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.


My Alternative Theory to Mankind's Earth Migrations

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 08:22 AM
We know that the general consensus is that the first human beings were brown skinned, "african" in appearance ala modern Africans, since the first humans originated, according to Science theory, in East/Northeast Africa (Ethiopia, Kenya, Eritrea, Somalia, Sudan, Egypt). Then they migrated at various stages, some tribes moving Northwest to Marutania/Morocco and Spain, while others went East, up into the Fertile Crescent, Mesopotamia, where the lands were not all desert at the time, but much the opposite of desert. It was much more fertile land for growing crops that it is today.

From there, a group went up into East Europe, while others went East into Iran, then Tibet, from where there was a split from a common ancestor of Central/East Asians and Eurasian Caucasian people. So, some people went North and Northeast up into the Caucasus Mts, then up into the Steppes of Russia and Ukraine, from which, later on, tribes of warriors on horseback would bring the "Battle Axe" culture into Europe as they would invade/migrate from the East. These were Sarmatians, Scythans, etc.

Now, I am not going to trace ALL of the migrations, as it would be a massive project and National Geographic has already done so. So I present their interactive page which shows all the routes of migration and information about the people from those migrations.
Atlas of the Human Journey: Human Migrations and DNA

See, most of my life I have thought that black African people were the first human beings, that the first humans resembed modern day black African people more so than any other modern human group. I thought that the first people to come up out of Africa and migrate were thus dark skinned, African tribes. But now I have gotten what I have found to be a very different proposal of history.

What if the first humans in Africa were lighter skinned? What evidence is there that we have from 100,000 years ago that conclusively tells us these people were black skinned? There's absolutely no evidence of that, we just assume it because the locals are all black in Africa, and as such, we figure these are the ones who never left, correct? Well .. thnk about this.

What if the first people had pale, white skin, and Africa wasn't as arid and dry at the time, which it wasnt according to Science. The desert that seperates North Africa from the rest of Africa used to be fertile lands. We dont know how humid it was back then, how the sunlight was affecting the skin back then, and all sorts of things we will never know.

The thing is, the whitest, palest people, are the ones that have travelled and settled FURTHEST away from the origin point of Humanity. Take for example, the Scandinavian peoples, and the Celtic inhabitants of the British Isles incl Scotland/Ireland, and even the Germans and so forth. These are all people who have nations deep into the North, close to the North pole. This means they had to migrate out there, over time, travelling massive distances. What if the oldest humans from Africa were white initially, and as they left while others stayed, over time the ones who stayed became affected by the changes in the climate, habitat, temperature, ozone layer, humidity, sunlight, and so on. The humans who never branched out and stayed in the origin land, Africa, are there to this day. But who is to say that they looked exactly the same 100,000yrs ago? Wouldn't being there so for long has gradual changes into DNA of the people, who would have offspring with darker and darker skin and hair, to protect from increasing sun and larger nostrils for humid air and so forth. Likewise, whatever tan pigment some of these North Europeans had was changed by the opposite effect.

So in other words, imagine it like this. First humans leave Africa, they go into the Middle East. At this time they look what he call "white" or Caucasian. Once settling down in the Middle East for thousands of years, the skin tone, as well as hair and eyes, could gradually change to suit the climate around them. This happens automaticly, from generation to generation, passed through DNA. But once they first arrived in the Middle East, some didn't want to settle there, and still yet wanted to continue the migration Northward. There were also those who went Eastward, toward Iran and Tibet. So, some passed through the Mid East, retaining relatively pale skin, and then others stayed, and now 100,000s years later, they have tan skin and darker hair. Well geee id sure hope so.

Now, this group that doesn't stay in the Middle East but keeps going North, they eventually make it into Southern Europe in various places. Some settled here, and this is why, being that the Southern Europe nations are closer to the equator, those who settled here naturally slowly became more pigmented over tens of thousands of years, thus getting the tan/olive complexion that lots of Mederranian Europeans have. However, groups didn't all stay in Southern Europe, some immediately continued their migration, eventually making it to the Northern limits of the land. This is where they settled. At the time, perhaps the Ice and harshly cold temperatures may not have been quite as bad, I thought I read that at one point way back when, even the Scandinavia had a temperate climate and not too much snow/ice.

