[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / baaa / choroy / cyoa / dempart / doomer / hypno / jenny / vg ]

/his/ - History

History. Genetics. Archaeology. Anthropology. HBD.

Catalog   Archive

Winner of the 75nd Attention-Hungry Games
/caco/ - Azarath Metrion Zinthos

March 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Comment *
Verification *
File *
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, swf, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.

History. Genetics. Archaeology. Anthropology. HBD.

File: a6a0658bfb57c8b⋯.png (48.24 KB, 1008x727, 1008:727, Neanderthal.png)


Big stuff here

It seems that previous models, which indicated a continuous decrease in Neanderthal admixture in Europeans due to natural selection against such variants, probably because they were harmful one way or another, is being contested.

Svante Pääbo, the very and only guy who works with Neanderthal genomes, is reviewing his findings.

He discovered that, by comparing Europeans to Sub-Saharan Africans to see how much Neanderthal ancestry Europeans got is now a failed method, as we now discovered that Eurasians with Neanderthal admixture had return into deep Africa, with people such as Taforalt's Iberomarussians in West Africa and as found in the Mota Cave in East Africa.

What does it mean?

It means that it wasn't Europeans losing Neanderthal admixture over time, but Sub Saharan Africans gaining it.

So, when you compare one to another, one would think that Europeans were losing Neanderthal ancestry.

Not the case anymore.

Today, the estimates of Neanderthal ancestry in Europeans has been calibrated to 1.5~2.5%, after initial overestimates of 4~5%.

But now we're in a situation where they will have to calibrate these percentages again, and we could jump back to 5% or even go as high as 10% Neanderthal. Actually, who knows, really, everything's on the table right now.


>The limits of long-term selection against Neandertal introgression


>Article by Razib Khan, saying what I just said

https://www.gPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

3 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 53afd22e421c789⋯.jpeg (35.95 KB, 474x310, 237:155, images.jpeg)


>How does that work?

Your DNA is a code, full of ATGC strings. You see where does it differ from one another.

I'll give you an example, Blue eyes.

Blue eyes is you having A instead of T in a certain part of your DNA. People call it a "gene".

Pic related are how "mutations" are spotted, how we know things are different between samples, how you have blue eyes and the other person don't.

>they have to always compare beetwen ancestries to get an result of the genetic ancestry of certain individual?

To look for similarities, of course.


So, does that mean we are true neanderthals?

If I didn't hear wrong, neanderthals were the fucking shit, with bigger brains, advance technology compared with cromagnons and white.



No, but we have a lot more Neanderthal ancestry than previously thought (niggers as well).



I kinda like it, especially after niggers kept shaming people because they weren't humans, just neanderthal mutants engineered by their nigger scientist god.

Neanderthals were better than cromagnons in every way except on the social and the breeding.


Here it is. They have completed the study.



Due to Eurasians going back into Africa in the past, the signal was falsely reduced.

And in other news, it seems that, contrary to the single admixture event of Caucasians with other non-Sapiens hominds (Neanderthals), they have found not two, but three of such waves into East Asia.


File: 860782e4fb6c7e4⋯.jpg (3.52 MB, 1881x2778, 627:926, MythAndalusianParadise_Fro….jpg)


How do cucks cope with how there aren't any examples of notably multicultural societies that didn't:

>practice some segregation

>have one group have obviously more status over others

>collapse into fire absent of the force needed to maintain itself

>become a shithole

>become a degenerating land (America, Canada)

For more on this:



7 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.



50% of the 1% is Jewish, let that sink in.

Also, the 1% isn't evenly spread, the 1st place (Carlos Slim, a Mexican Jew) is so much richer than the last place.

Not enough, these public people are only the ones with a declared fortune - we know that there are many people richer than them who have private fortunes, like Gaddafi, who had $200billion discovered after his death. Putin is in a similar position, people speculate he has about $200billion as well.

Then you have the cream of the crop of Banking, Jewish families like the Rothschild who are speculated to have a fortune in trillions of dollars.

You really can't call a factory owner the same as this, we have a super caste in the world beyond everything.



I don't know but rich white or rich jew, they all the same type of vermin to me tbh both have done a lot to undermine their host countries.


>50% of the 1% is Jewish,

Do you have source for that one, genuinely curious.



