

Kind thanks,


Marc

---

Holy **** how do you come up with this stuff...
Even this stuff is more credible
Jesus Never Existed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_hypothesis

Lol.
According to your own Photo collage the stuff you posted is younger in date to what I posted.
There are plenty of Etruscan coins and Carthage coins that show different motives why not show them also?

Carthage, Zeugitana (Tunisia) Most of them pre-date Hannibal's era...
http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/zeugitana/carthage/t.html
One example of many

Carthage AV Stater. ca 350-320 BC. Wreathed head of Tanit “Patron goddess at Carthage” left, in triple-pendant earring & necklace / Horse standing right on single ground line, three pellets to right of feet.

ETRURIA, Luca. Circa 300-250 BC. AR 5 Asses (11.25 gm).

 

---

Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
 
Stone. Please forget the olive branch. Yes. Those are white-looking as you indirectly intend to say. Yes. These were during and after the genocides when Africans were being exterminated and whites were moving into the lands they established. Caoi.

But, to continue the thread focus: whites are completely new to Europe:



http://www.beforebc.de/all_europe/02-16-500-00-07.html
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Holy **** how do you come up with this stuff...

---

^ Too much time on his hands. He is getting some attention which obviously produces some gratification even if most of the attention is negative. But he operates according to the principals of pseudo-science, the more blatantly ridiculous the idea the more persistent he becomes in defending it. Eventually this will end up with Afro Napolean and Afro Adolph Hitler.

Time for a refresher on how to distinguish sense from non-sense....

Pseudoscience always achieves a reduction to absurdity if pursued far enough. ....>
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
Distinguishing Science and Pseudoscience
Rory Coker, Ph.D.

The word "pseudo" means fake. The surest way to spot a fake is to know as much as possible about the real thing -- in this case, about science itself. Knowing science does not mean simply knowing scientific facts (such as the distance from earth to sun, the age of the earth, the distinction between mammal and reptile, etc.) It means understanding the nature of science -- the criteria of evidence, the design of meaningful experiments, the weighing of possibilities, the testing of hypotheses, the establishment of theories, the many aspects of scientific methods that make it possible to draw reliable conclusions about the physical universe.

Because the media bombard us with nonsense, it is useful to consider the earmarks of pseudoscience. The presence of even one of these should arouse great suspicion. On the other hand, material displaying none of these flaws might still be pseudoscience, because its adherents invent new ways to fool themselves every day. Most of the examples in this article are related to my field of physics, but similar beliefs and behavior are associated with iridology, medical astrology, meridian therapy, reflexology, subluxation-based chiropractic, therapeutic touch, and other health-related pseudosciences.

Pseudoscience displays an indifference to facts.
Instead of bothering to consult reference works or investigating directly, its advocates simply spout bogus "facts" where needed. These fictions are often central to the pseudoscientist's argument and conclusions. Moreover, pseudoscientists rarely revise. The first edition of a pseudoscience book is almost always the last, even though the book remains in print for decades or even centuries. Even books with obvious mistakes, errors, and misprints on every page may be reprinted as is, over and over. Compare this to science textbooks that see a new edition every few years because of the rapid accumulation of new facts and insights.

Pseudoscience "research" is invariably sloppy.
Pseudoscientists clip newspaper reports, collect hearsay, cite other pseudoscience books, and pore over ancient religious or mythological works. They rarely or never make an independent investigation to check their sources.

Pseudoscience begins with a hypothesis -- usually one which is appealing emotionally,
and spectacularly implausible -- and then looks only for items which appear to support it.
Conflicting evidence is ignored. Generally speaking, the aim of pseudoscience is to rationalize strongly held beliefs, rather than to investigate or to test alternative possibilities. Pseudoscience specializes in jumping to "congenial conclusions," grinding ideological axes, appealing to preconceived ideas and to widespread misunderstandings.

Pseudoscience is indifferent to criteria of valid evidence.
The emphasis is not on meaningful, controlled, repeatable scientific experiments. Instead it is on unverifiable eyewitness testimony, stories and tall tales, hearsay, rumor, and dubious anecdotes. Genuine scientific literature is either ignored or misinterpreted.

Pseudoscience relies heavily on subjective validation.
Joe Blow puts jello on his head and his headache goes away. To pseudoscience, this means jello cures headaches. To science this means nothing, since no experiment was done. Many things were going on when Joe Blow's headache went away -- the moon was full, a bird flew overhead, the window was open, Joe had on his red shirt, etc. -- and his headache would have gone away eventually in any case, no matter what. A controlled experiment would put many people suffering from headaches in identical circumstances, except for the presence or absence of the remedy it is desired to test, and compare the results which would then have some chance of being meaningful. Many people think there must be something to astrology because a newspaper horoscope describes them perfectly. But close examination would reveal that the description is general enough to cover virtually everyone. This phenomenon, called subjective validation, is one of the foundations of popular support for pseudoscience.

Pseudoscience depends on arbitrary conventions of human
culture, rather than on unchanging regularities of nature.
For instance, the interpretations of astrology depend on the names of things, which are accidental and vary from culture to culture. If the ancients had given the name Mars to the planet we call Jupiter, and vice versa, astronomy could care less but astrology would be totally different, because it depends solely on the name and has nothing to do with the physical properties of the planet itself.

Pseudoscience always achieves a reduction to absurdity if pursued far enough.
Maybe dowsers can somehow sense the presence of water or minerals under a field, but almost all claim they can dowse equally well from a map! Maybe Uri Geller is "psychic," but are his powers really beamed to him on a radio link with a flying saucer from the planet Hoova, as he has claimed? Maybe plants are "psychic," but why does a bowl of mud respond in exactly the same way, in the same "experiment?"

Pseudoscience always avoids putting its claims to a meaningful test.
Pseudoscientists never carry out careful, methodical experiments themselves -- and they also generally ignore results of those carried out by scientists. Pseudoscientists also never follow up. If one pseudoscientist claims to have done an experiment (such as the "lost" biorhythm studies of Hermann Swoboda that are alleged basis of the modern pseudoscience of biorhythms), no other pseudoscientist ever tries to duplicate it or to check him, even when the original results are missing or questionable! Further, where a pseudoscientist claims to have done an experiment with a remarkable result, he himself never repeats it to check his results and procedures. This is in extreme contrast with science, where crucial experiments are repeated by scientists all over the world with ever-increasing precision.

Pseudoscience often contradicts itself, even in its own terms.
Such logical contradictions are simply ignored or rationalized away. Thus, we should not be surprised when Chapter 1
of a book on dowsing says that dowsers use newly cut twigs, because only "live" wood can channel and focus the "earth-radiation"
that makes dowsing possible, whereas Chapter 5 states that nearly all dowsers use metal or plastic rods.

Pseudoscience deliberately creates mystery where none
exists, by omitting crucial information and important details.
Anything can be made "mysterious" by omitting what is known about it or presenting completely imaginary details. The "Bermuda Triangle" books are classic examples of this tactic.

Pseudoscience does not progress.
There are fads, and a pseudoscientist may switch from one fad to another (from ghosts to ESP research, from flying saucers to psychic studies, from ESP research to looking for Bigfoot). But within a given topic, no progress is made. Little or no new information or uncovered. New theories are seldom proposed, and old concepts are rarely modified or discarded in light of new "discoveries," since pseudoscience rarely makes new "discoveries." The older the idea, the more respect it receives. No natural phenomena or processes previously unknown to science have ever been discovered by pseudoscientists. Indeed, pseudoscientists almost invariably deal with phenomena well known to scientists, but little known to the general public -- so that the public will swallow whatever the pseudoscientist wants to claim. Examples include firewalking and "Kirlian" photography.

Pseudoscience attempts to persuade with rhetoric, propaganda, and
misrepresentation rather than valid evidence (which presumably does not exist).
Pseudoscience books offer examples of almost every kind of fallacy of logic and reason known to scholars and have invented some new ones of their own. A favorite device is the non sequitur. Pseudoscientists also love the "Galileo Argument." This consists of the pseudoscientist comparing himself to Galileo, and saying that just as the pseudoscientist is believed to be wrong, so Galileo was thought wrong by his contemporaries therefore the pseudoscientist must be right too, just as Galileo was. Clearly the conclusion does not follow! Moreover, Galileo's ideas were tested, verified, and accepted promptly by his scientific colleagues. The rejection came from the established religion which favored the pseudoscience that Galileo's findings contradicted.

Pseudoscience argues from ignorance, an elementary fallacy.
Many pseudoscientists base their claims on incompleteness of information about nature, rather than on what is known at present. But no claim can possibly be supported by lack of information. The fact that people don't recognize what they see in the sky means only that they don't recognize what they saw. This fact is not evidence that flying saucers are from outer space. The statement "Science cannot explain" is common in pseudoscience literature. In many cases, science has no interest in the supposed phenomena because there is no evidence it exists; in other cases, the scientific explanation is well known and well established, but the pseudoscientist doesn't know this or deliberately ignores it to create mystery.

Pseudoscience argues from alleged exceptions, errors, anomalies, strange events,
and suspect claims -- rather than from well-established regularities of nature.
The experience of scientists over the past 400 years is that claims and reports that describe well-understood objects behaving in strange and incomprehensible ways tend to reduce upon investigation to deliberate frauds, honest mistakes, garbled accounts, misinterpretations, outright fabrications, and stupid blunders. It is not wise to accept such reports at face value, without checking them. Pseudoscientists always take such reports as literally true, without independent verification.

Pseudoscience appeals to false authority, to emotion,
sentiment, or distrust of established fact.
A high-school dropout is accepted as an expert on archaeology, though he has never made any study of it! A psychoanalyst is accepted as an expert on all of human history, not to mention physics, astronomy, and mythology, even though his claims are inconsistent with everything known in all four fields. A movie star swears it's true, so it must be. A physicist says a "psychic" couldn't possibly have fooled him with simple magic tricks, although the physicist knows nothing about magic and sleight of hand. Emotional appeals are common. ("If it makes you feel good, it must be true." "In your heart you know it's right.") Pseudoscientists are fond of imaginary conspiracies. ("There's plenty of evidence for flying saucers, but the government keeps it secret.") And they argue from irrelevancies: When confronted by inconvenient facts, they simply reply, "Scientists don't know everything!"

Pseudoscience makes extraordinary claims and advances fantastic
theories that contradict what is known about nature.
They not only provide no evidence that their claims are true. They also ignore all findings that contradict their conclusions. ("Flying saucers have to come from somewhere -- so the earth is hollow, and they come from inside." "This electric spark I'm making with this electrical apparatus is actually not a spark at all, but rather a supernatural manifestation of psycho-spiritual energy." "Every human is surrounded by an impalpable aura of electromagnetic energy, the auric egg of the ancient Hindu seers, which mirrors the human's every mood and condition.")

Pseudoscientists invent their own vocabulary in which many terms lack
precise or unambiguous definitions, and some have no definition at all.
Listeners are often forced to interpret the statements according to their own preconceptions. What, for for example, is "biocosmic energy?" Or a "psychotronic amplification system?" Pseudoscientists often attempt to imitate the jargon of scientific and technical fields by spouting gibberish that sounds scientific and technical. Quack "healers" would be lost without the term "energy," but their use of the term has nothing whatsoever to do with the concept of energy used by physicists.

Pseudoscience appeals to the truth-criteria of scientific
methodology while simultaneously denying their validity.
Thus, a procedurally invalid experiment which seems to show that astrology works is advanced as "proof" that astrology is correct, while thousands of procedurally sound experiments that show it does not work are ignored. The fact that someone got away with simple magic tricks in one scientific lab is "proof" that he is a psychic superman, while the fact that he was caught cheating in several other labs is ignored.

Pseudoscience claims that the phenomena it studies are "jealous."
The phenomena appear only under certain vaguely specified but vital conditions (such as when no doubters or skeptics are present; when no experts are present; when nobody is watching; when the "vibes" are right; or only once in human history.) Science holds that genuine phenomena must be capable of study by anyone with the proper equipment and that all procedurally valid studies must give consistent results. No genuine phenomenon is "jealous" in this way. There is no way to construct a TV set or a radio that will function only when no skeptics are present! A man who claims to be a concert-class violinist, but does not appear to have ever owned a violin and who refuses to play when anyone is around who might hear him, is most likely lying about his ability to play the violin.

Pseudoscientific "explanations" tend to be by scenario.
That is, we are told a story, but nothing else; we have no description of any possible physical process. For instance, former psychoanalyst Immanuel Velikovsky (1895-1979) claimed that another planet passing near the earth caused the earth's spin axis to flip upside down. This is all he said. He gave no mechanisms. But the mechanism is all-important, because the laws of physics rule out the process as impossible. That is, the approach of another planet cannot cause a planet's spin axis to flip. If Velikovsky had discovered some way that a planet could flip another's spin axis, he would presumably have described the mechanism by which it can happen. The bald statement itself, without the underlying mechanism, conveys no information at all. Velikovsky said that Venus was once a comet, and this comet was spewed out of a volcano on Jupiter. Since planets do not resemble comets (which are rock/ice snowball-like debris with connection whatsoever to volcanoes) and since Jupiter is not known to have volcanoes anyway (or even a solid surface!), no actual physical process could underlie Velikovsky's assertions. He gave us words, related to one another within a sentence, but the relationships were alien to the universe we actually live in, and he gave no explanation for how these could exist. He provided stories, not genuine theories.

Pseudoscientists often appeal to the ancient human habit of magical thinking.
Magic, sorcery, witchcraft -- these are based on spurious similarity, false analogy, false cause-and-effect connections, etc. That is, inexplicable influences and connections between things are assumed from the beginning -- not found by investigation. (If you step on a crack in the sidewalk without saying a magic word, your mother will crack a bone in her body; eating heart-shaped leaves is good for heart ailments; shining red light on the body increases blood production; rams are aggressive so someone born in the sign of the ram is aggressive; fish are "brain food" because the meat of the fish resembles brain tissue, etc.)

Pseudoscience relies heavily on anachronistic thinking.
The older the idea, the more attractive it is to pseudoscience -- it's the wisdom of the ancients! -- especially if the idea is transparently wrong and has long been discarded by science. Many journalists have trouble in comprehending this point. A typical reporter writing about astrology may think a thorough job can be done by interviewing six astrologers and one astronomer. The astronomer says it's all bunk; the six astrologers say it's great stuff and really works and for $50 they'll be glad to cast anyone's horoscope. (No doubt!) To many reporters, and apparently to many editors and their readers, this would confirm astrology six to one!

This table contrasts some of the characteristics of science and pseudoscience


Science Pseudoscience
Their findings are expressed primarily through scientific journals that are peer-reviewed and maintain rigorous standards for honesty and accuracy. The literature is aimed at the general public. There is no review, no standards, no pre-publication verification, no demand for accuracy and precision.
Reproducible results are demanded; experiments must be precisely described so that they can be duplicated exactly or improved upon. Results cannot be reproduced or verified. Studies, if any, are always so vaguely described that one can't figure out what was done or how it was done.
Failures are searched for and studied closely, because incorrect theories can often make correct predictions by accident, but no correct theory will make incorrect predictions. Failures are ignored, excused, hidden, lied about, discounted, explained away, rationalized, forgotten, avoided at all costs.
As time goes on, more and more is learned about the physical processes under study. No physical phenomena or processes are ever found or studied. No progress is made; nothing concrete is learned.
Convinces by appeal to the evidence, by arguments based upon logical and/or mathematical reasoning, by making the best case the data permit. When new evidence contradicts old ideas, they are abandoned. Convinces by appeal to faith and belief. Pseudoscience has a strong quasi-religious element: it tries to convert, not to convince. You are to believe in spite of the facts, not because of them. The original idea is never abandoned, whatever the evidence.
Does not advocate or market unproven practices or products. Generally earns some or all of his living by selling questionable products (such as books, courses, and dietary supplements) and/or pseudoscientific services (such as horoscopes, character readings, spirit messages, and predictions).