Now I know there were tons of later, smaller migrations of individual tribes, like the Wesward push on Europe from Horde after Horde of horseback warriors, as well as migrations from the Islamic Jihadists trying to come up through Spain, conquering it, and gunning for France n beyond. But these small tribes and migrations are not what I'm talking about. I'm saying take it back 50,000 years and we will be on the same page here.

So if the first humans were white, the only humans that would be white today would be the ones who reached their current locations without stopping to settle anywhere else, the tribes that travelled the longest. this is because they wouldnt have stayed in any particular area long enough to allow the climate to affect their DNA in such a way that it does to people who settle in regions that are different from that which they came. So if they travelled longest, is this not also corroborated by the fact that the North European civilizations were the least advanced during Antiquity in the B.C. times, but became the most advanced, most powerful nations of all?

Those groups of humans who stopped to live here or there further south for a few milleniums, well, its going to show on their skin, hair, culture, and so forth. Then the people who didn't go anywhere at all since the very beginning, well, they've been in Africa for the longest time, ever since it became terribly arid, desert filled, and so forth. There was a seperation barrier, that huge desert that splits North and South Africa. Well the people above the Desert have tan skin, those below it have black skin, and we know this desert has kept these peoples apart for millenia.

It's just so easy to think "if the first ones are black, the more time goes by, the ones furthest from the first ones will be white, and those inbetween will be tan." Yeah, that makes some kind of sense. But so does this one: "if the first ones are white, the more time goes by, the ones furthest from the first ones will also be white, because they made it to their destination by stopping the least amount of time & thereby having minimal DNA change (pigment change). Their destination was furthest away to get to but had the same style of climate from that which they are from, thus changing the DNA the least, having the least amount of change in pigmentation and hair color, as well as features indicitive of the climate of the area." Just think of the Norse people, the Welsh, the Celtic, the Gauls, the Germanics. Then i can go on to say "Those who decided to stop and settle in various ideal "pitstops" for massive human migration on foot, such as the Middle East and the coasts all along the Mediterannian Sea, all sides of it, and stayed there to this day, now have slightly darker pigmentation to the point of a natural tan, brown/black hair becomes much more common, brown eyes become much more common." Just think Italians, Spainiards, Arabs, Iranians, and Greeks.

So, in the end, it could only happen in two ways. Either the 1st ones were black, and became white through eons of migration through different climates, or they were white, and became black as well as tan through staying put in certain climates while the rest of the humans move on to migrate onward. Only those who stay somewhere will become in tuned with their new climate, even if it takes 1,000's of years.

During Antiquity, the Mediterannian and Middle East peoples were all at the peak of their Empires, warring it out for supremecy. These were all the tan skinned ones who stayed put in the Mediterannian area and the Middle East. So why is it that the "white people tribes" were so.. primitive in the sense of not having the same glorious achievments as these other people? The answer is right in front of you. They were on the move since humans first existed! So while the Greeks were settled and working on building up, these white pale tribes were still hunter gatherer, why? Because they were constantly on the move! Because they were constantly migrating Northward. And now who is in the Northernmost lands of our World? The most pale, "white people" in existance.

I could be wrong, but there is something to the fact that if you're from the North, you are white. If from the middle, you are tan. If from the South, you are varying shades of brown.

[edit on 1/21/2008 by runetang]

posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 08:50 AM
To add a religious twist to it, according to the Bible people had been in existance long before Ham, Noah's youngest son, went in and peeped on his Daddy while he was asleep from being drunk, and got so blasted that he didn't even have any clothes on, and was bare.

For this, Ham gets "punished" with a curse. It goes, "all of your descendants will have dark skin" or something like that, lol. And from this the Bible literalists say all Africans are descendants of Ham. I disagree with the literalists, I don't think theres enough evidence for that.

But anyways, this means, according to the Bible, and I know it is rare of me to "attack" Bible teachings, but this is Old Testament so watever. According to the Bible, before Ham saw his Father's reproductive organs, there was no such thing as an African Black human being.

It's true .. think about it .. Ham's descendants .. what about before Ham? No blacks before Ham? Guess not? .. Lol

posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 10:51 AM
skeletal measurements have proven the known fact they were african.
there are differences that denote with accuracy the alledged "race".

add to that, the radio-carbon dating of those finds and you have the
"accepted" age of humankind.

as far as migrations, there are several theories as to dates of "waves
of migration" but, it did occur.

as far as "ham" is concerned, it's quite silly and ignorant for anyone
to believe ham being turned black and condemned to slavery because
he saw nakedness..

