It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Where did the White man come from?

page: 8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 03:27 AM
first of all theres no such thing as a white race, that is a recent term.

posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 04:28 AM

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
Whites came from blacks in Africa, first civilized ones were the Greeks I think who learned everything from the Egyptians.

No they did not learn everything from Kemitians, that would imply that their brains didn't work, which is simply not true innovative ideas are universal, were there cultural influences..why yes and high civilizations by it's very nature take ideas from near and far in order to progress,but rest assured there have never been any lack of native ingenuity on any continent or people.
edit on 29-3-2015 by Spider879 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 05:08 AM

originally posted by: Iamthatbish
I thought it was albinism. Seriously look that up because there's tons on it.
I also believe is albinism.
Also read on internet albinos moved out of India due to persecution and migrated out to the north and this is the origin of the light skin.
Maybe genetics can tell

posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 05:11 AM

originally posted by: SpongeBeard
a reply to: coomba98

Serious answer: Europe
More serious answer: Scandinavia / Germania
You talk about a lack of an empire, while I wouldn't consider the nords to be an empire per se, they would fit the bill for what you're looking for here. As for where white people actually came from? Same place black people did. Pigment arose from the influence of climate, not genealogy.

Yes, too much sunshine makes your skin produce too much vitamin 'D' , too much of that, as with everything, will kill you, so dark skin, not too much vitamin 'D'.

posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 05:21 AM

originally posted by: WP4YT

originally posted by: VoidHawk
Actualy we used to be black but all the monsanto food caused our skin to bleach.

Makes sense, apes have black skin.

When the first hominins (human ancestors) began hunting and gathering on the open savannah, they lost their body hair, likely to keep cool amid the strenuous exercise of their lifestyle. These early humans probably had pale skin, much like humans' closest living relative, the chimpanzee, which is white under its fur.


My emphasis.


posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 05:28 AM
lol nevermind.
edit on 29-3-2015 by rokkuman because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 06:58 AM
a reply to: coomba98

Ummm...think about it...Caucas-ion...From Caucasia and the Caucasus mountain region...Eastern Europe...

edit on 29-3-2015 by YouSir because: I submitted to the urge...

posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 07:23 AM
This is idiotic, we all came from Africa. Then our ancestors branched out in different direction. How can u not know this, you obviously have internet. The white skin is due to the lack of uv rays in northern areas of the world. White skin evolved in order to absorbs more vitamin D than dark skin to compensate. That's why white people are more vulnerable to skin cancer and sun burn. Simple.

posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 08:54 AM
a reply to: coomba98

Science does not accept skin color as a defining racial feature - and it was always controversial, even when German philosopher Christoph Meiners coined the term "Caucasian Race" back in 1785. fyi - Meiners said Caucasians came from the Caucasus region.

posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 10:41 AM
Take into consideration bottleneck theory, and genetic drift

posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 11:29 AM

originally posted by: WP4YT

originally posted by: VoidHawk
Actualy we used to be black but all the monsanto food caused our skin to bleach.

Makes sense, apes have black skin.

So whites evolved more.

Before this gets turned into a race war, bear in mind evolution does not always mean better... just different.

There's no such thing as "race" in humans. We have different ethinies. We know that the white men came from Europe due to the lack of sunlight for tens of thousands years of evolution. How? We don't know?

posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 03:46 PM
a reply to: Spider879

Well I read the first source you linked. While it was a very concise study on the Amarna mummies that establishes kinship, the identities of several previously unknown mummies as well as gives insight into family pathology and genetic mutations, it doesnt not establish ancestry. I really dont know where you can infer ancestry based on the purpose of the study and the results offered. The genetic evidence established type and number of infections like malaria and other syndromes or possible syndromes that Tut and his family may have suffered from. It does not establish grounds to deny the argument of proto European ancestry nor does it support it.

The issue I think we are having is that you think it was a genetic study to establish a population or genetic stock of origin to the royal family. The closest purpose of the study to that end was an attempt to establish the relationship of the mummies to each other and their pedigree. The genetic evidence that was screen grabbed by the genetic ancestry research company in question was used to discern a family tree and identity to the mummies. It helped rule out possible reasons for death as well as painting a picture of illnesses ancient populations in that time suffered. WHat happened is that it also shows a haplogroup that is centered in western Europe as well as being originated there.