This table could be greatly expanded, because science and pseudoscience are precisely opposed ways of viewing nature. Science relies on -- and insists on -- self-questioning, testing and analytical thinking that make it hard to fool yourself or to avoid facing facts. Pseudoscience, on the other hand, preserves the ancient, natural, irrational, unobjective modes of thought that are hundreds of thousands of years older than science -- thought processes that have given rise to superstitions and other fanciful and mistaken ideas about man and nature -- from voodoo to racism; from the flat earth to the house-shaped universe with God in the attic, Satan in the cellar and man on the ground floor; from doing rain dances to torturing and brutalizing the mentally ill to drive out the demons that possess them. Pseudoscience encourages people to believe anything they want. It supplies specious "arguments" for fooling yourself into thinking that any and all beliefs are equally valid. Science begins by saying, let's forget about what we believe to be so, and try by investigation to find out what actually is so. These roads don't cross; they lead in completely opposite directions.

Some confusion on this point is caused by what we might call "crossover." "Science" is not an honorary badge you wear, it's an activity you do. Whenever you cease that activity, you cease being a scientist. A distressing amount of pseudoscience is generated by scientists who are well trained in one field but plunge into another field of which they are ignorant. A physicist who claims to have found a new principle of biology -- or a biologist who claims to have found a new principle of physics -- is almost invariably doing pseudoscience. And so are those who forge data, or suppresses data that clash with their preconceptions, or refuse to let others see their data for independent evaluation. Science is like a high peak of intellectual integrity, fairness, and rationality. The peak is slippery and smooth. It requires a tremendous effort to remain near it. Slacking of effort carries one away and into pseudoscience. Some pseudoscience is generated by individuals with a small amount of specialized scientific or technical training who are not professional scientists and do not comprehend the nature of the scientific enterprise -- yet think of themselves as "scientists."

One might wonder if there are not examples of "crossovers" in the other direction; that is people who have been thought by scientists to be doing pseudoscience, who eventually were accepted as doing valid science, and whose ideas were ultimately accepted by scientists. From what we have just outlined, one would expect this to happen extremely rarely, if ever. In fact, neither I nor any informed colleague I have ever asked about this, knows of any single case in which this has happened during the hundreds of years the full scientific method has been known to and used by scientists. There are many cases in which a scientist has been thought wrong by colleagues but later -- when new information comes in -- is shown to be correct. Like anyone else, scientists can get hunches that something is possible without having enough evidence to convince their associates that they are correct. Such people do not become pseudoscientists, unless they continue to maintain that their ideas are correct when contradictory evidence piles up. Being wrong or mistaken is unavoidable; we are all human, and we all commit errors and blunders. True scientists, however, are alert to the possibility of blunder and are quick to correct mistakes. Pseudoscientists do not. In fact, a short definition of pseudoscience is "a method for excusing, defending, and preserving errors."

Pseudoscience often strikes educated, rational people as too nonsensical and preposterous to be dangerous and as a source of amusement rather than fear. Unfortunately, this is not a wise attitude. Pseudoscience can be extremely dangerous.

Penetrating political systems, it justifies atrocities in the name of racial purity
Penetrating the educational system, it can drive out science and sensibility;
In the field of health, it dooms thousands to unnecessary death or suffering
Penetrating religion, it generates fanaticism, intolerance, and holy war
Penetrating the communications media, it can make it difficult for voters to obtain factual information on important public issues.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Holy **** how do you come up with this stuff...

---

^ Too much time on his hands. He is getting some attention which obviously produces some gratification even if most of the attention is negative. But he operates according to the principals of pseudo-science, the more blatantly ridiculous the idea the more persistent he becomes in defending it. Eventually this will end up with Afro Napolean and Afro Adolph Hitler. ....

---

^ Yes, but not before an Afro-Leopald and an Afro-Queen Victoria. ROTFL
 

---

Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
 
Whites are new to Europe there from the recent Migration Period. Their home (and the home of the two gentlemen posted directly above) is the Russian Steppes - not Europe.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
^ Ad nauseum fallacy -> repeating claims as if repetition were proof.


What is proven is that whites originated in Europe, and here is how, when and why....









 

---

Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
 
Again. Europe's white populations are established virtually from the period following the Early Medieval period. All the wishing in the world won't change that.

The red "J" shows African populations back to 500 BC with the Venus of Willendorf, African [11] dating to 27,000 years ago. African-made pottery fills the German Neolithic [7] and Bronze Age [3b]. Charlemagne had African councillers portrayed [6] and with a wide nose and, in any event, officiating over a population that had always been African, he is shown to be as well [1].



http://www.beforebc.de/all_europe/02-16-800-00-08.html
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
^ Childish Photochop fantasy.


Actual genetic evidence, for adults ->

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

What is proven is that whites originated in Europe, and here is how, when and why....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

What is proven is that whites originated in Europe, and here is how, when and why....








[/qb]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marc Washington:

Whites are new to Europe there from the recent Migration Period. Their home (and the home of the two gentlemen posted directly above) is the Russian Steppes - not Europe.

---

Eurasian steppes


Europe


^ Notice the Russian steppes which is the western part of the Eurasian steppes IS in Europe! LOL

"Psuedo-science contradicts itself."
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Still no answer for the discrepancy, I see Marc.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
^ It's also clear that R1b the most common haplotype in Western Europe emergies primarily from the Iberian glacial refugeum, and *not* from 'the steppes' within the historical era.

Repeating - the steppes - as a mantra ignores the biohistory of Europe. There were ice-ages, populations retreated into 3 specific shelters.... the genetic structure in Europe still reflect this historical reality.

This thread is another sobering lesson for those who think they can keep quoting outdated/distorted 19th century race constructs and ignoring genetics.

You're using wooden sticks against sub-machine guns.

Your [arguments] are already dead, you just don't know it, yet....


 

---

Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
 
Germanic invasions when they came and slaughtered. How many people here have Germanic ancestors? Here is the map showing where your ancestors were before coming to America.



The verb, "to vandalize" came from the Vandals. The vocabulary leaves evidence of what indigenous people suffered through. Indigenous people mostly murdered.
 

---

Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
 
"Ataulf, successor to Alaric as leader of the Visigoths, put the problem in these terms: I have found by experience that my Goths are too savage to pay obedience to law'. "


The Romans constantly had to defend themselves against raids or more massive attacks by the Germans on their eastern frontier. In AD 9 a Roman army of three legions (c.13,000) was caught in ambush and destroyed when on a punitive expedition against raiders. It had ventured beyond the Rhine into the German forests. After that disaster the Romans fell back to the Rhine. This frontier was then accepted as permanent and was strengthened. However, Germans continued to infiltrate in small war bands, and many found service with the Roman army. In the middle of the second century the Romans, because of increasing shortages of manpower for agriculture, for the trades, and for the army, began deliberately to recruit Germans as soldiers. This led to a gradual Germanization of the army and eventually even to a preponderance of the German element in the officer ranks, including commanding generals. Whole colonies of Germans were given land to settle on under ''guest rights'' in Roman law.

These peoples did not assimilate into the Romanized population of Gaul or the outer provinces where they settled. In 376 occurred the first mass invasion of Germans into Roman territory. Terror-stricken by a sudden attack of the Huns, the Visigoths had petitioned the emperor to let them cross the Danube and settle under Roman protection. He granted them ''asylum.'' Inevitably conflicts arose between these refugees and the local inhabitants and Roman imperial officials who supervised their settlements. The Visigoths revolted, defeated a hastily collected imperial army, and even killed the emperor.

The Germanic victory was a signal for a general movement of Germans from east to west. They settled mainly in the western provinces of the Empire. The routes of their incursions into western Europe have been traced. The Visigoths moved on into Italy, then in the century after the death of their leader Alaric (410), through southern France into Spain, where they established a Visigothic kingdom. The Franks, beginning in the fourth century, moved at a slower pace across the Rhine and down into the area of modern France. The Vandals, in less than two generations, fought their way across France, then down through Spain and across the Strait of Gibraltar, from west to east across northern Africa, and then back across the Mediterranean to attack Rome from the south (409- 455) . Everywhere they left behind them the kind of destruction that has immortalized their name.

Angles, Saxons, and Jutes settled in Britain, pushing the Celtic inhabitants into the rugged mountainous areas of the west and northwest (450 550) . The Roman legions had been withdrawn from Britain early in the fifth century, and the Roman commander of the imperial army in Gaul was deaf to the pleas of the Britons for help against the invaders.

Burgundians descended from the upper Rhine valley into the area east of the Rhone River in the latter half of the fifth century. Ostrogoths established a strong kingdom in Italy after Odoacer, an Ostrogothic chieftain, in 476 had deposed Romulus Augustulus, a twelve-year-old boy and the last Roman emperor in the west, who was living in retreat from Rome at Ravenna. Finally, the Lombards, the most savage of the invaders, attacked and occupied northern Italy in the latter part of the sixth century. This takeover of the west by the Germans had been briefly interrupted in the middle of the fifth century by a breakthrough of the Huns under their ablest king, Attila. They burst across the Rhine into northern Gaul and were only turned back with difficulty in a fierce battle near Chalons (451) by an army that was made up largely of Visigoths but commanded by a Roman general.

The German success in taking over the western Roman Empire would have been impossible if Roman institutions had not been disintegrating from within. The Germans by their onslaught completed the destruction of the Empire, although their intent was not necessarily to destroy. Some of their leaders appreciated the grandeur of Roman political institutions and would have preferred to preserve rather than destroy them. Ataulf, successor to Alaric as leader of the Visigoths, put the problem in these terms:

I have found by experience that my Goths are too savage to pay obedience to law', but I have also found that without laws a State is never a State; and so I have chosen the glory of seeking to restore and to increase by Gothic strength the name of Rome. Wherefore I avoid war and strive for peace. In the same spirit, Theodoric the Great, Ostrogothic king of Italy (496-526) , attempted to enforce a policy of religious toleration and of civilitas, that is, of the civic virtue of the citizen, on which Rome's political strength had rested. But the Germans were not city dwellers and understood little or nothing of Roman civil government. Roman cities and the spirit behind the words ''citizen'' and ''civilization'' had already fallen into decay before the mass migrations of the Germans began. The ''barbarians.' completed the destruction by taking over the land and bypassing or destroying the cities. The terror that they inspired as they overran the countryside was expressed by a fifth-century poet as follows:

In village, villa, cross-roads, district, field down every roadway, and at every turning, death, grief, destruction, arson are revealed. In one great conflagration Gaul is burning. Why tell the deathroll of a falling world which goes the accustomed way of endless fear? Why count how many unto death are hurled when you may see your own day hurrying near?

German society was tribal and rural rather than urban. It is difficult to obtain an understanding of a people so important in the history of the West, for there are relatively few sources about their early history and culture. They '.originated'' in the area around the Baltic Sea. Their home before they reached the Baltic area is nor known. The main Roman sources for their culture are Julius Caesar, writing about 55 BC, and Tacitus, writing about 100 AD.

To learn about their society one must turn to epic poems like Boewolf, written down several centuries after its original composition, the laws and customs gathered and written down by German rulers after contact with Roman administrators and Roman Christian clergy, and a few narrative histories written long years, even centuries, after the events they relate-for example, Bede's history of the victory of Christianity in Britain or Gregory of Tours: History of the Franks. There was a wide diversity in German customs and a wide range in the degree of Romanization depending on the proximity to Rome and the extent of the exposure to the Roman world. Some Germans were still nomadic or semi-nomadic and depended mainly on bunting and war for their living. Others, such as the inhabitants of the Rhine valley, bad a settled agriculture that was technically not very different from that of their Roman neighbors.

German political organization was simple compared to the state organization of the Roman Empire. The folk, or group of related tribes, was led by a king chosen from a royal family. His ''election'' depended on his ability to lead in war and to command loyalty from the nobility. He ruled people rather than land, and it was only gradually, as the Germans settled down, that government became at all territorialized. The Germans did not understand taxation in the Roman sense. Their kings supported their households and armies from plunder and from lands won from their enemies. They kept for their own use ''gifts'' contributed by their followers. As kings, they reciprocated with ''rings,'' feasts, and other gifts exemplifying their generosity and wealth. Their followers owed them nothing. In fact the freeborn German owed nothing to anyone except what he chose to give.

Kings were assisted in their task of leadership by tribal leaders from noble families, probably also chosen for leadership and lordship. According to Tacitus, German folk groups, or ''nations,.' held periodic assemblies to consider such matters as peace and war. Evidently these assemblies, like the assemblies of the Greeks encamped before Troy, consisted of the fighting men only, and the men of noble rank dominated the proceedings.

Tacitus speaks of magistrates ''who administer law in the cantons and the towns.'. This probably applies only to those Germans who had established fairly permanent settlements. Justice among the Germans consisted in enforcing through popular courts the law and custom of the tribe. Until contact with the Romans, the law and custom was carried in the minds of the freemen participating in the courts, and its application to individual cases was decided by them under the presidency of the magistrate. From a study of Germanic codes written down after German settlement within the Empire, certain principles emerge. No distinction was made between criminal and civil matters. The law was mainly concerned with the enforcement of the individual's ''peace,'' from the king down to the lowest freeman.

Individuals, of whatever rank (except for slaves) , were entitled to compensation for attacks on themselves, their families, their guests, or their slaves within their houses and environs. The amount to be paid for the breach of a man's peace depended on his rank in society. The master of a slave must be compensated for an attack on his slave. Injuries, including murder, could be paid for under an elaborate tariff of compensations: so much for a nose, so much for an eye, for a right thumb, for a big toe, and so forth; so much for a free Frank, for a Frank ''in the service of the king,'' for a Roman '.who eats in the king's palace,'' for a tribute-paying Roman. Money compensation for murder was called wergeld, the money worth of a man, and it obviously varied according to the man's rank in society.

Despite efforts of kings and chieftains to enforce the principle of compensation, the older blood feud and lex talionis (eye for eye, tooth for tooth) persisted. Theft and robbery, as well as personal injury, were subject to compensation-so much for a stud boar, so much for a breed sow, so much for a suckling pig. Cattle, sheep, and pigs were important in Germanic society; values were expressed in terms of them, and elaborate arrangements were provided for recovery of stolen cattle.

The law was personal, territorial. That is, a man accused had to prove his innocence according to the law of his particular folk, not, like the Roman citizen, according to a law of the land applying equally to all ''citizens.'' Bishop Agobard of Lyons, writing about 850, stated that very often when five people met in a case for judgment, each followed a different law'

The first stage in Germanic legal proceedings was accusation by a plaintiff. Defendants were expected to deny the accusation under oath and to support their oaths with a specified number of oath-helpers, depending on their rank. An ordinary freeman needed twelve; a king or a bishop needed none. Those who could not produce oath-helpers, either because they were untrustworthy or were strangers among the people where the injury occurred, had to submit to trial. The popular, or volk, court decided whether there should be a trial and, if trial was to be held, what method of trial was to used. The commonest methods were ordeals: the hot-water, the hot-rod, and the cold-water ordeals.

In the first, the accused was expected to plunge his arm to a specified depth into boiling water to pick up an object at the bottom. Afterward, his hand and arm were sealed in a bandage. If, after three days, his would showed signs of suppuration, he was guilty; otherwise he was not guilty. The ordeal of the hot iron was a variation. In trial by the cold-water ordeal, the accused was trussed up with a rope, knees to chest, and thrown into a pond. If he sank, he was innocent and was pulled out and revived (one hopes) . If he floated, he was thought to be in league with the devil and, therefore, guilty. In these methods of trial. resort was to divine judgment. God, it was assumed, would save the innocent and let the guilty perish' The Christian priesthood, who presided over these trials until they were forbidden to do so by the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 probably exercised some degree of personal judgment that mitigated the rigor of the ordeals for the innocent.

A common method of trial among northern people (although for unknown reasons, not among the Anglo-Saxons) was trial by battle. Here an elaborate set of rules prevailed. Combat was with wooden cudgels, and that party won who first drew blood from his opponent.s head. Priests, children, and women were permitted to choose champions to represent them. The most popular trials for women in medieval Europe were trial by cold water for commoners and trial by battle of champions for aristocratic women. This may have been a little hard on women of the lower orders. Women float better than men, and men often think that women are permanently in league with the devil!!!