[edit on 21-1-2008 by last time here]

posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 11:03 AM
There is a global initiative to track mankind's origins and movements through DNA. You can send off a sample of your DNA and they will send back a profile of your ancestral origins, both race and geography. I'll look for a link.

Anyway, I think there are genetic markers for each racial group that are fairly conclusive and should be able to support or refute your thesis. I'm no expert but I am sure there are ATS members who could shed light on this.

Very well written OP though, thanks.

[edit on 21/1/08 by kosmicjack]

posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 11:25 AM
reply to post by runetang

Can you explain why the first humans would want to migrate in very cold and dark places up north when it seems that Africa was much more hospitable then up north or fare east?


posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 01:13 PM
could be because it wasn't cold in those days, or
maybe because "it is there", or to start colonisation?.
who knows?? could have been a geological change
forced them to look elsewhere?? who knows??

posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 12:21 AM
First off, I shouldn't say "white people" when theorizing who these first people were. According to DNA research gathered from the world and also through that program that a previous poster mentioned, Scientists determined that Central Asians and what is now Europeans and their descendants throughout the world share a COMMON ancestor. The split began to occur some 40 to 50,000 years ago, as the humans along this particular migration path split around the modern Afghanistan area; some went North and eventually West, others went Eastward.

This means that white people as I term it did not exist back when all humans were in Africa. I am proposing then, that the first people did not resemble todays indigenous African population. As to the lightness of their skin I can only guess, but can say I think it was lighter. Likewise, I can say I think the hair was overall less tightly curled, and lighter; also the features of the first humans looked different than todays Africans.

In those days(50k+ years ago), we can only GUESS what the weather was like, because the last Ice Age ended a mere .. 11,000 or so years ago right. So, moving on, we *think* there was a time that actual bare land connected Siberia and Alaska, or so they say.

So we dont even know what it was like in various parts of the Earth.

The FACT is, Africa began changing to the worse, which is evident of it containing the world's largest Desert. I suppose as this Desert was forming and lush land was disappearing, massive groups of the first humans simply "followed the animals", as well as "followed the green grass", soto speak. As their initial home dried up, they went else looking.

The Nile was nearby, and so naturally they followed it North. I cant tell you the exact time in history, but when men walked the Earth, there was a time that a Nile flowed westward into Africa as well, as if to say it had a whole other "arm" to it.

I'd say that before Scandinavia became so cold and frequently covered in snow and ice, it had excellent, plush green pastures. and im sure its like this in alot of places during their Summer season. Look at the lands in Northern Europe. Look at France, nothing but massive amounts of land that is awesome for growing stuff. The farmers union in France is SO important and vital that it could shut down the country at will.

I'm just saying that the humans in the northernmost parts got there somehow and for some reason, likewise, those in the southernmost parts. And if you look, you will see a natural pattern on the planet Earth, there is a lot of Desert and dry, arid land along the equator, directly above and below it. You get places like Mexico, Arabia, Libya, etc, along it. As you look north and southward, the land and climate improves going in both directions simultaineously, until you get to the extreme pole areas, where it then becomes the total opposite of dry and arid, there are instead icebergs and icecaps, and fields of sheet ice.

To put it in a nutshell, I am saying if no one on today's Earth looks like the first humans did when humans were only in Africa, then those from the oldest migrations out of Africa, still existing today, would resemble the first humans the closest. As to what they looked like, I am not exactly sure. But I no longer believe that they looked like todays modern indigenous Africans. and I think the Biblical story of "Ham" is some way for humans back then to try to explain the knowledge of their Fathers' that there was a time when men existed which were not that dark skinned. Naturally like most things, early man tries to explain this in any way he can, and was incorrect like he usually is, but is it still yet telling us something?

[edit on 1/22/2008 by runetang]

posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 10:32 AM
you might wish to check these out:
Folklore as an Historic Science George Gomme
Celtic myth and Legend Charles Squire
Pliny (who saw ancient Britons in the 2nd. century a.d.
Book of the Beginnings Gerald Massey
The Testimony of Tradition David MacRitchie
Geoffery of Monmouth medieval historian........

actually, there are people now who look like those of
the age you are referring to......

regarding the "ham" fable, i believe it was written by a
people who were for whatever reason pissed off. no
significance whatsoever. it doesn't even make sense.

[edit on 22-1-2008 by last time here]

new topics

top topics


log in