I will say this though, I had not seen an exhaustive study like that detailing the illness and deformity of Tut before. The guy was REALLY messed up. He must have lived a painful and arduous life. He had to have been in constant pain and severely limited physically. IMO his family was VERY incestuous. The level of deformity weighed in with the fact that possible degenerative syndromes or causes from infectious disease were ruled out as an explanation to that level of deformity only leaves genetic mutations based on severe inbreeding.

The analysis of the alleles in question, which you say establish heritage were focussed on establishing evidence of specific type and frequency of infections in particular mummies and a history of family pathology with infectious diseases and inherited syndromes. Though we can extrapolate origin from them, without an extensive study using other methods more focussed and specialized in discerning genetic heritage what we can infer is inconclusive at best.

This would also apply to the argument FOR proto European ancestry, though the evidence of a proto European type haplogroup is still very much apparent based on the data from the study and not yet satisfactorily explained away.

Oh, I thought that it was pretty interesting that we can rule out the depictions of this dynasty as being truthful to the actual appearance of the family and see that any depictions have an artistic style applied to them that was particular to that dynasty. There were feminine characteristics to Tut and co, though they were in reality less pronounced as we would think based on reliefs and statues. That was pretty cool to learn.

Thanks again.
Hold it down.

I will get back to the rest of your post later. I have a migraine and am a little out of it.

edit on 3 29 2015 by tadaman because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 04:58 PM
If we were all black at one point then we can claim racism and injustice at the hands of some ancestor in the past. I want a check darn it!

posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 05:17 PM
The advent of the PC era makes this impossible to really talk about, even science can be skewed nowadays.

We have to try to view history without the slant of modern times blurring our vision. We kept looking for the missing link then we found out the three root races each had a missing link in the pile.

posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 05:23 PM
a reply to: tadaman

Yes they were all a mess,especially the males, and Ahkenaten's artistic revolution was to bare all his imperfections,for the general rule before and after was to do an ancient version of photo shop, in this they would have done our Hollywood stars and starlets proud, I am still wondering if that elongated head shape was a result of head binding,a cultural practice of the Great Lakes region or natural, as per the numbers Dna Tribe used for their plug ins while not exclusively African is heavily biased in their favor, even the Tut's death was from sickle cell decease of the tropical African variety.
Any how I hope you get to read the diplomatic correspondence in the link given, that of Rib Addi is the most entertaining.
Great conversation..hope we didn't derail the O.P too much...sorry O.P ..

posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 05:26 PM

originally posted by: truckdriver42
If we were all black at one point then we can claim racism and injustice at the hands of some ancestor in the past. I want a check darn it!

Race is not a real thing but racism is very real.

posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 06:08 PM
a reply to: Spider879

So, about language.

The language of Tut and co, was late Egyptian. We know that it was definitely of the proto Afro-asiatic language family. The language spoken by Tut and co came before Demotic and the later coptic which is still used somewhat. It is far removed from the Egyptian arabic spoken today.

All this tells us that understanding the context of time and stage in linguistic progression with considerations for linguistic drift and possible cultural exchange must be considered.

The language spoken by them was still not yet influenced by Greek cultural centers.

We must also consider that the ruling class had its own dialects that were used for sacred texts which was not spoken outside of the ruling classes. There was even an alternate script and language construct used for spiritual purposes by the religious classes of the day.

What the ruling family spoke was probably more similar to old egyptian. I can imagine that this controversial family had much to do with the evolution of the spoken language of the day. They were changing many aspects of the religious world as well as challenging social standards of the day. Even so they must have spoken or least been familiar with old and middle Egyptian primarily since the differences were not that great. The two are based of two different dialects, while old Egyptian would not be far removed enough to infer that it was no longer used in some form by the ruling classes.

We also know that from the Old Kingdom (about 2613-2160 BC) onwards, hieroglyphs were reserved almost exclusively for monumental inscriptions.

A handwritten hieratic script was used for records and correspondence. This was the language of rulers and priests.

The Amarna letters you referenced were written in provincial Babylonian. They were probably Middle Babylonian/Middle Assyrian.

While still part of the Afro-asiatic language family they are more closely classified as a semitic subgroup.