The virtues most valued among the Germans were evidently courage, loyalty, and leadership, and the vices most severely punished were cowardice and treachery. A man's honor, that is, his reputation for bravery and loyalty, were his most important possessions. Unwarranted attacks on his honor, such as calling him a .'fox'' or his wife a ''harlot,'' entailed heavy penalties. The free fighting man among the Germans was an only partially tamed savage, and he was very much an individual. He had no civic virtues.

http://mars.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/wc1/lectures/15tribes.html
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Yes but nowhere on your map does not show the Vandals and other Germanic tribes originating from "the steppes". The Germanic tribes are indigenous to Europe also! And those indigenous people they terrorized and murdered were also white. LOL

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

It's also clear that R1b the most common haplotype in Western Europe emergies primarily from the Iberian glacial refugeum, and *not* from 'the steppes' within the historical era.

Repeating - the steppes - as a mantra ignores the biohistory of Europe. There were ice-ages, populations retreated into 3 specific shelters.... the genetic structure in Europe still reflect this historical reality.

This thread is another sobering lesson for those who think they can keep quoting outdated/distorted 19th century race constructs and ignoring genetics.

You're using wooden sticks against sub-machine guns.

Your [arguments] are already dead, you just don't know it, yet....

---

 

---

Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
 


http://www.beforebc.de/all_europe/05-09-10.html
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Man, please do not corrupt that scientific map of early European genepools with your pseudo-historical nonsense!
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
This thread is another perfect example of scientifically illiterate people like Xyyman who does not know about the simple concept of micro-evolution. I won't even address Marc, because that guy is beyond any reasoning and is stuck in a psychotic delusional fantasy.

Now, I'm sure Xyyman knows about the biological concept of evolution or at least heard of it. The problem is that they have no clue that evolution goes on all the time and has gone on among the human species.

When most folks think of evolution, they think of macro-evolution which is evolution on a grand scale like speciation which is the development of new species. What they fail to understand is that macro-evolution is the result of multiple occurances of micro-evolution which is evolution in a small scale, or biological changes that occur among populations. A perfect example of that is skin color among humans. We have genetic evidence that not only verifies that *all* humans were originally black since they originated in sub-saharan Africa, but that some populations became lighter as they left the tropics and into less sunny climates. There are also other changes such as from tropical adopted bodies to more cold adapted bodies like you see among the Inuit (Eskimo) peoples.

The science is out there people. And it is up to you to go out there and educate yourselves on the subject and not simply refuse the material out of ignorance.
 

---

Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
 
As my map above establishes, the ancient lineages of Europe are African and whites of today's Europe of recent Indo-European / Germanic origins that displaced historic African populations.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marc Washington:


http://www.beforebc.de/all_europe/05-09-10.html

---

quote:

---

The science is out there people. And it is up to you to go out there and educate yourselves on the subject and not simply refuse the material out of ignorance.

---

• Dravidian Hurrian
  
  a a
  
  -kku -ikka
  
  imbu impu

• English Hurrian Dravidian
  
  mountain paba parampu
  
  lady,woman aallay ali
  
  King Sarr,zarr Ca, cira
  
  god en en
  
  give tan tara
  
  to rule irn ire
  
  father attai attan
  
  wife,woman asti atti

• Hurrian Sanskrit
  
  Mi-it-va Mitra
  
  Aru-na Varuna
  
  In-da-ra Indra
  
  Na-sa-at-tiya Nasatya

• English Hurrian Sanskrit Tamil
  
  One aika eke okka `together'
  
  Three tera tri
  
  Five panza panca añcu
  
  Seven satta sapta
  
  Nine na nava onpatu

• Enlglish Hurrian I-A Tamil
  
  Brown babru babhru pukar
  
  Grey parita palita paraitu `old'
  
  Reddish pinkara pingala puuval
  
  
  
  English Mitanni Vedic Tamil
  
  Warrior marya marya makan, maravan

quote:

---

As my map above establishes, the ancient lineages of Europe are African and whites of today's Europe of recent Indo-European / Germanic origins that displaced historic African populations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
^ It's also clear that R1b the most common haplotype in Western Europe emergies primarily from the Iberian glacial refugeum, and *not* from 'the steppes' within the historical era.

Repeating - the steppes - as a mantra ignores the biohistory of Europe. There were ice-ages, populations retreated into 3 specific shelters.... the genetic structure in Europe still reflect this historical reality.

This thread is another sobering lesson for those who think they can keep quoting outdated/distorted 19th century race constructs and ignoring genetics.

You're using wooden sticks against sub-machine guns.

Your [arguments] are already dead, you just don't know it, yet....

---

^ PS -> I don't mind that you try to distort genetics now that you've been *forced* to address it's devastating evidentiary power.

You have no chance of doing so, especially since you don't understand how the haplotypes are related or denoted.

So by all means, continue to discuss genetics.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
Djehuti

quote:

---

When most folks think of evolution, they think of macro-evolution which is evolution on a grand scale like speciation which is the development of new species. What they fail to understand is that macro-evolution is the result of multiple occurances of micro-evolution which is evolution in a small scale, or biological changes that occur among populations. A perfect example of that is skin color among humans. We have genetic evidence that not only verifies that *all* humans were originally black since they originated in sub-saharan Africa, but that some populations became lighter as they left the tropics and into less sunny climates. There are also other changes such as from tropical adopted bodies to more cold adapted bodies like you see among the Inuit (Eskimo) peoples.

---

This is bull****. We don't really know how skin color originated. The Eskimos have lived in an Artic environment for thousands of years and yet they remain dark. If environment causes skin color why are the Eskimos still dark.

Eskimo




European


 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marc Washington:


http://www.beforebc.de/all_europe/05-09-10.html

---

Djehuti

quote:

---

The science is out there people. And it is up to you to go out there and educate yourselves on the subject and not simply refuse the material out of ignorance.

---

You are wrong. Marc is doing what any good researcher would do . Yes, the evidence is out there he is just making an independent interpretation of the evidence.

The archaeological evidence and skeletal record make it clear that Blacks entered Europe numerous times and Indo-European speakers or Kurgan folk entered the area only recently. The fact that the first carriers of many genes common to Europeans are found in Cameroon make it obvious that Europeans only acquired these genes recently through intermarriage etc., with recent Africans--not the ancient Blacks who lived in this area who carried haplogroups N and are associated with the CroMagnon people of 40,000-28,000BC. Another group entered Europe via the Levant between 20,000-18,000 BC who probably carried haplogroup M and were associated with Ethiopian speakers or Natufians according to most researchers.


Recent genetic research indicates that the
contemporary Europeans are not related to the ancient
Europeans.
quote:


Science 11 November 2005:
Vol. 310. no. 5750, pp. 1016 - 1018
DOI: 10.1126/science.1118725 Prev | Table of Contents
| Next

REPORTS
Ancient DNA from the First European Farmers in
7500-Year-Old Neolithic Sites
Wolfgang Haak,1* Peter Forster,2 Barbara Bramanti,1
Shuichi Matsumura,2 Guido Brandt,1 Marc Tänzer,1
Richard Villems,3 Colin Renfrew,2 Detlef Gronenborn,4
Kurt Werner Alt,1 Joachim Burger1
The ancestry of modern Europeans is a subject of
debate among geneticists, archaeologists, and
anthropologists. A crucial question is the extent to
which Europeans are descended from the first European
farmers in the Neolithic Age 7500 years ago or from
Paleolithic hunter-gatherers who were present in
Europe since 40,000 years ago. Here we present an
analysis of ancient DNA from early European farmers.
We successfully extracted and sequenced intact
stretches of maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA
(mtDNA) from 24 out of 57 Neolithic skeletons from
various locations in Germany, Austria, and Hungary. We
found that 25% of the Neolithic farmers had one
characteristic mtDNA type and that this type formerly
was widespread among Neolithic farmers in Central
Europe. Europeans today have a 150-times lower
frequency (0.2%) of this mtDNA type, revealing that
these first Neolithic farmers did not have a strong
genetic influence on modern European female lineages.
Our finding lends weight to a proposed Paleolithic
ancestry for modern Europeans.

This DNA found in the ancient Europeans was N1(a).

It seems to me that we may be asking the wrong
question. Instead of trying to explain why the Old
Europeans were not Indo-European speakers, or
contemporary Europeans, we should be asking the
question who these Old Europeans were. It appears to
me that they may have been Africans.

This is based on the reality that the haplogroup N1(a)
is common to Senegambians, modern Ethiopians and the
Dravidian speaking people of India (Richards et al,
2005; Toomas et al, 2004). The Old Europeans may be
related to African cattle raising farming groups,
originally from Africa and the Middle East who may
have planted the seeds of agriculture in ancient
Europe, especially descendants of the Natufians.


Many Researchers see Africans spreading into Europe in
ancient times. Brace et al (2006) recognized
Sub-Saharan Africans as associates of the Nufian
farmers that introduced farming to Europe.


Chris Stringer and Robin McKie wrote:

"Nor does the picture get any clearer when we move on
to the Cro-Magnons, the presumed ancestors of modern
Europeans. Some looked more like present-day
Australians or Africans, judged by OBJECTIVE
anatomical categorizations, as is the case with some
early modern skulls from the Upper Cave at Zhoukoudian
in China."

Africa in a sense kept pumping out migrations and
dispersals of people and this included people like the
Neanderthals who, equally, it doesn't seem were our
ancestors.

CL Brace (2006)–
“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.”


The main problem with Brace et al’s attempt to make
the Late Pleistocene inhabitants of Europe =
contemporary Europeans is that these people were
Negroes or Blacks.


There have been numerous "Negroid skeletons" found in
Europe. 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.


Trenton W. Holliday, tested the hypothesis that if
modern Africans had dispersed into the Levant from
Africa, "tropically adapted hominids" would be
represented in the archaeological history of the
Levant, especially in relation to the Qafzeh-Skhul
hominids.
This researcher found that the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids
(20,000-10,000),were assigned to the Sub-Saharan
population, along with the Natufians samples (4000
BP). Holliday also found African fauna in the area.

Keita notes that:
quote:


"Epipaleolithic "mesolithic" Nile Valley remains have
these characteristics and diverge notably from their
Maghreban and European counterparts in key
cranio-facial characteristics (see comments in Keita
1990) although late Natufian hunters and early
Anatolian farmers (Angel 1972) shared some of these
traits, suggesting late Paleolithic migration out of
Africa, as supported by archeology **(Bar Yosef
1987)**. - Keita, 1993.

Holliday confirmed his hypothesis that the replacement
of the Neanderthal people were Sub-Saharan Africans.
The founders of civilization in South West Asia
were the people, archaeologists call Natufians. By
13,000 BC, according to J.D. Clark (1977) the
Natufians were collecting grasses which later became
domesticated crops in Southwest Asia. In Palestine the
Natufians established intensive grass collection. The
Natufians used the Ibero-Maurusian tool industry
(Wendorf, 1968). These Natufians , according to
Christopher Ehret Natufians were small stature folk
who spread agriculture throughout Nubia into the Red
Sea. The Natufians took the Ibero-Maurusian tools into
Europe, North Africa and the Middle East.

Some researchers believe that Natufian, or some
related population took the E3b alpha cluster to
Europe.

The Proto-Magyar were one of the many ethnic groups
which formerly lived in the Fertile African Crescent.
They offered prayers to *kan, e.g., Magyar kan,
konyorog, Manding kani, and Dravidian ka-n. They also
worshipped the god Amon, who they called Anya
(Winters, 1986).

The name Maa is found in many Proto-Saharan ethnonyms.
For example the Manding called themselves Ma-nde (the
children of Ma), the Sumerians called themselves
Mah-Gar-ri (exalted God's children), and the Magyar of
ancient times referred to themselves as Muh-ger-ri ,
or Ma-ka-r (exalted children) (Winters,1986).

According to David MacRitchies the most ancient Uralic
speakers were called czernii ugris or 'Black Ugris'.
The Ugris were also called Hunni. The name Ugrian, is
the origin for the word Hungarian. The Hungarians were
also called Sabatocospali ,"the Blacks".

The Carpathian blacks arrived in the area in the 4th
millennium B.C. The Tripolye culture dates from 3800
to 2100 B.C. The Tripolye culture was established in
the Ukraine, Moldavia and Romania along the Siret
River in the Ukraine.
The Tripolye people may have collected/cultivated
barley, millet and wheat. They also had domesticated
cattle, sheep-goats and pigs. As in Africa, their
principle domesticate at this time was cattle .

During the middle Neolithic copper was being exploited
in several mountainous regions of Europe. The center
for copper mining in Europe was the Carpathian
mountains. Many copper objects have been found on
Tripolyean sites .

Many animal and human figurines have been found on
Tripolyean sites. The Tripolye rotund ceramic female
figurines are analogous to the rotund female figurines
found in ancient Nubia.

It appears that for over a millennium the Linear
Pottery and Cris farming groups practiced agriculture
in the core region of Tripolyean culture. The middle
Neolithic Tripolye people on the other hand are
associated with cattle herding and mining.

The Vinca Tordos culture is very interesting because
of the evidence of writing found in this culture. The
famous Tartaria tablets were produced by the Vinca
Tordos culture. The Vinca Tordos culture is associated
with western Bulgaria, southwest Romania and
Yugoslavia.

The Vinca people in addition to possessing writing
were also engaged in copper metallurgy. They also made
clay and stone figurines and fine pottery. As among
the contemporary Nubians and Tripolyeans culture the
Vinca people made fine human and animal figurines .

This means that the original Africans carrying halogroups R1 and K had to have entered the area much later during the Neolithic sometime after 8kya. I would speculate that these Africans were the archaeological group called the Old European
who have left us many works of art like the stick people that acknowledge their African origin.

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 BC 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-agriculture distances (OOA) cannot reduce the partial correlations remaining after geography has been held constant."

The genetic evidence supporting the absence of an Indo-European origin in the Anatolian region is supported by the historical and archaeological evidence. The north and east of Anatolia was inhabited by non-Indo-European speakers.

It appears that Indo-Europeans did not enter Anatolia until sometime between 2000 -1800 BC At this time we note the appearance of Indo-European (Hittite) names in the literary records of the Old Kingdom of Hatti, a Kushite people. And at least as late as 1900 BC Anatolia was basically still Hattian (i.e., occupied by mainly by Blacks).

An important group in Anantolia in addition to the Hatti, were the Hurrians. The Hurrians enter Mesopotamia from the northeastern hilly area[1]. They introduced horse-drawn war chariots to Mesopotamia[2].

Hurrians penetrate Mesopotamia and Syria-Palestine between 1700-1500 BC. The major Hurrian Kingdom was Mitanni, which was founded by Sudarna I (c.1550), was established at Washukanni on the Khabur River. The Hurrian capital was Urkesh, one of its earliest kings was called Tupkish.

Linguistic and historical evidence support the view that Dravidians influenced Mittanni and Lycia. (Winters 1989a) Alain Anselin is sure that Dravidian speaking peoples once inhabited the Aegean. For example Anselin (1982, pp.111-114) has discussed many Dravidian place names found in the Aegean Sea area.

Two major groups in ancient Anatolia were the Hurrians and Lycians. Although the Hurrians are considered to be Indo-European speakers, some Hurrians probably spoke a Dravidian language.

The Hurrians lived in Mittanni. Mittanni was situated on the great bend of the Upper Euphrates river. Hurrian was spoken in eastern Anatolia and North Syria.

Most of what we know about Hurrian comes from the Tel al-Armarna letters. These letters were written to the Egyptian pharaoh. These letters are important because they were written in a language different from diplomatic Babylonian.

The letters written in the unknown language were numbered 22 and 25. In 1909 Bork, in Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatische Gesellschaft, wrote a translation of the letters.

