Question

How come the oldest actual civilizations were formed by the populations descended from those who left Africa? While the ones in Africa lagged behind throughout the many years (Egypt and Nubia having Eurasian ancestry)?

Other urls found in this thread:

biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/06/16/059311
infogalactic.com/info/List_of_oldest_continuously_inhabited_cities
infogalactic.com/info/Historical_cities
nature.com/news/error-found-in-study-of-first-ancient-african-genome-1.19258
anthromadness.blogspot.com/2014/12/ethio-somali-is-farce.html
anthromadness.blogspot.ae/2015/07/horn-africans-mixture-between-east.html
nature.com/articles/srep25501
elifesciences.org/content/5/e15266
plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1002397
plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0047765
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Genetic evidence of an early exit of Homo sapiens sapiens from Africa through eastern Africa
journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0139784
mpg.de/research/hofmeyr-skull-supports-out-of-africa-theory
youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=oxRAwVKW6MI
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

They left because Africa was a shitty place to stay. Egypt and Nubia were lucky to have the Nile as their main water source as well as keep in close promiscuity with nearby civilizations. Genetics also have a play but it's really a combined number of reasons. Also, Ethiopia exists.

>Ethiopia

Eurasian blood.

No.
The formation of agriculture aligns with severe dry periods forcing populations to migrate to water sources and depending on riparian grass and other plant species.

The Sahara is the basis of African Agricultural domestication, that occurred at a different time after Younger Dryas that spurred Eurasian and American crop relations that formed the cultigens we know today.

It occurred about 5-7k years later after the end of the Neolithic Subpluvial from whence pearl Millet, sorghum, rice, Bambara bean, cow pea, pigeon pea, finger Millet, ensete and a host of other cultigens arose.

This of course was also after cattle both local species and Eurasian species formed creating a cattle based agro-pastoralist society connected to cattle cults one of which being found near the Sudanese-Egyptian border Nabta Playa. This created socio-cultural environments that shifted away from just riverine towns and more so mixed use spaces utilizing the vast Sahelian grasslands

>We Wuz Pure Africans

I honestly put the starting of civilization much more up to environmental factors. I know that environmental determination has a bad wrap, but it is a useful form of analyses is some areas. Here the areas themselves are what was write for agriculture not the people. If you want the best example why look at the native meso Americans and why they started so much later than everyone else.

We are predominately Ethio-Somali and Ethiopic two of three back-migrating Afrasian populations that arrived some 30+ kya. This was before the formation of "Arab" or "European" "Middle Eastern"

These proto-Ethio Somali went further and further West and South, which is why all Africans today have pseudo "West Eurasian" ancestry. The proto ES are a splinter of what would become Eurasians and everyone else but they existed as a template with which everyone else formed into the races of today. These people also adapted to more temperate climates and lack the same degree of paleo-African (think half siblings and cousins to Humans) the rest of Africa has.

So what about North Africans (Berbers, Egyptians).

despite humans having come from africa, africa is a pretty shit spot to set up shop, so to speak. a fair amount going against early civilizations there, all things considered.

egypt, nubia, and ethiopia, all had the benefit of being on the nile/near the red sea and thus trade routes, cultural and tech diffusion, etc. nothing to do with blood or ancestry.

> nothing to do with blood or ancestry

> there's only one race the human race goy

>projecting this hard

Hey there SJW.

not even sjw my man, they are just as bad. throwing out blood or ancestry or whatever meme answer of the day is just sad shit. i mean like there are a ton of decent answers out there, and you picked the thoughtless meme answer.

what the fuck is it about africa that gets both lefties and righties to sperg out immediately?

You're creating a false narrative conflating genetic clusters with genetically variable people.

Yes after ethio-somali and ethiopic there is a third back migration population as I clued above that were North African.

Looking at the available data they are aligned with the populations after the Aterians called the Mecha-Alafou. These people are closely, closely related to Kiffians if we are to take skull measurements seriously.

Regardless, the reconstructions give a rather interesting phenotype that can indeed be seen in Berbers who also contain within them various amounts of (sometimes predominately) West Eurasian, Nilo-Saharan, Niger Congo and ethio-somali components as well.

Above I mentioned the Neolithic Subpluvial. Well that was but the latest of arguably about five in human history. The "Mecha-Alafou" came into being during a previous "greening" and were pushed long ago to the Northwest corner of Africa around the Rif and coast or pushed deep south giving another pseudo "West Eurasian" signal in Africans.