>I don't know but rich white or rich jew, they all the same type of vermin to me tbh

It seems you know too little, read too little, etc.

>both have done a lot to undermine their host countries.

Well, wherever whites went, people were uplifted from the stone, bronze and iron age.

Wherever jews went, debt slavery, materialism and cultural destruction ensured.

I think the difference is striking, and if you're really mistaking one for the other, it's because you simply don't know how to identify a jew, either by genetics, behaviour, appearance or name.

>Do you have source for that one, genuinely curious.




>Well, wherever whites went, people were uplifted from the stone, bronze and iron age.

Like when White Christians allowed jews to be in charge of finances and usury type of jobs? or are we gonna forget italian banking families like The Bardi and Peruzzi that dominated banking in 14th-century Florence, establishing branches in many other parts of Europe aswell?

>whites went, people were uplifted from the stone, bronze and iron age.

I don't see how creating competition is beneficial for the white race.

>Wherever jews went, debt slavery, materialism and cultural destruction ensured.

That stems more from liberalism and its variations, the things you described are happening right now in asian countries like china, japan or korea where their traditions and cultures are slowly fading away and becoming standarized.



Not him but let me but in.

>Muh Italian banking

A major part of those families were involved with Jews, maybe not Jewish themselves or at least they've never been caught being crypto's, but they were linked to them. Likewise it's noted that Jews were originally involved in banking before Lombard's """replaced""" them.

>That stems more from liberalism and its variations

Who do you think created and pushes liberalism.

File: 9b7f3aa44b77b0a⋯.png (37.85 KB, 1029x810, 343:270, COMMUNISM.png)


Why is this mocked so much by the right?

The whole basis of the argument is that communist utopia in itself has nothing to do with oppressive dictator "communist" regimes of 20th-21st century and i think that is undisputable. So why does the right keep posting it ironically like if it means that true communism means oppressive dictatorship?

17 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.



But then their problem comes from accepting the money being offered to them, the problem isn't inherently part of it.



I was trying to say that, in both cases, human greed overcame good intentions.

I don't feel I know enough about communism to say the old "it's a good idea that's never been implemented properly", but I do believe that our current model relies on milking braindead masses for profit and then asking the same braindead masses to vote on how things should be run. Not ideal.





And other orders of monks didn't become that way. Why? They followed Christianity instead of going against it's core principals.



>Not ideal.

I don't like it either, but perhaps strengthening either the state socialism or the corps libertarianism would be worse.

Feels bad to see way more problems than solution, but oh well.



What makes you think regular monks weren't corrupted? What do you think drove them to ascetism in the first place? The righteous are few and far between.

File: c63774bf718d5cf⋯.png (1.19 MB, 1152x768, 3:2, 111._brigada.png)


Thoughts on Yugoslav war?


Not sure how "history" they are, i thought this board discussions were supposed to stop at the fall of the USSR, but whatever.

Don't know much about them but i should honestly. You had different ethnicities living close to each other for a long time and one day it finally imploded, i'm curious as to how that happened, how sudden it was, how total, there are obvious reasons to research what happened there, because i doubt it was the last time Europe faced an ethnic based conflict.

File: 50c651866919b5f⋯.jpg (240.92 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, gf.jpg)


So I was watching The Fall of the Roman Empire and when a Greek got to speak in front of the senate, they started to protest the very notion, even grouping him with the likes of jews. Did Roman treat Greeks like subhumans? And if so, why?

2 posts omitted. Click reply to view.



Romans always hated nonsense. That's why they liked Cato, Cicero and Aristotle, but hated Socrates and the like.

Sophism was seen as disgraceful, feminine, ans they valued "hard truths", "honesty", "directness".

Plato fills in here as an odd pea, that would only be looked upon in the high Romanticism and Germanic Idealism of the likes of Kant, Goethe and similar.


File: a18eb1b4eb09848⋯.jpg (1.55 MB, 2304x1728, 4:3, uffizi.jpg)

Surely the best source to answer your question is Petrach's Lives. This is a massive historical book of biographies of both Greek and Roman celebrities, as they'd be called today. Written in the first century AD it's set out chronologically from the earliest days of the civilizations ~ 1000BC through to the times of the Empire. The lives are paired, one Roman with a Greek and a comparison concluded each pair, discussed the differences and similarities between the subjects.