In 1930, G.W. Brown proposed that the words in letters 22 and 25 were Dravidian especially Tamil. Brown (1930), has shown that the vowels and consonants of Hurrian and Dravidian are analogous. In support of this theory Brown (1930) noted the following similarities between Dravidian and Hurrian: 1) presence of a fullness of forms employed by both languages; 2) presence of active and passive verbal forms are not distinguished; 3) presence of verbal forms that are formed by particles; 4) presence of true relative pronouns is not found in these languages; 5) both languages employ negative verbal forms; 6) identical use of -m, as nominative; 7) similar pronouns; and 8) similar ending formations:

• Dravidian Hurrian
  
  a a
  
  -kku -ikka
  
  imbu impu

There are analogous Dravidian and Hurrian terms:

• English Hurrian Dravidian
  
  mountain paba parampu
  
  lady,woman aallay ali
  
  King Sarr,zarr Ca, cira
  
  god en en
  
  give tan tara
  
  to rule irn ire
  
  father attai attan
  
  wife,woman asti atti

Many researchers have noted the presence of many Indo-Aryan words in Hurrians. This has led some researchers to conclude that Indo –Europeans may have ruled the Hurrians. This results from the fact that the names of the Hurrian gods are similar to the Aryan gods:

• Hurrian Sanskrit
  
  Mi-it-va Mitra
  
  Aru-na Varuna
  
  In-da-ra Indra
  
  Na-sa-at-tiya Nasatya

There are other Hurrian and Sanskrit terms that appear to show a relationship:

• English Hurrian Sanskrit Tamil
  
  One aika eke okka `together'
  
  Three tera tri
  
  Five panza panca añcu
  
  Seven satta sapta
  
  Nine na nava onpatu

Other Hurrian terms relate to Indo-Aryan:

• Enlglish Hurrian I-A Tamil
  
  Brown babru babhru pukar
  
  Grey parita palita paraitu `old'
  
  Reddish pinkara pingala puuval
  
  
  
  English Mitanni Vedic Tamil
  
  Warrior marya marya makan, maravan

Although researchers believe that the Hurrians-Mitanni were dominated by Indo-Aryans this is not supported by the evidence. Bjarte Kaldhol found that only 5 out of 500 Hurrian names were I-A sounding[3].

The linguistic evidence discussed above is consistent with the view that the only Indian elements in Anatolian culture were of Dravidian ,rather than Indo-Aryan origin. This evidence from Mittanni adds further confirmation to the findings of N. Lahovary in Dravidian Origins and the West, that prove the earlier presence of Dravidian speakers in Anatolia.

But none of the Hurrian terms are related to Kurdish.

Origin Indo-European Speakers

The usual method of Indo-European and Chinese invasion was two-fold. First, they settle in a country in small groups and were partly assimilated.

Over a period of time their numbers increased. Once they reach a numerical majority they joined forces with other Indo-European speaking groups to militarily overthrow the original inhabitants in a specific area and take political power. Since these communities occupied by the blacks often saw themselves as residents of a city-state, they would ignored the defeat of their neighbors. This typified their second form of invasion of the countries formerly ruled by the Proto-Saharans/ Kushites/Blacks.

Blacks have failed even today to recognize that even though whites are highly nationalistic and engaged in numerous fratricidal wars, they will unify temporarily to defeat non-European people. As a result in case where the Blacks have been politically organized into states or Empires, rather than isolated city-states, the large political units have lasted for hundreds of years as typified by ancient Egypt, Axum, Mali and ancient Ghana.

D'iakonov on the other hand, believes that the Indo-Europeans (I-E) homeland was the Balkan-Carpathian region. He has shown that the culture terms of the I-E group indicate that they made their way across forest-steppe and deciduous forest zones to settle other parts of the world. This view is highly probable.

The view that these people were farmers seem unlikely, since the ideal farming areas in Europe were already settled by the Black people carrying haplogroups N, M, K and R1. Instead of being farmers the I-E people were originally nomads.

The steppes could not have been the homeland of the Indo-Europeans because it was heavily occupied by the Proto-Saharan people who entered Europe after 3000BC and remained the dominant people in the area until after 1300 B.C.

In support of an early presence of Indo-European speakers on the steppes many scholars maintain that the Andronovo cultures and wheeled vehicles are markers of Indo-European "High" culture.

But this theory has been proven to be unsupportable by the archeological and linguistic data. The civilizations and economy that characterized "Old Europeans" are foreign to the Indo-European culture portrayed in the Indo-Aryan literature.

As outlined above the I-E speakers learned much about horsemenship from the Mitanni. Many scholars use the chariot and horsemanship as an ethnic marker for the Indo-Europeans. But it can not be proven that the horse drawn chariot was an exclusive Indo-European marker. Wheeled vehicles were used in Mesopotamia and the Indus Valley before the 3rd millennium. The presence of pre-Dynasty and early Dynasty wheeled toy animals from Egypt and elsewhere support the view that the wheel was a well known technology to the Kushites before the expansion of the Indo Europeans.

This view is further supported by the fact that the IE roots for "wheel" number four. Use of a number of terms to signify the "wheel" illustrates that this technological innovation must have come from elsewhere and was later adopted by the Proto-Indo-Europeans after there dispersal.

The horse can not be a marker for the Indo-European dispersal either. It would appear that in the steppes, the horse was not intensively used until the Iron age. V.M. Masson believes that horse domestication and riding developed in the 1st millennium BC, on the steppes.

The early I-E were Kurgan nomadic warriors. Kurgan is a name used by archaeologist for the early Europeans.The term I-E does not refer to a racial type, because many of the ancient I-E speakers may have been black , given the fact that among the depictions of the People of the Sea on Egyptian monuments their are African people. But today the only I-E people we have are Caucasian.

The Iranian and Indian speaking people belong to the Indo-Aryan group which is not closely related to the I-E.

Evolving in the Caucasus mountains, the Kurgan folk were pastoralist. They herded cattle, pigs and sheep.

The original whites or Kurgan people were a very destructive people. They destroyed vast regions of forest across Europe. By the Fourth millennium BC, wide tracts of forests were gone in Europe. Upon their encounter with civilized Africoid communities, the latter were enslaved while the Kurgans adopted their culture. The Kurgan warriors used these slaves to grow grain.

The Indo-Europeans remained an insignificant group until they learned the art of metal working from the Hittites of Asia Minor. This along with natural disasters that took place around the world after 1600 BC, helped the Kurgans to infiltrate civilized areas in the Aegean and Indus Valley.

The Kurgan people are also known as the Battle Axe/ Corded Ware Folk. By the Third millennium BC, the Kurgan were breeding horses and organized themselves into militarized chiefdoms. The symbol of the warrior class was the horned helmet common to the Sea Folk and later Vikings. Their common weapon was the double axe.

The Kurgan folk in small numbers slowly migrated into the centers of civilization, first in northern Mesopotamia, then India. By 3500 BC, the Kurgans were invading the Caucasus region. Beginning in 3700 B.C., Old European settlements had walls built around them to keep out the Kurgan warriors.

These early I-E people practiced human sacrifice. At the death of a man his wife was often killed and buried with him.

The Kurgan people mixed with the indigenous Africoid people. Some of them were made slaves by the warrior elites. If black communities were more powerful than the Kurgans, they formed an alliance between themselves and conquered weaker groups. Once the Kurgan tribe became stronger it would knock off its former ally.

No matter how you may want to get other forum members to ignore Marc's work his posters are compelling and put the lie to your comments. The research supporting an extra European origin for whites can not be ignored.


In conclusion the archaeological evidence suggest that The Old Europeans may have been Blacks who carried the N1 lineage to Europe that were later replaced by Indo-European speaking populations. There were probably no ancient white foragers of farmers in ancient Europe.

Years of research on the origin of the Indo-European speakers place there origin outside western Europe. Genetics can not change this history which is also supported by the ostelogical and iconographic evidence Marc has presented throughout this thread.

For once, Stop being jealous of Marc and try to learn something.

References:


[1] Timothy Potts, Mesopotamia and the East. Oxford Unversity Committee for Archaeology. Monograph 37.

[2] H.W.F. Sagy, Peoples of the Past: Babylonians. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1995.

[3] A. Gupta, How old is the Rig Veda (Part2). Retrieved: 14 January 2004
http://www.sawf.org/newedit/edi40205200/musings.asp.


Balter M. 2005. Ancient DNA yields clues to the puzzle
of European origins. Science 310:964-965. Full text
(subscription)

Clark, J.D. (1977).The origins of domestication in
Ethiopia", Fifth Panafrican Congress of prehistory and
quaternary Studies, Nairobi.

Haak W et al. 2005. Ancient DNA from the first
European farmers in 7500-year-old Neolithic sites.
Science 310:1016-1018. Full text (subscription)

Holiday, T. (2000). Evolution at the Crossroads:
Modern Human Emergence in Western Asia, American
Anthropologist,102(1) .

Mountain JL, Hebert JM, Bhattacharyya S, Underhill PA,
Ottolenghi C, Gadgil M,

Cavalli-Sforza LL (1995) Demographic history of India
and mtDNA-sequence
diversity. Am J Hum Genet 56:979–992 [PubMed].

Christopher Ehret,C. (1979).On the antiquity of
agriculture in Ethiopia", Jour.
of African History 20, p.161.

Richards M. 2003. The Neolithic invasion of Europe.
Annu Rev Anthropol 32:135-162. Full text

Richards M, Macaulay V, Hickey E, Vega E, Sykes B,
Guida V, Rengo C, et al (2000) Tracing European
founder lineages in the Near Eastern mtDNA pool. Am J
Hum Genet 67:1251–1276 [PubMed] [Free Full Text].

Richards M, Rengo C, Cruciani F, Gratrix F, Wilson JF,
Scozzari R, Macaulay V, Torroni A (2003) Extensive
female-mediated gene flow from sub-Saharan Africa into
Near Eastern Arab populations. Am J Hum Genet
72:1058–1064 [ Free Full text in PMC].

Toomas Kivisild,1 Maere Reidla,1 Ene Metspalu,1
Alexandra Rosa,1 Antonio Brehm,2 Erwan Pennarun,1 Jüri
Parik,1 Tarekegn Geberhiwot,3 Esien Usanga,4 and
Richard Villems.(2004)1 Ethiopian Mitochondrial DNA
Heritage: Tracking Gene Flow Across and Around the
Gate of Tears. Am J Hum Genet. 2004 November; 75(5):
752–770.

Wendorf,F. (1968).The History of Nubia,( Dallas,1968)
pp.941-46).


.

---

quote:

---

The archaeological evidence and skeletal record make it clear that Blacks entered Europe numerous times and Indo-European speakers or Kurgan folk entered the area only recently.

---

quote:

---

This is bull****. We don't really know how skin color originated.

---

quote:

---

The Eskimos have lived in an Artic environment for thousands of years and yet they remain dark. If environment causes skin color why are the Eskimos still dark.

---

^ False.

That environment and skin color have a cause and effect relationship is established every time anyone tans - due to sun exposure.


As for the Eskimo, their skin color is no great mystery, here is what a leading scientist on the topic of skin color says:

"Looking at Alaska, one would think that the native people should be pale as ghosts," Jablonski says. One of the reasons they're not is that these populations have not lived in the region very long in terms of geological time. But more importantly, their traditional diet is rich in fish and other seafood.... "What's really interesting is that if these people don't eat their aboriginal diets of fish and marine mammals, they suffer tremendously high rates of vitamin D-deficiency diseases such as rickets in children and osteoporosis in adults,"

Jablonski and Chaplin concluded that modern humans... evolved in the tropics, where they were exposed to high UV levels. But... away from the equator, where UV levels are lower, humans became fairer so as to allow enough UV radiation to penetrate their skin and produce vitamin D, the "sunshine vitamin," also obtained from eating fish and marine mammals... essential for maintaining healthy blood levels of calcium and phosphorous, and thus promoting bone growth. Skin color... becomes a balancing act between the evolutionary demands of photo-protection and the need to create vitamin D in the skin.

- Nina Jablonski


^ Now, Dr. Winters....anyone can play dumb, and refuse to understand, no challenge in that.

Likewise anyone can cut and paste massive blobs of spam, that relate no point at issue, and essentially attempt shout-down all unpleasant fact.

The real question is- can you refute the scientific explanation of the cause of skin color?

If so, present your scientific study or sources of refutation.

At any rate, you'll have to do more than just swear in exasperation because the reality of the world isn't what you wish it were.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
^I have already presented the evidence of the fallasy that skin color is caused by genes and environment the case of the Eskimos. The fact that the Eskimos remain dark while they live in an environment that theoretically should have made them become lighter than most Europeans invalidates the contemporary views regarding the origination of skin color.
Eskimo




European


Moreover Nina Jablonski can not teach me anything. All the evidence makes it clear that the Egyptians were Black, yet she recently maintained that they were white. Why should I accept whatever she says about skin color (relating to sun light and vitamin D) when she can't even get it right about the Egyptians?

You follow Eurocentric ideas blindly. Just because an authority figure says something does not make it right. That's the difference between Marc and; Djehuti and you, he thinks and makes his own decisions while you are lead around like a pet. Just because a European researcher says something, does not make that European researcher right.


.
 

---

Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
 
Thanks for the input, Dr. Winters. Here is an old web page I made some years back related to this discussion:



http://www.beforebc.de/all_america/02-16-900-08.Inuit.html
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
^ Ignoring hand-puppet Marc, in order to address the trickster behind the puppet.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
^I have already presented the evidence of the fallasy that skin color is caused by genes and environment the case of the Eskimos.

---

Eskimo are a people, not a -case-, and the sentense "case of the Eskimo" contains no evidence. In fact, you have produced a cut and paste spam containing no evidence about skin color at all.


However, in your massive blob-of-spam post you did pull your usual pseudo-intellectual prank [trickster] of listing bibliographic citations from the very scholars who have already debunked you, and YOU KNOW THIS:

Cavalli-Sforza LL and PA Underhill.


Sforza's views on skin color are below. He states European ancestors were dark, and turned white in Europe due to Vitamin D deficiency. The fact that the Eskimo are still dark is a part of his [AND Jablonski's evidence]:



Which leads to,

PA Underhill, your other MIS-citation.


Underhills entire thesis on European origin completely DESTROYS you.

The First Europeans

About 80 percent of Europeans arose from primitive hunters who arrived about 40,000 years ago, endured the long ice age and then expanded rapidly to dominate the continent, a new study shows.


Researchers analyzing the Y chromosome taken from 1,007 men from 25 different locations in Europe found a pattern that suggests four out of five of the men shared a common male ancestor about 40,000 years ago.

Peter A. Underhill, a senior researcher at the Stanford Genome Technology Center in Palo Alto, Calif., and co-author of the study, said the research supports conclusions from archaeological, linguistic and other DNA evidence about the settlement of Europe by ancient peoples.

When we can get different lines of evidence that tell the same story, then we feel we are telling the true history of the species. The researchers used the Y chromosome in the study because its rare changes establish a pattern that can be traced back hundreds of generations, thus helping to plot the movement of ancient humans.

The Y chromosome is inherited only by sons from their fathers. When sperm carrying the Y chromosome fertilizes an egg it directs the resulting baby to be a male. An X chromosome from the father allows a fertilized egg to be female.

"The Y chromosome has about 60 million DNA base pairs. Changes in those base pairs happen infrequently, but they occur often enough to establish patterns that can be used to trace the ancestry of people. Researchers looking at the 1,007 chromosome samples from Europe identified 22 specific markers that formed a specific pattern of change. Underhill said the researchers found that about 80 percent of all European males shared a single pattern, suggesting they had a common ancestor thousands of generations ago.

"The basic pattern had some changes that apparently developed among people who once shared a common ancestor and then were isolated for many generations. This scenario supports other studies about the Paleolithic European groups. Those studies suggest that a primitive, stone-age human came to Europe, probably from Central Asia and the Middle East, in two waves of migration beginning about 40,000 years ago. Their numbers were small and they lived byhunting animals and gathering plant food. They used crudely sharpened stones and fire.

"About 24,000 years ago, the last ice age began, with mountain-sized glaciers moving across most of Europe. The Paleolithic Europeans retreated before the ice, finding refuge for hundreds of generations in three areas: what is now Spain, the Balkans and the Ukraine.

"When the glaciers melted, about 16,000 years ago, the Paleolithic tribes resettled the rest of Europe. Y chromosome mutations occurred among people in each of the ice age refuges, said Underhill. He said the research shows a pattern that developed in Spain is now most common in northwest Europe, while the Ukraine pattern is mostly in Eastern Europe and the Balkan pattern is most common in Central Europe.