By the time of the Neolithic Subpluvial they spread down, far down to Mali and Niger but maybe further (it gets wetter and bones are more likely to degrade in hot moisture). These people likely came in contact with other people's and as the first phase ended (the Subpluvial had a pause of sorts) they were pushed again from the central sahara to the North, East and South.

By the time the second phase began a new group arose called the Tenerians who were cattle herders and looked much like the Haratin we see today. They met what seems to be Eurasian migrants from Trans-Jordan commingled and by the end of the second phase again went North, South and East.

These people that went south seem to align with Wodaabe for their elder can still note the cave paintings aligning to their ceremonies.

Anyways it's a multilayered and folded mess, interesting if you enjoy human migration as a study but complicated nevertheless.

WE?

Bo better quesiton is why they was started by descentded of africans and not by non descendens of africans like white people up in nrthe ruope or central asia

Africa causes humans to stay stupid user.

butbetterque sjiton is why the africans' descendents created civilizationa ndb not the white oeople whi do not come from Africa?

>descentded of africans

Every population out of Africa and loads of North Africans to East Africans descend from migrations out of that continent (and back). Coincidentally the likes of Natufian don't resemble any non- North African population ls genetically.

buthebetterquesiton is if theyw ere cminfg from african we would have found prove by nwo but we din'tthey have hypoerboea in their myths the celts and the greeks talk aboutit white peopl had hypoborea they came from up nortj? or maybe india' I don'tknowbut the africa2ns came before with the idea of civilization mesopotamia too cam fromAfricaa? I say yes

> buthebetterquesiton is if theyw ere cminfg from african we would have found prove by nwo but we din't

Your position isn't accepted in the scientific l community.

> they have hypoerboea in their myths the celts and the greeks talk aboutit white peopl had hypoborea they came from up north.

Not the accepted among actual scienctitists.

> or maybe india' I don'tknowbut the africa2ns came before with the idea of civilization mesopotamia too cam fromAfricaa? I say yes

None of the earliest actual civilizations were made by Basketball Americans. The Natufians show this.

>le Out of Africa theory

Humans originated from Hyperborea, the land in the far north. It's the same as Atlantis. It was the land known today as Doggerland, the area between the UK and mainland Europe. It sank into the sea as sea levels rised. Fishing trawlers have found evidence of human civilization at the bottom of the Dogger bank. That's where the nordic (Aryan) race comes from, niggers from Africa are descendant from subhuman monkeys. The Aryans are of a different breed entirely, they are the ancestors of the modern day Europeans (white people). They lived in Hyperborea in an extremely advanced high-tech civ, this is attested to in several well-known myths (Hesiod, the fall from the Golden age -> Silver Age etc.) It was an age when the people "Lived like Gods, in close contact with the Gods", this is then referring to the high level of advancement of the Hyperboreans of what we today call Doggerland. The hyperboreans are the same as the Cro-magnons, who did NOT come from Africa as we are usually told. Both Neanderthal and Cro-magnon are from this old Aryan homeland, while modern niggers are descended from jungle monkeys.

biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/06/16/059311

infogalactic.com/info/List_of_oldest_continuously_inhabited_cities

infogalactic.com/info/Historical_cities

None done by Niggers.

...

Gooks rool, Niggers drools.

Because those humans left Africa 100,000 years ago and mentally evolved in a different manner than the pure african humans other wise known as the niggers and san bushmen.

Even the natives of North Africa descend from a Middle Eastern ancient human race that migrated back into Africa. The strangest thing is why the North Africans like Algerians and Tunisians couldnt be found below Saharan Africa since they did migrate back into Africa in the mid mesolithic era. Just imagine if all of Africa was populated by the North African Caucasoid grouping, that Africa would be have been very abundant in civlizations since these humans are the creators of Egypt, Carthage, and many more civilizations in early history.

>two of three back-migrating Afrasian populations
you mean West Eurasian. not sure what "Afrasian" means. This is true for all of us Horners, not just ethiopians.

>This was before the formation of "Arab" or "European" "Middle Eastern"
true

>These proto-Ethio Somali went further and further West and South, which is why all Africans today have pseudo "West Eurasian" ancestry
I dont think all Africans have "West Eurasian" ancestry outside of East Africans. I think you're referring to a study in which the results that said that turned out to be mistaken:

nature.com/news/error-found-in-study-of-first-ancient-african-genome-1.19258

>The proto ES are a splinter of what would become Eurasians and everyone else but they existed as a template with which everyone else formed into the races of today.
that sounds kind of ethiocentric. I dont think ethio-somali is even a real ancestral component; let alone a template for other races. Horners in general are the result of (likely neolithic) mixture between West Eurasians and Dinka-like populations. Tigraynas + Amharas have a bit more mixture from Sabaean influence 2.8-3k years ago.

