098bf3 No.34700
>A scholar studying ancient clay tablets suggests that the Babylonians got there first, and by at least 1,400 years. For a number of years he has puzzled over four particular Babylonian tablets housed in the British Museum in London.
>Then one day in late 2014, a retired archaeologist gave him some black-and-white photographs of tablets stored at the museum. Ossendrijver took notice of one of them, just two inches across and two inches high. This rounded object, which he scrutinized in person in September 2015, proved to be a kind of Rosetta Stone.
>Officially named BH40054 by the museum, and dubbed Text A by Ossendrijver, the little tablet had markings that served as a kind of abbreviation of a longer calculation that looked familiar to him. By comparing Text A to the four previously mysterious tablets, he was able to decode what was going on: This was all about Jupiter. The five tablets computed the predictable motion of Jupiter relative to the other planets and the distant stars.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/01/28/clay-tablets-reveal-babylonians-invented-astronomical-geometry-1400-years-before-europeans/
Interesting article, but it might be more archaeology than than history; if you don't think content like this is mean't for this board, let me know and it wont happen again.
64d562 No.34702
>>34700
>implying Archaeology isn't an integral part of historical research
This is most definitely history, anon.
Stellar find, I say.
098bf3 No.34712
>>34702
I was thinking about anthropology when I wrote archaeology, even though I knew it was archaeology.
There could be some interesting implications from this find.
64d562 No.34722
>>34712
I guarantee you nigger will try to jump on these and claim Babylonians as "black".
They were clearly semites
098bf3 No.34724
>>34722
>They were clearly semites
That's correct, yes? it can be hard to detect sarcasm through text.
They would probably say in response, 'well, they still weren't whites'
64d562 No.34730
>>34724
>That's correct, yes?
Yes, it is. Most, if not all, peoples in the fertile crescent were semites.
>"well, they still weren't whites"
But they weren't niggers, either. :^)
faf743 No.34732
>>34722
jej wut
>>34730
Don't take the b8, he's probably triggered because you wrote "before Europeans".
098bf3 No.34733
>>34730
>But they weren't niggers, either. :^)
yeah, I know. I don't agree with their negrocentric arguments/theories.
098bf3 No.34734
>>34732
who is it that belongs in /pol/?
your comment isn't making much sense.
64d562 No.34735
>>34732
>go back to /pol/
>implying there aren't niggers that claim great civilizations as their own
Are you familiar with the Hebrew Israelites, my friend?
How about the black Egyptian "theory?
>take the b8
What bait? He was asking if I was being sarcastic or not about the Babylonians being semites or note.
And you should also note that the guy I answered was the OP. So he's the one who said "before Europeans".
You have some intense issues with /pol/, it seems.
Would you like to talk about it, friend? Maybe let's start with your childhood.
64d562 No.34736
>>34733
Neither do I. I'm amazed it's even a thing, but hey.
Every generation has its quacks.
Still, this is pretty groundbreaking.
The Babylonians were already somewhat proficient in the sciences (for their time), so it's not out of character for them.
098bf3 No.34737
>>34736
>Every generation has its quacks.
Are there any, what you could call, 'professional', for the lack of a better word, historians who support those afrocentric theories? Because I've never actually heard about any of the theories other than from poorly made info-graphics on the internet.
64d562 No.34738
>>34737
If there are any, I doubt they're given much credence by most historians.
From what I understand, it's usually people who teach "African studies" classes that make such outrageous claims.
Either that, or some misinformed black person trying to honestly find where their roots are.
The latter is misguided, the former is intentionally deceptive.
996624 No.34766
>>34737
yeah bro, heres professor bixnood muhfuggen with irrefutable proof that romans were niggers
https://archive.is/jFfiy
2b76f1 No.34768
Awesome. I wonder who rekt them so hard that the stuff was forgotten.
Albeit better suited for /his/ then here.
2b76f1 No.34769
>>34768
Fuck, I thought I was on /pol/ not on /his/, this explains the lack of people calling babylonians "white" then…
b4e3a9 No.34782
>>34769
>this explains the lack of people calling babylonians "white"
the fact that /his/ looked like /pol/ enough is kind of alarming though
04b5e1 No.34784
>>34782
>>34769
Have we…have we come this far?
64d562 No.34787
>>34769
>"white"
I find the term white isn't even really satisfactory enough to be the benchmark for racial classification.
That's why various groups will always fight about whether x group is white (usually southern Europeans and Slavs).
I think Caucasoid is a much more appropriate label for us. Europid being a more specialized subset.
04b5e1 No.34788
>>34787
you've got that right, also I do not understand the obsession with everything of interest having to be invented by whites, is it just an over-blown inferiority disorder?
