ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
   
                 09/01/2014 01:16 PM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
   Top News Science
SpaceX Rocket Explodes After Launch
more News
out of this Channel...
  ShortNews User Poll
Do you think the U.S. should do more to counter Russian aggression in Ukraine?
  Latest Events
  3.940 Visits   6 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
03/16/2009 01:09 PM ID: 77640 Permalink   

Cleopatra Was of African Descent

 

The last Egyptian Pharaoh, Cleopatra, was of African descent, as her mother was found to have an "African" skeleton. The found was made as the remains of Cleopatra's sister, Princess Arisnoe, was being studied after the discovery of it in Turkey.

Hilke Thuer, an Austrian scientist, said: "That Arsinoe had an African mother is a real sensation which leads to a new insight on Cleopatra's family and the relationship of the sisters Cleopatra and Arsinoe."

The results have been called "a real sensation".

 
  Source: news.bbc.co.uk  
    WebReporter: Lois_Lane Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  48 Comments
  
  Maybe I missed something....  
 
But.. isn't Egypt IN Africa?
 
  by: Carmex4thesoul   03/16/2009 01:14 PM     
  A real sensation  
 
for everybody 'else' who didn't already know this :) great story tho....2 thumbs up!
 
  by: crosimoto     03/16/2009 01:23 PM     
  The BBC report is inaccurate  
 
The skeleton found has been linked to Arisnoe, Cleopatra's half sister - they shared the same father, but there is very little evidence to actually link the skeleton with Arisnoe, it’s circumstantial at best. The survey showed the remains had characteristics of white Europeans, ancient Egyptians and black Africans although much of this evidence came from a skull lost over 60 years ago! Even if the skeletal remains could conclusively be linked to Arisnoe, as they did not share the same mother, we cannot assume any conclusions made would be the same for her sister.
 
  by: mcdonan   03/16/2009 01:40 PM     
  @Carmex4thesoul  
 
Even though she may have had some African ancestry the Ptolemy's were originally Mesopotamian. The 1st Ptolemy was one of Alexander the Greats generals. After Alexander died his empire was divided among his generals. Ptolemy got Egypt. The great library of Alexandria was built by and named for Alexander.

That concludes this weeks lesson in Pre-Christian History. Pencils down.
 
  by: VermiciousG     03/16/2009 03:39 PM     
  Wait, What!?  
 
"What do YOU mean, she had an AFRICAN skeleton?! Do you have something against Africans?!" ;)
 
  by: Winters Demise   03/16/2009 06:46 PM     
  African descent  
 
of was Cleopatra.
 
  by: Mannyishere     03/17/2009 02:55 AM     
  FYI  
 
Cleopatra wasn't even Egyptian, much less African
 
  by: VermiciousG     03/17/2009 06:04 AM     
  @vern  
 
Exactly, we all know that she was Pakistani.

BTW, if you are going to say what she is not, it's better to also state what she is in your opinion.
 
  by: Razaq   03/17/2009 06:28 AM     
  @razaq  
 
fair enough. she was greek.
 
  by: VermiciousG     03/17/2009 06:30 AM     
  Now that I think of it. greek's not quite right  
 
But, neither is Pakistani. Will Persian do?
 
  by: VermiciousG     03/17/2009 06:42 AM     
  Welcome to history  
 
where everything is not true and what ever you told is a lie.
 
  by: Mannyishere     03/17/2009 03:03 PM     
  If she was born and raised in Africa  
 
Does that not make her African?

 
  by: LeePIII   03/17/2009 05:28 PM     
  @LeePill  
 
Is a white South African an African? Dunno.
 
  by: VermiciousG     03/17/2009 05:40 PM     
  WAIT! DUH!  
 
