posted
It seems that the House Negroes are having a hard time believing that the Masta was not always the masta of his kingdom of Europe. As a matter of fact, those trouble-making Field Niggas are claiming that “they” were the original Mastas of Europe, and the Masta himself was nothing but an illiterate invader, and now, a liar to boot.
What contradictions, I am sure that we can all sympathize with those poor confused House Negroes: after placing their faith in the Masta for all their lives; now here comes those good-for-nothing, trouble-making, Field Niggas making these wild claims. Besides that, they think: those damn Field Niggas are Black just like me, everybody knows Niggas can’t be smart, how the hell would they know. What’s a poor House Negro to believe?
Out of sympathy, I feel compelled to help them. To make it as simple as possible, I have distilled it down to one simple fact, and one single proposition: IS GRIMALDI FACT OR FICTION!
If it can be proven; that the little Khoisan Grimaldi, was in fact the Late Pleistocene inhabitant of Europe. Then studies like this one (below), prove unequivocally that the Masta wasn’t there like he said he was. And of course it would follow; that he (Grimaldi) was the first Human in Europe and the creator of all else that followed.
The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form
C. Loring Brace *, , Noriko Seguchi , Conrad B. Quintyn , Sherry C. Fox , A. Russell Nelson ||, Sotiris K. Manolis **, and Pan Qifeng
Many human craniofacial dimensions are largely of neutral adaptive significance, and an analysis of their variation can serve as an indication of the extent to which any given population is genetically related to or differs from any other. When 24 craniofacial measurements of a series of human populations are used to generate neighbor-joining dendrograms, it is no surprise that all modern European groups, ranging all of the way from Scandinavia to Eastern Europe and throughout the Mediterranean to the Middle East, show that they are closely related to each other. The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants, although the prehistoric/modern ties are somewhat more apparent in southern Europe. It is a further surprise that the Epipalaeolithic Natufian of Israel from whom the Neolithic realm was assumed to arise has a clear link to Sub-Saharan Africa. Basques and Canary Islanders are clearly associated with modern Europeans. When canonical variates are plotted, neither sample ties in with Cro-Magnon as was once suggested. The data treated here support the idea that the Neolithic moved out of the Near East into the circum-Mediterranean areas and Europe by a process of demic diffusion but that subsequently the in situ residents of those areas, derived from the Late Pleistocene inhabitants, absorbed both the agricultural life way and the people who had brought it.
To help understand the study above, I have bolded pertinent points, and included some definitions below.
The Neolithic - New Stone Age (8,500 B.C. in the Levant) – (4,500 B.C. in Europe)
Bronze Age – (3,000 B.C. Levant) (2,000 B.C. Europe)
In situ is a Latin phrase meaning in the place.
Late Pleistocene (130,000 B.C. - 8,000 B.C.)
The Natufian culture existed in the Mediterranean region of the Levant. It was a Mesolithic culture, but unusual in that it established permanent settlements even before the introduction of agriculture. The Natufians are likely to have been the ancestors of the builders of the first Neolithic settlements of the region, which may have been the earliest in the world.
Demic diffusion is a demographic term referring to a migratory model developed by Cavalli-Sforza , that consists of population diffusion into and across an area previously uninhabited by that group, possibly, but not necessarily, displacing, replacing, or intermixing with a pre-existing population (e.g. as has been suggested for the spread of agriculture across Neolithic Europe, and what occurred with the European colonization of the Americas).
Once this is settled, then even the most ardent; bootlicking, White Worshipping, House Negro, must be satisfied that those good-for-nothing, trouble-making, Field Niggas like myself, were telling the truth.
Suggested reading materials are: Ancient types of man: Arthur Keith (1911) Fossil Men: Boule, Marcellin & Vallois (1957 Civilization or Barbarism: Diop (1981) Origin of the Anglo-Saxon Race: Thomas William Shore (1906) Surprise, Surprise, there really is such a book!!
BTW – is there anything more pathetic, than a House Negro, who thinks himself a radical?
PLEASE DO NOT POST REPLIES UNTIL I GET THE NEXT PAGE UP
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
(Myra, I sincerely hope that this is okay with you).
The Grimaldi or Negroid Type in Europe
Ancient Types of Man, (1911) Chapter VI, The Grimaldi or Negroid Type in Europe, page 59-63
In the cliffs which flank the beach near Men-tone there are a number of caves which for a long period of time afforded a habitation for ancient man. At the close of the last and at the beginning of the present century, largely owing to the interest taken in the history of primitive man by the Prince of Monaco, systematic excavations were carried out in deep strata of their floors. In one of these, the "Grotte des Enfants," usually named the Grimaldi Cave, the various strata of the floor made up a thickness of 8 1/2 metres (28 feet). In the lowest layer of all were found two skeletons—one of a woman past middle life, with a stature estimated at 1570 mm. (5 ft. 2 in.), and the other of a boy about sixteen to seventeen years of age, and about 1550 mm. (5 ft. 1 in.) in height.
With them were found traces of a civilization and of a fauna which has led anthropologists to assign them to the end of the Mousterien or beginning of the Aurignacien Period [40,000 to 28,000 years ago]—about the same or perhaps before the period assigned to the Combe-Capelle man. They have the narrow and long heads of the Galley Hill race. In the woman the maximum length of the head is 191 mm.; in the boy, probably her son, it is 192 ; the width of the skull in the mother is 131 and in the son 133. The proportion of breadth to length is about 68 per cent—the same as in the Galley Hill race. Yet French anthopologist Dr. Verneau,(1) who has published the results of a minute examination of these two ancient individuals, from various features seen in the skeletons, had no hesitation in assigning them to a negroid race.
It is an easy matter to distinguish the skeleton of the true negro from that of the pure white, but there are many intermediate races—not hybrids —which show a puzzling mixture of characters. The ancient Grimaldi woman and boy are of the mixed or negroid type. We associate large white teeth, full prominent jaws, and receding chin with the races showing pigmented skins. In the old woman, a great number of the teeth have been lost during life and the dental characters are uncertain. The shallow, projecting incisor part of the upper jaw and the characters of the chin are certainly features of a negroid race. So are the wide opening of the nose, the prominent cheek bones, the flat and short face. Yet the bridge of the nose is not flat as in negroes, but rather prominent as in Europeans, and the capacity of the skull (1375 cc.) is of ample dimensions for a woman of her size.
As to the boy, his teeth are large and of the negro type; he bears a striking resemblance to the woman, and his cranial capacity (1580 cc.) indicates a brain distinctly above the modern in size. The leg bones of mother and son are relatively long as in negroes. In that race the two eminences or bosses of the forehead usually meet and join together in a high median prominence, whereas in white races they remain separated, and this is the case in the Grimaldi skulls. Indeed, in the features of the forehead the Grimaldi remains agree with the Galley Hill type. It is a remarkable fact that the natives of the uplands of the Sandwich Islands—a true negroid race—reproduce today the cranial features of the ancient inhabitants of the Grimaldi caves.
To appreciate the true significance of a negroid race in the south of Europe towards the close of the Glacial Period, we must look at the distribution of modem races. A line from Gibraltar in the West to the Phillipine Islands in the Far East passes through a zone where the fairer skins of the North pass into the darker skins of the South. To some extent it may be a zone in which intermixtures of fairer and darker races occur, but in the main it is better to regard it as a zone in which human races have inherited from the ancestral stock of modern humanity some of the characters which now distinguish the European, and some that distinguish the Negro; but both Negro and European are highly specialized examples of the modern type of man. The discovery of the Grimaldi race does not indicate that we have reached the common stock from which black and white races have evolved; that point must lie much farther in the past. It merely indicates that towards the end of the Glacial Period the negroid race which we see in the north of Africa today was already evolved, and that it extended into Europe.
The land connections between Europe and Africa we know to have been much closer in the time of the Grimaldi people than they are today. There are other evidences of a negroid race in Europe. The negroid traits of the Combe-Capelle man have been mentioned; but there is also the remarkable fact that statuettes and engravings which are assigned to this period represent certain bodily characters of the negro. The Grimaldi people are the earliest negroid type so far discovered, yet they are so modern and highly evolved in character that we cannot suppose them to represent a common ancestor of European and African races. If, however, we suppose that all races of modern man have been evolved from a common stock, we naturally expect, especially in the earlier stages of the evolution of modern races, to find intermediate types between the extreme racial forms now found in North Europe and Central Africa. The Grimaldi people seem to represent an intermediate type in the evolution of the typical white and black races.
