32,000 years ago, Europe was black?

[Catuvellaunian]

Just saw some crap on the BBC showing all modern humans in Europe 32,000 years ago as black africans. This confused me (and also made me feel a little sick). The Neanderthals are shown as white (complete with blue eyes and light hair) and as brutish, black-killing "monsters" (quote)

Is this just BBC liberal bullshit?

For one, the program is set in southern France, surely by the time humans reached that area they would have evolved lighter skin due to selective breeding against vitamin D deficiency?

Another thing I just read was that white skin arrived as early as 6,000 years ago. How can that be right when most western Europeans have genetics that go back at least 20,000 years? (I've read as far back as 45-50,000)

I'm probably worrying about nothing, but it goes to show how the media tries to get to you...

[BeerBaron]

Doesn't sound like they are being very accurate to me, I don't think accuracy is one of the BBC's strong suits.

[Thraex]

The BBC is probably just as bad as any other major American broadcasting company. The only few good things to come from BBC is Rome TV series and some others.

[Logan]

This particular program is the most accurate that I have yet seen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCrQauP8fnI


In the European part it is supposed that the first did have darker skin. The features of the skull found were thought to be unlike either. It is simply science. This is the best theory, untill another dispells it. Professor Svante Paabo has had no little part in recent questionings of the current theory.

[Ibericus]

Liberal bullshit. Humans were not even black when getting out of Africa.
And 32,000 years ago Cro-Magnons in Europe had Caucasoid skulls.

[Logan]

Liberal bullshit. Humans were not even black when getting out of Africa.
And 32,000 years ago Cro-Magnons in Europe had Caucasoid skulls.


Illrelevant. I think your second is accurate.

What is your theory, or is it simply a thought?

[Osweo]

I saw the other programme in the series, when the (equally negrid) Homo sapiens were encountering Homo erectus in India. I wondered whether this dubious casting would be kept up for the European episode, and I see it was... :tsk:

I was puzzled at the Indian one, first of all. I mean, these people were the ancestors of the Chinese, Amerindians, Sri Lankans and Australian aborigines. And they got some pure black boy (perhaps even of some Chadic type, I'm not sure) and a palaeonegrid older woman to act the parts.

Now, the modern races haven't always existed, but it's equally true that the extreme negrid is as much a derived type as any other from the ancestral condition.

I was telling myself to remember the Papuan negritos and Andaman Islanders, but it still seemed a little 'forced' to be showing things the way they did in that programme.

There have been negroid types roaming further than Africa in the past, but the programme failed to note that there must surely have been a LOT of ebbing and flowing of different human racial stocks down the tens of millennia, in time with the glacial movements and climatic changes. To portray the situation as simply one of Angolans founding European and Asian humanity is simply disinformation. Almost as 'unpartisan' and rigorously 'scholarly' as this (http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Misc/Prehistoric_Art/Grimaldi.htm)version of events; (:bowlol:)


My own knowledge on this area is probably a little out of date, but I recall the Grimaldi
remains as being the closest thing to the version implied by the BBC documentary;


Ancient Types of Man, Keith, Arthur (:p1911:p), Chapter VI, The Grimaldi or Negroid Type in Europe, page 59-63:

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 moden 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.


Much more has gone on in human prehistory than brief documentary reconstructions can do credit, but I DO feel that the anti-Europe politics that is entrenched in theBBC have been influential here. (A director of this corporation once criticised it as being 'hideously white', and took drastic measures to flood our screens with foreign faces...)

[Logan]

I do not disagree. Bias is common. I think we must hope that the genitic sciences shall, in the near future, aid the others to modify or dispell the current best theory.

[Troll's Puzzle]

I do not disagree. Bias is common. I think we must hope that the genitic sciences shall, in the near future, aid the others to modify or dispell the current best theory.

why "must" we hope that?

and why are your language skills so poor? you can hardly communicate. :(

[Logan]

why "must" we hope that?

and why are your language skills so poor? you can hardly communicate. :(

Perhaps. I am; however, aware that in current English some words are to be capitalized. Are you?