64d562 No.34789
>>34788
>I do not understand the obsession with everything of interest having to be invented by whites
>is it an over-blown inferiority disorder?
That could explain some people.
It also sheds light on the unhealthy obsession with cuckoldry
Or it could be the opposite. That they really do believe the "white" race is the end-all, be-all of civilization.
Don't get me wrong, white nationalists are dangerous in terms of damaging history, but afrocentrists are just as damaging.
All races have contributed something to the overall advancement to human civilization. Whether that contribution is commendable or not is up for debate.
04b5e1 No.34793
>>34789
>Don't get me wrong, white nationalists are dangerous in terms of damaging history, but afrocentrists are just as damaging.
Oh I completely agree but inferiority disorder is relevant for both races. Eurocentrists are most likely people who are disappointed with their outcome in life and prefer to look back in history for reassurance that they are actually relevant. For example, /pol/ack keyboard warriors who haven't gone outside in two years would want to show that their race is superior to others and blame their own failures on other factors, such as other people.
Afrocentrists are very similar, poorly educated black people who have adopted nigger culture but are failing as rappers will look to their historical significance. After not researching enough, they attempt to overcompensate by stating that they ruled Europe as they are attacking people who, they believe, are responsible for their failures in life; white people.
Not relevant to clay tablets so saging.
b4e3a9 No.34795
>>34787
"white" is actually a very good label: in Chinese (and also Turkic) mythology, the colour white is associated with west.
Belarus, "white Russia", is white because it's the westernmost part of medieval Russia.
b4e3a9 No.34796
>>34788
I had some Greek guy tell me that the ancient rock paintings in Australia that are older than any found in Europe must be proof of white people living in Australia before abos killed them, because as we all know white people invented art.
He also claimed that high caste south Indians are 100% Aryan, giving proof that they look like his grandfather who's blond and 100% Aryan.
64d562 No.34797
>>34793
Right, we need to get back on the subject.
What do you think the implications of this discovery are?
>>34795
>the colour white is associated with west
But "white" people aren't the only people who live in the west.
The Berber people live in most of North Africa, from Morocco to Tunisia. That's pretty west, my friend.
b4e3a9 No.34798
>>34797
That's pretty white, my friend.
64d562 No.34800
>>34798
Totally white, man.
2b76f1 No.34801
>>34795
"White is a shit-term only fit for the descendants of europeans in anglo colonies who fail to grasp their ethnic affliation beyond their skincolour be it due to mongrelisation or a loss of knowledge.
I fear the day "white" becomes a common term in central europe for it will mark the death of all its natives ethnics.
b4e3a9 No.34802
>>34800
yep they look white, much more so than turks or arabs
2b76f1 No.34803
>>34800
girl on the left could be silician or spanish if it werent for the cloth and marks.
64d562 No.34804
>>34802
>>34803
>sicilian or spanish
You mean the same people that certain white nationalists will discount from being "white"?
2b76f1 No.34805
>>34804
>white nationalists
I discard the opinion of burgers on european matters.
b4e3a9 No.34806
>>34801
What I'm giving is a justification for the term "white" that separates the word from the notion of skin colour, and at the same time staying clear of geographic terms like "European" or "western".
>>34803
>>34804
Facial morphology is distinctly white. Much more so than with Turks or Arabs.
64d562 No.34807
>>34805
I'm afraid it isn't just burgers that believe that tripe.
>>34806
>white
Why not simply say Caucasian?
04b5e1 No.34808
>>34797
I think that it won't hold a huge impact on how we view History, unless more tablets are found and / or more research is done on this subject. It's going to take a lot of revisionism but this COULD shake up the location of where we previously believed the birth-place of mathematics and science was.
64d562 No.34809
>>34808
Greece was considered the birthplace of mathematics, yes?
This would rock things, for sure. But I had thought Babylon had a reputation for being very skilled in the sciences to begin with.
2b76f1 No.34811
>>34806
mh, yeah when you speak about westeners in general without reffering to a certain background I see that the usuage of white is also convinient now that I think of it.
I say blacks or negros too when i dont know where a certain african is from or talk about the topic in a general context.
So yeah, it has is usuage but should never be used for self-identification or "titel" you can attach to any ethnic group of your liking imo.
"Pashtuns are fucking white yo!"
>>34807
>white
Euros used it in the 19th century but it came out of fashion already in the 20th due to a nationalistic surge and scientific progress.
>the tripe
Modern brits have been infected by this again, due to their closeness to the americans concerning language and demographic developement.
In central europe you get strange look by everyone when talk about the "white race" or "I identifie as white".