The Greeks, while often portrayed as enemies were nowhere regarded as subhuman. They were very much humans, with all the human weaknesses and abilities, and as a race, worthy of immense respect.

Pic related - a Roman copy in marble of a lost Greek bronze in the Uffizi museum.


File: d6cd0f5cb6e0c27⋯.jpg (113.81 KB, 564x852, 47:71, Erastes-courting pedo.jpg)


Maybe it was the queer/paedo thing! Greeks went to shit.


No, Greeks were highly respected in the Roman Empire, specially at the time the movie takes place. For example, the greek sophist Herodes Atticus, who tutored Marcus Aurelius, served as a roman senator and was elected consul in 143 AD. Cassius Dio was another prominent greek senator elected consul in 205 AD.


You guys can insult each other, but at least do it while posting content.

Have a fight about the theme, not about faggotry.

File: 11e799658d15bf8⋯.jpg (14.83 KB, 220x283, 220:283, 220px-Ross_Perot_in_his_of….jpg)


European here, can somebody tell me a little bit about him and if he was ever important?


Looks like Ross Perot


YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

In some ways Ross Perot was a forerunner of Donald Trump. He ran for president as a self-funded outsider, campaigning on right-wing populist issues like the budget deficit.

Perot forced other candidates to address the deficit as a political issue. The momentum from the campaign carried over into real budget legislation, and within a short time the US government was actually running a surplus. This surplus did not last of course.

Another lingering aspect of Perot's legacy is how the presidential debate commission added rules to make it much harder for outsider candidates to have a voice. Perot gained legitimacy because he was able to debate Bush and Clinton on television. Now candidates have to be polling at something like 15% to get into the presidential debates – nearly impossible for a candidate without the backing of the two major parties. The establishment does not want to be embarrassed by more Perot types.


File: 164bd8d3cfd06c0⋯.jpeg (9.4 KB, 331x221, 331:221, CrimsonAssurance2.jpeg)


Ross Perot warned the American people that NAFTA was going to destroy our capability to manufacture real goods, and cost us millions of jobs. Bill Clinton lied, and said he would oppose NAFTA, and promptly signed it as soon as he was in office. Perot knew that personal computers were about to boom, and wanted that industry for America. The Clinton Administration let the Chinese steal America's most advanced technologies, including letting them capture an advanced spy plane.

Perot was deeply involved in the Iran hostage situation during the Carter era. But unlike Carter he was able to rescue his employees by hiring mercenaries, at a cost of much of his considerable personal wealth. He also knew that the incoming Reagan Administration was secretly negotiating with the Iranians to delay releasing Embassy hostages until after the elections, and that the CIA had got its people out before they could be taken as hostages.

Perot instead of Clinton would have been a great thing for America.



He ran for President once.

File: b0c7e85b6fee23d⋯.jpg (308.58 KB, 1092x1333, 1092:1333, IMG_2448.JPG)


Why haven't africans integrated into the modern world? Why are they so far behind?

>inb4 muh slavery

They sold eachother as slaves

>inb4 but they had no idea how european slavery was like

If it's called "slavery" I don't think it's very fucking good. Also if you read african texts (things fall apart) you'll find that african men were generally very abusive to their whole household.

>inb4 africa is an entire desert

Africa today is one of the richest continents in terms of natural resources

>inb4 muh nubians

A culture of people that just went north and copied egyptian culture. ""Coincidentally"" the last rulers of egypt were nubians.

86 posts and 18 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



Another bullshit explanation that pretends the problem never existed elsewhere because only Africans still haven't managed to overcome it. Italy wasn't anything near Roman until Romans made it so, and even then it wasn't perfect. They just had the capacity to administer a polity larger than a few zimbabwes.



Lol, India is still a shithole, tho



it's even worse than the middle east



>the elite

Nepotism and inheritance for millenia - there is no evolutionary pressure to get smarter. Those were not elites, even inbreeds.


In my option, Nigers are;t humans: my explanation: 1) short heda; 3 they savages4. culture of kill. That was my exlaining as why to nigres aren't human begins, exptrapolate your option.

File: 064feef512308d9⋯.jpg (396.23 KB, 1456x2078, 728:1039, leopold II.jpg)


Hello everyone. I've read some piece on the internet on how the massive population decline that supposedly happened under Leopold II in the Congo Free State was impossible. The two main objections to the popular narrative were that the population numbers are wrong and that contemporary evidence was flimsy. Can someone help me out with that? I want to know what really happened.