"About 8,000 years ago a more advanced people, the Neolithic, migrated to Europe from the Middle East, bringing with them a new Y chromosome pattern and a new way of life - agriculture. About 20 percent of Europeans now have the Y chromosome pattern from this migration.

"Archaeological digs in European caves clearly show that before 8,000 years ago, most humans lived by gathering and hunting. After that, there are traces of grains and other agricultural products. Earlier studies had traced European migration patterns using the DNA contained in the mitochondria, a key part of each cell. This type is DNA is passed down from mother to daughter."

Antonio Torroni, a researcher at the University of Urbino, Italy, who first proposed that early humans retreated to Spain during the ice age, said in a separate Science report that the Y chromosome study fits completely' with the mitochondria studies.

"The Y chromosome studies are also consistent with genetic studies showing a broader picture of human migration. In general, studies show that modern humans first arose in Africa about 100,000 years ago and thousands of years later began a long series of migrations, he said. Some groups migrated eastward and humans are known to have existed in Australia about 60,000 years ago. Other groups crossed the land bridge into the Middle East. Humans appeared in Central Asia about 50,000 years ago. From there, the theory goes, some migrated west, arriving in Europe about 40,000 years ago. Later, some migrated east, across the Bering Straits, to the Americas."

^ Dr. Winters, why do you continue to falsely cite these scholars while pretending they support you, and ignoring their direct evidence and conclusions which contradict you?

You have the nerve to list them at the end of your 'garbage posts', but you don't have the courage to actually address what they are saying.


lol.
 

---

Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
 
And, the Ainu have been in Japan for untold thousands of years and look like they just stepped out of Africa. Living in artic-like Hokkaido as they do the erroneous theory says they'd turn white-skinned. They didn't.



http://www.beforebc.de/600_fareast/03-16-600-00-08-02.html

The evidence I've presented shows whites are as recent to Europe as a people can be.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Nina Jablonski can not teach me anything.

---

^ If Jablonksi, Sforza, Rick Kittles, Keita, Underhill, Kivisld and Wells can't teach you anything, who can?

Is proferring arrogance as a defense mechanism for ignorance the best you can do?

How sad.


Professor Rick Kittles, University of Chicago.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

http://www.beforebc.de/600_fareast/03-16-600-00-08-02.html

The evidence I've presented shows whites are as recent to Europe as a people can be.

---

quote:

---

Cavalli-Sforza LL and PA Underhill.



The First Europeans

About 80 percent of Europeans arose from primitive hunters who arrived about 40,000 years ago, endured the long ice age and then expanded rapidly to dominate the continent, a new study shows.


Researchers analyzing the Y chromosome taken from 1,007 men from 25 different locations in Europe found a pattern that suggests four out of five of the men shared a common male ancestor about 40,000 years ago.

Peter A. Underhill, a senior researcher at the Stanford Genome Technology Center in Palo Alto, Calif., and co-author of the study, said the research supports conclusions from archaeological, linguistic and other DNA evidence about the settlement of Europe by ancient peoples.

When we can get different lines of evidence that tell the same story, then we feel we are telling the true history of the species. The researchers used the Y chromosome in the study because its rare changes establish a pattern that can be traced back hundreds of generations, thus helping to plot the movement of ancient humans.

The Y chromosome is inherited only by sons from their fathers. When sperm carrying the Y chromosome fertilizes an egg it directs the resulting baby to be a male. An X chromosome from the father allows a fertilized egg to be female.

"The Y chromosome has about 60 million DNA base pairs. Changes in those base pairs happen infrequently, but they occur often enough to establish patterns that can be used to trace the ancestry of people. Researchers looking at the 1,007 chromosome samples from Europe identified 22 specific markers that formed a specific pattern of change. Underhill said the researchers found that about 80 percent of all European males shared a single pattern, suggesting they had a common ancestor thousands of generations ago.

"The basic pattern had some changes that apparently developed among people who once shared a common ancestor and then were isolated for many generations. This scenario supports other studies about the Paleolithic European groups. Those studies suggest that a primitive, stone-age human came to Europe, probably from Central Asia and the Middle East, in two waves of migration beginning about 40,000 years ago. Their numbers were small and they lived byhunting animals and gathering plant food. They used crudely sharpened stones and fire.

"About 24,000 years ago, the last ice age began, with mountain-sized glaciers moving across most of Europe. The Paleolithic Europeans retreated before the ice, finding refuge for hundreds of generations in three areas: what is now Spain, the Balkans and the Ukraine.

"When the glaciers melted, about 16,000 years ago, the Paleolithic tribes resettled the rest of Europe. Y chromosome mutations occurred among people in each of the ice age refuges, said Underhill. He said the research shows a pattern that developed in Spain is now most common in northwest Europe, while the Ukraine pattern is mostly in Eastern Europe and the Balkan pattern is most common in Central Europe.

"About 8,000 years ago a more advanced people, the Neolithic, migrated to Europe from the Middle East, bringing with them a new Y chromosome pattern and a new way of life - agriculture. About 20 percent of Europeans now have the Y chromosome pattern from this migration.

"Archaeological digs in European caves clearly show that before 8,000 years ago, most humans lived by gathering and hunting. After that, there are traces of grains and other agricultural products. Earlier studies had traced European migration patterns using the DNA contained in the mitochondria, a key part of each cell. This type is DNA is passed down from mother to daughter."

Antonio Torroni, a researcher at the University of Urbino, Italy, who first proposed that early humans retreated to Spain during the ice age, said in a separate Science report that the Y chromosome study fits completely' with the mitochondria studies.

"The Y chromosome studies are also consistent with genetic studies showing a broader picture of human migration. In general, studies show that modern humans first arose in Africa about 100,000 years ago and thousands of years later began a long series of migrations, he said. Some groups migrated eastward and humans are known to have existed in Australia about 60,000 years ago. Other groups crossed the land bridge into the Middle East. Humans appeared in Central Asia about 50,000 years ago. From there, the theory goes, some migrated west, arriving in Europe about 40,000 years ago. Later, some migrated east, across the Bering Straits, to the Americas."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Rasol there is nothing to debate.

---

quote:

---

The evidence is clear the present "white" Europeans were not in Europe 40,000 years ago.

---

quote:

---

The CroMagnon man replaced the Neanderthals.

---

quote:

---

The scientific data makes it clear that these Europeans, CroMagnon man carried the N haplogroup.

---

quote:

---

Few if any contemporary Europeans carry this gene.

---

quote:

---

Natufians who introduced agriculture to Europe were probably E3b and haplogroup M. These Africans came from East Africa.

---

Yes, it's probable that neolithic Natufian derived introduced East African male chromosome E3b1 and SouthWest Asian J into Europe.

You'll have to explain to us how this helps your claim that modern Europeans are not descendant from Paleolithic Europeans.

Modern Europeans continue to carry the 3 main Paleolithic lineages, whose mrca is concordant with the following....

Which in turn is concordant with the Ice age.....




You still completely fail to understand genetics.

Until you do, we can't have and intelligent debate on this topic. lol.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Also please present the archaeological evidence supporting a migration of humans from Asia to Europe between 60kya and 30kya. Underhill and Sforza are speculating about the rise of man in Europe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

This is bull****. We don't really know how skin color originated. The Eskimos have lived in an Artic environment for thousands of years and yet they remain dark. If environment causes skin color why are the Eskimos still dark.

---

The answer to why Inuit (Eskimo is pejorative) remained dark is simple. The Inuit diet consists of fishmeat and marine mammal blubber which is rich in vitamin D. Since dark skin impedes the synthesis of vitamin D, many populations that live in less sunny latitudes evolved light skin. Europeans are a perfect example of this. However, since the ancestors of the Inuit supplemented their vitamin D in their diet *there was no need to evolve lighter skin* hence Inuit are an exception.

Now we have provided a simple scientific answer to your question, while all you offer is psuedo-scholarly nonsense. So we understand your frustration as noted by your cussing.
 

---

Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
 


http://www.beforebc.de/all_europe/05-09-15.html
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ ROTFL

First of all, the man in the picture is a member of the Saami people who don't even speak an Indo-European language let alone Germanic!! In fact that man proves what Rasol said about the oldest populations in Europe not speaking Indo-European! Germanic people are indigenous to Europe anyway possessing R1b lineages also!

Second of all, R1a is a Y-chromosomal lineage meaning that is possessed and passed on by males only NOT females! LOL

So by posting that picture you only DEBUNK YOURSELF!
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ I forgot to mention that the Saami (such as that blonde guy in the picture) are indigenous to Finland...

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

The earliest European lineages are found in highest frequence among *non* Indo European speaking white people, such as basques and fins [note: finland is the blondest nation on earth] so you cannot prove that Indo European speakers brought -white skin- to Europe either.

---

quote:

---

Indo European langauges are also spoken among Black people in India so you can't even prove that the original Indo European speakers were white.

The attempt to make language into race, is now as ever a complete failure.

21st century genetics has simply mooted the 17th century race-discourse.

---

There you go, Marc.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
^ also sadly proves the point about genetics just being difficult for some, but i want to marc to keep pursuing this 'clear path' to reality.
 

---

Posted by abdulkarem3 (Member # 12885) on :
 
this is funny
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ It may seem funny at first, but when you realize that this is truly how Marc thinks it becomes quite sad.
 

---

Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
 
Actually, it's sadly embarrassing. Really, I could cry, really.
 

---

Posted by R U 2 religious (Member # 4547) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

It seems the argument is European were there 30Kya. Or was it the Africans.

---

There is no such argument among educated people.

Only among hard harded ignorant people who can't read and don't want to learn, and silly internet trolls who get their jollies from spreading ignorance for the same reason that self-hating prostitutes enjoy spreading their STD's.

If you disagree, don't whine, simply name 1 anthropologist who disputes the following:

The First Europeans

About 80 percent of Europeans arose from primitive hunters who arrived about 40,000 years ago, endured the long ice age and then expanded rapidly to dominate the continent, a new study shows.


Researchers analyzing the Y chromosome taken from 1,007 men from 25 different locations in Europe found a pattern that suggests four out of five of the men shared a common male ancestor about 40,000 years ago. - Peter Underhill.

---

This is what I don't get about this whole argument. Some on here claim that the Europeans (White folks) invaded and took over Europe. Ok, but now I must ask, where did these white folks come from prior to the invasions?

I think people are trying to disprove that white folks existed in Europe, but if they weren't in Europe then please define their most ancient geographic location. It wasn't in Africa, Asia, Americas or even in the Oceania's. Please tell me where they came from prior to Europe ...

Or is it those who believe that the Europeans are foreigners to Europe are from outer-space and that they are aliens?

Thank you!
 

---

Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
 


http://www.beforebc.de/all_europe/05-09-15-10.html
 

---

Posted by Stone (Member # 14116) on :
 

quote:

---

The Romans constantly had to defend themselves against raids or more massive attacks by the Germans on their eastern frontier. In AD 9 a Roman army of three legions (c.13,000) was caught in ambush and destroyed when on a punitive expedition against raiders.

---

The Battle of the Teutoburg Forest
[i]The Battle of the Teutoburg Forest took place in the year 9 A.D. (probably lasting from September 9 to September 11) when an alliance of Germanic tribes led by Arminius, the son of Segimer of the Cherusci, ambushed and destroyed three Roman legions led by Publius Quinctilius Varus.

The battle began a seven-year war which established the Rhine as the boundary of the Roman Empire for the next four hundred years, until the decline of the Roman influence in the West. The Roman Empire made no further concerted attempts to conquer Germania beyond the Rhine.

The battle (which is called Schlacht im Teutoburger Wald, Varusschlacht or Hermannsschlacht in German) had a profound effect on 19th century German nationalism along with the recovery of the histories of Tacitus in the 15th century, in which the Germans identified with the Germanic tribes as a way to give the (at the time politically disunited) "German people" a common origin.
The Roman force was led by Publius Quinctilius Varus, a noble from an old family, an administrative official who, as governor of the Gaul, was assigned to establish the new province of Germania in 7 AD.

His opponent, Arminius, had lived in Rome as a hostage in his youth, where he had received a military education and had even been given the rank of Equestrian. After his return, he was a trusted advisor to Varus.[1] In secret, he forged an alliance of Germanic tribes that had traditionally been enemies (the Cherusci, Marsi, Chatti, and Bructeri), but which he was able to unite due to outrage over Varus' measures. Historians believe that these were no different from the measures used to establish any nascent province--which often resulted in revolts.

While Varus was on his way from his summer camp somewhere west of the Weser river (its location remains disputed;[1] sites near the modern cities Minden or Rinteln have been suggested by the historian Delbrück and the military writer Pastenaci, respectively) to the winter headquarters near the Rhine, he heard reports of a local rebellion, fabricated by Arminius. Varus decided to quell this uprising immediately and take a detour through territory unfamiliar to the Romans. Arminius, who accompanied Varus, probably directed him along a route that would facilitate an ambush. Another Cheruscan nobleman, Segestes, father of Arminius' wife, and opposed to the marriage, warned Varus the night before the departure of the Roman forces, allegedly even suggesting that Varus apprehend himself along with several Germanic leaders whom he identified as covert participants in the planned uprising. But his warning was dismissed as the result of a personal feud. Arminius then left under the pretext of drumming up Germanic forces to support the Roman campaign, but instead led his troops, who must have been waiting in the vicinity, in attacks on surrounding Roman garrisons. Recent archaeological finds place the battle in Osnabrück County, Lower Saxony. On the basis of Roman accounts, the Romans must at this time have been marching northwestward from the area that is now the city of Detmold, passing east of Osnabrück; they must then have camped in this area prior to being attacked.

Varus's forces included three legions (Legio XVII, Legio XVIII, and Legio XIX), six cohorts of auxiliary troops (non-Roman allies) and three squadrons of cavalry (alae), most of which lacked combat experience with Germanic fighters under local conditions. The Roman forces were not marching in combat formation, and were interspersed with large numbers of camp-followers. As they entered the forest (probably just northeast of Osnabrück (52 16'34"N 8 02'50"E)), they found the track narrow and muddy; according to Dio Cassius a violent storm had also arisen. He also writes that Varus neglected to send out advance reconnaissance parties.

The line of march was now stretched out perilously long--estimates are that it surpassed 15 km (9 miles), and was perhaps as long as 20 km (12 miles).[1] It was then suddenly attacked by Germanic tribesmen. Arminius knew Roman tactics very well and could direct his troops to counter them effectively, using locally superior numbers against the spread-out Roman legions. The Romans managed to set up a fortified night camp, and the next morning broke out into the open country north of the Wiehen mountains, near the modern town of Osterkappeln. The break-out cost them heavy losses, as did a further attempt to escape by marching through another forested area, with the torrential rains continuing, preventing them from using their bows, and rendering them virtually defenseless, as their shields, too, became waterlogged.

They then undertook a night march to escape, but marched straight into another trap that Arminius had set, at the foot of Kalkriese Hill (near Osnabrück). There, the sandy, open strip on which the Romans could march easily was constricted by the hill, so that there was a gap of only about 100 m between the woods and the swampland at the edge of the Great Bog. Moreover, the road was blocked by a trench, and, toward the forest, an earthen wall had been built along the roadside, permitting the Germanic tribesmen to attack the Romans from cover. The Romans made a desperate attempt to storm the wall, but failed, and the highest-ranking officer next to Varus, Numonius Vala, abandoned the troops by riding off with the cavalry; however, he too was overtaken by the Germanic cavalry and killed, according to Velleius Paterculus. The Germanic warriors then stormed the field and slaughtered the disintegrating Roman forces; Varus committed suicide.[1] Velleius reports that one commander, Ceionus, "shamefully" surrendered, while his colleague Eggius "heroically" died leading his doomed troops.

Around 15,000 - 20,000 Roman soldiers must have died; not only Varus, but also many of his officers are said to have taken their own lives by falling on their swords in the approved manner.[1] Tacitus wrote that many officers were sacrificed by the Germanic forces in pagan ceremonies. Others were ransomed, however, and the common soldiers appear to have been enslaved.