I totally got my facts messed up. The Ptolomy's weren't Mesopotamian. They were Macedonian. Duh! Sorry for the confusion.
 
  by: VermiciousG     03/17/2009 05:42 PM     
  I think you ALL missed something  
 
people really need to get over the myth that all life started in Africa. There is documented evidence in California-Russia-Australia-and South America of people who were here long before there were suppose to be people. For instance in Russia they were renovating a housing project and found a skull of a normal human. The only problem was the skull dated back over 500,000 year PRIOR to when man was suppose to have left Africa. In the University of Ten in the USA they have a small metal machined ball that is confusing the hell out of scientists. What is so special is that this ball was found in a lump of coal that came from a vein of coal that has been dated to over 2.2 million years. In China they have a metal knife they found in a tomb, what is shocking is the steel knife was not suppose to be there as all the weapons in the tomb were from stone age tribes. And the age of the steel knife was atomically dated to 1.2 million years old. Now the question should be asked...where did these items come from if we were still supposed to be in Africa scratching our arses and swinging in trees.
 
  by: dracula   03/17/2009 06:33 PM     
  @alucard  
 
I don't mean to ridicule but the question is what flaw was their in the dating process or at least why did the carbon 14 in these pieces decay faster than normal. Anyways it's a bit off the subject as this is about fairly recent history.
 
  by: VermiciousG     03/17/2009 06:52 PM     
  it is not off, VermiciousG  
 
@alucard
I don't mean to ridicule but the question is what flaw was their in the dating process or at least why did the carbon 14 in these pieces decay faster than normal. Anyways it's a bit off the subject as this is about fairly recent history.
by: VermiciousG


They did not use Carbon 14 dating as that has been proven to give fake readings. A mullosk was carbon 14 dated to be 1.8 million years old, and it was factually still living and was less then 2 years old. Nature Magazine and Scientific America Magazine 1999. What was done is something called Atomic Dating and the decay rate of the atoms gives a more accurate time. As such this IS condusive to the thread as it clearly shows that we cannot all be from Africa as one poster claimed, because there are items that predate even the primates in Africa and have metal machined as well as showing clear signs of being mass produced. So the question again is raised...if we didnt do it, then who did? Maybe the posters in this thread need to stop trying to imply false racial histories and actually concentrate on the real mysteries of this planet.
 
  by: dracula   03/17/2009 07:22 PM     
  @dracula  
 
Hey I am very interested in mans origins... could you please link some of the reference material you are quoting please. I would like to see if anything new has developed
 
  by: TruHawg   03/17/2009 07:35 PM     
  @dracula  
 
Yea, I'd like that link too.

Back to the subject though. Carbon 14 dating IS the measurement of atomic decay in carbon atoms. I'm not saying it's perfect. I'm saying it's the same thing as atomic dating. Just specific to carbon 14.

I'm not disagreeing with the principal point you're making. I'm saying that this is about a person known to have lived a little over 2000 years ago. Not 500,000 years ago. We're basically discussing parentage not evolution.
 
  by: VermiciousG     03/17/2009 07:40 PM     
  When are you going to learn?  
 
The earth is only 6000 years old and science is wrong ;/.
 
  by: elzorro   03/17/2009 09:23 PM     
  Egyptian Melting Pot  
 
The Macedonians were not in the business of keeping the 'pure blood'. In fact they were quite notorious for 'inter-marrying' and 'inter-raping' anything that walked in the lands they opened.

I would be very surprised if Cleopatra did not have an 'Egyptian' ancestry. Which means, she has as much african in her as the president of russia or the president of the united states.

oh wait, that's not right.
 
  by: kmazzawi     03/17/2009 10:29 PM     
  @Party People  
 
The only thing I could find on the net based off of what dracula was saying are:

http://www.conspiracyresearch.org/...

I couldn't find anything on the skull found in russia.
 
  by: Rayn     03/18/2009 04:34 AM     
  Amazing,you've all flunked science!  
 