63 posts and 25 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



wait for him to cite Kemp



File: 6d7446a000745fc⋯.png (81.14 KB, 500x564, 125:141, assburger.png)


I too am curious about the topic of this thread



About the only good claim Noam ever made, everything else he wrote about was pure liberal Jewish trash



That needs to change.



>rambles on about the nature and inferiority of Africans

>hasn't heard of Botswana until now

Making a great case for yourself, Brainlet.

HookTube embed. Click on thumbnail to play.


Anons, what's your opinion on the theory of nostratic and proto-nostratic languages?

While a bit fringe I think it's an interesting research topic.

1 post omitted. Click reply to view.



If you never heard of it watch the vid related.


Nostratic makes sense, but it would really be hard to make it work because languages not only diverged from one another, but also fused and influenced each other.

So far, it seems the EHG spoke some kind of Indo-Uralic, and the ANE might have spoken Eurasiatic.

We know the Basal-like peoples of the Middle East, such as the Natufian and ANF/EEF spoke Afro-Asiatic.

That leaves Dravidian and Kartvelian (we now know that Dravidian was a CHG language brought to India by Farmers of Iran who founded the Harappan Civilisation) for the Dzudzuana fellow.

But it's incredibly hard to say anything.



How about proto-nostratic?



Maybe it would have been spoken in the late Pleistocene, ~40~35 thousand years ago.

There really isn't much that can be done about it, this (Nostratic) is kinda a dead-end question full of speculations.



Sure, but it's so interesting, why not speculate a bit.

File: de4c0f2bbe70c80⋯.jpg (57.18 KB, 530x398, 265:199, do-it.jpg)


I've read many conflicting things about this. That it was mostly conscripts on the beaches, with tougher guys, including SS and several panzer divisions further back. But what was the actual strength of these panzer and SS divisions? The SS also varied a lot depending on when you look at it and where. Panzer divisions sounds bad, but there's a big difference between full strength and half, foreigners and conscripts vs volunteers and more trained guys etc


Didn't Hitler order certain tanks to only operate under his command then, when the attack occurred, Hitler was sleeping and everyone was too scared to wake him? I have no idea if that is true though.

File: d0db21db1175fd0⋯.jpg (56.58 KB, 485x330, 97:66, AztecSerpent.jpg)


Why did the native american civilizations fall so far behind the europeans? Was it religion? Lack of competition? Their race? Society?

89 posts and 26 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: a91157b3bed166b⋯.jpg (26.55 KB, 840x450, 28:15, Phylogenetic-analysis-I-Tr….jpg)


Also wrong.

Ust-Ishim is more related to east asians than west-eurasians (they didn't even live in west eurasia back then).

>Yes, it did, but by 17,000 BC it was already in deep America, in a warm climate, far away from Ice and Snow with the Amerindians. There was just one cold corridor, you're completely overestimating the climate.


It literally says it happened in 15500BC (earliest estimation)

Cope harder, inferior being.


File: 37742c5b78a0ebc⋯.png (119.8 KB, 1024x768, 4:3, ClipboardImage.png)



>Most hunter gatherers migrated south to the mediterranean coast, or west to the atlantic coast.

Not at all, do you even know of the SHG or EHG? Post an image of the Ice Age biomes, not today's.

> Amerindians have both east asian and ANE components.


>Proto Amerindians have showed up in northeast Siberia back in 30000BC,

No, these were Para-Caucasians, the Yana.

>ProtoAmerindian lineage with P haplogroup

No, again, this lineage was the Yana one, that would develop into the ANE, a Para-Caucasian group.

>diverged to Q haplogroup

And R, with the ANE, a Para-Caucasian group.

>and raped their east asian neighbours,


>adquiring such east asian genetics,

Yes, because ANE+East Asian = Amerindians.

Just so you know, the closest people genetically to the ANE were the EHG, for instance.

Afontova Gora 3 is basically 100% EHG already.

>which also were present in the arctic conditions for millenia:

They were not, the Basal East Asians were located deep south and only in this Amerindian formation time they started migrating into Siberia.

>Amerindians inherited pure arctic genes

No, their East Asian lineage was from the South.