Footnote:
(1) Dr. Rene Verneau, Les Grottes de Grimaldi, Vol. II., Monaco, 1906.
Civilization or Barbarism, (1981) by Cheikh Anta Diop, page 15-16
The Grimaldi Negroids have left their numerous traces all over Europe and Asia, from the Iberian Peninsula to Lake Baykal in Siberia, passing through France, Austria, the Crimea, and the Basin of Don, etc. In these last two regions, the late Soviet Professor Mikhail Gerasimov, a scholar of rare objectivity, identified the Negroid type from skulls found in the Middle Mousterian period.
If one bases one's judgment on morphology, the first White appeared only around 20,000 years ago: the Cro-Magnon Man. He is probably the result of a mutation from the Grimaldi Negroid due to an existence of 20,000 years in the excessively cold climate of Europe at the end of the last glaciation.
The Basques, who live today in the Franco-Catabrian region where the Cro-Magnon was born, would be his descendants; in any case there are many of them in the southern region of France.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Not personalising, just relating facts, sorry if that annoys you.
quote:re: Grimaldi, fact or fiction.
^ This is non sequitur.
Here are the relevant facts:
* Grimaldi is the name of caves in France, whose factual existence is not in dispute.
* There are human remains found in these caves.
* Early anthropologists 'dubbed them negro' because they had prognathism, receding chins and other characteristics more similar to modern Africans than most modern Europeans.
* These anthropologists - did not understand - that *all Europeans* descend from Upper Paleolithic Africans, including those of Grimaldi, therefore to find affinities between 1st Europeans and modern Africans is *unremarkable.*
* These anthropologists - did not understand - that *all Europeans* descend from Upper Paleolithic Africans, including those of Grimaldi, therefore to find affinities between 1st Europeans and modern Africans is *unremarkable.*
[/QB]
CAN'T YOU READ???? (first bolded area in the study above)
The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants,
Rasol - Do us all a favor, please don't post again, until you learn to read.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: * Early anthropologists 'dubbed them negro' because they had prognathism, receding chins and other characteristics more similar to modern Africans than most modern Europeans.
* These anthropologists - did not understand - that *all Europeans* descend from Upper Paleolithic Africans, including those of Grimaldi, therefore to find affinities between 1st Europeans and modern Africans is *unremarkable.* [/QB]
Nor did they understand that phenotypical traits of populations change, nor did many anthropologists didn't *KNOW* that all modern humans are of comman descent, making the act of dividing human populations based on physical morphology questionable at best.
Though, it is now known that this practice is no longer questionable. It is worse than useless. (misleading) ;
J. Edwards, A. Leathers, et al.
"...based on Howell’s sampling Fordisc 2.0 authors state that "there are no races, only populations," yet it is clear that Howell was intent on providing known groups that would be distributed among the continental "racial" groups. We tested the accuracy and effectiveness of Fordisc 2.0 using twelve cranial measurements from a ***HOMOGENEOUS*** population from the X-Group period of Sudanese Nubia (350CE-550CE). When the Fordisc program classified the adult X-Group crania, only 51 (57.3%) of 89 individuals were classified within groups from Africa. Others were placed in such diverse groups as Polynesian (11.24%), European (7.86%), Japanese (4.49%), Native American (3.37%), Peruvian (3.36%), Australian (1.12), Tasmanian (1.12%), and Melanesian (1.12%). The implications of these findings suggest that classifying populations, whether by geography or by "race", is not morphologically or biologically accurate because of the wide variation even in homogeneous populations."Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alive-(What Box) - Would you please explain what that study means and why?
I mean like what is Fordisc 2.0 and how does it apply to what we are talking about (there is no mention of that method in the study above. And the whole point of the study that you cite, was to ascertain the accuracy of that method. Their conclusions appear to be an indictment of the method.
Additionally, I wouldn't compare what would be minor variations in a homogeneous population, and the inaccuracy that would necessarily come because of the closeness, with the very large variation that would be found when comparing Black and White crania.
My point is: that if you are trying to say that scientist can't tell the difference between a Black persons skull and a White persons skull, well then, all I can say is that you are mistaken.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^The purpose of the study was in testing the accuracy of racially classifying crania based on pre-concieved notions of race.
The results of the study prove that un-objectively assuming certain morphologies to be indicative of certain ancestries is a fallacy.
Though, I can see why you ask what this has to do with this thread.
Really, the crucial thing here is that all humans having descended from one source automatically implies groups to have African origin and AFFINITIES at some point.
Prove us wrong, and tell us in your own words what this means.
CL Brace: 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.Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box): ^The purpose of the study was in testing the accuracy of racially classifying crania based on pre-concieved notions of race.
The results of the study prove that un-objectively assuming certain morphologies to be indicative of certain ancestries is a fallacy.
Though, I can see why you ask what this has to do with this thread.
Really, the crucial thing here is that all humans having descended from one source automatically implies groups to have African origin and AFFINITIES at some point.
This is correct. It is also important to note that just as you can find crania with prognathism and low wide nasal passages in paleolithic Eurasia - and South America, you can also find skulls without these features in paleolithic Equatorial Africa.
This fact led to early Palentologists like Leaky to proclaim that paleolithic east africans were "US" [white europeans], and not "them", meaning Black Africans.
The fundamental error of racial typologies is to apply non-evolutionary static templates upon human variation - such that skulls will relate race-types.
This notion has been debunked many times, and survives based upon ideological puffery, circular thinking, and sheer ignorance, more than anything else.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: * Early anthropologists 'dubbed them negro' because they had prognathism, receding chins and other characteristics more similar to modern Africans than most modern Europeans.
* These anthropologists - did not understand - that *all Europeans* descend from Upper Paleolithic Africans, including those of Grimaldi, therefore to find affinities between 1st Europeans and modern Africans is *unremarkable.*
Nor did they understand that phenotypical traits of populations change, nor did many anthropologists didn't *KNOW* that all modern humans are of comman descent, making the act of dividing human populations based on physical morphology questionable at best.
Though, it is now known that this practice is no longer questionable. It is worse than useless. (misleading) ;
J. Edwards, A. Leathers, et al.
"...based on Howell’s sampling Fordisc 2.0 authors state that "there are no races, only populations," yet it is clear that Howell was intent on providing known groups that would be distributed among the continental "racial" groups. We tested the accuracy and effectiveness of Fordisc 2.0 using twelve cranial measurements from a ***HOMOGENEOUS*** population from the X-Group period of Sudanese Nubia (350CE-550CE). When the Fordisc program classified the adult X-Group crania, only 51 (57.3%) of 89 individuals were classified within groups from Africa. Others were placed in such diverse groups as Polynesian (11.24%), European (7.86%), Japanese (4.49%), Native American (3.37%), Peruvian (3.36%), Australian (1.12), Tasmanian (1.12%), and Melanesian (1.12%). The implications of these findings suggest that classifying populations, whether by geography or by "race", is not morphologically or biologically accurate because of the wide variation even in homogeneous populations." [/QB]
This finding says nothing about the reality of race. Howell's work is based on measurements of excavated skeletal remains from around the world. Fordisc 2.0 is made up of only North American samples and therefore would probably not be able to detail the racial distinctions in population due to the poor sample used in the program.
quote:
The reference samples used in FORDISC 2.0 are based on data recorded in the Forensic Data Bank (Jantz and Moore-Jansen 1988; Moore-Jansen et al. 1994). These data were collected from identified forensic cases, making them ideally suited for forensic applications. FORDISC 2.0 uses over 1,400 cases from the Forensic Data Bank, offering more relevant information than many of the previously published discriminant functions based largely on museum collections. FORDISC 2.0 also classifies individuals based on the Howells database (Howells 1973; Howells 1989) of cranial measurements taken on museum collections of archeologically recovered remains from around the world.
The discriminant functions derived from these two databases offer different, somewhat contrasting approaches to ancestry classification. The Forensic Data Bank includes categories of American black males and females, American Indian males and females, American white males and females, Chinese males, Japanese males and females, Vietnamese males, and Hispanic males (from the United States, Mexico, and Central America, but mostly representing Mexican Americans). Unknown remains are classified into the racial categories that are represented within the Forensic Data Bank. The race categories are then based on known information about the identified individuals within the database. Ousley and Jantz (1996: 20-24) provide an excellent discussion of these social race categories.