Co­smic rays enter the earth's atmosphere in large numbers every day. For example, every person is hit by about half a million cosmic rays every hour. It is not uncommon for a cosmic ray to collide with an atom in the atmosphere, creating a secondary cosmic ray in the form of an energetic neutron, and for these energetic neutrons to collide with nitrogen atoms. When the neutron collides, a nitrogen-14 (seven protons, seven neutrons) atom turns into a carbon-14 atom (six protons, eight neutrons) and a hydrogen atom (one proton, zero neutrons). Carbon-14 is radioactive, with a half-life of about 5,700 years. ON the other hand Atomic dating does not use any form of the carbon 14 and only uses the decay rate of a regular atom, something that you have in your body by the billions. These are two different items as any Physics PhD will tell you. Atomic dating is by far the most accurate. Here are some books to enlighten you on the difference between the two and how inaccurate Carbon 14 dating actually is:

Aitken, M. J., 1990. Science-based Dating in Archaeology. Longman, England.

Bowman, Sheridan, 1990. Radiocarbon Dating. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Faure, G., 1986. Principles of Isotope Geology, 2nd ed. New York: Wiley.

Taylor, R. E., 1987. Radiocarbon Dating: An Archaeological Perspective. Orlando, USA: Academic Press.

As for the rest, PUH-LEAZE dont tell me that you have never heard of the body (Kennewick Man) found in the NW part of the US that predates any known tribes in the area? or the Kota Tampan tools, or the Perak Man who was dated to over 100,000 years old? Or the Liujiang Skull that was dated over 120,000 years, or the body known only as "M" that was found in India that dates back to over 110,000 years. Or the tools found in Southeast Asia and India that predate the super-eruption of Toba by over 30,000 years, and Toba erupted 74,000 years ago. The whole point is clear,there were other tribes of mankind that existed well before we "supposedly" moved out of Africa. The only problem is these people do not fit into human evolution charts used today. Therefor it is clearly evident that we are NOT all from Africa and it clearly makes no difference to keep trying to claim everyone is. All you have to do is look and open your eyes, or at least pay attention in science classes in University and you will or would have known this.
 
  by: dracula   03/18/2009 06:53 AM     
  dracula  
 
lighten up. You should've commented on the Neanderthal article last month. Regarding atomic dating as opposed to carbon 14 dating; I'm not saying you're ignorant...

.. wait. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. you are ignorant.

"(Kennewick Man) found in the NW part of the US that predates any known tribes in the area"

Bullcrap, Kennewick Man was radioCARBON dated to 8400 to 9300 years ago. WELL after the Clovis period. As for the others, you're at least mostly speaking about Homo Erectus, Homo Habilis, Austropithicus, Homo ergasters, Peking man, etc, etc...

No one ever said human ancestors never left Africa, they've only said that our DIRECT ancestors, being Homo Sapiens, having left Africa in three separate migrations, only left within the last 85,000 years.

Quit assuming stuff. I don't know where you come from but you've been here less than 24 hours and you've done nothing but insult people since you got here.

jerk!

 
  by: VermiciousG     03/18/2009 07:30 AM     
  Also  
 
It seems like Perak man was only dated to 11,000 years ago. They simply found tools at the site that dated 100,000 years. That actually is quite fascinating as it's believed that we all came from a single migration out of africa 55,000 years ago. I'll have to research this more.

And I agree, there is no need to be a jerk.
 
  by: Rayn     03/18/2009 09:16 AM     
  VermiciousG you are an ingnorant jerk  
 
lighten up. You should've commented on the Neanderthal article last month. Regarding atomic dating as opposed to carbon 14 dating; I'm not saying you're ignorant...

.. wait. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. you are ignorant.

"(Kennewick Man) found in the NW part of the US that predates any known tribes in the area"

Bullcrap, Kennewick Man was radioCARBON dated to 8400 to 9300 years ago. WELL after the Clovis period. As for the others, you're at least mostly speaking about Homo Erectus, Homo Habilis, Austropithicus, Homo ergasters, Peking man, etc, etc...

No one ever said human ancestors never left Africa, they've only said that our DIRECT ancestors, being Homo Sapiens, having left Africa in three separate migrations, only left within the last 85,000 years.

