Would've been many steps along the way

idk, I haven't seen anyone talk about Aurochs and gobekli tepe in the same context yet.

Or postulating ancient herding techniques

Another explanation could be highly religious hunter-gatherers but that seems less likely

Have you heard about the Eye of the Sahara Atlantis theory?

Nah. I'm fairly certain they were more sedentary than hunter-gatherers, but more mobile than a purely agrarian society.

They were the first cowboys lol

Yeah, I've heard about it

It's all so interesting. We could've been around for so much longer then we thought

Look more into the Yamnaya and the Indo-European expansion

If you haven't already

They might have been a 'Mongol invasion' that was lost to oral istory

I'll do that

Genetically, only the Finns/Sami were unaffected (I think), and the Swedish seem to have mixed with them freely both men and women, and kept a distinction

Which indicates that they are the only group that wasn't raped/pillaged/absorbed

Typical swedes

Fended off rape from a literal world conquering nomadic warlord population in ancient times, yet can't do the same for some lowly Muslim immigrants lol

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Spock

http://sequart.org/magazine/53115/bill-mauldin-cartoons-captured-the-truth-of-wwii/

https://twitter.com/HistoryTime_/status/1124568726706249728

our last "proper" Prime Minister

Atleast thatcher had them ladyballs

Aint cucking the iron lady

@Capitán Alatriste My point was, that during the Roman era, the people of North Africa were closer to the North side of the Mediterranean and more intertwined than they are today.

There's been a huge divergence in the last 1800 years after the fall of Rome and the spread of Islam.

So today's North African populations are not a great representation of historical populations

The North African population of today is mostly Arab, with the exception of Morocco and Algeria where they are berbers

i.e. historical Egypt was more Greek in the past than Arab like today

In Egypt, the rulers were Ptolemaic, however most of the peasantry were still native North Africans

Any way you put it, there were very few to no sub-Saharan Africans in Roman auxiliaries

ww2 US Army sled dog in Alaska

Very güd boi

Likely rather the opposite. That is to say the Ancient Greek were closer to the Mediterraneans they inherited civilization from. This seems clear from the timeline (civilization starting in river valleys in thee ME and NA, eventually moving to the ancient Minoans and finally Greece a couple thousand years in). The paleogenetics concurs although there is admixture along the way.....

Well your both wrong. They have found Roman forts deep into north africa

Still doesn't mean there's black Germans lol

Well of course not

I was just noting that the misnomer that the Romans kept relatively close to the shore is a falsity.

Oh, no. That wasn't my point lol

Someone earlier said that blacks had always been in Germany, and there's no native Germans.

@Fitzydog why do you think it's called `schwarzwald` ?

because of the niggers that lived there

<:pepe_smug:560207654207750154>

<:think_madpepe:378717098630971395>

@Goblin_Slayer_Floki

Yes they have found Roman forts in Africa. *How old were those forts?* What I am trying to get across is a sense of scale. In Sumer starting in 4100BC, in Egypt about 3000. We don't get to the *Greek Dark Ages* until 1200BC. Again for scale the Olmec had already happened at this point (1500BC) n the other side of the planet without other Med cultures to learn from. The city of Rome was founded in 800BC. So yess there are Roman forts in Africa. There are *American* forts in Aafrica too.......

So statements like "the Egyptians were more Greek" is kind of like telling your grandfather that he inherited your son's eyes......

https://twitter.com/Qafzeh/status/1125001045082427392

<:think_madpepe:378717098630971395>

That's a black man