>compared to european Mediterranean-climate (hunter gatherer) genes,

Again, not at all. Most of Hunter Gatherer ancestry in Europeans today is mediated by the Yamnaya and is EHG. Also, the WHG lived in the cold, as said that Europe in the Ice Age was as cold as the Beringia Refugia.

>neolithic farmer genes,

Well, correct.

>and R-haplogroup (south-siberia and non-arctic climate) genes.

R cPost too long. Click here to view the full text.





And before you continue to spill your bullshit. Read this paper:

The population history of northeastern Siberia since the Pleistocene


>Far northeastern Siberia has been occupied by humans for more than 40 thousand years. Yet, owing to a scarcity of early archaeological sites and human remains, its population history and relationship to ancient and modern populations across Eurasia and the Americas are poorly understood. Here, we report 34 ancient genome sequences, including two from fragmented milk teeth found at the ~31.6 thousand-year-old (kya) Yana RHS site, the earliest and northernmost Pleistocene human remains found. These genomes reveal complex patterns of past population admixture and replacement events throughout northeastern Siberia, with evidence for at least three large-scale human migrations into the region. The first inhabitants, a previously unknown population of "Ancient North Siberians" (ANS), represented by Yana RHS, diverged ~38 kya from Western Eurasians, soon after the latter split from East Asians. Between 20 and 11 kya, the ANS population was largely replaced by peoples with ancestry from East Asia, giving rise to ancestral Native Americans and "Ancient Paleosiberians" (AP), represented by a 9.8 kya skeleton from Kolyma River. AP are closely related to the Siberian ancestors of Native Americans, and ancestral to contemporary communities such as Koryaks and Itelmen. Paleoclimatic modelling shows evidence for a refuge during the last glacial maximum (LGM) in southeastern Beringia, suggesting Beringia as a possible location for the admixture forming both ancestral Native Americans and AP. Between 11 and 4 kya, AP were in turn largely replaced by another group of peoples with ancestry from East Asia, the "Neosiberians" from which many contemporary Siberians derive. We detect additional gene flow events in both directions across the Bering Strait during this time, iPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: 672fa879e5efae1⋯.png (654.7 KB, 1683x2586, 561:862, Greater_Caucasus_Fig_2.png)

To finish you off finally, look this Admixture graph.

Do you see EHG, WHG, SHG, Mal'ta and Afontova Gora?

They formed a cline, and the ANE weren't Amerindians, but Caucasians, just like the Yana Paleosiberians of the Pleistocene had nothing to do with Amerindians or East Asians, but were a Para-Caucasian group.

In fact, you could say that there was a continuity from Iberia to the Altai of European Hunter Gatherers, from the WHG to the ANE.

Villabruna was R1b 14kya, this says much.

File: e3ed4b02f3017f0⋯.jpg (26.63 KB, 640x522, 320:261, xeOE9Fx.jpg)


So I made these bullet points to grasp the event. Is this the gist of it?

> Samurai of old battle the imperial court, defeat the Emperor and establish the first shogunate. The Emperor becomes a figurehead.

> After a century of battles between the Daimyo (warlords) for the title of the Shogun - "the Sengoku period" - Tokugawa Ieyasu restores peace and establishes the Tokugawa Shogunate.

> He decides to close the country from the white gaijin devils.

> Hundreds of years later, Matthew Perry comes with big battleships and demands to open the country for trade or face war and also be there for you.

> Shogunate decides to open the country and signs treaties with many different foreigners. Daimyo are displeased and split on the issue.

> "Shishi" - the southern samurai of Satsuma and Choshu regions are particularly unhappy, they see Japan as sacred ground and didn't like the treaties signed without the consent of the emperor (a figurehead). They ask to revere the emperor and expel the gaijin.

> The emperor agrees, orders to expel all the white pigu. But the shogun doesn't consent.

> Shishi then start to attack the gaijin themselves which results in gaijin ships bombarding their cities. They then try to take the imperial city of Kyoto but are defeated by Shinsengumi. Shogun suppresses Choshu.

> Shishi, in order to expel the gaijin, decide to first learn their ways - "Japanese spirit, western technology". After traveling abroad and arming themselves western style, they retake Choshu and drive the shogun away. Satsuma and Choshu form the Satcho alliance to dethrone the Shogun.

> The Shogun pusses out, steps down and decides to serve under the emperor as the head of council.