Only a few fringe nazis who have to associate with american white natioanlists due to desperatly small numbers and influence use it as well.
b4e3a9 No.34812
>>34807
>caucasian
I hate this word large part because it's a geographic and not an ethnoracial term.
64d562 No.34814
>>34812
Well, Caucasoid is used by forensic anthropologists for what we call "white/caucasian".
f73c40 No.34824
098bf3 No.34826
>>34766
>WERE THE ANCIENT ROMANS WHITE? NOT ON YOUR LIFE! – BY – OGUEJIOFO ANNU
>OGUEJIOFO ANNU
No way this is real. I refuse to believe.
098bf3 No.34827
>>34826
By real I mean not satire
64d562 No.34828
>>34826
Believe it, anon.
These are the kinds of people who look you right in the eyes and tell you that Julius Caesar was a coal-black negroid.
098bf3 No.34829
>>34828
Do they even make an argument? how could you even make that argument?
>There's no photo's that show he's white, so he must be black
best i can think of
098bf3 No.34830
>>34814
> Caucasoid is used by forensic anthropologists for what we call "white/caucasian".
The term Europid is also used as an alternative to Caucasoid
64d562 No.34831
>>34829
There's no real argument that they use.
Mostly just "it feels right" and "super secret history"
>>34830
>Europid
I thought Europids were a subset of Caucasoids?
Or am I mistaken?
098bf3 No.34832
>>34831
>Europoid or Europid
I don't know if there is an updated meaning to the word since 1985
>Anthropological Glossary, Roger Pearson, R.E. Krieger Publishing Company, 1985
64d562 No.34833
>>34832
Huh.
Most of the cool stuff in anthropology fell to the wayside because of hert fellins
485557 No.34835
>>34826
cherrypicking, primarily. if you read the article you would see that their proof is that in one scuplture the legionaries had curly hair. this clearly means that all romans were actually NEGRI-LATINIS
098bf3 No.34836
>>34835
Once I saw, 'by OFWGKTAIGGY', I decided it wasn't worth my time
04b5e1 No.34838
>>34836
did somebody say "Odd Future Wolf Gang Kill Them All"?
7e24f3 No.34844
>Babylonians
>not white
Stay mad nigger.
7e24f3 No.34845
>>34800
Berbers are traditionally white, although diluted from years of black and Arab intrusion. There are some tribes who have more admixture than others. The Kabyle of Algeria in particular have maintained most of their white traits:
https://www.google.com/search?q=kabyle+berbers&biw=1366&bih=657&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwi9lu6PntLKAhXMPT4KHfJFDEkQ_AUIBigB
f828ae No.34873
"White" is a very simple term. I don't see why there is so much debate over this.
All "white" means is European Caucasian. Sure, it can be hard to draw an exact line but that doesn't mean it does not exist. Northern Indians and high caste Ethiopians are Caucasian but you wouldn't group them up with
English and Greeks would you?
Excuse the /pol/-tier image but I would say its a good indicator of Whiteness.
sage because this is off-topic
4dcb81 No.34881
b4e3a9 No.34896
04b5e1 No.34899
>>34873
>southern cyprus
>white
de080c No.34906
>Mathematics progressed, as did the sharing of knowledge in the wake of Alexander the Great's conquering journeys across Asia
i dont know why so much focus on if they were white or not, that area was already influenced by greek ideas since the tablets were dated from 350 B.C. to 50 B.C. The persians benefited form the intelectual greek influence for a long time until the mongols came a and fucked everthing.
We also need a thread specialised about Europen migrations to make clear the composition of their genepool and the one from their neighbors.
2dd124 No.34909
>>34873
>southern spain
>white
e2681d No.34921
>>34909
You'd be surprised, sometimes i see guys i swear must be germans in vacations come to me and speak with a thick spanish accent, there's also a good number of people that i think must be arabs do the same, so it's a mixed bag.
a0b9f6 No.34967
>>34724
>>34730
I'm pretty sure babylonians looked like Arabs.
098bf3 No.34972
>>34967
>I'm pretty sure babylonians looked like Arabs.
Are you suggesting that Arabs are Semitic?
>The term Semitic people or semitic cultures (from the biblical "Shem", Hebrew: שם) was a historical term for people or cultures who speak or spoke the Semitic languages.[1][2][3]
>The racial or ethnic use of the term, together with the parallel terms Hamitic and Japhetic, is now obsolete.[1][2][3]
>As language studies are interwoven with cultural studies, the term also came to describe the extended Semitic religions and ethnicities, as well as the history of these varied cultures as associated by close geographic and linguistic distribution.[4]
The region of origin of the reconstructed Proto-Semitic language, ancestral to historical and modern Semitic languages in the Middle East, is still uncertain and much debated. … theories include an origin in either Mesopotamia, the Arabian Peninsula or North Africa.