All Roman accounts stress the completeness of the Roman defeat and the extremely heavy Roman casualties; also the fact that the Germanic troops apparently suffered only minor losses. That account is confirmed by the finds at Kalkriese, where, along with 6000 pieces (largely scraps) of Roman equipment, there is only one single item — part of a spur — that is clearly Germanic[citation needed]. Even allowing for the fact that several thousand Germanic soldiers were deserting militiamen who wore Roman armor (which would thus show up as "Roman" in the archaeological digs), and for the fact that the Germanic tribes wore less metal and more perishable organic material, this indicates surprisingly slight Germanic losses.

The victory over the legions was followed by a clean sweep of all Roman forts, garrisons and cities — of which there were at least two — east of the Rhine; the remaining two Roman legions, commanded by Varus' nephew Lucius Nonius Asprenas, were content to try to hold that river. One fort (or possibly city), Aliso, fended off the Germanic tribes for many weeks, perhaps a few months, before the garrison, which included survivors of the Teutoburg Forest, successfully broke out under their commander, Lucius Caeditius and reached the Rhine.

Upon hearing of the defeat, the emperor Augustus, according to Roman author and historian Suetonius in his book Lives of the Twelve Caesars, had a nervous breakdown with symptoms of semi-insanity, banging his head against the walls of his palace and repeatedly shouting Quintili Vare, legiones redde! ('Quintilius Varus, give me back my legions!') (sometimes rendered in English as "give me back my eagles," as in the BBC series based on the Robert Graves novel I, Claudius).

The three legion numbers were never used again by the Romans after this defeat, unlike other legions that were restructured — a case unique in Roman history.

The battle abruptly ended the period of triumphant and exuberant Roman expansion that had followed the end of the Civil Wars 40 years earlier. Augustus' stepson Tiberius took effective control, and prepared for the continuation of the war. Rome gradually slid into a period of tyranny and oppression lasting much of the rest of the first century.

The Germanic tribes, on the other hand, profited greatly from the plunder of their victory, and gradually began to move to a higher stage of development, although they were still a long way from political unification. This was apparently the goal of Arminius, however, who immediately sent Varus' severed head to Marbod, king of the Marcomanni, the other most powerful German ruler, with the offer of an anti-Roman alliance. Marbod declined the offer, sent the head on to Rome for burial, and remained neutral throughout the ensuing war. Only thereafter did a brief, inconclusive war break out between the two Germanic leaders.

During the next centuries, the Germanic tribes were able to profit from trade with Rome, without suffering the Roman yoke, and to absorb those elements of Roman culture which they wanted.

Traditionally, the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest was seen as having caused Augustus to give up his plans for the conquest of Germania. The view was that the later military actions were merely punitive face-saving measures. The current consensus among historians is that this is untenable, especially in light of recent archaeological finds, and not only those at Kalkriese Hill. For one third of the entire Roman army was repeatedly mobilized at great expense and risk for the Germanic campaigns, and its incursions were massive. Moreover, infrastructural measures were undertaken east of the Rhine which would have made no sense unless a full reconquest had been planned (see e.g. Waldgirmes Forum). Tacitus is unclear on the subject in Annales 1.3, but clearly his interest is in making Germanicus look good by comparison to his uncle, the emperor; and although Germanicus was definitely defeated, Tacitus tries his best to avoid saying so.

This does not, however, reduce the significance of the battle, since it is clear that without the massive advantage won in the Teutoburg Forest and in the ensuing weeks, the Germanic tribes would have been unable to resist the renewed Roman assault. This victory, on this completely one-sided scale, was not sufficient to ensure the ultimate victory in the war of independence, but it was definitely necessary for that purpose.

For almost 2000 years, no one knew for certain where the battle had taken place. The main hint as to its location was an allusion to the saltus Teutoburgiensis in section i.60-62 of Tacitus's Annals, an area "not far" from the land between the upper reaches of the Lippe and Ems Rivers in central Westphalia.

During the 19th century, theories as to the true site of the battle abounded, and the followers of one theory successfully argued for the area of a long wooded ridge called the Osning, around Bielefeld. This was then renamed the Teutoburg Forest, and became the site of the Detmold Memorial.

Late 20th-century research and excavations at Kalkriese Hill (52°26'29"N, 8°8'26"E.) were sparked by finds by British amateur archaeologist Major Tony Clunn's discovery of coins from the reign of Augustus (and none minted later), and some ovoid leaden Roman sling shot. Clunn was casually prospecting with a metal detector in hopes of finding "the odd Roman coin." The excavations soon turned up more scraps of weapons and equipment, the helmet mask of a Roman officer, the bone pits, and the remains of the Germanic fortifications. As a result, Kalkriese is now perceived to be the actual site of part of the battle, probably its conclusive phase. Kalkriese is a village administratively part of the city of Bramsche, on the north slope fringes of the Wiehengebirge, a ridge-like range of hills in Lower Saxony, north of Osnabrück. The site some 70 km from Detmold was first suggested by 19th-century historian Theodor Mommsen, one of the "founding fathers" of modern research into ancient history.

While the initial excavations were done by the archaeological team of the Kulturhistorisches Museum Osnabrück under the direction of Prof. Wolfgang Schlüter from 1987 onward, after the dimensions of the project became apparent, a new foundation was created to organize future excavations, to build and run a new museum on the site, and to centralise publicity work and documentation. Since 1990 the excavations have been directed by Susanne Wilbers-Rost.

The Varusschlacht Museum ("Varus' Battle Museum") and Park Kalkriese include a large outdoor area with trails leading to a re-creation of part of the earthen wall from the battle, and other outdoor exhibits. An observation tower allows visitors to get an overview of the battle site. Most of the indoor exhibits are housed in the tower. A second building includes the ticket center, museum store and a restaurant. The museum houses a large number of artifacts found at the site, which include fragments of studded sandals legionaries lost in flight, spearheads, and a Roman officer's ceremonial face-mask, which was originally silver-plated. Coins minted with the countermark VAR, distributed by Varus, support the identification of the site. Excavations have revealed battle debris along a corridor almost 15 miles from east to west and little more than a mile wide. A long zig-zagging wall constructed of peat turves and packed sand apparently had been constructed beforehand: concentrations of battle debris before it, and a dearth of finds behind it, testify to the Romans' inability to breach the defense. Human remains found here appear to corroborate Tacitus' account of their later burial. (Smithsonian, p 81)
 

---

Posted by Stone (Member # 14116) on :
 
^^^
Man from Osterby
C-14 dating 1-100 A.D.
http://www.osterby.de/osterby/Moorleichenfund/Moorleichenfund.htm
Found near Osterby, Germany


The Roman historian Tacitus, who lived in Osterby Man's era, describes the hairstyle as typical of the Suebi tribe of Germany.
Publius (or Gaius) Cornelius Tacitus (ca. 56 – ca. 117) was a senator and a historian of the Roman Empire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Been away but. . . . It seems like Dr Winters and Marc is digging further into timeline issue and I, R1a and R1b association. As I said this is the KEY to getting a non-EuroCentric(unbiased)view of what went down in Europe mainly between 1000BC to 500AD.

Certain facts I gathered are:

1. per Wikipedia and other sources the Germanic people you see throughout Europe today INCLUDING southern Europe were NOT there pre- The Völkerwanderung - the forceful expansion of the Germanic tribes into France, England, Northern Italy and Iberia.
2. Based upon the first point. What did the majority of people look like prior to that? We know that E3b is African (not sure about the R1a and R1b) so there was african ie dark africans present in southern Europe for some time.
3. My guess is the Original R1a and R1b “may” be African also SINCE the Cameroonians carry the R1 underived. Rasol/DJ can correct me but the R1 underived are suppose to be the forebearer of line? That said I will assume that the fathers of these R1a etc were Cameroonian type. Not sure on this though.

Genes however only tell part of the story. Saw recently the documentary of Genes and Ancestry. White looking people carrying African genes and vice versa etc. Point being not sure what the R1a and R1b looked like right after the last ice age 10kya. But what is apparent, and this is where the archeological evidence etc comes in, there were strong African(recent) influences throughout Europe, mostly Southern Europe, up to 1000BC.

These African finds are available and dated. So what see now is NOT what was there then. Case in point - North America. In less than 400yrs entire ethnic group replaced by another. The few remaining “Indians” probably carry the European genes. Just like some modern Greeks still carry E3b but don’t look East African.

QUOTE FROM RASOL -
^ However the *main* male lineage in Greece, is actually Neolithic dervied E3b, so modern Greeks are paternally Afro-Asian and European. Greeks are not fully European genetically, period.

SO WHY IS THIS BEING ARGUED. YOU SAID IT YOURSELF!! GREEKS ARE NOT FULLY EUROPEAN, PERIOD

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Moron/Need overwhelming eveidence to be convinced. YES!! Afrocentric. Maybe. We are all africans under the skin. Racist. Definitely NOT!!!. Can't afford to be. Good white folks has been partly responsible for getting us out of slavery. And we are still protected by them. AA or africans on the whole are not able to defend themselves. Period.


BTW =- Rasol/Djehuti. I am working on that time line thing. Iall beah back!! (arnold), in the other thread. Doing some research, per your advice . Huh!!?. I agree on the I, R1a and R1b and their appearance but I am trying to associate/correlate these groups with the eventual expansion of the Germanic people 100BC to 300AD. That is the key, me boy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrann0saurus:
I honestly wonder why this forum has such a strong magnetic attractive effect on morons. AMR1, Marc Washington, Clyde Winters, White Nord, Evil Euro, Arrow99/Horemheb, xyyman, Perfect Egyptian...I want to sigh.

I really wish there was a much larger percentage of rational, knowledgeable posters here than we currently have. Maybe all the "race" talk scares away more "mainstream" people who dismiss us as a gaggle of Afrocentric or racist nuts.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by R U 2 religious:

This is what I don't get about this whole argument. Some on here claim that the Europeans (White folks) invaded and took over Europe. Ok, but now I must ask, where did these white folks come from prior to the invasions?

I think people are trying to disprove that white folks existed in Europe, but if they weren't in Europe then please define their most ancient geographic location. It wasn't in Africa, Asia, Americas or even in the Oceania's. Please tell me where they came from prior to Europe ...

Or is it those who believe that the Europeans are foreigners to Europe are from outer-space and that they are aliens?

Thank you!

---

quote:

---

To which Marc Washington responds with:



http://www.beforebc.de/all_europe/05-09-15-10.html

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:

Been away but. . . . It seems like Dr Winters and Marc is digging further into timeline issue and I, R1a and R1b association. As I said this is the KEY to getting a non-EuroCentric(unbiased)view of what went down in Europe mainly between 1000BC to 500AD.

---

quote:

---

Certain facts I gathered are:

1. per Wikipedia and other sources the Germanic people you see throughout Europe today INCLUDING southern Europe were NOT there pre- The Völkerwanderung - the forceful expansion of the Germanic tribes into France, England, Northern Italy and Iberia.

---

quote:

---

2. Based upon the first point. What did the majority of people look like prior to that? We know that E3b is African (not sure about the R1a and R1b) so there was african ie dark africans present in southern Europe for some time.

---

quote:

---

3. My guess is the Original R1a and R1b “may” be African also SINCE the Cameroonians carry the R1 underived. Rasol/DJ can correct me but the R1 underived are suppose to be the forebearer of line? That said I will assume that the fathers of these R1a etc were Cameroonian type. Not sure on this though.

---

quote:

---

Genes however only tell part of the story. Saw recently the documentary of Genes and Ancestry. White looking people carrying African genes and vice versa etc. Point being not sure what the R1a and R1b looked like right after the last ice age 10kya. But what is apparent, and this is where the archeological evidence etc comes in, there were strong African(recent) influences throughout Europe, mostly Southern Europe, up to 1000BC.

---

quote:

---

These African finds are available and dated. So what see now is NOT what was there then. Case in point - North America. In less than 400yrs entire ethnic group replaced by another. The few remaining “Indians” probably carry the European genes. Just like some modern Greeks still carry E3b but don’t look East African.

---

quote:

---

QUOTE FROM RASOL -
^ However the *main* male lineage in Greece, is actually Neolithic dervied E3b, so modern Greeks are paternally Afro-Asian and European. Greeks are not fully European genetically, period.

SO WHY IS THIS BEING ARGUED. YOU SAID IT YOURSELF!! GREEKS ARE NOT FULLY EUROPEAN, PERIOD

---

Because you cannot comprehend that this IS TOTALLY THE OPPOSITE OF THE CRAP THAT MARC HAS BEEN FILLING YOUR HEAD WITH!!
 

---

Posted by Stone (Member # 14116) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
The guy then claims Charlemagne (a Germanic king) was a black African christ or something!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Been away but. . . . It seems like Dr Winters and Marc is digging further into timeline issue and I, R1a and R1b association. As I said this is the KEY to getting a non-EuroCentric(unbiased)view of what went down

---

quote:

---

If you follow his logic that the white man ridded Europe of the black man and put the Bible in this,it must be the will of God that the white man inherited Europe.

---

Isn't a religous issue, really.

He's simply a black man with a leuco-phobic inferiority complex visa vi whites.

His take on history is little more than a defense mechanism.

This is why he attacks those who disagree with him racially by calling them whites.

His discourse is driven by fear, and this is why relating factual information has no effect on it.

He's still afraid and his make-believe history 'protects' him from his fear.


One approach is to use such discussants as and excuse for relating factual information.

Have to be as crafty as they are loony.

I've learned that people who oridinarly don't care about the arcane aspects of science and history, can be 'tricked' into learning it, if you start with a 'debate' over something ridiculous - UFOs, BigFoot, Afro-Charlemagne.

If they want to be taken seriously via their bogus claims, they ultimately have no choice but to address factual information.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone:

Actually I find his claim very interesting because it gives a insight in his Ideology.
What he is saying is typical for Christians,throughout out history Christians have identified themselves with Christ or associated imported historical figures who were seen as saviours=Messiah of some sort for Christianity.
Even though this Biblical talk of him is conflicting, for instance he talks about the white man committing Genocide on the black man but in the same gasp he claims Canaanites and Jesus were black and pours Biblical ideology in his view of the world.Anyone who read the Bible knows that this book is full of Genocide and acts of cruelty against Canaanites and now Jews.
At least we know were he got his ideas from…
If you follow his logic that the white man ridded Europe of the black man and put the Bible in this,it must be the will of God that the white man inherited Europe.

The Bible and Genocide.
However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance,do not leave alive anything that breathes.

3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel.

And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword.

And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. 34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain.

And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city.

And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them:

But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire.

Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

And before they were laid down, she came up unto them upon the roof; 9 And she said unto the men,I know that the LORD hath given you the land, and that your terror is fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land faint because of you.

When the Israelites grew stronger, they forced the Canaanites to work as slaves, but they never did drive them out of the land. The tribe of Ephraim also failed to drive out the Canaanites living in Gezer, and so the Canaanites continued to live there among them. The tribe of Zebulun also failed to drive out the Canaanites living in Kitron and Nahalol, who continued to live among them.

The tribe of Asher also failed to drive out the residents of Acco, Sidon, Ahlab, Aczib, Helbah, Aphik, and Rehob. In fact, because they did not drive them out, the Canaanites dominated the land where the people of Asher lived. The tribe of Naphtali also failed to drive out the residents of Beth-shemesh and Beth-anath. Instead, the Canaanites dominated the land where they lived. Nevertheless, the people of Beth-shemesh and Beth-anath were sometimes forced to work as slaves for the people of Naphtali. As for the tribe of Dan, the Amorites forced them into the hill country and would not let them come down into the plains. The Amorites were determined to stay in Mount Heres, Aijalon, and Shaalbim, but when the descendants of Joseph became stronger, they forced the Amorites to work as slaves.
"You are my battle-ax and sword," says the LORD. "With you I will shatter nations and destroy many kingdoms. With you I will shatter armies, destroying the horse and rider, the chariot and charioteer. With you I will shatter men and women, old people and children, young men and maidens.With you I will shatter shepherds and flocks, farmers and oxen, captains and rulers. "As you watch, I will repay Babylon and the people of Babylonia for all the wrong they have done to my people in Jerusalem," says the LORD. "Look, O mighty mountain, destroyer of the earth! I am your enemy," says the LORD. "I will raise my fist against you, to roll you down from the heights. When I am finished, you will be nothing but a heap of rubble. You will be desolate forever. Even your stones will never again be used for building. You will be completely wiped out," says the LORD.

Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword.Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children.

---

Stone, Marc's neurosis has little do with religion and EVERYTHING to do with his phobia and reverse racism against whites, as Rasol pointed out.

I forgot to tell you before, that you waste your time and energy responding with long winded posts against Marc. Because all he will do is ignore it and continue his spamm of silliness.

But that excerpt from the Bible is interesting. Perhaps you should post it here in the religion section of the forum.
 

---

Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
 
A claim has been made that I said that white Europeans are recent entrants to Europe and that the Russian Steppes is in Eurasia - that being the homeland of whites places them in Europe from the time of their origins. That's clear enough. I made a mistake and I am admitting it. I will need to and will re-work my thinking on this issue. The point being that the Indo-European began in the Russian Steppes and didn't enter Western Europe until incursions into Italy beginning near 800 BC or Germany until incursions beginning near the time of Christ.

The rest remains the same. After Germanic influx, the ethnic composition changes meaning genocide was carried-out throughout the European continent making the atrosities of the Holocaust appear innocent to what happened to Europe's African population at the hands of whites. Whites who, it's interesting, would call Africans primitive and barbaric. In so doing, these Europeans have their cake and eat it too.

Re-working this will take time but, stay on the attack, please. Without you, my last five web pages wouldn't have been developed so you contribute something to my creative energies and the quality of my work. Blast away.
 

---

Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
 
To the page below is added yet more evidence that the presence in Upper Paleolithic Europe down through today is home to African genetic material. With today as a starting point and a white population, the further one goes back in time, the more African it becomes; with Western Europe itself being virtually all African before the Germanic invasions.

The added quote from a group of geneticists writing in Nature is the following:

“We studied 96 Yorubans (from Nigeria), believed to share common ancestry with northern Europeans about 100,000 years ago. At short distances, the Nigerian and European-derived populations typically show the same allelic combinations…”

David Reich et. al., Linkage disequilibrium in the human genome, Nature 411, 199 – 204, issue of 10 May 2001.”




http://www.beforebc.de/all_europe/05-09-10.html

I draw your attention to the arc of African rock art spanning primarily coastal areas from Africa to the Scandinavian countries and Greenland not to mention Upper Paleolithic France and Neolithic Spain. This is yet another signature of the African presence in Europe and yet more proof that it was an African bastion until the horiffic genocide that eliminated them from an entire continent over hundreds of years.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

I made a mistake and I am admitting it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mackandal:
I hate to say it, but Marc Washington and Winters are right....but only partially. The history of white people proper goes back to only about maybe 6,000 to 8,000 years ago, but if we focus only on histoy it starts with the Greeks. Even the people who inhabited Europe during the Ice Age weren't white, check the article posted earlier about the emergence of white skin color. If you want to know why there's more information about genetics and anthropology about Europe than any other "continent", its because white, "Eurocentric" minded historians and scientists have been trying desperately to find the origin of mankind and all things of substance in Europe and to this date their tries have failed. Now their last attempt is to link modern Europeans with Neanderthals in anyway they can, but like it or not, their roots don't go back that far. Every DNA test out their proves modern Europeans have no link with Neanderthals, so whites have no descent from cave dwelling Neanderthals. People of African descent have roots way more deeper and thats the truth racist whites don't want people to know, because it that in effect makes people of African descent *THEIR* CREATOR AND MAKER, essence their God in a way. Think about it, paternal, autosomal and maternal DNA proves that Africans and peoples of African descent have deeper roots than white Europeans and that whites are recent offspring from those of us who have deeper roots. This isn't racist or black supremacy, its the truth so people need to quit being blind and open up their minds and gain knowledge of self.

---

quote:

---

What we take issue with is their claim that whites are recent invaders to the subcontinent who displaced black African natives, as opposed to the less pigmented direct descendants of prehistoric Europeans.

---

quote:

---

I'd suggest Whites maybe closer to Asians (Chinese) and evolved around these regions. That White Europeans maybe a possible break away-Asian type who later mated with other peoples of African admixtures

---

quote:

---

The First Europeans

A primitive, stone-age human came to Europe, probably from Central Asia and the Middle East, in two waves of migration beginning about 40,000 years ago.

Their numbers were small and they lived byhunting animals and gathering plant food. They used crudely sharpened stones and fire.

"About 24,000 years ago, the last ice age began, with mountain-sized glaciers moving across most of Europe. The Paleolithic Europeans retreated before the ice, finding refuge for hundreds of generations in three areas: what is now Spain, the Balkans and the Ukraine.

"When the glaciers melted, about 16,000 years ago, the Paleolithic tribes resettled the rest of Europe. Y chromosome mutations occurred among people in each of the ice age refuges, said Underhill. He said the research shows a pattern that developed in Spain is now most common in northwest Europe, while the Ukraine pattern is mostly in Eastern Europe and the Balkan pattern is most common in Central Europe.

"About 8,000 years ago a more advanced people, the Neolithic, migrated to Europe from the Middle East, bringing with them a new Y chromosome pattern and a new way of life - agriculture. About 20 percent of Europeans now have the Y chromosome pattern from this "

Cavalli-Sforza LL and PA Underhill.

---

quote:

---

^ Please explain how the above is anything more than a mealy-mouthed admission of the following facts....

---

quote:

---

My comments were meant to add my 2cents of clarity

---

Then you should speak clearly and not in mealy-mouthed fashion.

Effectively you are grudgingly admitting the following:



1) Modern Europeans descend from stone-age humans who came to Europe, probably from Central Asia and the Middle East, in two waves of migration beginning about 40,000 years ago.




2) When the glaciers melted, about 16,000 years ago, the Paleolithic tribes resettled the rest of Europe.



3) About 8,000 years ago a more advanced people, the Neolithic, migrated to Europe from the Middle East, bringing with them a new Y chromosome pattern and a new way of life - agriculture.

quote:

---

The information presented aren’t facts

---

quote:

---

Judging from the information presenting in this thread so far, consensus result may show......

---

^ ....mealy-mouthed noisemaking at it's most hilarious. rotfl!

And all because MW was able to man-up and admit that he was wrong.

This must have really annoyed you, since it caused you to go all -diarrhea of the mouth- and such.


It's like some sort of tick that you can't stop.
 

---

Posted by KemsonReloaded (Member # 14127) on :
 

quote:

---

And all because MW was able to man-up and admit that he was wrong.

This must have really annoyed you, since it caused you to go all -diarrhea of the mouth- and such.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
^ From meally-mouthed nonsense to completely off-point babblement. No one cares Kemson.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

This is bull****. We don't really know how skin color originated. The Eskimos have lived in an Artic environment for thousands of years and yet they remain dark. If environment causes skin color why are the Eskimos still dark.

---

The answer to why Inuit (Eskimo is pejorative) remained dark is simple. The Inuit diet consists of fishmeat and marine mammal blubber which is rich in vitamin D. Since dark skin impedes the synthesis of vitamin D, many populations that live in less sunny latitudes evolved light skin. Europeans are a perfect example of this. However, since the ancestors of the Inuit supplemented their vitamin D in their diet *there was no need to evolve lighter skin* hence Inuit are an exception.

---

LOL indeed was the first thing I though. I must admit it was hilarious imagining him actually saying that in an old Clyde Winters voice.

I too was going to post why, as the reason for such a query is simply scientific ignorance when it comes to skin color.

However something told me that by now (meaning this length in the page) someone likely already had, and that I should just read.
 

---

Posted by Grumman f6f (Member # 14051) on :
 
All hail to Jablonski. Tens of thousands of scientists on this earth and not one of them came up with her explanation? Then again maybe they did but figured the time wasn't right to say it until someone else took the plunge.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
Europeans only recently entered Europe. They are not the descendents of the original People of Europe who were dark skinned and carried different genes.


.


http://www.beforebc.de/all_europe/05-09-10.html


Djehuti

quote:

---

The science is out there people. And it is up to you to go out there and educate yourselves on the subject and not simply refuse the material out of ignorance.

---

• Dravidian Hurrian
  
  a a
  
  -kku -ikka
  
  imbu impu

• English Hurrian Dravidian
  
  mountain paba parampu
  
  lady,woman aallay ali
  
  King Sarr,zarr Ca, cira
  
  god en en
  
  give tan tara
  
  to rule irn ire
  
  father attai attan
  
  wife,woman asti atti

• Hurrian Sanskrit
  
  Mi-it-va Mitra
  
  Aru-na Varuna
  
  In-da-ra Indra
  
  Na-sa-at-tiya Nasatya

• English Hurrian Sanskrit Tamil
  
  One aika eke okka `together'
  
  Three tera tri
  
  Five panza panca añcu
  
  Seven satta sapta
  
  Nine na nava onpatu

• Enlglish Hurrian I-A Tamil
  
  Brown babru babhru pukar
  
  Grey parita palita paraitu `old'
  
  Reddish pinkara pingala puuval
  
  
  
  English Mitanni Vedic Tamil
  
  Warrior marya marya makan, maravan

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grumman f6f:
All hail to Jablonski. Tens of thousands of scientists on this earth and not one of them came up with her explanation? Then again maybe they did but figured the time wasn't right to say it until someone else took the plunge.

---

Not quite.
From A.H. Robins, 1991 Biological Perspectives on Human Pigmentation Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press. pp .200-201

" A obvious weakness in the hypothesis is the case of the Inuit (Eskimo), who has a darker skin color than the European Caucasoid and yet inhabits regions even farther north which are sunless for much of the year. Murray (1934) explained that the Inuit diet was rich in fish and fish oils (foods with a high vitamin D value) and that this diet provided adequate vitamin D to forestall rickets. Thus there was no need for skin whitening in the Inuit to compensate for UV impoverishing in the Artic..."
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
This is bull****. We don't really know how skin color originated. The Eskimos have lived in an Artic environment for thousands of years and yet they remain dark. If environment causes skin color why are the Eskimos still dark.

Eskimo



We know this is bull because the Saami people live in the Arctic and eat fish:

quote:

---

Saemieh, the reindeerpeople.

The Sami's language, traditional clothing, handicraft, and music, are distinctively different from other ethnic groups in Scandinavia.
In Sweden there is 44 native communitys where the familys derives most of the income from their reindeers, an economy that in most cases is combined with fishing, hunting and crafts.
A majority of the Sami population pursue other careers however, since there isn't enough space for everyone in a habitat that is constantly shrinking due to mining operations, clean-cutting of the forests and the construction of hydroelectric powerplants.

---

....But the Saami remain white as noted in the picture below.



If this theory was correct the Saami people would be dark skinned not white:


.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Djehuti

quote:

---

When most folks think of evolution, they think of macro-evolution which is evolution on a grand scale like speciation which is the development of new species. What they fail to understand is that macro-evolution is the result of multiple occurances of micro-evolution which is evolution in a small scale, or biological changes that occur among populations. A perfect example of that is skin color among humans. We have genetic evidence that not only verifies that *all* humans were originally black since they originated in sub-saharan Africa, but that some populations became lighter as they left the tropics and into less sunny climates. There are also other changes such as from tropical adopted bodies to more cold adapted bodies like you see among the Inuit (Eskimo) peoples.

---

This is bull****. We don't really know how skin color originated. The Eskimos have lived in an Artic environment for thousands of years and yet they remain dark. If environment causes skin color why are the Eskimos still dark.

Eskimo




European

---

 

---

Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
 
Thanks, Dr. Winters. For the sake of other readers, I have posted the page below to remind that truth doesn't matter to whites and never has. If there is anything to gain materially, socially, or in terms of higher social status, they will lie and steal. They have murdered, committed genocide against, hundreds of millions of blacks during the Bronze, Iron, Medieval, and modern Africa and today (with gun sales in a continent that doesn't make bullets of guns - Africans kill one another. They take land and resources while they fight and die). They do this to gain land and resources owned by blacks.

It's a perverse compliment that they saw/see value we had or created and envied/envy it to the extent that they did/do whatever was/is necessary by means of cajols and violence to obtain it. They have stolen African riches and even been involved in thefts of African identity and history. As the below page shows they did not only with claiming they peopled early Western Europe (and they didn't) but African legends and heroes of the past:



http://www.beforebc.de/Made.by.Humankind/Real.People/02-16-800-00-12.html

I've said before and say it again, one must take what whites say with a grain of salt.

To stay on focus with this thread, I've modified my claim that whites were late-comers to Europe as a whole. They were late-comers to Western Europe: a place, along with the whole of Eurasia, that had indigenous African peoples. Indigenous in the sense that they may not have originated there as they originated in Africa but were there for over a million years through early migrations.




http://www.beforebc.de/all_europe/05-09-15-10.html
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grumman f6f:
All hail to Jablonski. Tens of thousands of scientists on this earth and not one of them came up with her explanation? Then again maybe they did but figured the time wasn't right to say it until someone else took the plunge.

---

Not quite.
From A.H. Robins, 1991 Biological Perspectives on Human Pigmentation Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press. pp .200-201

" A obvious weakness in the hypothesis is the case of the Inuit (Eskimo), who has a darker skin color than the European Caucasoid and yet inhabits regions even farther north which are sunless for much of the year. Murray (1934) explained that the Inuit diet was rich in fish and fish oils (foods with a high vitamin D value) and that this diet provided adequate vitamin D to forestall rickets. Thus there was no need for skin whitening in the Inuit to compensate for UV impoverishing in the Artic..."

---

quote:

---

Tens of thousands of scientists on this earth and not one of them came up with her explanation?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Tens of thousands of scientists on this earth and not one of them came up with her explanation?

---

....and yet you can't even name a single one who disagrees with Jablonski's theory of skin color.

Dr. Winters: we want a name.

We do not ask for another blob-of-spam-distraction post, filled with bibilographic listings of people like Underhill and Sforza who AGREE WITH Jablonski, and equally completely refute you.

---

quote:

---

The tone of human skin can vary from a dark brown to nearly a colorless pigmentation, which appears pale pink due to the blood in the skin. Europeans have lighter skin, hair, and eyes than any other group on Earth.[3] In attempting to discover the mechanisms that have generated such a wide variation in human skin tone, Nina Jablonski and George Chaplin (2000) discovered that there is a high correlation between the tone of human skin of indigenous peoples and the average annual ultraviolet (UV) radiation available for skin exposure where the indigenous peoples live. Accordingly, Jablonski and Chaplin plotted the skin tone (W) of indigenous peoples who have stayed in the same geographical area for the last 500 years versus the annual UV available for skin exposure (AUV) for over 200 indigenous persons and found that skin tone lightness W is related to the annual UV available for skin exposure AUV according to

(Jablonski and Chaplin (2000), p. 67, formula coefficients have been rounded to one-figure accuracy) where the skin tone lightness W is measured as the percentage of light reflected from the upper inner arm at which location on humans there should be minimal tanning of human skin due to personal exposure to the sun; a lighter skinned human would reflect more light and would have a higher W number. Judging from the above linear fit to the empirical data, the theoretical lightness maximum of human skin would reflect only 70 per cent of incident light for a hypothetical indigenous human-like population that lived where there was zero annual UV available for skin exposure (AUV = 0 in the above formula). Jablonski and Chaplin evaluated average annual UV available for skin exposure AUV from satellite measurements that took into consideration the measured daily variation in the thickness of the ozone layer that blocked UV hitting the earth, measured daily variation in opacity of cloud cover, and daily change in angle at which the sunlight containing UV radiation strikes the earth and passes through different thicknesses of earth's atmosphere at different latitudes for each of the different human indigenous peoples' home areas from 1979 to 1992.

Jablonski and Chaplin proposed an explanation for the observed variation of untanned human skin with annual UV exposure. By Jablonski and Chaplin's explanation, there are two competing forces affecting human skin tone:

1. the melanin that produces the darker tones of human skin serves as a light filter to protect against too much UV light getting under the human skin where too much UV causes sunburn and disrupts the synthesis of precursors necessary to make human DNA; versus
2. humans need at least a minimum threshold of UV light to get deep under human skin to produce vitamin D, which is essential for building and maintaining the bones of the human skeleton.