The Howells groups are those used in his 1973 and 1989 publications and largely reflect the names assigned to the archeological samples examined. Since these are older samples and more geographically diverse than those in the forensic database, they offer a different perspective.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ Let me help you Mike, because I know you're lost and don't want you to flounder.
Look up, the above terms from Brace: Neolithic, demic diffusion, in situ, and Pleistocene.
Answer these questions using these terms.
According to Brace:
1) Which comes first, Pleistocene or Neolithic?
2) What is the source of the demic diffusion described above?
3) Whom are the current populations of Europe principally derived from?
I knew that sooner or later, you would get stupid. You just can't help yourself. Time to go away Rasol.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Hi Mike. Yes. The Upper Paleolithic did belong to us. Grimaldi here is picture A2. The Khoisan men are slender while the women often steatophygous. In the page, B2, B2, B3, and B4 are steatophygous. B6 and D4 might be, too.
According to the archeological evidence, I'd say that the Middle East was African so a movement from the Middle East to Europe was a movement of Africans from the Middle East to Europe. For example:
While stories of Mesopotamia recount how they gave gifts of cattle and agriculture to the people of the Steppes (many African - by phenotype in Steppe as in first poster above) from Africa itself traditions began that made it to the Near East and from there to Europe in a demic movement. Pottery studies (see 5 below) and cattle brecia show this. Evaluate the analogies of columns A, D, and F:
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ Let me help you Mike, because I know you're lost and don't want you to flounder.
Look up, the above terms from Brace: Neolithic, demic diffusion, in situ, and .
Answer these questions using these terms.
According to Brace:
1) Which comes first, Pleistocene or Neolithic?
2) What is the source of the demic diffusion described above?
3) Whom are the current populations of Europe principally derived from?
I knew that sooner or later, you would get stupid. You just can't help yourself. Time to go away Rasol.
^ Of course you didn't answer the questions.
Of course you attempt childish insult as a cover for your immature intellect.
Of course, I don't care, and will answer the questions for you.
1) Pleistocene precedes the Neolithic.
2) Demic diffusion is migration of a population into a new, often already inhabited territory - in this case during the Neolithic - from Africa to the Levantine, and from the Levatine to Europe.
3) European populations are principally derived from the Pleistocene populations, who precede the demic diffusive migration of the Afro-Asians who introduced Neolithic techniques to Europes 'in-situ' [already resident] populations.
^ These are facts.
The "fiction" lies in your delusion that you can persuade anyone that you have the foggiest idea of what you're talking about.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Mike. Here is another area of the Middle East straddling the Neolithic and Bronze Age. You can see what the population was in this particular locale that could have been the source of some movement of people from the Middle East to Europe.
Mike. I hope the following is related to your thread. You are trying to separate out when today's population entered resulting in a replacement of and/or phenotypic modification of the original population of Europe which was phenotypically African.
This map shows from where and when whites entered the western and southern parts of Europe; this was in pretty recent times:
GRIMALDI AS AN AURIGNACIAN PEOPLE AND THE RELEVANCE: Mike. The quote below speaks of the Grimaldi as being a people of the Aurignacian culture. I have a page dealing with this people and culture looking at some of the archeological evidence they left behind. Here's the quote:
The Aurignacian flake culture,31 with which the Upper Palaeolithic period in Europe began, was not a single unit throughout its time span, but seems to have been composed of several separate entities derived from more than one non-European source.
The first Aurignacian level in Europe, the Chatelperronian, is represented by three skeletons only. These include the two “negroids” from the Grotte des Enfants, Grimaldi, near Mentone, and Combe Capelle. Of the three, the Grimaldi pair may have been the older. Except that they belonged to the earliest Aurignacian period.
And the page (it's not completed yet) but it shows some of the population that Grimaldi either was or was a part of - they shared the same culture; made the same things the same way:
posted
From - Marcus Garvey: The African Origin Of Civilization
Paris 1963
The morphological differences between Blacks, Whites, and Yellows are so deep that it would be absurd to make them date back less than 40,000 years, by supposing the two latter-named races to be the product of a differentiation in a primitive Negro substratum. At that period the three races must necessarily have already existed on earth with their own well-defined characteristics; archeology will one day find specimens of white men as old as the first Negro Aurignacians.
When the latter (Negros) lived in Europe, the white race must have been elsewhere, in some location not yet excavated. But its existence at that period cannot be doubted. Though the hypotheses of scholars often prove true, the fact remains that at the present moment, while awaiting new discoveries to prove the contrary, the sole scientific conclusion conforming to the evidence is that the earliest humans, the very first Homo sapiens, were "Negroids." Obviously, the term "Negroid" is specious; in scientific writing, it belongs to that group of words used to gloss over the facts. Any Negro type that stands unquestionably at the origin of a civilization is for that very reason, described by the most distinguished scholars as a Negroid or Hamite, as we have seen.
Thus, the first humans were probably quite simply Negritic. The existence of an archaic Homo sapiens (Swanscombe man and Fontechevade man*), as early as the Lower Paleolithic, would not change these facts one iota. In the Upper Paleolithic, the archaic Homo sapiens either disappeared or else evolved into the Grimaldi man, for only the latter has been found, without any parallel branch of Homo sapiens until the belated appearance of the Cro-Magnon and Chancelade races.
Pierre Legoux's note in the proceedings of the French Academy of *The Swanscombe skull was discovered in the Thames valley in 1935. The Pontechevade skull fragments were found near Angouleme, France, in 1947. Evolution of the Black World 263 Sciences for October 1962 (pp. 2276-2277) does not weaken those conclusions. In an effort to demonstrate that the Grimaldi race did not exist, he tried to continue Verneau's study on Les Grottes de Grimaldi that Boule and Vallois had utilized. Unfortunately, he was evasive in his attempt to refute the main points of the long text quoted earlier.
Does anyone know who authored this quote?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Clyde, sir, I'll get back to you in a sec.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: I knew that sooner or later, you would get stupid. You just can't help yourself. Time to go away Rasol.
DIDJA MISS THIS?:
quote:Originally posted by rasol: tell us in your own words what this means.
CL Brace: 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.
lol.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ Let me help you Mike, because I know you're lost and don't want you to flounder.
Look up, the above terms from Brace: Neolithic, demic diffusion, in situ, and Pleistocene.
Answer these questions using these terms.
According to Brace:
1) Which comes first, Pleistocene or Neolithic?
2) What is the source of the demic diffusion described above?
3) Whom are the current populations of Europe principally derived from?
Why directly avoid this?
It's always telling, who's on the truthful and knowledgable side, in how they adress stuff like this.
Someone who knows what they're talking about will clearly lay out what's going on, and refute the other person's position, or not.
posted
^^^ Anyone who can not read and understand the quote above: Even with the definitions that I provided. Really should re-access whether or not, they have the necessities for posting on the board.
But even if they do; that's okay, as long as it's in the form of a polite question. On the other hand, for someone of such limitations to presume to offer analysis and criticism, well that takes one of those dumb Negroes, who don't know that they are dumb Negroes.
In rasol's case, I am pretty sure?? that he can read and understand the material, it seems that he just gets stupid sometimes. Which is when I start ignoring him.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: tell us in your own words what this means.
CL Brace: 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.
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box): ^^Clyde, sir, I'll get back to you in a sec.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: I knew that sooner or later, you would get stupid. You just can't help yourself. Time to go away Rasol.
DIDJA MISS THIS?:
quote:Originally posted by rasol: tell us in your own words what this means.
CL Brace: 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.
lol.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ Let me help you Mike, because I know you're lost and don't want you to flounder.
Look up, the above terms from Brace: Neolithic, demic diffusion, in situ, and Pleistocene.
Answer these questions using these terms.
According to Brace:
1) Which comes first, Pleistocene or Neolithic?
2) What is the source of the demic diffusion described above?
3) Whom are the current populations of Europe principally derived from?
Why directly avoid this?
It's always telling, who's on the truthful and knowledgable side, in how they adress stuff like this.
Someone who knows what they're talking about will clearly lay out what's going on, and refute the other person's position, or not.
Someone who's foolin' will always evade it.