I will try in future to do better for you.

[Troll's Puzzle]

Perhaps. I am; however, aware that in current English some words are to be capitalized. Are you?

I am but i'm too lazy to press shift :(


I will try in future to do better for you.

thank you :)


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


about the skull reconstruction: the it actually doesn't look negrid at all, only the 'unknown' parts which they had artistic license for such as pigmentation (v. dark skin and eyes?!) and soft parts (look at that nose!) were made to look blick
that's certainly where bias comes to play. They could have given it milky skin, a big straight nose and blonde/blue eyes and it would look quite different and be equally 'biased' as the one on the show ;)
the youtube commenters piss me off, especially the top rated one with the 'race is the biggest mistake' schpiel... then click on his profile and he has a black nationalist flag background and Garvey quotes... what a fucking hypocrite... fuck him and fuck the naieve honkies who made him the toprated commenter...

[Logan]

I am but i'm too lazy to press shift :(



thank you :)


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


about the skull reconstruction: the it actually doesn't look negrid at all, only the 'unknown' parts which they had artistic license for such as pigmentation (v. dark skin and eyes?!) and soft parts (look at that nose!) were made to look blick
that's certainly where bias comes to play. They could have given it milky skin, a big straight nose and blonde/blue eyes and it would look quite different and be equally 'biased' as the one on the show ;)
the youtube commenters piss me off, especially the top rated one with the 'race is the biggest mistake' schpiel... then click on his profile and he has a black nationalist flag background and Garvey quotes... what a fucking hypocrite... fuck him and fuck the naieve honkies who made him the toprated commenter...

Right, as I incomprehensively stated in number 8. I do not disagree. It is the most common theory prevalent today. It is a theory.

Do you not think that DNA studies might aid in the quest?

[Osweo]

about the skull reconstruction:

Oh God, it's that one. I just got to that part in the youtube vid. :tsk:

I wish in these cases, where it's SO important that we get a reasonable idea of the looks, they'd ask perhaps four different artists to come up with a reconstruction, and let us see what sort of RANGE of possibilities we're up against. Would even be nice to not tell the artists where and when the skull was found.

Anyway, the bust is a shit reconstruction. :p Besides the lack of skill in the sculptor, and his avowed desire to come up with a 'pre-racial' face, the fact also remains that the skull given him is itself a doubtful reconstruction of hundreds of fragments found on a cave floor, chewed by bears, weathered by 40,000 years of water, and perhaps even from multiple individuals.

I spent the last few days tiling a bathroom, and so i know that even when you have perfect square tiles, a slight error in position can throw everything off kilter. The skull in question is probably distorted to hell.

[Troll's Puzzle]

Right, as I incomprehensively stated in number 8. I do not disagree. It is the most common theory prevalent today. It is a theory.

Do you not think that DNA studies might aid in the quest?

sorry, i still don't comprehend.

I am not aware that 'current prevelent theory' that says the first europeans were black negroids.

that's not what the current mainstream theory, 'out of africa', means. Some people are far to hung up on words (both PC bullshitters who think it means 'humanity is african' and dumbass white nationalists who think OOA is nothing but 'PC bullshit' with no science behind it).

I don't know what 'quest' you are talking about.

[Logan]

Oh God, it's that one. I just got to that part in the youtube vid. :tsk:

I wish in these cases, where it's SO important that we get a reasonable idea of the looks, they'd ask perhaps four different artists to come up with a reconstruction, and let us see what sort of RANGE of possibilities we're up against. Would even be nice to not tell the artists where and when the skull was found.

Anyway, the bust is a shit reconstruction. :p Besides the lack of skill in the sculptor, and his avowed desire to come up with a 'pre-racial' face, the fact also remains that the skull given him is itself a doubtful reconstruction of hundreds of fragments found on a cave floor, chewed by bears, weathered by 40,000 years of water, and perhaps even from multiple individuals.

I spent the last few days tiling a bathroom, and so i know that even when you have perfect square tiles, a slight error in position can throw everything off kilter. The skull in question is probably distorted to hell.