Quit assuming stuff. I don't know where you come from but you've been here less than 24 hours and you've done nothing but insult people since you got here.

jerk!


by: VermiciousG

You are right VermiciousG, you are an ignorant jerk. But that cannot be helped as the facts prove you are wrong and what we in the military used to call a "sh$thouse expert" and that is one that spews ignorance and then tries to pass it off as intelligence. At least I provided sources of experts in the field that do it for a living and know well more about it then you ever could. Next time you wish to to try and prove your intelligence, please make sure that you actually HAVE some first.
 
  by: dracula   03/18/2009 05:08 PM     
  Then enlighten us  
 
Explain with supporting links if possible your Kennewick Man statement. Also, if it's not too much trouble, explain the difference between "something called Atomic Dating" and radiocarbon dating.
 
  by: VermiciousG     03/18/2009 06:24 PM     
  Already did VermiciousG  
 
Seemingly you freely toss insults at people who best you and now you want me to repeat myself? Why? Because you did not read the answer you are requesting when I first posted it? All you have to do is read the post 4 above you and you have your answers.
 
  by: dracula   03/19/2009 12:53 AM     
  What I have are your words  
 
I don't trust you. Why would I? And yet you still fail to provide a link. Weird that in the entirety of the internet no one has ever mentioned it.

As per your continued avoidance of the Kennewick Man question. Do you or do you not acknowledge that Clovis culture predates Kennewick by almost 3000 years at least?
 
  by: VermiciousG     03/19/2009 01:33 AM     
  I have provided my sources  
 
VermiciousG, you are the walking epitomy of a conflict in terms and rational thought. I gave you the sources of where I received my information and instead of actually doing something that is seemingly foreign to you, and that is research at your local college or university library; you are just like most of the other people in the computer age..if it isn't on wiki or some idiotic site like that or you cannot bring it up by searching google, it does not exist or is not important. The sooner you learn that not everything is on a computer or the net and that you actually have to move away from the keyboard and go outside where that bright light is above you; the better off you will be. I mean my God man, Einstein could come and stand right in front of you and explain the Unified field theory, Carl Sagen could explain why it is possible to break the speed of light as Tachyons and Quarks do it on a daily basis. Nobel Prize winner Steven Chu could tell you the reason he won this prize in Physics and even the most brilliant man in this field, Dr. Michio Kaku, could tell you how most everything works in a way a 3rd grader could understand it; not to mention teach this child Universal String Theory and you STILL would argue with them that they are wrong and you are right. You are the poster child for the term "you cannot argue with ignorant people as they will try and dumb you down to their level and then beat you with ignorance and stupidity."

You REALLY need to get outside once in a while and actually visit your local University or college library and or sit in on some of the classes in Human History, then and only then will you actually start to learn something, and the first thing you will learn is that not everything is on the net.
 
  by: dracula   03/19/2009 06:04 AM     
  And still you didn't answer the question  
 
Kennewick man?

You think I'm gonna drive 35 miles into Columbus because some irrelevant twirp says so? I wouldn't cross the street on your word.

By the way, Einstein never completed the unified field theory. He didn't complete it because he was wrong. Quantum physics filled in the gap quite nicely.
 
  by: VermiciousG     03/19/2009 06:20 AM     
  Also  
 
The reference materials that you listed appear line for line, character for character, cartridge return for cartridge return on this website http://www.talkorigins.org/...

In the future if you are going to plagiarize someone else's work may I recommend that you:

A. Move some of the commas around so it's harder to find in a google search.
B. Try to use a website that doesn't refute every statement that you've made about the subject being discussed.
 
  by: VermiciousG     03/19/2009 03:36 PM     
  I HAVE answered your question  
 
VermiciousG, all you need do is read the replies here and you will see exactly your answers. Constantly repeating the same thing over and over again when your answers are already here makes me and others start to wonder about you
 
  by: dracula   03/19/2009 04:43 PM     
  Snort!  
 
Kennewick man? You seem to have no problem repeating objections to having been pwned.
 
  by: VermiciousG     03/19/2009 04:48 PM     
  You have not answered my question  
 
You've mentioned Kennewick Man exactly once when you said

"(Kennewick Man) found in the NW part of the US that predates any known tribes in the area"

I contested that with Clovis. You have yet to respond.
 
  by: VermiciousG     03/19/2009 04:55 PM     
  Guess what  
 
Turns out that Berkley, Ithaca, White plains and several other colleges have their entire library available online.