Mike and Marc choose to play the fool, and ultimately only fool themselves.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's Diop's African Origin of Civilization page 262 263 Evolution of the Black World chapter.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: From - Marcus Garvey: The African Origin Of Civilization
Paris 1963
The morphological differences between Blacks, Whites, and Yellows are so deep that it would be absurd to make them date back less than 40,000 years, by supposing the two latter-named races to be the product of a differentiation in a primitive Negro substratum. At that period the three races must necessarily have already existed on earth with their own well-defined characteristics; archeology will one day find specimens of white men as old as the first Negro Aurignacians.
When the latter (Negros) lived in Europe, the white race must have been elsewhere, in some location not yet excavated. But its existence at that period cannot be doubted. Though the hypotheses of scholars often prove true, the fact remains that at the present moment, while awaiting new discoveries to prove the contrary, the sole scientific conclusion conforming to the evidence is that the earliest humans, the very first Homo sapiens, were "Negroids." Obviously, the term "Negroid" is specious; in scientific writing, it belongs to that group of words used to gloss over the facts. Any Negro type that stands unquestionably at the origin of a civilization is for that very reason, described by the most distinguished scholars as a Negroid or Hamite, as we have seen.
Thus, the first humans were probably quite simply Negritic. The existence of an archaic Homo sapiens (Swanscombe man and Fontechevade man*), as early as the Lower Paleolithic, would not change these facts one iota. In the Upper Paleolithic, the archaic Homo sapiens either disappeared or else evolved into the Grimaldi man, for only the latter has been found, without any parallel branch of Homo sapiens until the belated appearance of the Cro-Magnon and Chancelade races.
Pierre Legoux's note in the proceedings of the French Academy of *The Swanscombe skull was discovered in the Thames valley in 1935. The Pontechevade skull fragments were found near Angouleme, France, in 1947. Evolution of the Black World 263 Sciences for October 1962 (pp. 2276-2277) does not weaken those conclusions. In an effort to demonstrate that the Grimaldi race did not exist, he tried to continue Verneau's study on Les Grottes de Grimaldi that Boule and Vallois had utilized. Unfortunately, he was evasive in his attempt to refute the main points of the long text quoted earlier.
For his part, Cornevin apparently forgets that the most distinguished prehistorians and anthropologists nowadays-Abbe Breuil, Professor Arambourg, Dr. Leakey, etc.- consider Africa the cradle of humanity. Africa has known the Paleolithic, which was prolonged into the Capsian, corresponding to the Solutrean and European Magdalenian, in archeological succession. Certain authors suppose that, in general, a time gap must elapse between corresponding European and African archeological periods.9 It is difficult'to square this with the almost certain fact that the Aurig-nacians came from Africa and were "Negroids." "Aurignacian culture was brought into Western Europe from North Africa by new types of men, and these and all subsequent races and their cultures have been ternied Neanthropic; usually all these races are grouped under the designation Homo sapiens of Linnaeus...
We know that the Aurig-nacians were superior in every way to the old Neanderthal group of men whom they conquered and probably exterminated."10 Cornevin seems to ignore the depth of morphological differences that exist between the Black and the White when he dates these differences back to an Antiquity as recent as the eleventh millennium B.C. By so doing, he opposes the one hypothesis at the disposal of scholars to confer upon the Whites an antiquity equal to that of the Blacks. He errs most regrettably in claiming that the Asselar man* looks more like the Cro-Magnoid European of Grimaldi and the Bushman than like modern Blacks.
By definition, the Grimaldi Negroid is not Cro-Magnoid, and he is the only one the Asselar man could possibly resemble; he shares no feature with the so-called Cro-Magnon man who lived later in the same cave and is the prototype of the White race as the "Negroid" is the prototype of the Black race. "The remains of the Asselar man were discovered in the Sahara by Theodore Monod in 1927. Evolution of the Black World 267
There is also good reason to point out that the similarities too often cited between the Grimaldi Negroid and the Bushman are tendentious and stem more from an interpretation of Aurignacian art than from actual archeological measurements. That art reveals a steatopygic female type. This morphological feature has been made a monopoly of the Bushman and Hottentot since Cuvier's studies on the Hottentot Venus at the Musee de l'Homme in Paris." The almost exclusive relationship between these races and the Grimaldi "Negroes" has been claimed. But the morphological characteristics, stea-topygia included, which seem common to Hottentots and Bushmen, are found to be generally true of all Negroes. We have only to read the following text:
As for me, I have been much impressed by the resemblance between the Grimaldi Negroids and the Bushman-Hottentot population of South Africa. The comparisons I have been able to make from the elements at my disposal, especially from the skeleton of the Hottentot Venus, have led me to observe, for example the same dolichocephaly, the same prognathism, the same platyrrhinia, the same wide facial development, the same form of the mandible, the same macrodontism; the only differences lie in the stature and perhaps the height of the skull.12 None of the features cited in that passage distinguishes Bushmen from other Negroes. The slope of the pelvis and steatopygia, which seems to be its corollary, exist in almost all black races. But one can maintain with assurance that this morphological characteristic derives from a deformation of the spinal column at the level of the hips from transporting the baby, for it is very ancient and dates back to the Upper Paleolithic. (See Fig. 48.)
Steatopygia is often latent during the girl's adolescence and does not develop noticeably until after her first children are born. There are hundreds, even thousands of girls of all Black African races, once thin as skeletons, who become steatopygic as they mature after marriage. Often this morphological characteristic in Aurignacian races from Western Europe to Lake Baikal (Soviet Union) has been challenged in order to avoid reaching the logical conclusion that would follow: namely, the area over which Negroids were scattered on the face of the globe: Since all these statuettes seem to have a "family resemblance," it is necessary to accept the idea of a fertility cult, for it would be incredible that France, Italy, and Siberia could have been inhabited by people of the same Negroid race, all of whose women were steatopygic. . . .
The human skeletons discovered by Leakey near Elmenteita (Kenya) in the grotto called Gamble's Cave II, and which probably belonged to the same human type as the Olduvai man (northern Tanzania) of the Capsian, have caused much ink to flow. "It is certain that these are not true Negroes, in the usual sense of the word. These are men comparable to the Nilotics in the Great Lakes region, or else comparable to the lighter-skinned populations of those territories. A skeleton recently found at Naivasha (Kenya) obviously belongs to the same type."14
From these discoveries, prehistorians, historians, and ethnologists draw conclusions of varying importance concerning the early peopling of Black Africa. In the Olduvai man, Cornevin sees the ancestor of the Nilotic, of the Shilluk, Dinka, Nuer, and Masai. He makes him a Caucasoid. His existence, Cornevin contends, "proves that it is useless to make the East African, improperly called Nilo-Hamitic, come from India or Arabia."1"
Finally, referring to the Naivasha man just mentioned, on the next page he writes that archeological research reveals affinities with the Cro-Magnon race: "tall stature, low, wide face, broad forehead, rectangular sockets, thin nose, little prognathism." There was no Cro-Magnon man in sub-Saharan Africa.
Posts: 20 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ancient Etruscans (Italy) Unlikely Ancestors Of Modern Tuscans, Testing Reveals.
News story from the Science Daily — For the first time, Stanford university researchers have used statistical computer modeling to simulate demographic processes affecting the population of the Tuscany region of Italy over a 2,500-year time span. Rigorous tests used by the researchers have ruled out a genetic link between Ancient Etruscans, the original inhabitants of central Italy, and the region's modern day residents.
The findings that the Ancient Etruscans had little in common with the people who later came to Italy, said Joanna Mountain, assistant professor of anthropological sciences. The findings as documented in ''Serial Coalescent Simulations” indicate a Weak Genealogical Relationship Between Etruscans and Modern Tuscans. The study was published May 15, 2006 in the online version of the National Academy of Sciences. Uma Ramakrishnan, a former Stanford postdoctoral fellow, and Elise M. S. Belle along with Guido Barbujani of the University of Ferrara in Italy, co-authored the paper with Mountain.
To date; the Etruscans are the only pre-classical European population that has been genetically analyzed, Mountain said. Two years ago, Italian geneticists extracted maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA from the bones of 27 people called Etruscans found in six different necropolises (burial sites) in Tuscany. The female lineage was investigated because, unlike the male Y chromosome, many copies of mitochondrial DNA are found in each cell and thus are easier to extract, Mountain explained. The finding is important because it questions the common assumption that residents of a particular place are descendants of its earlier inhabitants, Mountain said.
Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by Stanford University.
posted
Holy SH## Mike!! Where do you get this stuff? You should publish a web page for seekers to get their info.
You holding out on us bro!
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Ancient Etruscans (Italy) Unlikely Ancestors Of Modern Tuscans, Testing Reveals.
News story from the Science Daily — For the first time, Stanford university researchers have used statistical computer modeling to simulate demographic processes affecting the population of the Tuscany region of Italy over a 2,500-year time span. Rigorous tests used by the researchers have ruled out a genetic link between Ancient Etruscans, the original inhabitants of central Italy, and the region's modern day residents.
The findings that the Ancient Etruscans had little in common with the people who later came to Italy, said Joanna Mountain, assistant professor of anthropological sciences. The findings as documented in ''Serial Coalescent Simulations” indicate a Weak Genealogical Relationship Between Etruscans and Modern Tuscans. The study was published May 15, 2006 in the online version of the National Academy of Sciences. Uma Ramakrishnan, a former Stanford postdoctoral fellow, and Elise M. S. Belle along with Guido Barbujani of the University of Ferrara in Italy, co-authored the paper with Mountain.
To date; the Etruscans are the only pre-classical European population that has been genetically analyzed, Mountain said. Two years ago, Italian geneticists extracted maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA from the bones of 27 people called Etruscans found in six different necropolises (burial sites) in Tuscany. The female lineage was investigated because, unlike the male Y chromosome, many copies of mitochondrial DNA are found in each cell and thus are easier to extract, Mountain explained. The finding is important because it questions the common assumption that residents of a particular place are descendants of its earlier inhabitants, Mountain said.
Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by Stanford University.
What were the lineages?
Posts: 343 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
Grimaldi, Neolithic farmers? Who knows, that's what DNA research will hopefully tell us. But don't hold your breath, definitive research like that, is NOT in the best interest of the people with the means to do it. There is no benefit for them, in proving that European civilization was begun by Blacks.
For the foreseeable future; we are stuck with what we are already doing: that is; adding two and two together.
Which is very unfortunate indeed: Because now, more that ever, we need DNA data. The reason for that is the Gobekli Tepe site in Anatolia (Turkey) - dated 11,500 B.C. Here is where you will find the oldest known example of monumental architecture. And certain funerary and religious practices that will later be found in Sumer and that area.
As we know - Anatolia is the crossover point between Southern Europe and the middle-east and Egypt. Owing to the materials found in Anatolia and elsewhere: The question has to be asked: Was Grimaldi a kind of Super Nigger, and did advanced thinking and technology flow North to South instead of the reverse. Please think about it a little BEFORE Flaming me.
posted
Below is a research paper by Ellen Levy-Coffman; which dissects and discredits the work of those pathetic White Boys and Girls who use science and their stature as scientist to desperately try to hold on to their self-generated myth of a White prehistoric past in Europe. They try to do this by purposefully using inappropriate samples, and then purposefully misinterpreting the results of their already dishonest data. But even with all of those efforts to lie and mislead, the proof of the pudding, is in how easily the lies are detected and exposed.
My posting is of what I consider pertinent excerpts, the complete paper can be found here..
If you wish to read the entire text, be forewarned, the authors writing style is a bit awkward, and it does require some knowledge of White peoples lives in their former homeland (the Eurasian Plains). As well as, some knowledge of the first Whites to venture out of the plains; the Scythians and the Arians. Ms. Levy-Coffman is I believe, White: We can only wonder what she DOESN’T say.
So how pathetic is it that the Negroes in academia are so worried about keeping their jobs, that they don’t do this kind of research and analysis.
We Are Not Our Ancestors: Evidence for Discontinuity between Prehistoric and Modern Europeans
Ellen Levy-Coffman
The model of European genetic ancestry has recently shifted away from the Neolithic diffusion model towards an emphasis on autochthonous Paleolithic origins. However, this new paradigm utilizes genetic reconstructions based primarily on contemporary populations and, furthermore, is often promoted without regard to the findings of ancient DNA studies. These ancient DNA studies indicate that contemporary European ancestry is not a living fossil of the Paleolithic maternal demographic; rather, demographic events during the Neolithic and post-Neolithic periods appear to have had substantial impact on the European genetic record. In addition, evolutionary processes, including genetic drift, adaptive selection and disease susceptibility, may have altered the patterns of maternal lineage frequency and distribution in existing populations. As a result, the genetic history of Europe has undergone significant transformation over time, resulting in genetic discontinuity between modern-day Europeans and their ancient maternal forbearers.
Thus, the picture presented by this model is one of substantial genetic continuity between modern groups and the Paleolithic hunter-gatherers who inhabited the same region thousands of years ago.
Yet the DNA evidence suggests a more complex picture than a direct and undisturbed genetic link between contemporary Europeans and their Paleolithic forbearers. A significant and as of yet unexplained genetic discontinuity exists between present and past populations. Since the recent advent of techniques allowing the extraction of DNA from ancient remains (“aDNA”), in particular mtDNA, the actual genetic background of the ancient maternal inhabitants of Europe can now be compared to their contemporary counterparts. Rather than using contemporary European DNA to reconstruct the genetic histories of populations from the past, this new technique allows researchers to determine to what extent later European populations truly do retain the genetic legacy of the earlier group.
In contrast to the Paleolithic paradigm, these studies indicate an unexpected and significant genetic discontinuity exists between contemporary Europeans and their Paleolithic predecessors. They also suggest that the exclusive use of contemporary DNA samples in the reconstruction of earlier population histories has created a misleading picture of the European genetic legacy.
Various demographic and evolutionary mechanisms may have led to this genetic break with the past, including the strong likelihood of genetic contributions from migratory peoples that occurred during the Neolithic, and into the Bronze and Iron Ages. This gene flow may have been so significant that genetic signals from the earlier inhabitants of Europe have been all but obliterated, even amounting to wholesale population replacement. Founder effects, genetic drift and bottlenecks also have had a dramatic impact. In addition, Darwinian principles of natural selection and resistance against disease may have changed the face of Europe over time, causing certain genetic groups to disappear while others have come to dominate the genetic landscape. These events, either alone or in combination, have resulted in a striking genetic discontinuity between past and present populations.
As a result, contemporary Europeans should not be viewed as descending entirely or even significantly from either Neolithic farmers or the indigenous Paleolithic inhabitants of Europe. Rather, Europeans appear to be an entirely new and modern genetic mix formed as a result of a number of demographic and evolutionary events over time, including the continual movement of peoples across the European continent over the millennia.
Nor did the authors address the possibility of a post-Neolithic replacement scenario, noting only that “[a]rchaeological evidence for such an event is as of yet scant.” Yet large-scale movement of peoples throughout Europe is recorded in both the archaeological record and numerous historical accounts. Given the lack of genetic continuity between modern Europeans and Paleolithic samples as evidenced by other aDNA studies, impact from post-Neolithic migrations is not only reasonable but highly likely.
Intermixture between Paleolithic and Neolithic peoples is further supported by the fact that burial orientation also correlated with place of origin. (Price 2001) This intermixture becomes especially apparent at Schwetzingen, at site also tested by Haak and representing the later phase of the LBK, when the process of contact between the farmers and hunter-gatherers appears to become more complex. At Schwetzingen, all but two of the immigrant burials are oriented in directions from north to east. At Flomborn, 4 of the 5 west-facing burials were of immigrants. Yet in Haak’s samples, the Flomborn and Derenburg individuals were buried in an East-West direction, while in Halberstadt, the burial orientation was West-East. One study suggested that immigrant brides may have been incorporated into the community and given a local identity, including burial in a northeastern direction. (Bentley 2003)
The failure of Haak’s genetic study to incorporate important archaeological data along with other ancient DNA results leaves the question of N1a’s ultimate origins unanswered. Nor is the mystery of N1a’s disappearance among Europeans today adequately addressed. The idea that N1a represents a Neolithic farming lineage that failed to impart a genetic legacy is not supported by the evidence. Based on the limited N1a findings, Haak made a sweeping generalization that the Neolithic farmers overall failed to have a significant genetic impact on Europe. But the evidence suggests a much more complex picture, even the possibility that N1a may represent a Paleolithic European lineage that has mysteriously diminished over time.