> The Satcho alliancPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

8 posts omitted. Click reply to view.



>The Japanese Nobility made Japan's dream possible by them all engaging in the new industrial mindset.

err no, that's literally not what happened, did you even read the OP



That's exactly what happened.

The nobility them even fund the Samurai to abandon land holdings and become industrialists themselves.

Did you even read a book?



Why do all retards always double down when proven wrong?



I don't know, I'm not wrong, you're doing that yourself, so you must know.


File: 32037dceae117e7⋯.png (2.29 MB, 5016x1004, 1254:251, meiji.png)


Actually, let me shut you up before you grow into a larger nuisance.

If you're actually that idiot "history student", you might as well never come back here.

Begone, imbecile.

File: 510e6802d6c7dda⋯.png (237.31 KB, 1280x853, 1280:853, Hieroglyphic 1.png)

File: 7eb4b10aa16b2d6⋯.png (157 KB, 1115x681, 1115:681, Hieroglyphic 2.png)

File: e5fddbccb004c30⋯.png (77.58 KB, 700x394, 350:197, Hieroglyphic 3.png)

File: 7087fb8ab736abf⋯.png (243.98 KB, 1280x853, 1280:853, Hieroglyphic 4.png)


89 posts and 75 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 20ae20ac8991ddb⋯.png (334.46 KB, 701x727, 701:727, Genetic Map.png)

File: a8079b2049e7df1⋯.png (469.52 KB, 709x803, 709:803, Genetic Map 2.png)


>Geographic patterns in human genetic diversity carry footprints of population history and need to be understood to carry out global biomedicine. Summarizing and visually representing these patterns of diversity has been a persistent goal for human geneticists

5–9. However, most analytical methods to represent population structure 10–14

do not incorporate geography directly, and it must be considered post hoc alongside a visual summary. Here, we use a recently developed spatially explicit method to estimate “effective migration” surfaces to visualize how human genetic diversity is geographically structured (the EEMS method). The resulting surfaces are “rugged”, which indicates the relationship between genetic and geographic distance is heterogenous and distorted as a rule. Most prominently, topographic and marine features regularly align with increased genetic differentiation (e.g. the Sahara Desert, Mediterranean Sea or Himalaya at large scales; the Adriatic, inter-island straits in near Oceania at smaller scales). We also see traces of historical migrations and boundaries of language families. These results provide visualizations of human genetic diversity that reveal local patterns of differentiation in detail and emphasize that while genetic similarity generally decays with geographic distance, there have regularly been factors that subtly distort the underlying relationship across space observed today. The fine-scale population structure depicted here is relevant to understanding complex processes of human population history and may provide insights for geographic patterning in rare variants and heritable disease risk.



>The same pattern was also observed when only the western-central Sahelian groups of sub-Saharan Africa were considered (admixed vs. western-central Sahel, Spearman’s Rho = 0.509, p = 1.51 × 10−3; northern Africa vs western-central Sahel, Spearman’s Rho = 0.218, p = 0.2). These data suggest that the presence in northern Africa of sub-Saharan patrilineages was not due to recent contacts but probably occurred in more ancient times, possibly during the Green Sahara period considering the coalescence ages of the clades. Our findings seem to be at odds with genome-wide studies [42, 43, 59, 60] reporting a recent relevant sub-Saharan genetic component in modern northern African populations, mainly attributed to the Arab slave trade. This apparent discrepancy between inferences based on Y chromosomal and autosomal data could be the consequence of a sex-biased sub-Saharan contribution to the northern African gene pool that occurred in historical times. Indeed, it is known that the trans-Saharan Arab slave trade involved twice as many servile women as men (almost the reverse of the Atlantic slave trade ratio). Moreover, few male slaves left descendants, whereas female slaves were imported in northern Africa as household servants and as concubines and their offspring were born free, thus contributing to the local gene pool [54, 61]. Thus, we suggest that the Arab slave trade mainly contributed to the mtDNA and autosomal gene pool of present-day northern Africans, whereas the paternal gene pool was mainly shaped by more ancient events. This hypothesis is in line with genome-wide data obtained from three ancient Egyptian mummies (dated between ~ 2.5 and 2 kya) showing a not negligible ancient sub-Saharan component (~ 6–10 %)

Much of the Negro blood in NW Africa is from the slave trade.