I think it the best of, 'todate'. This in comparison to Mr. Oppenheimer's and Mr.Wells'.

I think the skills involved surpassed yours in tiling.

[Troll's Puzzle]

I think it the best of, 'todate'. This in comparison to Mr. Oppenheimer's and Mr.Wells'.

I think the skills involved surpassed yours in tiling.

yes, you're probably right. My tiling skill is non-existant. I'd have to phone forum members 'The Crow' and 'Osweo' for that. :(

[Logan]

sorry, i still don't comprehend.

I am not aware that 'current prevelent theory' that says the first europeans were black negroids.

that's not what the current mainstream theory, 'out of africa', means. Some people are far to hung up on words (both PC bullshitters who think it means 'humanity is african' and dumbass white nationalists who think OOA is nothing but 'PC bullshit' with no science behind it).

I don't know what 'quest' you are talking about.

English must not be your primary language. I am having a bit of difficulty with yours.

Personally I care little whether or not our ancestors were white, black or lavender. Though I might prefer the latter.

The quest refered to the search for truth.

[Loki]

Just saw some crap on the BBC .....

Is this just BBC liberal bullshit?


Aye.



I'm probably worrying about nothing, but ...

How can this be a source for worry? :confused: In all likelihood it's a load of bollocks, but ... what if they were "black" (or darker) later than thought ... how is it going to change your life today? I don't understand.

[Pallantides]

this (http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Misc/Prehistoric_Art/Grimaldi.htm)

Lol such a crackpot site...

http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/White_people.htm

Lol they put Finland as a Germanic country and Estonia as a Slavic country...:crazy:

[Ibericus]

Illrelevant. I think your second is accurate.

What is your theory, or is it simply a thought?
How is that irrelevant ? If humans were not black coming out of Africa how could they be black 32,000 years ago in Europe ? And it's not from me, it's from a study of the Academy of Sciences of California.

[Osweo]

I think the skills involved surpassed yours in tiling.
:suomut:

...


WHAT!!???!?! :rage

When I fuck up with two or three tiles, I rip em down and do it again!
The result is impeccable;
http://img813.imageshack.us/img813/8857/20110630191547.jpg

Would that these forensic anthro sculptors followed my example.

Lol such a crackpot site...

http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/White_people.htm

Lol they put Finland as a Germanic country and Estonia as a Slavic country...:crazy:

Karl is already hunting them down.

[Logan]

How is that irrelevant ? If humans were not black coming out of Africa how could they be black 32,000 years ago in Europe ? And it's not from me, it's from a study of the Academy of Sciences of California.

In reference to your 'Liberal' comment.

I am beginning to lamet these communications.

I do not know whether or not those statements are true. I find the subject interesting, and still think the program to be the best todate. For as many errors it might contain, I would think them less than common speculations.

[Grumpy Cat]

Light skin is an adaptation to the European climate, so early Europeans were darker, but not as dark as people we now call "black".

I've read theories that light skin did not appear until the Ice Age.

[Ibericus]

I do not disagree. Bias is common. I think we must hope that the genitic sciences shall, in the near future, aid the others to modify or dispell the current best theory.
Actually reminds from humans those times (32,000 yers) have been found in Europe, and their mtDNA haplogroups were not that of Africans. Also their skulls were caucasoid. So in any case, they might have been tanned, but certainly not 'black'. They were caucasoid and european in appearance.

[Thraex]

However, modern White Europeans are NOT related to those Hellenes or latin's. They suffered the same fate that they bestowed on the original Black Europeans: Death and absorption (Of course in typical White revisionist fashion, todays Greeks claim that they are Hellenes, even giving the country that name; but genetic studies prove otherwise - for Greece and Italy).

:laugh:

[Logan]

Actually reminds from humans those times (32,000 yers) have been found in Europe, and their mtDNA haplogroups were not that of Africans. Also their skulls were caucasoid. So in any case, they might have been tanned, but certainly not 'black'. They were caucasoid and european in appearance.

Certainly.