The books Drac listed don't mention "something called atomic dating" at all.

They do discuss radiometric dating as in radiocarbon dating, potassium-argon dating and uranium-lead dating. Turns out drac used the wrong references. if a correct one exists at all.

Awwww. To bad.
 
  by: VermiciousG     03/19/2009 06:52 PM     
  VermiciousG, you are full of it  
 
The books I mentioned are in print and are easily located at OSU or MSU or UCLA or even MIT. and they Do clearly state what I said they do. you are becoming quite pathetic in your pitiful attempts, I mean even my seven year old great neice can do better then you. First you demand that I explain the difference between carbon 14 dating and atomic dating, I did when I posted this "Co­smic rays enter the earth's atmosphere in large numbers every day. For example, every person is hit by about half a million cosmic rays every hour. It is not uncommon for a cosmic ray to collide with an atom in the atmosphere, creating a secondary cosmic ray in the form of an energetic neutron, and for these energetic neutrons to collide with nitrogen atoms. When the neutron collides, a nitrogen-14 (seven protons, seven neutrons) atom turns into a carbon-14 atom (six protons, eight neutrons) and a hydrogen atom (one proton, zero neutrons). Carbon-14 is radioactive, with a half-life of about 5,700 years. ON the other hand Atomic dating does not use any form of the carbon 14 and only uses the decay rate of a regular atom, something that you have in your body by the billions. These are two different items as any Physics PhD will tell you. Atomic dating is by far the most accurate." and you twice stated that I never answered your question even thoug it is clearly there 23 posts down from the top. And now you expect anyone with any sense to believe you? I mean just how can they believe anything you say when you clearly lied about me not answering your question? The point is, if you lied then...how can we be sure that you are not lying now with what you say? Oh and you say that berkley has these books on line? Caught you in a lie yet again VermiciousG, as here is the links to berkley's library on line...and the first book I mentioned IS NOT THERE AND NEVER WAS! Here is the link to the library http://berkeley.worldcat.org/...

and here is what they say about this book: "No results match your search for 'Aitken, M. J., 1990. Science-based Dating in Archaeology. Longman, England."

So tell us Mr.Magic, just how did you read the book at berkley's library when they dont have it and they dont have it on line? The same goes for the other books in all the college/university libraries you mentioned.

Now that we know you are a proven liar, there is not much more to say about you or your opinions...now is there?
 
  by: dracula   03/19/2009 11:17 PM     
  If you'd just answer the question...  
 
I got $5 bucks says he won't answer the question posed here.


I never said that I got jack$#!t from Berkley, troll.

I said "Berkley, Ithaca, White plains --AND SEVERAL OTHER COLLEGES-- have their entire library available online.

The books Drac listed don't mention "something called atomic dating" at all."

I didn't see, or even look for, that particular book at Berkley.

Now if you could just answer the question which I have continually asked you and you have not once, one single time responded to. How do you reconcile your statement "(Kennewick Man) found in the NW part of the US that predates any known tribes in the area" when it is well accepted that the Clovis culture was there at least 2500 years prior.

 
  by: VermiciousG     03/20/2009 04:31 AM     
  You are a liar and a troll VermiciousG  
 
I do not associate with people like you. Nor will I answer any more of your inane statements.
 
  by: dracula   03/20/2009 04:14 PM     
  VermiciousG proved a lying troll in his own words  
 
I will make an exception one time just to prove that VermiciousG is the liar I stated he was. He states that he never said the books I suggested to him were on line...oh REALLY? Then maybe this lying troll can explain this post directly from him? Five posts from the bottom at this date. Or better yet read it for yourself as I have included it

Guess what Turns out that Berkley, Ithaca, White plains and several other colleges have their entire library available online.

The books Drac listed don't mention "something called atomic dating" at all.

They do discuss radiometric dating as in radiocarbon dating, potassium-argon dating and uranium-lead dating. Turns out drac used the wrong references. if a correct one exists at all.