Middle babylonian was the language of diplomatic correspondence for the entire ancient Orient, including Egypt.

This could be seen as the role of modern day english in international trade and diplomacy. Each country spoke a different language and dialect respectively, but their rulers communicated using this common form.

Let us not forget that rulers of this time were intermarried and related to each other as is the case for more recent royalty.

The language of the ruling families is then not like English is today for trade and was a form of communication reserved for a select few...mainly the royalty like Tut and co.

Within that there were different types of these hieratic scripts used for different purposes. Faster styles were used for administrative purposes and internal correspondence while other more common forms were used religious purposes.

I would note that hieratic scripts are known to not be derivative of hieroglyphic writing styles. The two existed and originated from separate realms of cultural influence.

It was even read differently from cursive hieroglyphs (left to right as opposed to right to left in cursive hieroglyphic scripts.

So now lets look at the similarities of hieratic scripts to other possible sources or contributing influences.

Kemetic "Hieratic" (3200 BC - 600 AD)

The term, "Hieratic" was first coined by Saint Clement of Alexandria (c 200 AD), a Greek theologian who used the term "grammata hieratika" or priestly/sacerdotal writing. Although many scholars contend that "Hieratic" developed as an entirely distinct script from the Medu Neter, the obvious visual similarities prove that it is also a somewhat simplified form of the Medu Neter that was mainly used for more administrative and scientific documents throughout the dynastic history of both Kemet and Kush (3200 BC - 600 AD). However, linquists have also shown similaries between it and the alphabetic Proto-Saharan or Thinite writing.

Proto Saharan (5000 - 3000 BC)
Perhaps the world's oldest known from of writing are inscriptions of what some archaeologists and linguists have termed, "Proto Saharan" near the Kharga oasis west of so-called "Nubia" that date to at least 5,000 BC. The writings under the image that looks like the Nilotic god Seth show similarities to later writing systems such as Tifinagh and Vai.

SO it would not be a far stretch to imagine at least a train of linguistic drift and cultural evolution of language of Hieratic script from proto saharan, Nsbidi, and then into Medu Neter hieroglyphs while preserving a tradition among priest and ruling classes for the purpose of internal communication. Lets also consider that any material used by these classes for formation and training would be written in older dialects and forms of writing that would be translated and converted slowly into any new styles of language and writ.

That makes a case at least for influence from Niger–Congo language families into Afro-asiatic language families if not an outright source for their later development and branching out into what is commonly known as Afro-asiatic.

If there is any link between proto European stock in ruling classes of ancient egypt as far as the late kingdom, there must be a link in their written materials and writing styles for sacred information passed down along with any genetic evolution in these specific groups of leaders and priests.

Basque like proto basque was and is an “outlier” to the other languages in geographic relation to its nucleus of use. Its origin is often thought to be a separate language family known as Vasconic languages. One of the most accepted origins for proto basque was Aquitanian.

Brief history of Aquitarian from wiki:

Aquitanian and its related descendant, Basque, are commonly thought to be a remnant of the languages spoken in Western Europe before the arrival of Indo-European speakers. Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza's studies of the genetic history of Europe identified a cline of genes with highest frequencies in the Basque country, and lower levels beyond the area of Iberia and Southern France. Cavalli-Sforza describes this weakest of the five patterns he obtained as isolated remnants of the pre-Neolithic population of Europe. It corresponds roughly to the geographical spread of rhesus negative blood types. Cavalli-Sforza's conclusion that the Basques are a genetic isolate as well as a linguistic

In orange and green we see Aquitarian and native Iberian overlapping in territory. They were very similar linguistically as well. As can be seen with many other instances where this happens in other languages and populations, genetic exchange happens along side linguistic exchange.

We have to consider that the time we are talking about is VERY long ago. Close to the Upper Paleolithic. That is when any possible common ancestor would have exited for Tut and Co if ever.