Jablonski and Chaplin note that when human indigenous peoples have migrated, they have carried with them a sufficient gene pool so that within a thousand years, the skin of their descendants living today has turned dark or turned light to adapt to fit the formula given above--with the notable exception of dark-skinned peoples moving north, such as to populate the seacoast of Greenland, to live where they have a year-round supply of food rich in vitamin D, such as fish, so that there was no necessity for their skin to lighten to let enough UV under their skin to synthesize the vitamin D that humans need for healthy bones.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Tens of thousands of scientists on this earth and not one of them came up with her explanation?

---

....and yet you can't even name a single one who disagrees with Jablonski's theory of skin color.

Dr. Winters: we want a name.

We do not ask for another blob-of-spam-distraction post, filled with bibilographic listings of people like Underhill and Sforza who AGREE WITH Jablonski, and equally completely refute you.

---

quote:

---

Evolution of Skin Color in Humans

web page

Copyright ã 2000 James Michael Howard, Fayetteville, Arkansas, U.S.A. I have added some new material, February, 2006, below (Look for red color text.)



In October of 1996, I first posted (to some internet news groups) my hypothesis that skin color evolved as a result of testosterone. It was entitled "Skin color …perhaps Testosterone." My explanation of human evolution suggests increased testosterone in human males and females, compared to chimpanzee males and females, is directly involved in human evolution. Therefore, I decided testosterone could be linked to skin color. (If you wish to explore my explanation of human evolution in more detail, please read "New Theory of Human Evolution Involving DHEA, Melatonin, and Testosterone" and "Androgens in Human Evolution: A New Explanation of Human Evolution," at the main DHEA page.) In 1996, I found limited support of a connection, so I left further work on this connection for later. The July, 2000, issue of "The Journal of Human Evolution," included an article, "Evolution of Human Skin Coloration," which caused me to look again at a connection between testosterone and human skin color (Jablonski, NG and Chaplin, G, J Human Evolution 2000; 39: 57-106). Jablonski and Chaplin state: "Here we present new evidence indicating that variations in skin color are adaptive, and are related to the regulation of ultraviolet (UV) radiation penetration in the integument and its direct and indirect effects on fitness." The article concerns UV light and skin color. They also state: "In all populations for which skin reflectance data were available for males and females, females were found to be lighter skinned than males." This indicates to me that testosterone, as I first suggested in 1996, may be directly involved in skin color.

July 12, 2000, I posted "Evolution of Skin Color" to some news groups. This consisted of "Long ago, I decided skin coloration is due to levels of testosterone. Blacks produce more testosterone than other races, hence, blacks have darker skin. (I derived this from my explanation of human evolution.) Jablonski and Chaplin just found that ‘In all populations for which skin reflectance data were available for males and females, females were found to be lighter skinned than males.’ This would support my hypothesis." The obvious question quickly returned in response at the news group. Why are black women darker than white men? The following is my answer to the question and is an extension of my original hypothesis that testosterone is directly involved in skin color and human evolution. I suggest the difference results from effects of testosterone on melanocytes in utero.

It is known that testosterone and ultraviolet light work together in stimulating melanocyte structure and function. "Cultured skin receiving both UVL [ultraviolet light] and testosterone illustrates a synergistic effect." (J Exp Zoo 1978; 204: 229, "Organ culture of mammalian skin and the effects of ultraviolet light and testosterone on melanocyte morphology and function," Gilmcher, ME, et al.). This could account for the findings of Jablonski and Chaplin, mentioned in my July 12 post that "In all populations for which skin reflectance data were available for males and females, females were found to be lighter skinned than males." This may be a tanning effect, however, testosterone is definitely involved in melanocyte function.

Healthy black males produce significantly more testosterone than healthy white males (J Nat Cancer Instit 1986; 76: 421). Melanocyes from black males grow differently from melanocytes from white males, in culture. In this study, melanocytes are derived from foreskins, an area of skin directly affected by testosterone. "At the ultrastructural level, cultured melanocytes derived from black (negroid) neonatal skin (B-M) had numerous mature rod-shaped stage IV melanosomes, while white (caucasoid) skin-derived melanocytes (W-M) in culture contained no mature melanosomes. Growth rate, cell yield, and in vitro lifespan for B-M were more than twice that for W-M in pure melanocyte cultures in the presence of MGF [melanocyte growth factor]. Our results suggest that MGF-dependent growth of B-M differs from that of W-M." (J Cell Physiol 1988; 135: 262-8, "Growth characteristics of human epidermal melanocytes in pure culture with special reference to genetic differences," Hirobe, T, et al.). Melanocytes grown in culture, without testosterone added to the culture media, inherently express a difference in growth potential between black and white males.

Melanocytes derived from neonates already exhibit differences in growth rate according to race. "Differences in size and number of melanosomes attributable to race of the tissue donor were readily apparent, and pigment content of melanocytes from both black and Caucasian donors appeared to increase with time in culture. Newborn melanocytes proliferated more rapidly and survived longer than did adult melanocytes, but there were no consistent morphologic differences as a function of donor age." (J Invest Dermatol 1984; 83: 370-6, "Selective cultivation of human melanocytes from newborn and adult epidermis," Gilchrest, BA, et al.).

I think the effects of testosterone on melanocytes first occurs in utero. In utero, black fetuses are exposed to higher levels of testosterone. "Serum testosterone was modestly, but significantly, greater in the black than in the white women." (J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1996; 81: 1023-6, "Demonstration of a lack of racial differences in secretion of growth hormone despite a racial difference in bone mineral density in premenopausal women—a Clinical Research Center study," Wright, NM, et al.). Therefore, I suggest melanocytes are stimulated by increased testosterone during gestation in blacks. In respect to the specific question, this would result in increased melanocyte stimulation in female, black fetuses. Male fetuses are exposed to testosterone, from the fetal gonads, at a critical period in utero that exerts effects on reproductive development. I make the assumption that this period of exposure of male, fetal-derived testosterone does not coincide with the constant supply of maternally-derived testosterone that stimulates melanocytes. If that is the case, then it is possible that black women exhibit darker skin than white males because of a difference in timing of exposure of developing melanocytes to testosterone in utero. The color of offspring of interracial unions would depend upon testosterone levels of the mother and embryonic/fetal melanocytes, that is, the propensity of melanocytes for producing melanin and the stimulation of melanocytes by testosterone during the critical period.

According to my explanation of human evolution, lower testosterone groups migrated away from the equator. Therefore, it is the lower levels of testosterone that resulted in lighter skin in groups living away from the equator. Advantages of darker skin near the equator and advantages of lighter skin away from the equator are simply secondary advantages.



I did not use this citation:

Am J Physiol 1987 Jan;252(1 Pt 2):R166-80




Morphology and development of an apoeccrine sweat gland in human axillae.

Sato K, Leidal R, Sato F

Evidence is presented that in adult human axillae there exists a third type of sweat gland tentatively designated as the apoeccrine sweat gland. This type of gland shows a segmental or diffuse apocrinelike dilatation of its secretory tubule but has a long and thin duct which does not open into a hair follicle. The electron microscopy of its dilated segment is often indistinguishable from that of the classical apocrine gland. The less remarkably dilated segment of the apoeccrine gland tends to retain intercellular canaliculi and/or dark cells. These apoeccrine glands are consistently present in adult human axillae regardless of sex or race. In the axillae of the two 6-yr-old subjects, both classical apocrine and eccrine glands were present but no apoeccrine glands were found. Between 8-14 yr of age, the number of large eccrine glands with or without partial segmental dilatation gradually increased. At 16-18 yr of age, the number of apoeccrine glands increased to as high as 45% of the total axillary glands. The data support the notion that apoeccrine glands develop during puberty in the axillae from eccrine or eccrinelike sweat glands.



New Material:



Copyright 2006:



Testosterone activates tyrosine hydroxylase (Neurosci Lett 2006; 396: 57-61). “Testosterone replacement therapy immediately following castration prevents the decrease in TH [tyrosine hydroxylase] levels.” (Brain Res Mol Brain Res 1992; 14: 79-82). Tyrosine hydroxylase is involved in human pigmentation: “Our results support a direct function for tyrosine hydroxylase in the melanosome via a concerted action with tyrosinase to promote pigmentation.” (Exp Dermatol 2003; 12: 61-70). Tyrosine hydroxylase has been “suggested” to be “tightly coupled to melanin synthesis” (J Invest Dermatol 1990; 95: 9-15).



(Jablonski, NG and Chaplin, G, J Human Evolution 2000; 39: 57-106). Jablonski and Chaplin state: "Here we present new evidence indicating that variations in skin color are adaptive, and are related to the regulation of ultraviolet (UV) radiation penetration in the integument and its direct and indirect effects on fitness." The article concerns UV light and skin color. They also state: "In all populations for which skin reflectance data were available for males and females, females were found to be lighter skinned than males."



This indicates to me that testosterone is involved in skin color.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

If Jablonski's theory is correct please answer this question. If eating fish while living in the Artic helped the Eskimos remain dark, why is it that the Saami live in the Artic, and eat fish but their skin has turned white?

---

^ Good post. It is the 1st one you've written that actually addresses the evidence with no grandstanding or distraction/spam.

However you have failed to properly digest the information that has already been presented.

1) the Saami have not always lived in the artic. During the ice age, the arctic was depopulated. All Europeans are descendant from groups who sheltered in one of 3 glacial refuges in the south.

The Sami have up to 60% Haplotype I, indicating that their ancestry comes significantly out of the Balkans refugeum from which they spread north after the ice age.



This period of time is concordant to the development in melanin production disabling mutations on European skin color receptors.

All white Europeans have these recent mutations in common.

Thus the depigmented Sami have the same Y chromosome lineages and the same skin color disabling mutations as other leucoderm Europeans.

That's the basis for article cited below, and the picture of the Findlander Sami in the article.

Obviously the picture does not *disprove* the articles thesis.



^ I suggest you read this again. Try to understand it 1st, and not just try to attack it without understanding it.

Ask more questions if you have any.

note: Sami are not genetically or physically homogeneous. They also have haplotype N3A, which comes out of North East Asia, and some Sami do have an appearance that more closely remembles north East Asians...including significantly darker skin, than the Europeans who came out of the Ice age refugeum.


 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

(Jablonski, NG and Chaplin, G, J Human Evolution 2000; 39: 57-106). Jablonski and Chaplin state: "Here we present new evidence indicating that variations in skin color are adaptive, and are related to the regulation of ultraviolet (UV) radiation penetration in the integument and its direct and indirect effects on fitness." The article concerns UV light and skin color. They also state: "In all populations for which skin reflectance data were available for males and females, females were found to be lighter skinned than males."

---

quote:

---

This indicates to me that testosterone is involved in skin color.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

If Jablonski's theory is correct please answer this question. If eating fish while living in the Artic helped the Eskimos remain dark, why is it that the Saami live in the Artic, and eat fish but their skin has turned white?

---

^ Good post. It is the 1st one you've written that actually addresses the evidence with no grandstanding or distraction/spam.

However you have failed to properly digest the information that has already been presented.

1) the Saami have not always lived in the artic. During the ice age, the arctic was depopulated. All Europeans are descendant from groups who sheltered in one of 3 glacial refuges in the south.

The Sami have up to 60% Haplotype I, indicating that their ancestry comes significantly out of the Balkans refugeum from which they spread north after the ice age.



This period of time is concordant to the development in melanin production disabling mutations on European skin color receptors.

All white Europeans have these recent mutations in common.

Thus the depigmented Sami have the same Y chromosome lineages and the same skin color disabling mutations as other leucoderm Europeans.

That's the basis for article cited below, and the picture of the Findlander Sami in the article.

Obviously the picture does not *disprove* the articles thesis.



^ I suggest you read this again. Try to understand it 1st, and not just try to attack it without understanding it.

Ask more questions if you have any.

note: Sami are not genetically or physically homogeneous. They also have haplotype N3A, which comes out of North East Asia, and some Sami do have an appearance that more closely remembles north East Asians...including significantly darker skin, than the Europeans who came out of the Ice age refugeum.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

(Jablonski, NG and Chaplin, G, J Human Evolution 2000; 39: 57-106). Jablonski and Chaplin state: "Here we present new evidence indicating that variations in skin color are adaptive, and are related to the regulation of ultraviolet (UV) radiation penetration in the integument and its direct and indirect effects on fitness." The article concerns UV light and skin color. They also state: "In all populations for which skin reflectance data were available for males and females, females were found to be lighter skinned than males."

---

quote:

---

This indicates to me that testosterone is involved in skin color.

---

^ I agree.

I've written about this before.

Jablonski also agrees.

How does this help you?

ps -

You quote James Michael Howard, who claims that he 1st posted his idea to a newsgroup.

What is his educational background?

His simplistic hypothesis predates genetic evidence of the causes of skin color and has many obvious flaws.

He runs into the problem that black females obviously do not produce more male hormone [testosterone] than non black males.

He tries to resolve this by suggesting that testosterone is passed on in-utero.

However, skin color can't be sustained by in utereo testosterone levels in 'female fetus' because said effect would not last after birth.

Melanin must constantly be produced in order for skin to remain dark.

Anyway, his hypothesis is mooted by genetic study of the actual cause of skin color in humans.... good luck trying to make a white person black by feeding them steroid [fake testosterone], it won't work because their skin color receptors are disabled. No amount of testosterone can make them black.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Rasol this does not help your theory.

---

quote:

---

You claim that the Sami entered the Artic area after the ice.

---

quote:

---

If they entered the Artic around this time

---

quote:

---

They would have still been dark, not white since the white gene did not originate according to your sources until 12kya.

---

quote:

---

Since the Sami make fish a major part of their diet

---

quote:

---

the principal source of vitamin D that alledgely keep the Eskimos dark---- they would have maintained their blackness

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
Nice parody but some anthropologists seriously
did include Greeks among coloured people. And
as silly as it sounds, in the USA the civil rights
act of 1964 gave Greeks (other north Meds, east
Meds, east Europeans, all Jews and all orthodox
Christians) protection against discrimination in
the workplace.

---

quote:

---

This is based on Jablonski's theory that skin color can change within 500-1000 years if vitamin D is absent.

---

quote:

---

This does not mute Howard's research

---

quote:

---

he list articles written recently which supports his research.

---

quote:

---

Jablonski and Chaplin note that when human indigenous peoples have migrated, they have carried with them a sufficient gene pool so that within a thousand years, the skin of their descendants living today has turned dark or turned light to adapt to fit the formula given above -- with the notable exception of dark-skinned peoples moving north, such as to populate the seacoast of Greenland, to live where they have a year-round supply of food rich in vitamin D, such as fish, so that there was no necessity for their skin to lighten to let enough UV under their skin to synthesize the vitamin D that humans need for healthy bones.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
While part of Jablonsky's theory does hold water (her UV, W,
and AUV data) Dr. Winters is correct that as a whole it fails
to explain skin colour of polar populations vs sub-Arctic ones.

Jablonski allows for as little as 500 years for skin colour
to either increase or decrease. Dr. Winters has shown Saami
consume fish regularly in their diet. An underlying assumption
is that they have done so for the last 500 - 1000 years. Their
partial (60% of population) migration from NRY I originating
regions is irrelevant as far as her theory goes.

Also, other studies were posted here holdig that pigment may
be lost but not regained due to environmental factors. Then,
the "colourless" genetic factor (as laid out in the article
picturing the pink faced Saami -- hey, that's like pink flesh
salmon --) that kicked in 6 - 12kya, Jablonsky doesn't factor
into her theory. Another dint in its armor.

But, as Rasol has posted, pink skinned thin facial featured
light haired Saami are not necessarily the norm.

Norse mythology seems to lend credence to the relatively darker
and broader facial boned Saami being the ones that Germanic(?)
speakers encountered upon entering Scandinavia. Per the mythos,
interbreeding occured between the two populations but each one
prefered quite different environments and retreated to habitats
based on those longings.

Rasol also posted that Saami aren't NRY homogeneous. While they
may culturally be an ethny, they are of various phenotypes. My
take is the more commonly Euro phenotype Saami probably are more
heavily of partial once presumably Germanic speaking ancestry than
their kin resembling a more commonly Asian phenotype. This explains
why some of them are white much better than Jablonski's pigmentation
theory to me.

---