>anthromadness.blogspot.com/2014/12/ethio-somali-is-farce.html

>anthromadness.blogspot.ae/2015/07/horn-africans-mixture-between-east.html

North Africans are pretty based.

maybe if they werent islamized. today's north africans are arabized and shit-tier.

>promiscuity
you mean proximity?

yeah they do dude, its obvious. many are indistinguishable from upper egyptians. at least northern nubians arent. (who roughly correspond with modern north sudanese). southern kushites/nubians were dark nilotics similar to today's south sudanese. "ancient nubia" was a mix of the two types. though the black type was depicted more often by egyptians to better distinguish themselves from their enemies

and modern nubian

Italians like number 4 on the list for IQ and skin tone? lmfao kys

and here is a tomb of nubian royalty during their rule. as you can see, they depicted themselves similarly.

They're caucasians, they obviously came from west asia and can't be native africans, despite their skin color.

>say civilizations formed in Africa lagged behind
>when presented with civilizations in Africa that were successful, claim that they had Eurasian blood

why did you ask the question in the first place?

So if I asked for a successful Amerindian state, you'd point to the United States?

because the geography africa makes it a shit place to live, making it harder to develop civilization

No, many parts are well suited to civilization. What held it back primarily is isolation, most ideas are adopted from others, not invented directly. The more contact you have with other centers of civilization, the more technologically developed you will become. The centers of settlement in Africa were often far from any others, and always far from the great hub of Old World civilization, the near east.

but they do? Not op but they exactly do.............

>claim that they had Eurasian blood
its not a baseless claim, they do have eurasian blood

anthromadness.blogspot.com/2015/07/horn-africans-mixture-between-east.html

That's comparing then between West Eurasian samples and Yoruba, that's not taking into account Mesolithic ancestry we come from

>Sierra Leone, Nigeria, and Uganda

What makes them so special?

Is there a reason your map excludes the development of agriculture in Africa?

Some on here claim it's merely an extention of West Eurasian Agricultural development.

No, there were plants native to West Africa that were domesticated found earlier than imports. They imported all domesticated animals.

This map is forgetting about Anatolia, agriculture was born there too

The first i agree, I was stating a sentiment on here and the second is a "sorta" semi-domestication of local North African cattle was occurring around the same time as West Eurasian cattle.

>Mayans
>Aztecs
>Ancient
>African
Go back to school, kid.

>Eritrea has a higher iq than most of the middle east
lmao

>claim that they had Eurasian blood
Have you seen Ethiopians? They very very clearly are Caucasian/Negro mix

No we have Ethio-Somali and Ethiopic ancestry that is different than the more paleo-african derived West, Central and South Africans.

Ironically the "white features" Europeans speak so fondly of in my home region exist more amongst Somali than Habesha and they have almost no Arab ancestry.

>Richard Lynn

>inca "civilization"
>didn't even have writing

They started later because they got their later

>he thinks writing is the only requirement to be a civilization.

Looks full nigger to me

When did I say that was the only requirement you fucking retard?

>muh writing
Hey man how's it like studying history in 1850

You implied they weren't a civilization because they didn't have writing.

I wouldn't know, everyone from 1850 is dead.
Fucking idiot

Yes, that doesn't mean it is the "only" requirement

They were a civilization.

Really though?
Bringing up writing as the most important thing when studying a civilization shows that the 19th century historyans are well alive inside of your head.
The incans were a civilization and you should actually start reading books instead of spouting memes in the middle of other people's discussions.

>historians
Fixed

and they are treated like shit because of their Nubian status.

Not really. Like people really don't know how mullatos look at all.

>their argument literal comes down to "it's a civilization because is said so"

Ethiopia has like 50 different ethnicities

You're either retarded or you're baiting, but whatever
Currently a civilization is defined by having actual complex institutions. The incans had a State and all institutions inside it, and so did the Aztecs. The mesopotamians in Ur already had a State, military, irrigation systems and pretty much everything the Sumerians had, but still no writing. Still a civilization.

They hadn't even started fucking history yet, they were still in the God damn Neolithic

you dont have to evolve if your environment stays the same. sub saharan african weather is too stable to require innovation.