Conclusion: Why We Are Not Our Ancestors
The ancient DNA studies present a picture of genetic break or “discontinuity” between ancient and modern-day European maternal histories. This evidence indicates that modern-day mtDNA haplogroup frequencies and distributions should not be considered living fossils of Europe’s Paleolithic past.
Currently, the genetic picture presented by the aDNA studies is based exclusively on mitochondrial DNA results. This form of DNA, unlike that of the Y chromosome, is generally preserved in a form that allows for testing of ancient remains. However, the Y chromosome genetic picture of Europe may also have undergone significant change similar to that impacting the ancient maternal lineages. The ancient DNA results provide a cautionary framework for geneticists in their reconstruction of the distribution and frequency of ancient European Y chromosome lineages. Modern-day Europeans cannot accurately be used as genetic proxies for their prehistoric counterparts.
These findings stand in stark contrast to the model presented by many DNA studies of an undisturbed genetic link between contemporary and Paleolithic European groups. Yet evidence of such genetic continuity is sparse, even among populations such as the Basque. More problematically, it contradicts the findings of the ancient DNA studies. These studies indicate that populations have indeed changed dramatically over time, with some ancient lineages suffering reductions and even extinctions from the European gene pool.
Extinction appears to be the fate suffered by the Etruscans maternal lineages. Many other ancient groups appear to have suffered a similar fate, the continuity of their genetic lineages extinguished for future generations. Only the archaeological record remains a testament to their existence. Certain genetic lineages, like mtDNA haplogroup H, came to dominate the genetic landscape over time. The contemporary European genetic picture is thus a reflection of these complex demographic and evolutionary processes, changing and adapting until it is no longer a mere reflection of its genetic past, but a new and constantly evolving population.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: So how pathetic is it that the Negroes in academia are so worried about keeping their jobs, that they don’t do this kind of research and analysis.
That's the billion dollar question!
The very likely answer is; Black kings, Presidents, million/billionaires, and colleges/universities don't fund such efforts or place much emphasis on any research other then what whites tell them to focus on.
Being a layman, I'm still researching why melanin research is such a low priority for black researchers when it should prove to be a most valuable analysis tool.
Whites are dumping billions annually into melanin research, but I see little invest from blacks.
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Having demonstrated that Blacks; NOT Whites are indigenous to Europe, the next logical question is: Then where DO Whites come from, and how did they get there? Rather than provide my own answer, I thought it more convincing to use this White individual’s own Genographic profile, which was posted on Flicker. As we already know, Mr. Wells is sometimes disingenuous when it comes to Black/White history, so be on the lookout.
[TAKE CAREFUL NOTE OF THE MAP: The Africans, who will later become WHITE People, go nowhere near Europe!!!]
From what I know, my family tree traces entirely to Estonia, back to the fog of countless invasions and occupations of my homeland. So it was with some curiosity that I explored my lineage back a few thousand generations and 60,000 years to Africa, and a long period in Iran. My recent ancestors were likely reindeer herders in Siberia, breeding Samoyed white fluffy dogs.
I submitted my DNA anonymously to IBM for a research project, and from the mutations in my Y-chromosome alone, they identified me as haplotype N LLY22G, which pegs the Uralic language of my family and the locale of northern Scandinavia / Eastern Europe. With only my DNA, they identified my family origin on the map above to within a few miles, and traced it back to the veritable “Adam” in Africa, from whom we are all descendants.
And, unaware of any of this, it is odd that, so far in my life, I have adopted two animals from shelters, both Samoyed dogs.
Here is a portion of my Genographic Project report, a fascinating peek into genetic archaeology:
Your Y-chromosome results identify you as a member of haplogroup N.
The genetic markers that define your ancestral history reach back roughly 60,000 years to the first common marker of all non-African men, M168, and follow your lineage to present day, ending with LLY22(G), the defining marker of haplogroup N.
If you look at the map highlighting your ancestors' route, you will see that members of haplogroup N carry the following Y-chromosome markers:
M168 > M89 > M9 > LLY22(G)
Today, your ancestors are found in northern parts of Scandinavia particularly northern Finland as well as Siberia east of the Altai Mountains, and in northeastern Europe. Many Russians are members of haplogroup N, as are the reindeer-herding Saami [Samoyed] people of northern Scandinavia and Russia.
What's a haplogroup, and why do geneticists concentrate on the Y-chromosome in their search for markers? For that matter, what's a marker?
Each of us carries DNA that is a combination of genes passed from both our mother and father, giving us traits that range from eye color and height to athleticism and disease susceptibility. One exception is the Y-chromosome, which is passed directly from father to son, unchanged, from generation to generation.
Unchanged, that is unless a mutation—a random, naturally occurring, usually harmless change—occurs. The mutation, known as a marker, acts as a beacon; it can be mapped through generations because it will be passed down from the man in whom it occurred to his sons, their sons, and every male in his family for thousands of years.
Your Ancestral Journey: What We Know Now
M168: Your Earliest Ancestor Time of Emergence: Roughly 50,000 years ago Place of Origin: Africa Climate: Temporary retreat of Ice Age; Africa moves from drought to warmer temperatures and moister conditions Estimated Number of Homo sapiens: Approximately 10,000 Tools and Skills: Stone tools; earliest evidence of art and advanced conceptual skills
The man who gave rise to the first genetic marker in your lineage probably lived in northeast Africa in the region of the Rift Valley. Scientists put the most likely date for when he lived at around 50,000 years ago. His descendants became the only lineage to survive outside of Africa, making him the common ancestor of every non-African man living today.
But why would man have first ventured out of the familiar African hunting grounds and into unexplored lands? It is likely that a fluctuation in climate may have provided the impetus for your ancestors' exodus out of Africa.
The African ice age was characterized by drought rather than by cold. It was around 50,000 years ago that the ice sheets of northern Europe began to melt, introducing a period of warmer temperatures and moister climate in Africa. Parts of the inhospitable Sahara briefly became habitable. As the drought-ridden desert changed to a savanna, the animals hunted by your ancestors expanded their range and began moving through the newly emerging green corridor of grasslands.
M89: Moving Through the Middle East Time of Emergence: 45,000 years ago Place: Middle East Climate: Semi-arid grass plains Estimated Number of Homo sapiens: Tens of thousands Tools and Skills: Stone, ivory, wood tools
The next male ancestor in your ancestral lineage is the man who gave rise to M89, a marker found in 90 to 95 percent of all non-Africans. This man was born around 45,000 years ago in northern Africa or the Middle East.
The first people to leave Africa likely followed a coastal route that eventually ended in Australia. Your ancestors followed the expanding grasslands and plentiful game to the Middle East and beyond, and were part of the second great wave of migration out of Africa.
Beginning about 40,000 years ago, the climate shifted once again and became colder and more arid. Drought hit Africa and the grasslands reverted to desert, and for the next 20,000 years, the Saharan Gateway was effectively closed. With the desert impassable, your ancestors had two options: remain in the Middle East, or move on. Retreat back to the home continent was not an option.
While many of the descendants of M89 remained in the Middle East, others continued to follow the great herds of buffalo, antelope, woolly mammoths, and other game through what is now modern-day Iran to the vast steppes of Central Asia.
These semi-arid grass-covered plains formed an ancient "superhighway" stretching from eastern France to Korea. Your ancestors, having migrated north out of Africa into the Middle East, then traveled both east and west along this Central Asian superhighway. A smaller group continued moving north from the Middle East to Anatolia and the Balkans, trading familiar grasslands for forests and high country.
M9: The Eurasian Clan Spreads Wide and Far Time of Emergence: 40,000 years ago Place: Iran or southern Central Asia Estimated Number of Homo sapiens: Tens of thousands Tools and Skills: Upper Paleolithic
Your next ancestor, a man born around 40,000 years ago in Iran or southern Central Asia, gave rise to a genetic marker known as M9, which marked a new lineage diverging from the M89 Middle Eastern Clan. His descendants, of which you are one, spent the next 30,000 years populating much of the planet.
This large lineage, known as the Eurasian Clan, dispersed gradually over thousands of years. Seasoned hunters followed the herds ever eastward, along the vast super highway of Eurasian steppe. Eventually their path was blocked by the massive mountain ranges of south Central Asia—the Hindu Kush, the Tian Shan, and the Himalayas.