File: be2c022e69159f5⋯.png (511.14 KB, 8000x1080, 200:27, haak_k16-20.png)



Global admixture chart from Haak et al. that shows the admixture of Southern Italians and Spaniards. Note the lack of light blue to teal admixture (linked to Negroes in Western Africa) in the two while having a significant amount of light purple (linked to West Asia).


File: e5f19744a899bea⋯.jpg (14.69 KB, 399x400, 399:400, disapoint pepe.jpg)


>biting bait this much easily


So are all american nigger egyprologists kangz advocates, or is it just the vocal minority of das rites?

File: 6359661e9581346⋯.jpg (144.24 KB, 730x410, 73:41, india-temples-730x410.jpg)


What the fuck happened to indians (dot not feather)? We, understandingly, associate India with third world subhuman degenerates who shit out in the streets, but unlike pretty much all other third world shitholes India actually used to have a very impressive ancient civilization that even Greeks respected. How can a civilization degrade this much while remaining largely homogeneous, in the same place and never diminishing?


File: 7b3985ec0c61b0e⋯.png (473.83 KB, 1440x2560, 9:16, Screenshot_2018-10-18-19-4….png)


>What the fuck happened to indians (dot not feather)?

After the fall of their last Aryan dynasty, the Gupta, the Dravidian South expanded its influences and shitting ensured.

Also, foreigners would rule North India from then on.

>We, understandingly, associate India with third world subhuman degenerates who shit out in the streets, but unlike pretty much all other third world shitholes India actually used to have a very impressive ancient civilization that even Greeks respected.

Yes, go on.

>How can a civilization degrade this much

This here is a good question. In my opinion, they lost their sovereignty on their ways of life when importing foreign, middle-easterner, merchant morality.

What is merchant morality? Rule, Power, Nobility is given to the moneyed, society is geared towards economy and foreign demands. They became more like the Middle East - Homo economicus - devoid of higher civilizational soul, only beasts fending to comsuption.

But culture wasn't abandoned, it just morphed. This whole mentality permeated religion and culture, who shifted to accomodate it.

Veddism got corrupted into Hinduism, Buddhism tried reform and salvation, Islam destroyed what rest there was.

>while remaining largely homogeneous

Very wrong here, Indians are completely different from one another, and that's one reason why any attempted unification or solidarity, or common destiny or anything.

Pic related.

>, in the same place and never diminishing?

You don't need complexity, sophistication, greatness, etc for a civilization to ever produce babies.



When you think about it, all of the major powers of the ancient world have devolved into third world shit holes, except for Italy and maybe Greece(and that's very big maybe.)


File: 7e05c5569a2d6c4⋯.jpg (33.69 KB, 324x499, 324:499, 513KRfvPZQL._SX322_BO1,204….jpg)

File: b1c748f7281f6b0⋯.png (48.02 KB, 800x400, 2:1, Climate-Timeline-10000yrs.png)

You guys are entering a "too grandiose" of a question territory.

The book "The Lost Science of Money" by Stephen Zarlenga helps answering it.


But there were also climate factors: these societies dry up in cold eras, and flourish in hot ones, they are very sensitive to that.

Northern Europe isn't an exception, but it has too much water, and the cold nemesis of the past got tamed.



>Yes, go on.

You can find many references in ancient Greek literature to the "great buildings of India", "great temples of India" and so on. They clearly respected it.

>Very wrong here, Indians are completely different from one another, and that's one reason why any attempted unification or solidarity, or common destiny or anything.

I meant more they weren't invaded and displaced by a completely different civilization or something. They are still indians. Which is why the question why they let it all go to shit interests me. But you did answer some of it.



Most of those powers got an excuse of diminishing and being completely displaced by other cultures, like sandniggers ruining Mediterranean. Which is why the fall of India is intriguing.

Also lol at Greece, it's associated with eastern europeans shitholes now. In fact, you can make a thread like this about the fall of Greece as well.

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.


No WW1 thread?


>Bankers broke the England-Germany-Russia axis of super power and world rule.

What could have been, and what it wasn't. Set the motion to our doom, from a previous path of glory.


Delete Post [ ]
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
| Catalog | Nerve Center | Cancer
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / baaa / choroy / cyoa / dempart / doomer / hypno / jenny / vg ]