The theory goes thus:

http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/peoplingeurope.shtml

[Pallantides]

http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Whites/Dravidian_Albino.jpg

Trønder?:D



Confirmation that the White (Caucasian) Race is derived from Dravidian Albinos, is documented in the findings from genetic analysis of Y-DNA haplogroup "R".


Haplogroup R (Y-DNA)

In human genetics, Haplogroup R is a Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup, a subgroup of haplogroup P, defined by the M207 mutation.

This haplogroup is believed to have arisen around 26,800 years ago, somewhere in Central Asia or South Asia, where its ancestor Haplogroup P is most often found at polymorphic frequencies. Cambridge University geneticist Kivisild et al. (2003) suggests that southern and western Asia might be the source of this haplogroup:

Given the geographic spread and STR diversities of sister clades R1 and R2, the latter of which is restricted to India, Pakistan, Iran, and southern central Asia, it is possible that southern and western Asia were the source for R1 and R1a differentiation.

The R haplogroup is common throughout Europe and western Asia and the Indian sub-continent, and in those whose ancestry is from within these regions. It also occurs in North and Sub-Saharan Africa. The distribution is markedly different for the two major subclades R1a and R1b.

Haplogroup R1a is typical in populations of Eastern Europe, Indian Subcontinent and parts of Central Asia. R1a has a significant presence in Northern Europe, Central Europe, Altaians and Iran as well as in Siberia. R1a can be found in low frequencies in the Middle East, mostly in Indo-European speakers or their descendants.

Haplogroup R1b predominates in Western Europe. R1b can be found at high frequency in Bashkortostan (Russia). R1b can be found at low frequency in Central Asia, Middle East, South Asia as well as North Africa. There is an isolated pocket of R1b in Sub Saharan Africa. In Europe, R1b coincides with areas of Celtic influence.


:laugh2::eusa_doh:

[Imperivm]

I saw this bullshit as well. I found it hilarious and horrifying at the same time.

The main worry is that it seemed to be aimed at school children..

Fucking BBC. :tsk:

[Logan]

http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Whites/Dravidian_Albino.jpg

Trønder?:D




:laugh2::eusa_doh:

Some are humorous. Yours and the other example in particular. Neither is accepted amongst acadamia.

One might not find complete agreement, but it is better than any alternative. The scientific method has proven itself.

[Pallantides]

Neither is accepted amongst acadamia.


No shit...

[Karl]

Lol such a crackpot site...

http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/White_people.htm

Lol they put Finland as a Germanic country and Estonia as a Slavic country...:crazy:

Hahaha, Spain and Portugal are also Germanic countries, while Hungary, Azerbaijan and Greece are Slavic.

Funny site. :D

[Albion]

I saw that too, it was utter PC, made-up tosh.


I was puzzled at the Indian one, first of all. I mean, these people were the ancestors of the Chinese, Amerindians, Sri Lankans and Australian aborigines. And they got some pure black boy (perhaps even of some Chadic type, I'm not sure) and a palaeonegrid older woman to act the parts.

Yes, whilst at the same time one or two of the Homo Erectus looked Chinese in facial features and they had white skin - it's almost as if they were portraying both Asians and Whites as inferior by making the primitive humans look like us.

When it came to the second episode in Europe they still portrayed the Homo Sapiens as black.
Don't they think that their skin would have started to lighten by now, at least down to a medium tan?

Anyway, to say that Homo Sapiens were dark black in the first place is a shaky claim.
If modern Humans evolved in East Africa then they wouldn't have been nearly quite as dark as a lot of Africans are today.