Awwww. To bad.
by: VermiciousG


Now isnt that strange. First this lying troll says they are here at these colleges and universities and implied he had read them, and now he is saying that he never said what he posted. Read here:

I never said that I got jack$#!t from Berkley, troll.

I said "Berkley, Ithaca, White plains --AND SEVERAL OTHER COLLEGES-- have their entire library available online.

The books Drac listed don't mention "something called atomic dating" at all."

I didn't see, or even look for, that particular book at Berkley.

Now if you could just answer the question which I have continually asked you and you have not once, one single time responded to. How do you reconcile your statement "(Kennewick Man) found in the NW part of the US that predates any known tribes in the area" when it is well accepted that the Clovis culture was there at least 2500 years prior.


by: VermiciousG

yet he cannot say what exactly these books say for sure as he ADMITS that he did not look for them EVEN WHEN HE CLEARLY SAID IN HIS PRIOR POST THAT THESE PLACES HAD THEM ON LINE! nOT TO MENTION THAT HE ALSO STATED THAT THEY DID NOT AGREE WITH WHAT I SAID THEY STATED. Now you cannot have it both ways. Either this lying troll located the books I suggested to him and found out they said exactly what I stated they did, or he was lying through his teeth about finding them and what they said according to him.

After reading his first post about these books and then reading how fast this dung brain is back-peddling, it does not take a rocket scientist to see he was lying through his teeth and now is changing his story. You listen to anything he says at the risk of your sanity or use anything/believe anything he says at the risk of you being called a liar for repeating it.
 
  by: dracula   03/20/2009 04:27 PM     
  Kennewick man?  
 
troll
 
  by: VermiciousG     03/24/2009 07:14 AM     
  wow people, look how the troll replied  
 
when I proved him not only a liar, but a person that refuses to keep his word. I mean he started this whole dustup and now that he has been destroyed and his rep completely gone because he cannot tell the truth; he then tries to attack the person that proved him such.

You really have to pity a troll like that. My guess is that he is still in his mothers basement and calling it a "man cave" while delivering pizza's for his income. How sad.
 
  by: dracula   03/24/2009 02:01 PM     
  @troll  
 
You saying I lied repeatedly doesn't make it a lie. Before you got on this thread you might have noticed that I'm pretty quick to retract myself. It's called a sense of humility. Look it up.

But to my question: Did you know that Clovis culture preceded Kennewick man by at least 2500 years?
 
  by: VermiciousG     03/24/2009 03:04 PM     
  See how hard the troll is trying people?  
 
poor thing, everyone is now ignoring him because they know what he really is. Ah well, he brought it on himself for lying and being caught at it. The more we ignore him the sooner he will crawl away with his tail between his legs
 
  by: dracula   03/24/2009 11:19 PM     
  Drac  
 
I'm reasonably sure no one has been following these threads for a while now so if you could just answer the question, troll.
 
  by: VermiciousG     03/25/2009 01:27 PM     
  For the last time, I DID answer you  
 
and whining to the site owners about me telling the truth about you and showing that you are a lying troll, does NOT help your cause nor rep VermiciousG. But what else can we expect from you whn you refuse to read your answer and constantly demand that I answer the same question over and over and over again, yet you freely admitted that some books were online and implied that you read them, then backtracked and claimed you did not say what you said even though it is clearly posted here.

I call them as I see them, and you have proven yourself to not be worth the time it takes for me to pass gas.
 
  by: coffinsurfer   03/25/2009 03:29 PM     
  @coffinsurfer and I assume Dracula  
 
No, you've never answered my question about Kennewick man. Not once. And I've not said anything to admin regarding you. You are the definition of a Troll. If an admin sees that then good for them.

Now, I'm still waiting for an answer.
 
  by: VermiciousG     03/25/2009 03:43 PM     
  Oh and  
 
Caution2 is an admin. If anyone alerted admin to your shenanigans it was you on the Pluto thread.
 
  by: VermiciousG     03/25/2009 06:51 PM     
 
 
Copyright ©2014 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com