Chinese Scientist Proves The First Inhabitants Of China Were Black

Currently, it is believed that the Sarhara Desert acted as a boundary to northward migration and that between as early as 20k and as late as 125k years ago at least parts of the Sahara were habitable allowing humanity to exit out of what we now think as Sub Sahara Africa

www.plosone.org...

The original settlers of Egypt were these Sub Saharan peoples, to be replaced by peoples from the Levant, at least culturally. This is one of the few regions where study of the genetic make up of the current people is unhelpful with unraveling the past as there was so much migration through the area in all directions that what is left is such a tangled mess the results can be used to practically demonstrate any point. On the extreme end of this for example is evidence that Tutankhamun (1300bc) was predominantly R1b, which is a Western European Y-DNA sub group. Ramesses III who ruled Africa 200 years later is part of a Y-DNA grouping found in south of the Sahara.

The simplest explanation for this is that Egypt was an extreme mix of people and that culturally it was influenced from both civilizations both south in the sub saraha and west in the Levant to become it's own distinct civilization. It stood at a major cross road--- hell there is evidence that specific goat species that originated further west of the Levant were introduced to Egypt through back migrations approximately 8000 years ago.

This is not a case of what we think of classical Egypt being a homogenious population of one group or another, but an extreme blending.

reply to post by LUXUS

Have the last word on things Kemetian in this thread I said I am through helping derail the original topic.

reply to post by slip2break


Yep, mixed, you'd think that examining a very complex situation and then trying to determine a black and white (pun intended) answer, ie simple-minded, would be futile but nooooooo, they keep at it.

One last suggestion for L and S why don't you start a thread and like the cartoon spy vs spy post all your x and y centrics antics in it so we don't have to be bothered with it constantly?

As you guys said - back to the OP

I am sure someone has already gotten to this, but I just had to explain this on another forum not long ago when an agenda driven poster tried to pass this off.

The Chinese scientist was trying to disprove Out Of Africa. He wanted to prove that Chinese evolved independently from Homo Erectus. He came to understand that he was wrong and that Out Of Africa is correct.

That is all. He said nothing what-so-ever about China being a black civilization.

I am new to this forum, and don't want to run afoul of the rules, the OP almost surely understood this, and, like the other that I had to refute, intentionally tried to take quotes out of context to make it out to sound like something it isn't.

Peace.

i would take that with a grain of salt.

i just don't see how blacks can turn into whites or asians.

in the pc world, hell yeah!

but we have pretty diff body types and functions.

Well...

The Philippines are close to China.

In the Philippines, you can find the Aeta people:

en.wikipedia.org...


In Malaysia, you can find the Semang people:

en.wikipedia.org...


So, I don't see any reason why black people could not exist in Ancient China.

GLontra
Well...

The Philippines are close to China.

In the Philippines, you can find the Aeta people:

en.wikipedia.org...


In Malaysia, you can find the Semang people:

en.wikipedia.org...


So, I don't see any reason why black people could not exist in Ancient China.

Exactly the kind of logical fallacy that allows Afrocentric nonsense to thrive. No one (credible) has ever claimed that the Chinese were anything but the Chinese we know today. The OP was intentionally distorting the meaning of something that he had read to try to make everyone think it was so, when of course, all the story was about was coming to accept Out of Africa.

Are there dark skinned people in Asia? Yes. Are the Chinese? No.

reply to post by cachibatches

No one (credible) has ever claimed that the Chinese were anything but the Chinese we know today

That statement is just as incorrect as the op's assertion, the archeological record of northeast
asia clearly shows that those that we know as Chinese(Han Chinese) and the other people's of ne Asia who have a mongoloid morphlogy, are new comers to Asia. There are no skeletal remains from the Asian archaeological record, that have mongoloid morphologies, older than 8000 years.



I'm trying to find the source paper, I just read it a couple of weeks ago.

punkinworks10
reply to post by cachibatches

 

No one (credible) has ever claimed that the Chinese were anything but the Chinese we know today

That statement is just as incorrect as the op's assertion, the archeological record of northeast
asia clearly shows that those that we know as Chinese(Han Chinese) and the other people's of ne Asia who have a mongoloid morphlogy, are new comers to Asia. There are no skeletal remains from the Asian archaeological record, that have mongoloid morphologies, older than 8000 years.

edit on 19-11-2013 by punkinworks10 because: (no reason given)

I'm trying to find the source paper, I just read it a couple of weeks ago.

edit on 19-11-2013 by punkinworks10 because: (no reason given)

Actually, this statement is incorrect. China was not founded as state or a people more than 8000 years ago. China properly came into being with the Qin dynasty, but at it oldest can be said to go back to the Shang, or perhaps semi-legendary Xia. What you are doing is akin to calling the Mayans "Americans." It is anachronistic and certainly ahs nothing to do with what the OP is intending.

So I stand by my original statement:

No one (credible) has ever claimed that the CHINESE were anything but the CHINESE we know today