>The earliest positively proven historical attestation of any Semitic people comes from 30th century BC Mesopotamia, … Mesopotamia was the center of many powerful empires which often dominated the Near East and beyond, including; the Akkadian Empire (2335-2154 BC), Neo-Sumerian Empire (2119-2004 BC), Old Assyrian Empire (2035-1750 BC), Babylonian Empire (1792-1740 BC), Middle Assyrian Empire (1365-1020 BC), Neo Assyrian Empire (911-605 BC) and Neo-Babylonian Empire (605-539 BC).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_people
098bf3 No.34973
>>34972
>>The racial or ethnic use of the term, together with the parallel terms Hamitic and Japhetic, is now obsolete.[1][2][3]
I thought the footnotes for this statement were interesting.
> 1 -The confusion between race and language goes back a long way, and was compounded by the rapidly changing content of the word “race” in European and later in American usage. Serious scholars have pointed out–repeatedly and ineffectually-‑that “Semitic” is a linguistic and cultural classification, denoting certain languages and in some contexts the literatures and civilizations expressed in those languages. As a kind of shorthand, it was sometimes retained to designate the speakers of those languages. At one time it might thus have had a connotation of race, when that word itself was used to designate national and cultural entities. It has nothing whatever to do with race in the anthropological sense that is now common usage. A glance at the present‑day speakers of Arabic, from Khartoum to Aleppo and from Mauritania to Mosul, or even of Hebrew speakers in the modern state of Israel, will suffice to show the enormous diversity of racial types. ( Lewis, Bernard (1987). Semites and Anti-Semites: An Inquiry into Conflict and Prejudice. W W Norton & Co Inc. ISBN 0393304205)
> 2 - "In linguistics context, the term “Semitic” is generally speaking non-controversial… As an ethnic term, “Semitic” should best be avoided these days, in spite of ongoing genetic research (which also is supported by the Israeli scholarly community itself) that tries to scientifically underpin such a concept." (On the use of the terms “(anti-)Semitic” and “(anti-) Zionist” in modern Middle Eastern discourse, Orientalia Suecana LXI Suppl. (2012) by Lutz Eberhard Edzard)
> 3 - "The term “Semitic,” coined by Schlozer in 1781, should be strictly limited to linguistic matters since this is the only area in which a degree of objectivity is attainable. The Semitic languages comprise a fairly distinct linguistic family, a fact appreciated long before the relationship of the Indo-European languages was recognized. The ethnography and ethnology of the various peoples who spoke or still speak Semitic languages or dialects is a much more mixed and confused matter and one over which we have little scientific control." (Review of "The Canaanites" (1964) by Marvin Pope)
b4e3a9 No.34974
>>34972
If the Womb of Nations theory holds true (as genetic evidence hints), then the Afro-Asiatic languages (whose distribution and estimated age of ancestral proto-language fit pretty well with the population spread) most likely originate somewhere in the Levant/Mesopotamia region, and Semitic languages would correspond with the population that mixed with older Arabian population, thus forming the current Southwest Asian genetic cluster. However, this mixing could as well only occur at the Proto-Semitic stage, and populations speaking Semitic languages would then have progressively more proto-Arabian admixture going southwards, and Eastern Semitic languages never leaving Mesopotamia altogether, as there's no records of, say Akkadians arriving into Sumeria from the desert as nomads, as one would expect if they came from Arabia. Interestingly, there's a group of dark-skinned people called al-Akhdam (literally "servants") still present in Yemen, which are somewhere in between Horn Africans and Dravidians in physical appearance, have significantly higher sickle cell trait prevalence, that could be the last remnant of this proto-Arabian race, preserved due to endogamy at the bottom of social ladder.
b4e3a9 No.34975
098bf3 No.34978
>>34975
>>34974
Very interesting. I wish I knew more on the topic to continue the discussion.
Do you know who runs this 'dienekes' blog?
b4e3a9 No.34980
>>34978
Some Greek dude who goes by pen name Dienekes Pontikos. From what I can gather, he's been around for over 15 years, actually.
His blog and Dodecad Ancestry Project (also run by him) are pretty good places for finding legit info on anthropology stuff.
098bf3 No.34981
>>34980
Thanks, m8. I've just recently gotten into anthropology; I took my first anthropology course (cultural anthropology) last semester and thought it was pretty neat.
My only problem was that my commie professor couldn't differentiate between cultural relativism and moral relativism, and it really ground my gears.