African Presence in Pre-Columbian Times

[Godboy]

"Mitochondrial Eve" is estimated to have lived between 99,000 and 200,000 years ago. They just found human remains in Spain that date back 400,000 years. Sorry, but that predates your eve by 200,000 years. You lose.

No I didn't lose if you have a link. I like learning the truth no matter what.

Edit

That not homo sapiens sapiens dip shit. Those are the Denisovans. They went the way of the Neandrathals.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/science/at-400000-years-oldest-human-dna-yet-found-raises-new-mysteries.html?_r=0

How could you have missed this? It was pretty big news. http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/09/health/oldest-human-dna/

I take it back though, because it isn't EXACTLY a human remain, but it is a close relaitive.

 

[JQPublic1]

"Mitochondrial Eve" is estimated to have lived between 99,000 and 200,000 years ago. They just found human remains in Spain that date back 400,000 years. Sorry, but that predates your eve by 200,000 years. You lose.

NOPE... he doesn't lose! The Mitochrondial Eve is still the mother of all humans living today.
Other humans preceded her and lived along side her but their gene pools died out while her's survived.

 

[Asclepias]

"Mitochondrial Eve" is estimated to have lived between 99,000 and 200,000 years ago. They just found human remains in Spain that date back 400,000 years. Sorry, but that predates your eve by 200,000 years. You lose.

No I didn't lose if you have a link. I like learning the truth no matter what.

Edit

That not homo sapiens sapiens dip shit. Those are the Denisovans. They went the way of the Neandrathals.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/science/at-400000-years-oldest-human-dna-yet-found-raises-new-mysteries.html?_r=0

How could you have missed this? It was pretty big news. Oldest human DNA found in Spain - CNN.com

I didnt miss it. It just has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Let me give you a tip though. it wont hurt my feelings if they find out that Eves descendant came from another continent. I like true history no matter what.

"It's quite clear that this is not a direct ancestor of people today," said Svante Paabo, a biologist at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology and senior author of the study.
Instead, he said, this representative of an early humanlike species, called Homo heidelbergensis, could be an ancestor of both Neanderthals and another group called the De nisovans.

 

[Meathead]

Who cares. The people that remained in Africa, along with their Aboriginal cousin, became the primitive people in the world while others developed civilizations and made huge advances. Even the Maya, Aztec and Inca were light years ahead of sub-Saharan Africa without infusion from other civilizations.

 

[Asclepias]

Who cares. The people that remained in Africa, along with their Aboriginal cousin, became the primitive people in the world while others developed civilizations and made huge advances. Even the Maya, Aztec and Inca were light years ahead of sub-Saharan Africa without infusion from other civilizations.

As usual you are too stupid for your own good. Olmecs were influenced by Africans. They later influenced every advanced society in South and probably North America.

 

[JQPublic1]

Who cares. The people that remained in Africa, along with their Aboriginal cousin, became the primitive people in the world while others developed civilizations and made huge advances. Even the Maya, Aztec and Inca were light years ahead of sub-Saharan Africa without infusion from other civilizations.

Just because Blacks seem to have been in a perpetual primitive state in Africa doesn’t mean ALL Blacks were. Here is a parallel that illustrates
how groups who look almost identical can develop socially and technologically in diametrically opposite ways

Indian Civilization was well established by the time Europeans arrived in South America. The great pyramids of Mexico had been built and, in some ways, Indian technology was superior to that of the invaders specifically in the field of astronomy. Even then, that which would later be called Mexico city was a sprawling metropolis.


Still, other Indians lived in and roamed the nearby forests; content to live a primitive lifestyle. Such tribes are still being discovered today. A closer look at photographs shows a phenotype similar to the civilized people in the cities.

My question is: Could the same phenomenon have happened in Africa? I believe the original people of KMT(Egypt) were Black and lived along side primitive tribes who looked just like them. In time, though, wars and other interactions with outsiders from Asia and Arabia diluted the Black gene pool and a race of mulattos emerged ... ensconcing themselves among the populace even unto the ruling elite.

Eventually the Macedonians conquered the new cosmopolitan KMT and the Greeks renamed it Egypt, symbolically erasing all connections with the original Black founders and the name KMT: an ancient name that means “land of the Blacks.”

Nevertheless, the Rulers of KMT may have been involved in Ocean expeditions. After all, according to scripture, they were brothers of the Phoenicians... the people of the sea!