One thing the liberal types keep quiet about and the BBC purposely failed to mention is that black Africans who we see today largely displaced another people!
Much of East and Southern Africa formerly was home to the Khoisan, the ancestors of most black Africans today came from West Africa and expanded east and southwards in the Bantu Expansion. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantu_expansion)

The Khoisans were forced out into what is today Botswana, Namibi and South Africa. When Europeans landed in the Cape, these are the people they met!! Not the Bantu peoples who claim to be the rightfully owners of South Africa, but the Khoisan. At this time the Bantu were only just arriving in East South Africa, the Cape has never belonged to them - the Bantu expansion slowed as they worked their way into more temperate areas which they weren't used to.

http://www.people.eku.edu/davisb/africa/Bantumigrationmap2.gif
Bantu expansion
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/32/San_tribesman.jpg/400px-San_tribesman.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/San_lady_botswana.jpg
Khoisans - note how they're quite distinctive from other Africans, more Asian-looking in some ways.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c4/African_language_families_en.svg/553px-African_language_families_en.svg.png

Anyway, what this means for humans is that if the out-of Africa theory is right, that modern humans would have originally looked more like the Khoisans. It is easy to see that they would have gradually got lighter skin, evolved different hair and could more feasibly have evolved into the races we now see outside of Africa.

But whatever happened, humans would have had lighter skin by the time they reached Europe - probably somewhere between a Levantine tan or pale skin of modern Europeans. The programme depicting them as some black Africans straight out of the jungle is biased PC propaganda.

[Cheesypie]

Is this just BBC liberal bullshit?

Don't take anything from the BBC seriously. They insult whites, they insult Brits, they air programs about how 9-11 was an inside job. Think its a coincidence that they depict the lesser-evolved ones as white?

[Albion]

Sadly the government can't do anything about the BBC for fear of the BBC branding it censorship.
The BBC is meant to be unbiased though and so it should have a few right-wingers in there who don't buy all this crap to even it out a bit.

[Logan]

Anyway, what this means for humans is that if the out-of Africa theory is right, that modern humans would have originally looked more like the Khoisans. It is easy to see that they would have gradually got lighter skin, evolved different hair and could more feasibly have evolved into the races we now see outside of Africa.

But whatever happened, humans would have had lighter skin by the time they reached Europe - probably somewhere between a Levantine tan or pale skin of modern Europeans. The programme depicting them as some black Africans straight out of the jungle is biased PC propaganda.


Seems a simular theory. I thought that they presented a particular one, the one generally accepted at this time.

It is interesting, in example, how the Victoria writers on the subject have been discarded by many moderns, but upon perusal are not far off. One might find simular biases.

[Logan]

No shit...

Surprising diction for a Norwegian.

[Albion]

Seems a simular theory. I thought that they presented a particular one, the one generally accepted at this time.

It is interesting, in example, how the Victoria writers on the subject have been discarded by many moderns, but upon perusal are not far off. One might find simular biases.

There's also the multi-regional theory which I tend to prefer, but the white apologists don't like that one.
Just this week I heard that they'd found human remains in the Levant (Israel, Lebanon) older than any found in Africa. So until anything older is found in Africa it could mean that humans spread to Africa from Eurasia in fact.

[Logan]

There's also the multi-regional theory which I tend to prefer, but the white apologists don't like that one.
Just this week I heard that they'd found human remains in the Levant (Israel, Lebanon) older than any found in Africa. So until anything older is found in Africa it could mean that humans spread to Africa from Eurasia in fact.

The program in question, as well as others, make mention of the latter but thought it a dead end. I would like to be with you on the first, but it seems to be discounted by genetics.

[Pallantides]

Surprising diction for a Norwegian.
http://vocaroo.com/?media=vvTgzIEP59mWuHpsO


A message for you!

[Beorn]

Just saw some crap on the BBC showing all modern humans in Europe 32,000 years ago as black africans. This confused me (and also made me feel a little sick). The Neanderthals are shown as white (complete with blue eyes and light hair) and as brutish, black-killing "monsters"

Just be grateful they gave us two evenings off from slagging off the English.

Anyway, it was nice to Angela Wynter wearing proper African garb rather than her usual outfits.

[Logan]

Just be grateful they gave us two evenings off from slagging off the English.

Anyway, it was nice to Angela Wynter wearing proper African garb rather than her usual outfits.

Program I referenced featured Alice Roberts. I have not seen the other.

[Beorn]

Program I referenced featured Alice Roberts. I have not seen the other.

I was talking to Catty, but the programme with Angela in is the Apemen one.