We all agree that Cro-Magnon people can be found in certain parts of Western Europe, North Africa and some of the Atlantic Islands today. Physical anthropologists agree that Cro-Magnon is represented in modern times by the Berber and Tuareg peoples of North Africa, the all but extinct Guanches of the Canary Isles, the Basques of northern Spain, the Aquitanians living in the Dordogne Valley and the Bretons.
edit on 3 29 2015 by tadaman because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 06:24 PM

The Berber people call themselves Amazigh: Berber is a name that has been given them by others and which they themselves do not use. Their often dark appearance is caused by the sun: they are ethnologically and genetically White. Ethnologically, the Tuaregs of North Africa (the so-called "Blue People of the Sahara") are Berbers who speak an ancient dialect of Berber called Tamachek. Genetically light-skin and blue-eyes prevail. With their aquiline noses, high cheekbones (often with blonde or reddish hair), they are said to resemble their alleged Atlantean ancestors—many individuals are over six feet tall. When questioned, they do not hesitate to name Atlantis as their lost homeland.

Dr. Jean Hiernaux, Director of Research at the National Centre for Scientific Research in Paris, writes:

"The relatively high incidence of blondism in North Africa has raised much speculation. Has it evolved locally, or does it represent an admixture of European elements from an area where blondism has a high incidence? Both views are tenable." (Hiernaux, 1975)

So here I have shown the link between Berber peoples of north Africa and possibly other groups in Iberia namely the Aquitanian and Iberian speaking populations, and the linguistic link to what was a homeland for all proto Europeans in the Iberian peninsula at least for a time until cultural branches were created and spread to other geographical locations like that of northern African based off linguistic and genetic evidence. I will reiterate that there is evidence of genetic exchange to accompany the linguistic one as can be expected and is reflected in almost all other cases of linguistic exchange worldwide and throughout history.

If the linguistic and genetic exchange was also at times limited to a select group of peoples in the remote past when population centers were not that common, it is possible that any link to later generations of dynastic rulers in egypt from Iberia could be seen as possible...if the ones transferring the information of law, medicine, astronomy, architecture and other signs of advancement for early civilizations was exchanged between one family to another...generation to generation. This in contrast to thinking that it was always on a large scale of exchange between general populations of two or more groups with each others general populations.

The nature of sacred knowledge and information transfer between pharaohs and ruling classes in Egypt is indicative of such a dynamic. One of generational oral traditions coupled with written traditions passing down sacred knowledge exclusively within a small group of related families as they grew and spread along side other larger populations they later appropriated as a ruling class.

We see that there is a link between ancient proto european languages and that of northern African language families. We would make a mistake to look at a modern grouping of languages to identify the origin of the language of the ruling classes. Especially if the possible transfer of genetic material and linguistic foundation would have had to occur in the remote past before the language groups we use to classify the evidence even existed!

Many linguists make the claim that proto-basque or rather Aquitarian, is related to proto-saharan by a common language or global language family for the region of origin for groups that later spread farther into Europe and Africa respectively.

I think this is key to understanding possible models for migration and cultural exchange.

Since there is a case to infer that proto Saharan led into the later forms of hieratic script in spoken language and considering the many cases of similarities for characters used, we can also see the possible link of proto-Saharan to what was later the foundation for proto-European languages.

Perhaps saying that Tut was related to proto Europeans was a bit of a stretch since what became proto European did not exist at the time of supposed exchange nor did the populations exist that later became modern day Africans. What would be closer to the truth is saying that: The ruling classes of Egypt and all the ancient world were well preserved in pedigree and directly related to other and that their common ancestor would have been interchangeable with iberian and other later proto European populations as far as Ireland and the UK all the way to northern Africa.

Thats about it. I dont think we derailed the thread. IMO this is directly related. Establishing a unique aspect of genetic and linguistic spread for royals who have such well documented genealogies and histories would be tremendous in understanding ancient migrations and possible origins for ancient civilizations that sprang up almost complete all of a sudden around the same time.

Trying to finds the origin to massive populations will be hard. Trying to find the origin to the founding members of any population would be easier and probably better documented thus easier to prove.

Even if at separate rates of spread, or if at different ranges of spread, if we knew the journey of the founders to these civilizations we could understand the origin to the civilizations they created...or as I like to think...RECREATED.

Have a good one.
Hold it down.

edit on 3 29 2015 by tadaman because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 06:31 PM
a reply to: tadaman

Hi Tadaman I have to head out, fixing up a spot at the Beach will address your posts you said hold down the fort.

posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 06:36 PM
a reply to: Spider879

Ok bro. See you later! The beach huh? NICE!

new topics

top topics

<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in