Now before someone figures out the time lines don't match, let me say this. There is new evidence that suggests that the OLMECS thrived in the Americas as early as 3100 BCE... NOT 1200 BCE or 1500 BCE as recorded for posterity. That date would put them in the same era as the Black rulers of KMTand we have a new ball game!

 

[GreenBean]

I'm surprised you give this any credence. I've met many that need stuff like this to be peer reviewed by 10 different university PHD's before believing it without adding a "but.." to it.

Remember that primitive is not a fact its a viewpoint. People look at Western civilization and call it primitive. Also its not probably There is no doubt. DNA has already proven that everyone comes from Africa.

DNA has only proven that African genes / Mitochondria. are present in all Human beings - it's not a proven fact It's an accepted theory - and that's all it can ever be - unless you invent some magical time travel device.

Primitive - is just that PRIMITIVE in relation to TECHNOLOGICALLY ADVANCED - Cut the Semantics will you !?

Thats correct. That DNA was mapped back to a person in Africa named Eve. There is no other theory that makes sense unless you are saying they may still discover older homo sapiens DNA that Eve descended from.

I'm not using semantics I am expanding your mind set. Technology is only good if you can use it. If your lifestyle dictates you have no use for a computer how is it more technologically advanced to create one? For example if you were lost in the desert would you use your cell phone to locate water under the surface or the technology that natives have been using with success for centuries. Its a matter of perspective not fact.

Actually goes back to 7 variations - 7 daughters of Eve
I like my Divining stick - lol

 

[Meathead]

Who cares. The people that remained in Africa, along with their Aboriginal cousin, became the primitive people in the world while others developed civilizations and made huge advances. Even the Maya, Aztec and Inca were light years ahead of sub-Saharan Africa without infusion from other civilizations.

Just because Blacks seem to have been in a perpetual primitive state in Africa doesn’t mean ALL Blacks were. Here is a parallel that illustrates
how groups who look almost identical can develop socially and technologically in diametrically opposite ways

Indian Civilization was well established by the time Europeans arrived in South America. The great pyramids of Mexico had been built and, in some ways, Indian technology was superior to that of the invaders specifically in the field of astronomy. Even then, that which would later be called Mexico city was a sprawling metropolis.


Still, other Indians lived in and roamed the nearby forests; content to live a primitive lifestyle. Such tribes are still being discovered today. A closer look at photographs shows a phenotype similar to the civilized people in the cities.

My question is: Could the same phenomenon have happened in Africa? I believe the original people of KMT(Egypt) were Black and lived along side primitive tribes who looked just like them. In time, though, wars and other interactions with outsiders from Asia and Arabia diluted the Black gene pool and a race of mulattos emerged ... ensconcing themselves among the populace even unto the ruling elite.

Eventually the Macedonians conquered the new cosmopolitan KMT and the Greeks renamed it Egypt, symbolically erasing all connections with the original Black founders and the name KMT: an ancient name that means “land of the Blacks.”

Nevertheless, the Rulers of KMT may have been involved in Ocean expeditions. After all, according to scripture, they were brothers of the Phoenicians... the people of the sea!

Now before someone figures out the time lines don't match, let me say this. There is new evidence that suggests that the OLMECS thrived in the Americas as early as 3100 BCE... NOT 1200 BCE or 1500 BCE as recorded for posterity. That date would put them in the same era as the Black rulers of KMTand we have a new ball game!

Problem here is the ancient Egyptians were not black and neither were the Olmecs and repeating that they were is not going to change anything.

It's a bit pathetic and more than a bit sleazy trying to take credit for the achievements of others.

 

[WinterBorn]

Well actually Cortez named California after a mythical African Queen Califia because he saw Blacks there.

..................^^^ LOL... you are the gift that keeps on giving. .

Before you spend much time ridiculing him, you might want to do some research.

The idea that Africans were among the first to immigrate to these continents is becoming more and more accepted. Anthropologists are finding more evidence.

RaceandHistory.com - BLACK CIVILIZATIONS OF ANCIENT AMERICA

In Brazil found skulls that are clearly African and predate any European settlers. (Scientific American, Sept 2000)

Who Were the First Americans?

Of course, you are free to laugh at these scientists as well.

 

[Asclepias]

Who cares. The people that remained in Africa, along with their Aboriginal cousin, became the primitive people in the world while others developed civilizations and made huge advances. Even the Maya, Aztec and Inca were light years ahead of sub-Saharan Africa without infusion from other civilizations.