The three mountain ranges meet in a region known as the "Pamir Knot," located in present-day Tajikistan. Here the tribes of hunters split into two groups. Some moved north into Central Asia, others moved south into what is now Pakistan and the Indian subcontinent.
LLY22G: Siberian Marker Time of Emergence: Within the last 10,000 years Place of Origin: Siberia Climate: Present Day Estimated Number of Homo sapiens: Tens of millions Tools/Skills: Some hunter-fishers, some farmers Language: Chiefly found in Uralic-speaking populations
One of the men in a group of Eurasian Clan peoples who traveled north through the Pamir Knot region gave rise to the LLY22G marker, which defines your lineage, haplogroup N.
Today his descendants effectively trace a migration of Uralic-speaking peoples during the last several thousand years. This lineage has dispersed throughout the generations, and is now found in southern parts of Scandinavia as well as northeastern Eurasia. The Saami, an indigenous people of northern Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Russia, traditionally supported themselves with hunting and fishing, their movement dictated by the reindeer herds.
This is where your genetic trail, as we know it today, ends. However, be sure to revisit these pages. As additional data are collected and analyzed, more will be learned about your place in the history of the men and women who first populated the Earth. We will be updating these stories throughout the life of the Genographic Project.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Having demonstrated that the people who would later become "White" people, originally migrated from Africa into the Eurasian Plains (as Black People). The next logical question is: How the hell did they turn into Caucasians and Mongols with White skin. Honest Answer; Nobody Knows! However, Realhistoryww.com provides a plausible answer.
From: Realhistoryww.com
The Eurasian Invasion
You will recall that the humanoid Cro-Magnon, after having been born by the cross-breeding of Neanderthal and Modern man in the middle-east, some 120,000 years ago. Had migrated out of the middle-east and into Europe and Asia. Those that went into Europe, show no further evolutionary progress, and were later absorbed. But, the ones that had gone into the Eurasian plains, they turned out to be a different story entirely. There they evolved, the exact circumstance is still debated. But we do know that after Cro-Magnon had gone into the Eurasian plains, he subsequently split off into two branches (Caucasian and Mongol), this happened about 40,000 years ago.
The old conventional line of thought, was that "These" Cro-Magnons evolved independently into modern humans. One immediate problem with that theory, is how to account for the two branches of the tree, Caucasians in the Western plains and Mongols in the Eastern plains. It would seem that whatever environmental forces that were there, which could effect the one, would also effect the other in the same way. But that did not happen, Mongols and Caucasians have different physiology's. Though Modern man, {Homo-sapien-sapien}, shows the very same anatomical variations as these two, he is much older and has had greater time and more variations in his environment, so as to produce these mutations.
The current theory is that since Cro-Magnons were the product of crossbreeding between Neanderthal and Modern Humans (Homo-sapien sapien), the final ascension of "These" Cro-Magnons to fully human status, occurred as a result of subsequent crossbreeding between Modern Man and "These" Cro-Magnons. This would have occurred as the result of the second great migration of East Africans out of Africa some 50-60,000 years ago.
This migration resulted in the colonization of the entire world by Modern Man: except for Australia, which was colonized as a result of the first great migration, some 10,000 years earlier. This theory is almost universally regarded as the best, since because of his great age - over 400,000 years - Modern man has had the time to generate many genetic mutations, as evidenced by modern Africans who demonstrate a great diversity of physical traits: Including straight Hair, narrow Noses, and the slightly hooded eyelids, and slanted eyes, we commonly associate with Asians. [Note the Khoisan Girl below, with what we commonly call - Oriental Eyes - Khoisans were part of the Africans who migrated into China].
So it may be, that Cro-Magnons in the western part of the great Eurasian plains, crossbred with one type of Modern man, and those in the east crossbred with another. {Take note of the priest-king in the Indus Valley section}. But, scientist are always looking for an explanation of how Caucasians and Mongols evolved: note the following news article.
Study points to larger role of Asian ancestors in evolution of Caucasians
Aug. 6, 2007
A new analysis of the dental fossils of human ancestors suggests that Asian populations played a larger role than Africans in colonizing Europe millions of years ago, said a study released Monday. The findings challenge the prevailing "Out of Africa" theory, which holds that anatomically modern man first arose from one point in Africa and fanned out to conquer the globe, and bolsters the notion that Homo sapiens evolved from different populations in different parts of the globe.
The "Out of Africa" scenario has been underpinned since 1987 by genetic studies based mainly on the rate of mutations in mitochondrial DNA, a cell material inherited from the maternal line of ancestry. But for this study, European researchers opted to study the tooth fossil record of modern man's ancestors because of their high component of genetic expression. The investigators examined the shapes of more than 5,000 teeth from human ancestors from Africa, Asia and Europe dating back millions of years. They found that European teeth had more Asian features than African ones.
They also noted that the continuity of the Eurasian dental pattern from the Early Pleistocene until the appearance of Upper Pleistocene Neanderthals suggests that the evolutionary courses of the Eurasian and African continents were relatively independent for a long period. "The history of human populations in Eurasia may not have been the result of a few high-impact replacement waves of dispersals from Africa, but a much more complex puzzle of dispersals and contacts among populations within and outside continents," the researchers wrote. "In the light of these results, we propose that Asia has played an important role in the colonization of Europe, and that future studies on this issue are obliged to pay serious attention to the 'unknown' continent." The paper was written by researchers at Spain's national center for research into human evolution in Burgos and appears in the journal of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Realhistoryww.com comment to the study
As is often the case, these studies are somewhat disingenuous in that they repeat known facts. It has been long known that the Cro-magnons who produced Caucasians and Mongols, diverged from Modern Man (the African), some 120,000 years ago, (see quote above). And that modern Europeans are a product of an evolutionary process in Eurasia: Combined with the genetic material absorbed from the Cro-magnons and Africans that they encountered, when they first entered Europe at about 1,200 B.C.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
This is false. It is clear that Cro-Magnon man never lived in the Middle East, until after they migrated to the area from Iberia.
The evidence indicates that CroMagnon originated in Africa, migrated into Europe across the straits of Gibralter between 45,000-35,000 BC into Iberia and then moved eastward into eastern Europe and the Middle East where they slowly replaced the Neanderthal population.
In Eurasia CroMagnon remained African. There were no caucasians or mongoloid people until probably after 5000 BC, if that early. The Old Europeans were Black/African people. In fact Diop dates the first skeleton associated with white Europeans to around 2000 BC.
The whites probably remained in the mountainous areas of the Caucasas, until after 2000 BC, then people like the Hittites began to interact with Kushites in Anatolia. The Gutians and other "Proto-Arabs" already occupied the Middle East, Mongoloid people were on the rise in East Asia, so the whites could only move westward into Central Asia and Europe.
After 1500 BC due to natural catastrophes in Western Europe the white ancestors of the Indo-European speakers led by the Hittites began to invade Western Europe, while another element called the Peoples of the Sea invaded Southern Europe and the Middle East.
I call these people of Europe African because they were Brown skinned people dissimilar to Mongoloid people and pale skinned caucasians who arrive in Europe after 2000 BC.
The CroMagnon when they arrived in Asia, met Blacks who had settled the area around 60kya who carried the M haplogroup and entered the area by way of the Indian Ocean.
.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Having demonstrated that the people who would later become "White" people, originally migrated from Africa into the Eurasian Plains (as Black People). The next logical question is: How the hell did they turn into Caucasians and Mongols with White skin. Honest Answer; Nobody Knows! However, Realhistoryww.com provides a plausible answer.
From: Realhistoryww.com
The Eurasian Invasion
You will recall that the humanoid Cro-Magnon, after having been born by the cross-breeding of Neanderthal and Modern man in the middle-east, some 120,000 years ago. Had migrated out of the middle-east and into Europe and Asia. Those that went into Europe, show no further evolutionary progress, and were later absorbed. But, the ones that had gone into the Eurasian plains, they turned out to be a different story entirely. There they evolved, the exact circumstance is still debated. But we do know that after Cro-Magnon had gone into the Eurasian plains, he subsequently split off into two branches (Caucasian and Mongol), this happened about 40,000 years ago.