Just because Blacks seem to have been in a perpetual primitive state in Africa doesn’t mean ALL Blacks were. Here is a parallel that illustrates
how groups who look almost identical can develop socially and technologically in diametrically opposite ways

Indian Civilization was well established by the time Europeans arrived in South America. The great pyramids of Mexico had been built and, in some ways, Indian technology was superior to that of the invaders specifically in the field of astronomy. Even then, that which would later be called Mexico city was a sprawling metropolis.


Still, other Indians lived in and roamed the nearby forests; content to live a primitive lifestyle. Such tribes are still being discovered today. A closer look at photographs shows a phenotype similar to the civilized people in the cities.

My question is: Could the same phenomenon have happened in Africa? I believe the original people of KMT(Egypt) were Black and lived along side primitive tribes who looked just like them. In time, though, wars and other interactions with outsiders from Asia and Arabia diluted the Black gene pool and a race of mulattos emerged ... ensconcing themselves among the populace even unto the ruling elite.

Eventually the Macedonians conquered the new cosmopolitan KMT and the Greeks renamed it Egypt, symbolically erasing all connections with the original Black founders and the name KMT: an ancient name that means “land of the Blacks.”

Nevertheless, the Rulers of KMT may have been involved in Ocean expeditions. After all, according to scripture, they were brothers of the Phoenicians... the people of the sea!

Now before someone figures out the time lines don't match, let me say this. There is new evidence that suggests that the OLMECS thrived in the Americas as early as 3100 BCE... NOT 1200 BCE or 1500 BCE as recorded for posterity. That date would put them in the same era as the Black rulers of KMTand we have a new ball game!

Problem here is the ancient Egyptians were not black and neither were the Olmecs and repeating that they were is not going to change anything.

It's a bit pathetic and more than a bit sleazy trying to take credit for the achievements of others.

Yet you swear you dont care. The only problem (for you at least) is that you are sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the DNA evidence that emphatically says the genetic make up the ancient Egyptians is 96% sub-Saharan (I'm only 72%) and that they come from the Great Lakes region of Africa which is located in central Africa. Funny thing is that this where they said they came from in the first place and what so called Afrocentrists have been saying for years. DNA pretty much shuts down all arguments unless you are stupid. I cannot force you to not be ignorant.

 

[Meathead]

Well actually Cortez named California after a mythical African Queen Califia because he saw Blacks there.

..................^^^ LOL... you are the gift that keeps on giving. .

Before you spend much time ridiculing him, you might want to do some research.

The idea that Africans were among the first to immigrate to these continents is becoming more and more accepted. Anthropologists are finding more evidence.

RaceandHistory.com - BLACK CIVILIZATIONS OF ANCIENT AMERICA

In Brazil found skulls that are clearly African and predate any European settlers. (Scientific American, Sept 2000)

Who Were the First Americans?

Of course, you are free to laugh at these scientists as well.

|Scientific American is something I might give credence to, but there is nothing there to suggest or support your claim. The other ditzy sites posted by Asc and yourself are simply fodder for mind numbing Afrocentrics. Hell, Madagascar, a huge island off the African coast was first populated peoples from Borneo and other islands off the African coast remained undiscovered until the arrival of Europeans. The first Africans to make the trans-Atlantic voyage were in slave ships

Facts suck, eh?

 

[Asclepias]

..................^^^ LOL... you are the gift that keeps on giving. .

Before you spend much time ridiculing him, you might want to do some research.

The idea that Africans were among the first to immigrate to these continents is becoming more and more accepted. Anthropologists are finding more evidence.

RaceandHistory.com - BLACK CIVILIZATIONS OF ANCIENT AMERICA

In Brazil found skulls that are clearly African and predate any European settlers. (Scientific American, Sept 2000)

Who Were the First Americans?

Of course, you are free to laugh at these scientists as well.

|Scientific American is something I might give credence to, but there is nothing there to suggest or support your claim. The other ditzy sites posted by Asc and yourself are simply fodder for mind numbing Afrocentrics. Hell, Madagascar, a huge island off the African coast was first populated peoples from Borneo and other islands off the African coast remained undiscovered until the arrival of Europeans. The first Africans to make the trans-Atlantic voyage were in slave ships

Facts suck, eh?

In the words of Godboy you lose...again.

Initial human settlement of Madagascar occurred between 350 BCE and 550 CE by Austronesian peoples arriving on outrigger canoes from Borneo. These were joined around 1000 CE by Bantu migrants crossing the Mozambique Channel.

Madagascar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Austronesian people are descendents of Negritos/Aboriginal people. They are Black. Bantus are Black. Let me give you some European code words for Black so you don't get fooled so easily next time.

Melanesian
Negrito
Australoid
Austronesian
Moor
Canaanites
Carthaginians
Egyptian
Bantu
Khoi-san
Bushmen

I know from personal experience that they were there long before what Wiki says. The Bantu natives of Madagascar claim they have been there for far longer. The French have helped the the Indonesian contingent control the politics in a caste system much like India.

 

[WinterBorn]

..................^^^ LOL... you are the gift that keeps on giving. .

Before you spend much time ridiculing him, you might want to do some research.

The idea that Africans were among the first to immigrate to these continents is becoming more and more accepted. Anthropologists are finding more evidence.

RaceandHistory.com - BLACK CIVILIZATIONS OF ANCIENT AMERICA

In Brazil found skulls that are clearly African and predate any European settlers. (Scientific American, Sept 2000)

Who Were the First Americans?

Of course, you are free to laugh at these scientists as well.

|Scientific American is something I might give credence to, but there is nothing there to suggest or support your claim. The other ditzy sites posted by Asc and yourself are simply fodder for mind numbing Afrocentrics. Hell, Madagascar, a huge island off the African coast was first populated peoples from Borneo and other islands off the African coast remained undiscovered until the arrival of Europeans. The first Africans to make the trans-Atlantic voyage were in slave ships

Facts suck, eh?

My apologies. When I posted that link I forgot that I have a membership that allows me to see full archives. The link did not show that.

 

[westwall]

Who cares. The people that remained in Africa, along with their Aboriginal cousin, became the primitive people in the world while others developed civilizations and made huge advances. Even the Maya, Aztec and Inca were light years ahead of sub-Saharan Africa without infusion from other civilizations.

And the sub Saharan Africans were light years ahead of you apparently. Here's a clue, if you're going to make disparaging comments about a whole race of people I suggest you actually do some research beyond what you find in the toilet bowl after you take a dump.

Look up Great Zimbabwe sometime....

 

[Meathead]

Some developed glorious civilizations while others remained stone-aged. If truth ruffles feathers, so be it.

 

[Asclepias]

Some developed glorious civilizations while others remained stone-aged. If truth ruffles feathers, so be it.

Translation. "Smoke is pouring from my ears. I will never admit it but I cant believe how stupid I am."

 

[Pheonixops]

Some developed glorious civilizations while others remained stone-aged. If truth ruffles feathers, so be it.

At least you are saying "some" now instead of hurling inaccurate blanket generalizations.

 

[Meathead]

Some developed glorious civilizations while others remained stone-aged. If truth ruffles feathers, so be it.

At least you are saying "some" now instead of hurling inaccurate blanket generalizations.

The aboriginals of Australia and pockets elsewhere who did not have the opportunity of infusion from other cultures, including South American tribes, New Guinea and so on. Sub-Saharan Africa stands alone because there could have been diffusion from Arab traders but that was found only on the periphery in places like Timbuktu. Civilization spread elsewhere as did writing, but never manifested itself in the dark continent.

 

[westwall]

Some developed glorious civilizations while others remained stone-aged. If truth ruffles feathers, so be it.

At least you are saying "some" now instead of hurling inaccurate blanket generalizations.

The aboriginals of Australia and pockets elsewhere who did not have the opportunity of infusion from other cultures, including South American tribes, New Guinea and so on. Sub-Saharan Africa stands alone because there could have been diffusion from Arab traders but that was found only on the periphery in places like Timbuktu. Civilization spread elsewhere as did writing, but never manifested itself in the dark continent.

The ruins of Great Zimbabwe show that statement to be utterly false.

 

[Asclepias]

Some developed glorious civilizations while others remained stone-aged. If truth ruffles feathers, so be it.

At least you are saying "some" now instead of hurling inaccurate blanket generalizations.

The aboriginals of Australia and pockets elsewhere who did not have the opportunity of infusion from other cultures, including South American tribes, New Guinea and so on. Sub-Saharan Africa stands alone because there could have been diffusion from Arab traders but that was found only on the periphery in places like Timbuktu. Civilization spread elsewhere as did writing, but never manifested itself in the dark continent.

Depends on what you call civilization. Your civilization may not appear to be civilization to someone else. Who said what you think civilization consists of is how everyone else defines it? For instance a lot of the African civilizations placed heavy emphasis on oral history. You may not believe they are legit but who put you in charge of that determination for someone else?