The old conventional line of thought, was that "These" Cro-Magnons evolved independently into modern humans. One immediate problem with that theory, is how to account for the two branches of the tree, Caucasians in the Western plains and Mongols in the Eastern plains. It would seem that whatever environmental forces that were there, which could effect the one, would also effect the other in the same way. But that did not happen, Mongols and Caucasians have different physiology's. Though Modern man, {Homo-sapien-sapien}, shows the very same anatomical variations as these two, he is much older and has had greater time and more variations in his environment, so as to produce these mutations.
The current theory is that since Cro-Magnons were the product of crossbreeding between Neanderthal and Modern Humans (Homo-sapien sapien), the final ascension of "These" Cro-Magnons to fully human status, occurred as a result of subsequent crossbreeding between Modern Man and "These" Cro-Magnons. This would have occurred as the result of the second great migration of East Africans out of Africa some 50-60,000 years ago.
This migration resulted in the colonization of the entire world by Modern Man: except for Australia, which was colonized as a result of the first great migration, some 10,000 years earlier. This theory is almost universally regarded as the best, since because of his great age - over 400,000 years - Modern man has had the time to generate many genetic mutations, as evidenced by modern Africans who demonstrate a great diversity of physical traits: Including straight Hair, narrow Noses, and the slightly hooded eyelids, and slanted eyes, we commonly associate with Asians. [Note the Khoisan Girl below, with what we commonly call - Oriental Eyes - Khoisans were part of the Africans who migrated into China].
So it may be, that Cro-Magnons in the western part of the great Eurasian plains, crossbred with one type of Modern man, and those in the east crossbred with another. {Take note of the priest-king in the Indus Valley section}. But, scientist are always looking for an explanation of how Caucasians and Mongols evolved: note the following news article.
Study points to larger role of Asian ancestors in evolution of Caucasians
Aug. 6, 2007
A new analysis of the dental fossils of human ancestors suggests that Asian populations played a larger role than Africans in colonizing Europe millions of years ago, said a study released Monday. The findings challenge the prevailing "Out of Africa" theory, which holds that anatomically modern man first arose from one point in Africa and fanned out to conquer the globe, and bolsters the notion that Homo sapiens evolved from different populations in different parts of the globe.
The "Out of Africa" scenario has been underpinned since 1987 by genetic studies based mainly on the rate of mutations in mitochondrial DNA, a cell material inherited from the maternal line of ancestry. But for this study, European researchers opted to study the tooth fossil record of modern man's ancestors because of their high component of genetic expression. The investigators examined the shapes of more than 5,000 teeth from human ancestors from Africa, Asia and Europe dating back millions of years. They found that European teeth had more Asian features than African ones.
They also noted that the continuity of the Eurasian dental pattern from the Early Pleistocene until the appearance of Upper Pleistocene Neanderthals suggests that the evolutionary courses of the Eurasian and African continents were relatively independent for a long period. "The history of human populations in Eurasia may not have been the result of a few high-impact replacement waves of dispersals from Africa, but a much more complex puzzle of dispersals and contacts among populations within and outside continents," the researchers wrote. "In the light of these results, we propose that Asia has played an important role in the colonization of Europe, and that future studies on this issue are obliged to pay serious attention to the 'unknown' continent." The paper was written by researchers at Spain's national center for research into human evolution in Burgos and appears in the journal of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Realhistoryww.com comment to the study
As is often the case, these studies are somewhat disingenuous in that they repeat known facts. It has been long known that the Cro-magnons who produced Caucasians and Mongols, diverged from Modern Man (the African), some 120,000 years ago, (see quote above). And that modern Europeans are a product of an evolutionary process in Eurasia: Combined with the genetic material absorbed from the Cro-magnons and Africans that they encountered, when they first entered Europe at about 1,200 B.C.
The Great Mystery has been, and continues to be: HOW and WHY did they turn "WHITE".
As stated above; these studies are often somewhat disingenuous. Though the theory of turning "White" may be correct - that is unknown - the accompanying text seeks to perpetuate the Racist propaganda begun by Caucasians centuries ago. That is, that Caucasians have inhabited Europe for many thousands of years. That is a foolish lie, which if logically followed, has no explanation for their Mongol cousins. [The purpose of this lie is to deny that the creators of the original civilizations of Europe: particularly those in Greece and Italy, were Black Africans].
The "average" modern Mongol of today; has Yellow and Brown skin color. This is a result of constant interbreeding with the Africans who arrived with the second great migration of "Modern Man" out of Africa some 55,000 years ago. But inspection of a relatively "Pure Blood Mongol" reveals a creature with skin that is "Paler" and Hair that is "Straighter" than their European counterparts. Which of course begs the question: If Europeans turned White in Europe, how did the Mongols turn White in Asia; where the environmental conditions are different? The answer is, of course, that they both turned White in Eurasia. And that the first Whites to enter Europe - the Hellenes - at about 1,200 B.C, were already White when they got there.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clyde - Sorry, I can't agree with you on this one. All the material that I have read, places the oldest Cro-Magnon fossils in the Levant.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Clyde - Sorry, I can't agree with you on this one. All the material that I have read, places the oldest Cro-Magnon fossils in the Levant.
Please cite the sources. There were Blacks here but they were not CroMagnon and the tool industry they used were different. The CroMagnon people spread the aurignacian culture. They originated in East Africa.
The Blacks in the Levant were replaced Neanderthal people. The CroMagnon replaced the Neanderthal first in Western Europe. Earliest Cromagnon people associated with aurignacian/Grimaldi culture date after 32000 BC, long after the aurignacians had first established themselves in Iberia.
After the CroMagnon Blacks arrived in the Levant they were joined by Natufians from east Africa.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clyde - this is the first thing that I could get may hands on from the internet. If you are still dissatisfied, I will try to find my old Britannica article.
HARVARD GAZETTE ARCHIVES
Bar-Yosef reads ancient campfires: Archaeologist uncovers secrets of human origins By Alvin Powell Gazette Staff
Archaeologist Ofer Bar-Yosef is an interpreter of ancient human history as told by barn owls, a sleuth in search of mankind's past, reading the ashes of campfires extinguished millennia ago and examining stone flakes for evidence of a human hand in their creation.
For much of his academic career, Bar-Yosef's focus has been the Stone Age - known as the Paleolithic - when early Homo sapiens went by the name Cro-Magnon and lived side by side with a human cousin, the Neanderthal.
His work, conducted with colleagues from the United States, France, and Israel, has focused on three Israeli caves that paint a picture of early habitation by modern humans migrating north out of Africa and a later migration by Neanderthals south out of southeast Europe or Turkey. It is this mix of human species and the later departure of Cro-Magnon man out of the Middle East to colonize Neanderthal-dominated Europe that fascinates Bar-Yosef.
Bar-Yosef, Harvard's MacCurdy Professor of Prehistoric Archaeology and head of the Peabody Museum's Stone Age Laboratory, is now shifting his attention to a later period, the New Stone Age, known as the Neolithic, when Homo sapiens first domesticated plants. He's particularly interested in the rise of agriculture, dubbed the Neolithic Revolution, a transforming event in human history that set the stage for early villages and the larger civilizations to come.
It's his interest in an earlier prehistoric revolution that spurs Bar-Yosef's investigation of the Neolithic. Bar-Yosef believes it was some type of technological revolution that gave Cro-Magnon humans the upper hand over Neanderthals some 35,000 years ago. It was at that time, after thousands of years of coexistence, that Cro-Magnon began to multiply rapidly, expanding into a Neanderthal-dominated Europe and into Asia. It is also at that time that Neanderthals began to decline, eventually disappearing entirely.
Some believe there was a change in the brain that explains Cro-Magnon success, though no evidence of it has been found from remains of the time. Perhaps it was a change in the brain or elsewhere that, though undetectable in remains that have survived, meant the difference for Cro-Magnons between merely surviving and thriving.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
This is false. It is clear that Cro-Magnon man never lived in the Middle East, until after they migrated to the area from Iberia.
The evidence indicates that CroMagnon originated in Africa, migrated into Europe across the straits of Gibralter between 45,000-35,000 BC into Iberia and then moved eastward into eastern Europe and the Middle East where they slowly replaced the Neanderthal population.
Amusing to listen to the juxtaposed nonsenses from Mike and Clyde.
A good source for *accurate* information on Neanderthal and Cromagnon is talkorigins.com.
^ A thurough reading here will provide disambiguation and disabuse for those so inclined.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic