quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: MTDNA N is probably indigenous so the incoming J1 from the caucus mated with local women.
Mama teaches the language. This might be how J1 picked up Semetic.
quote:A study (Vai et al. 2019), finds a basal branch of maternal haplogroup N in early Neolithic North African remains from the Libyan site of Takarkori. The authors propose that N most likely split from L3 in the Arabian peninsula and later migrated back to North Africa
Rare unclassified haplogroup N* has been found among fossils belonging to the Cardial and Epicardial culture (Cardium pottery) and the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B.[22] A rare unclassified form of N has been also been reported in modern Algeria.[23]
Rare unclassified haplogroup N* has been found among fossils belonging to the Cardial and Epicardial culture (Cardium pottery) and the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B. A rare unclassified form of N has been also been reported in modern Algeria.
Haplogroup N1'5
Haplogroup N1 – found in Africa (Egypt, Ethiopia)
Haplogroup N1b – found in Middle East, Egypt (Gurna), Caucasus and Europe.
N1b ASHKENAZI FOUNDER LINEAGE A haplogroup N subclade, N1b - has been identified as one of four Ashkenazi Jewish founder lineages. This is defined by the transition G to A at the nucleotide position16176 - See: "The Matrilineal Ancestry of Ashkenazi Jewry: Portrait of a Recent Founder Event" D. Behar, et al.
Published online 2006 Jan 11. doi: 10.1086/500307 PMCID: PMC1380291 PMID: 16404693 The Matrilineal Ancestry of Ashkenazi Jewry: Portrait of a Recent Founder Event Doron M. Behar, et al.
Abstract Both the extent and location of the maternal ancestral deme from which the Ashkenazi Jewry arose remain obscure. Here, using complete sequences of the maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), we show that close to one-half of Ashkenazi Jews, estimated at 8,000,000 people, can be traced back to only 4 women carrying distinct mtDNAs that are virtually absent in other populations, with the important exception of low frequencies among non-Ashkenazi Jews. We conclude that four founding mtDNAs, likely of Near Eastern ancestry, underwent major expansion(s) in Europe within the past millennium.
Hg N1b is virtually absent in Europeans but appears at frequencies of ∼3% or higher in those from Levant, Arabia, and Egypt In total, we have identified four Ashkenazi founding lineages, three within Hg K and one in Hg N1b, deriving from only four ancestral women and accounting for fully 40% of the mtDNAs of the current Ashkenazi population (∼8,000,000 people). The most dominant of these lineages, K1a1b1a, encompasses 62% of the Ashkenazi K mtDNAs, which translates into 19.4% of contemporary Ashkenazi Jews, or ∼1,700,000 people. The second most common lineage is within Hg N1b and corresponds to an additional 800,000 people.
the distribution of Hg N1b in southwestern Asia and North Africa (Rando et al. 1998; Richards et al. 2000) supports a Near Eastern, rather than a European, origin for this Hg. It is noteworthy that our extensive sample set from the Caucasus (table 5) does not offer any hint that the four dominant Ashkenazi mtDNA lineages might have arrived from this region. However, it can be concluded that, irrespective of where exactly the mutations defining these Ashkenazi lineages arose, their expansion clearly took place during the time period of the sojourn of the Ashkenazi population in Europe.
In conclusion, the present study highlights the importance of a combined phylogenetic/phylogeographic strategy that includes complete mtDNA sequence analysis to accurately portray maternal founding events and to infer conclusions relevant to both shared ancestries and population-level effects that shaped the mtDNA gene pool in a given population. In the Ashkenazi Jews, this approach enabled us to reconstruct a detailed phylogenetic tree for the major Ashkenazi Hgs K and N1b, allowing the detection of a small set of only four individual female ancestors, likely from a Hebrew/Levantine mtDNA pool, whose descendants lived in Europe and carried forward their particular mtDNA variants to 3,500,000 individuals in a time frame of 2 millennia. This founding events, established here as a dominant mechanism in the genetic maternal history of the Ashkenazi Jews, is a vivid example of the founder effect originally described by Mayr (1963) 4 decades ago.
_____________________________
^ from the above "The most dominant of these lineages, K1a1b1a, encompasses 62% of the Ashkenazi K mtDNAs, which translates into 19.4% of contemporary Ashkenazi Jews, or ∼1,700,000 people. The second most common lineage is within Hg N1b"
> K also reported in the 2020 18th dynasty Egyptians
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you still a Black Hebrew Israelite then I don’t know how you can still continue to be one…
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: If you still a Black Hebrew Israelite then I don’t know how you can still continue to be one…
Fax. ... The more I read the further removed from reality such an insinuation becomes.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
(table shows two columns Y DNA and two columns mitochondrial, the same DNA with alternate naming in some cases from Y-full site )
Lots of K here but also interesting a male sample #113865 age 18- 25 Y DNA R-Y1947 (sub clade of R-Z2103 aka R1b1a1b a subclade haplogroup of R-M269 clade also found in Yamnaya Steppe culture) the mtDNA of this same male L2a1l2a
an "Ashkenazi-specific" haplogroup, seen amongst Ashkenazi Jews with ancestry in Central and Eastern Europe. It has also been detected in small numbers in ostensibly non-Jewish Polish populations, where it is presumed to have come from Ashkenazi admixture.[43] However, this haplotype constitutes only a very small proportion of Ashkenazi mitochondrial lineages; various studies (including Behar's) have put its incidence at between 1.4–1.6%.
L2a1a Subclade L2a1a is defined by substitutions at 3918, 5285, 15244, and 15629. There are two L2a clusters that are well represented in southeastern Africans, L2a1a and L2a1b, both defined by transitions at quite stable HVS-I positions. Both of these appear to have an origin in West Africa or North West Africa (as indicated by the distribution of matching or neighboring types), and to have undergone dramatic expansion either in South East Africa or in a population ancestral to present-day Southeastern Africans.
2020 Insights from ancient DNA analysis of Egyptian human mummies: clues to disease and kinship
Yehia Z Gad, Naglaa Abu-Mandil Hassan, Dalia M Mousa, Fayrouz A Fouad, Safaa G El-Sayed, Marwa A Abdelazeem, Samah M Mahdy, Hend Y Othman, Dina W Ibrahim, Rabab Khairat ____________________________
The editor of Archaeology magazine, Mark Rose, reported in 2002 that the work was cancelled “due to concern that the results might strengthen an association between the family of Tutankhamun and the Biblical Moses.” An Egyptologist with close links to the antiquities service, speaking to me on condition of anonymity, agreed: “There was a fear it would be said that the pharaohs were Jewish.”
Specifically, if the results showed that Tutankhamun shared DNA with Jewish groups, there was concern that this could be used by Israel to argue that Egypt was part of the Promised Land.
(Hawass 1997, account of 1990 discovery) The Discovery of the Tombs of the Pyramid Builders at Giza: Dr. Zahi Hawass / Undersecretary of the State for the Giza Monuments https://www.guardians.net/hawass/buildtomb.htm
The claim that Hawass cancelled DNA analysis “due to concern that the results might strengthen an association between the family of Tutankhamun and the Biblical Moses.” is hearsay
But in 2020 his team under Yehia Gad published this result with the 18th dynasty bearing the same mitochondrial DNA as the primary founding group of Ashkenazi Jews (although only part of the Hg K distribution)
(However this was not the Y-DNA (although there is some crossover with the R1b)
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: If you still a Black Hebrew Israelite then I don’t know how you can still continue to be one…
I don't understand this logic, it doesn't really make any sense at all. I don't identify as a "BHI" but how does one J sample being found in Israel nullify anything? All "BHI" I'm aware of acknowledge the fact that other races of people (including those known as ashkenazi) were present in ancient Israel, and the Levant in general. The question is whether or not all these races of people descend from Abraham > Isaac > Jacob.
If an E sample is found at a certain time period in Japan does that mean E is the original marker of the original samurai?
...
Also, as we have already established in this thread, genetic methodology is based on an evolutionary timeline that does not line up with the Biblical narrative and actually contradicts it. The primary source of the "BHI" is the Bible. So.... that point is pretty self explanatory.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: If you still a Black Hebrew Israelite then I don’t know how you can still continue to be one…
People who others call Black Hebrew Israelite or B.H.I do not identify as such.
They may identify as "Hebrew Israelites" or either of those terms, Hebrew or Israelite separately also. - but not "Black Hebrew Israelite" They almost always will not answer to that For some groups this is because they include as Israelites: Blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans (specifically those who are descendants of the slave trade or European colonization diaspora of the Americans and Carib, etc). Some of these Hispanics may have various appearances even seen "white" looking to outsiders but are still accepted as members (according to paternal ancestry)They usually identify as "light skinned" if asked will not say they are white.
and if they are of one of the less common Hebrew Israelite groups that are strictly blacks only, they may be proud of their blackness but they still don't call their group "Black Hebrew Israelite". They would consider the blackness of the Israelites a given. They usually say yes, we are black and the Israelites were black but their identity is "Hebrew Israelite" not "Black Hebrew Israelite"
So one can call them Black Hebrew Israelites or B.H.I but they usually won't answer to that
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
^ Damn, the Lioness knows that they are talking about!
Furthermore, using "BHI" as a blanket term for anyone who believes the ancient Jews were a black race of people is intellectually irresponsible. The "Hebrew Israelite" spectrum is extremely diverse and not all believe the same thing.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: If you still a Black Hebrew Israelite then I don’t know how you can still continue to be one…
I don't understand this logic, it doesn't really make any sense at all. I don't identify as a "BHI" but how does one J sample being found in Israel nullify anything? All "BHI" I'm aware of acknowledge the fact that other races of people (including those known as ashkenazi) were present in ancient Israel, and the Levant in general. The question is whether or not all these races of people descend from Abraham > Isaac > Jacob.
If an E sample is found at a certain time period in Japan does that mean E is the original marker of the original samurai?
...
Also, as we have already established in this thread, genetic methodology is based on an evolutionary timeline that does not line up with the Biblical narrative and actually contradicts it. The primary source of the "BHI" is the Bible. So.... that point is pretty self explanatory.
The OP article is in the mainstream Israel news paper Haaretz and they hype the story mentioning "Israelite" all over the place
quote: It’s true that no ancient Hebrew inscriptions were found in the burial confirming that the deceased were Israelites. However, the pottery assemblage is typical of what is found in late First Temple-period burials in Jerusalem, Finkelstein explains.
The article is a teaser for an upcoming yet to be published science journal article which will probably be more careful in how they identify these remains
What is clear by a few different recent articles is that around the time period of the Israelites and a little before there were people in some burial sites in Israel of a variety of haplogroups
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
2008 results of an analysis by Hassan of modern Sundanese entitled Chromosome Variation Among Sudanese: Restricted Gene Flow, Concordance With Language, Geography, and History[68]
included 39 Nubians found to be of the following Y Chromosome Haplogroups:
J1 41% J2 2% E3b1 (E-M78) 15.3% E3 (E-M215) 7.6% R1b 10.3% B-M60 7.7% F 10.2% I 5.1%
Haplogroup J has been found at a frequency of approximately 18% in Ethiopians, with a higher prevalence among the Amhara, where it has been found to exist at levels as high as 35%, of which about 94% (17% of total) is of the type J1, while 6% (1% of total) is of J2 type.[67] On the other hand, 26% of the individuals sampled in the Arsi control portion of Moran et al. (2004) were found to belong to Haplogroup J.
____________________________________________
Look at this, Nubians their highest percentage is J, 43% For the skin enthusiasts, we know these are dark skinned people, Ethiopians 18% J
from page 4,
Here as for haplogoup J one could argue there would be blacks among them
Similarly in the articles I have been posting of these ancient sites there are some E1b1b carriers there who have been Hebrews or related to them
although these are just biological markers not cultures
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The article is a teaser for an upcoming yet to be published science journal article which will probably be more careful in how they identify these remains
I completely agree 100%. You quoted the part of the article that says:
"It’s true that no ancient Hebrew inscriptions were found in the burial confirming that the deceased were Israelites. However, the pottery assemblage is typical of what is found in late First Temple-period burials in Jerusalem, Finkelstein explains."
But how do you feel about the sentence that follows those words?:
"Together with Kiryat Yearim’s proximity to what was then the capital of the Kingdom of Judah, this suggests that the locals can indeed be identified as ancient Hebrews, he says." Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
Keep in mind people who other people think are "Black Hebrew Israelites" and who do talk a lot about race probably won't call themselves "Black Hebrew Israelites" but they often do call themselves "Hebrew Israelites"
and to most of them to say "Black Hebrew Israelites" is to leave open the possibility for "white Hebrew Israelites" and this would be rare for them to believe, if not rare to acknowledge. They would say who is or is not an Israelite cannot be explained solely by the term itself
Nevertheless if talking about one of these groups or members of one the vast majority are founded and lead by black people.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The article is a teaser for an upcoming yet to be published science journal article which will probably be more careful in how they identify these remains
I completely agree 100%. You quoted the part of the article that says:
"It’s true that no ancient Hebrew inscriptions were found in the burial confirming that the deceased were Israelites. However, the pottery assemblage is typical of what is found in late First Temple-period burials in Jerusalem, Finkelstein explains."
But how do you feel about the sentence that follows those words?:
"Together with Kiryat Yearim’s proximity to what was then the capital of the Kingdom of Judah, this suggests that the locals can indeed be identified as ancient Hebrews, he says."
To answer that well I would have to study for a while, maybe weeks, or reading a book/s to see if is possible to identify a Hebrew burial site with no inscription but by pottery, objects, burial style and carbon dating. My first impression it is a "might be" not an "indeed" unless they had writing but this awaits what details are in the article
It depends on how you define "Hebrew" and "Hebrews". By date and location this site has a much higher probability of being Hebrew than 5 Natufians in a cave 12,000-9,800 BC ago being their ancestors. You seem to accept what some articles (and bible) say blindly if you like the conclusion but scrutinize highly, conclusions you don't like.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@the lioness,
So this site is more likely to have "Hebrew", even though there is no verified and undisputed "Hebrew" DNA to compare to? All they have is the pottery and that's it? So if I get buried with some chinese vases in a chinese village, that makes me Chinese, without any necessity for more solid evidence? Are you suggesting that is what we are all supposed to believe?
Interesting
And yeah if geneticists are saying the natufians are the most likely Israelite progenitors, I'm pretty sure that holds more weight than a random body found next to some pottery. We're supposed to go with the available evidence and trust the scientists, right?
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: How is this the case when according to genetics, J is not Semitic in origin?
I'm not referring to linguistics but ethno-history of the Ebrim/Hebrews themselves. The Hebrews are not the same as Proto-Semitic speakers.
quote:The Bible says Noah and this three sons (and their wives) survived the flood. In a sense, they would have been the first humans to populate the earth (after the flood). Noah's sons were Shem, Ham and Japheth. Shem is the progenitor of the semitic or shemitic peoples, including the Hebrews and Israelites. Shem's descendants would have been speaking semitic or shemitic languages.
According to genetic methodology, J is not semitic in origin and mixed themselves amongst actual semitic peoples, abandoned their own language and customs, and adopted the semitic languages and customs.
You are confusing ethno-history with linguistics. Shemites as the descendants of Shem have nothing to do with the actual linguistic grouping 'Semitic' which belongs to the Afro-asiatic family of languages. Even Biblical scholars and rabbis do not conflate the linguistics with the folk history because there are not a true 'Hamitic' languages or Japhetic languages. Most languages originally called 'Hamitic' are just other Afroasiatic languages spoken in Africa.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@Djehuti
If all that you said is accurate, wouldn't it be safe to conclude that genetics and it's usage of linguistics to determine populations is not actually in line with the Biblical narrative?
It's all confusion. Even if we replace the word "semitic" with afro-asiatic, J still had nothing to do with afro-asiatic culture until J came and adopted the customs.
Proto-semitic, proto-afro-asiatic, these would be the ancestors of the Hebrews/Israelites, which were also afro-asiatic. But J is not afro-asiatic in origin, according to genetic methodology.
Are you simply saying that J in this case is Hebrew/Israelite in terms of culture? Or are you asserting that J is what the ancestors of the Hebrews/Israelites possessed
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Swenet has already explained it. There were scholars centuries ago who tried to use the Biblical Narrative in the Table of Nations to fit with the linguistic and/or genetic findings and it didn't work. Linguistic is different from genetics which is also different from ethno-history which was the Biblical narrative. All I stated is that if anything Y-haplogroup J fits more with the Biblical story of the Hebrews than any other group. Notice I didn't say anything about 'Semitic' or any linguistic grouping just Hebrews spreading from Mesopotamia to the rest of Southwest Asia.
And Hebrew is different from Israelite since the latter was formed in the land of Canaan and then Egypt. You have to separate ethnic identity from linguistics let alone genetics.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Tazarah also keep in mind that whichever geneticist claimed Natufians proper were direct progenitors of the Israelites is likely wrong as such a concept within itself goes against biblical narrative. As been explained by a couple of different posters so far. There's no evidence that the Israelites as defined by the bible were in Natufian succession. There's no actual evidence of that claim on the ground either with genetics or other forms of bio-Anthropology. When asked questions surrounding a possible dispersal of a proto-semitic peopling you and Yatunde did a fine job in distancing those people from Israelites. So by your own logic (which is indeed congruent with scripture), downstream, the idea of any continuity with Natufians has been dismissed.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Swenet has already explained it. There were scholars centuries ago who tried to use the Biblical Narrative in the Table of Nations to fit with the linguistic and/or genetic findings and it didn't work. Linguistic is different from genetics which is also different from ethno-history which was the Biblical narrative. All I stated is that if anything Y-haplogroup J fits more with the Biblical story of the Hebrews than any other group. Notice I didn't say anything about 'Semitic' or any linguistic grouping just Hebrews spreading from Mesopotamia to the rest of Southwest Asia.
And Hebrew is different from Israelite since the latter was formed in the land of Canaan and then Egypt. You have to separate ethnic identity from linguistics let alone genetics.
1. I agree, the Bible does not support the linguistic/genetic methodlogy that scientists use.
2. How does J fit more with the Biblical narrative than any other group? The Bible says nothing about the Hebrews or Israelites or their ancestors abandoning their original culture and adopting the entireculture of another civilization. It also says nothing about Abraham and his ancestors coming from the caucusus region
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: @Tazarah also keep in mind that whichever geneticist claimed Natufians proper were direct progenitors of the Israelites is likely wrong as such a concept within itself goes against biblical narrative. As been explained by a couple of different posters so far. There's no evidence that the Israelites as defined by the bible were in Natufian succession. There's no actual evidence of that claim on the ground either with genetics or other forms of bio-Anthropology. When asked questions surrounding a possible dispersal of a proto-semitic peopling you and Yatunde did a fine job in distancing those people from Israelites. So by your own logic (which is indeed congruent with scripture), downstream, the idea of any continuity with Natufians has been dismissed.
So the geneticist was wrong, and all of the scholars who peer reviewed that paper are wrong too?
What else have other geneticists been wrong about? And that's a serious question, I'm not being facetious.
I never said the natufians were the *direct* ancestors of the Israelites (I already made this clear, and I doubt that is what the paper is even saying), I said that however long ago they existed is irrelevant because they are an ancestor to the Israelites regardless. There could have been 200 different civilizations between the natufians and the Israelites, that doesn't take away from the fact that they were their ancestors. Your ancestor from 20,000 years ago is still your ancestor (since you guys subscribe to an old earth). If another unrelated civilization with different Y markers comes in and amalgamates, they are not descendants of that original ancestor, regardless of how long ago that original ancestor existed.
And even if natufian > Israelite goes against the Biblical narrative, doesn't my main point stand? That genetics is not in agreement with what the Bible actually says? In other words, we have geneticists putting out peer reviewed papers about Biblical nations, but they are completely wrong?
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
games
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: games
You yourself admit on the previous page that the mere existence of haplogroups goes against the biblical narrative. No games being played here, I'm just pointing out everything for what it is
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
the game is if the mere existence of haplogroups goes against the biblical narrative and you believe in the bible, then to try to prove statement is true because a geneticist said so is dishonest.
Egyptology forum over the years has members who typically review genetics articles and decide if they agree with them or not, not instantly believe them as if they were high priests or had written an infallible book
And many of these geneticists have different opinions about ancient DNA and may disagree with each other. I made this point already. The game is pretending not to hear certain things and going in circles. This whole forum regularly finds things said by geneticists say that they think are biased or in error and don't subscribe to appeal-to-authority arguments. No matter how expert they are they still need to lay out evidence and a convincing argument. I asked you to outline their argument but you just suggest repetitiously we are to believe whatever a geneticist says (yet at the same time you don't believe in genetics) and this assumes they even actually laid out an argument. Further, science updates all the time. New findings can change the opinion of scientists as time goes on. What may have seemed true yesterday may today be overturned by new information. Also the purpose of peer review is not to agree or disagree with theories presented in an article. The purpose of peer review is to evaluate the paper's quality and suitability for publication and that they are using proper scientific standards and methods, although could still be entirely wrong in their conclusions.
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @Baalberth
The problem we have here is that the Bible (ancient text and history of the Israelites) establishes the fact that the Israelite nation had its genesis in Egypt (Africa), not the Caucusus.
Also, J is not semitic according to genetic methodology. That cannot be overlooked.
The early Israelites were foreigners in a sense, but when I say foreign I'm saying that according to genetics, these J lineages would have been foreign to the Israelites.
The most likely Judaean (Israelite) progenitors did not have J markers.
^ When you showed the article image mentioning Natufians, this was your first comment, not to detail an argument about how the Israelites were supposedly connected to the Israelites but instead to exclude Ashkenazis from being connected to the Israelites
Although the second post in the thread, Jari's was ridicule unfortunately, I'm not sure he knew you would be offended
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: 1. I agree, the Bible does not support the linguistic/genetic methodology that scientists use.
That's because the Bible has nothing to do with linguistics or genetics. It is a collection of narrative books by a specific people. That said, that doesn't meant there is necessarily contradiction between science and the Biblical narrative if one is trying to correlate the two with proper context. This is why most Biblical scholars who know about linguistics and genetics don't make the silly mistake of identifying Shem with the Proto-Semitic.
quote:2. How does J fit more with the Biblical narrative than any other group? The Bible says nothing about the Hebrews or Israelites or their ancestors abandoning their original culture and adopting the entire culture of another civilization. It also says nothing about Abraham and his ancestors coming from the Caucasus region
The Bible makes it clear that Hebrews come from Shinar (Mesopotamia) and that there were two divisions-- southern and northern. The expansion of J from Mesopotamia does seem to correlate with Hebrew expansion that included the Levant. Who said they "abandoned" their culture, especially since Hebrew shows more affinity to Babylonian culture than anything else??
Lioness is right, that the Bible as a narrative has been twisted and distorted to many ends, take for example the 'Hamitic Hypothesis' which presumes the Hamites which includes Egyptians and Nubians to be black-skinned caucasians. So yes the Bible can be perverted to fit any agenda claiming to be scientific. The DNA findings on ancient Israelites stands and just because you don't like the results doesn't mean they contradict the Bible. LOL
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: 1. I agree, the Bible does not support the linguistic/genetic methodology that scientists use.
That's because the Bible has nothing to do with linguistics or genetics. It is a collection of narrative books by a specific people. That said, that doesn't meant there is necessarily contradiction between science and the Biblical narrative if one is trying to correlate the two with proper context. This is why most Biblical scholars who know about linguistics and genetics don't make the silly mistake of identifying Shem with the Proto-Semitic.
quote:2. How does J fit more with the Biblical narrative than any other group? The Bible says nothing about the Hebrews or Israelites or their ancestors abandoning their original culture and adopting the entire culture of another civilization. It also says nothing about Abraham and his ancestors coming from the Caucasus region
The Bible makes it clear that Hebrews come from Shinar (Mesopotamia) and that there were two divisions-- southern and northern. The expansion of J from Mesopotamia does seem to correlate with Hebrew expansion that included the Levant. Who said they "abandoned" their culture, especially since Hebrew shows more affinity to Babylonian culture than anything else??
Lioness is right, that the Bible as a narrative has been twisted and distorted to many ends, take for example the 'Hamitic Hypothesis' which presumes the Hamites which includes Egyptians and Nubians to be black-skinned caucasians. So yes the Bible can be perverted to fit any agenda claiming to be scientific. The DNA findings on ancient Israelites stands and just because you don't like the results doesn't mean they contradict the Bible. LOL
You are contradicting yourself
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Lioness why would you add Tut's family dna to that post I have no idea. Are the K's of the AJ & Tut's family even related?
It is pretty clear from that talk with Razib Khan that AJ's are a population descended from Italy, France with some general Mediterranean ancestry. There was not a lot they could say for sure beyond that.
Their best guess is that the AJ's are 20 to 30% near eastern autosomally and in truth they cannot identify the exact origin of the near eastern DNA it could be Syrian, Anatolia, Greece, Israel.
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Swenet has already explained it. There were scholars centuries ago who tried to use the Biblical Narrative in the Table of Nations to fit with the linguistic and/or genetic findings and it didn't work. Linguistic is different from genetics which is also different from ethno-history which was the Biblical narrative. All I stated is that if anything Y-haplogroup J fits more with the Biblical story of the Hebrews than any other group. Notice I didn't say anything about 'Semitic' or any linguistic grouping just Hebrews spreading from Mesopotamia to the rest of Southwest Asia.
And Hebrew is different from Israelite since the latter was formed in the land of Canaan and then Egypt. You have to separate ethnic identity from linguistics let alone genetics.
1. I agree, the Bible does not support the linguistic/genetic methodlogy that scientists use.
2. How does J fit more with the Biblical narrative than any other group? The Bible says nothing about the Hebrews or Israelites or their ancestors abandoning their original culture and adopting the entireculture of another civilization. It also says nothing about Abraham and his ancestors coming from the caucusus region
J does not. J2 is new to the levant too late for the biblical narratives. J1 is a " more" likely candidate for some biblical narratives.
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Ashkenazim are the synthesis of ancient Levantine Jews and various Mediterranean European populations with whom the former mixed. Their origins date back to the fall of Rome, not the fall of Khazaria. -Razib Khan
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: @Lioness why would you add Tut's family dna to that post I have no idea. Are the K's of the AJ & Tut's family even related?
Their best guess is that the AJ's are 20 to 30% near eastern autosomally and in truth they cannot identify the exact origin of the near eastern DNA it could be Syrian, Anatolia, Greece, Israel.
It's pretty interesting to me. Looking at the Bronze Age chart at the top of this page, three sites in Israel most of which the maternal DNA is not K but there are two K bearers at one of the sites, Megiddo. K is the most prominent mitochondrial DNA of Ashkenazi Jews 31% of their total maternal lineages (N1 is there second founder lineage). Jews bearing haplogroup K are closer maternally to Queen Tiye and some of the fam then they are to particular Syrians, Anatolians, those of them who do not carry K
•Israelite time period 1200-1020 BC. •2 Megiddo Bronze Age samples of K, 1600-923 BC •Amarna, Egypt 1353-1322 BC
Looking at the other chart below it, the haplogroups of the 14th Century German Jews. Middle Eastern J1 and J2 is there, also E1b1b but unlike the Bronze age where there where no Individuals carrying R1b, several at the German site are R1b (as were Amenhotep III, Akhenaten, and Tutankhamun)Akhenaten and Tut (but not Amenhotep III were also Hap K on their female side) R1b is not considered Middle Eastern so of the individuals at the 14th century German site who were R1b lowers the paternal percentage of Middle Eastern in these 14th century German Ashkenazi Jews
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: The ancient Israelites were birthed in ancient Egypt by mixing with the ancient Egyptians, according to the Torah.
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: J does not. J2 is new to the levant too late for the biblical narratives. J1 is a " more" likely candidate for some biblical narratives. [/QB]
The Israelite time period is 1200 - 1020 BC. Looking at the chart of the Bronze age at the top of the page we see an individual of J2 dated 1623-1518 prior to or within the Israelite time period. Other individuals where J1, the earliest 1900-1700 BCE
The exact time J entered the region is unknown but it was in the region before and during the Israelite time period and it is unknown if the ancestors of the Israelites were not migrants themselves at some point as suggested by Genesis 15:1 and 7 Many Jews and Muslims might want to believe that their ancestors were in the "Holy Land" since the world began but that might not be the case, they may not even be aboriginal to the place Also the Y DNA haplogroup T should not be overlooked. One individual at the Megiddo site and another at Abel both in Israel were of T as were some individuals in an Israel cave at an earlier Chalcolithic (Copper Age) period and this haplogroup is also found in Toubou of Chad)
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Ashkenazim are the synthesis of ancient Levantine Jews and various Mediterranean European populations with whom the former mixed. Their origins date back to the fall of Rome, not the fall of Khazaria. -Razib Khan
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: @Lioness why would you add Tut's family dna to that post I have no idea. Are the K's of the AJ & Tut's family even related?
Their best guess is that the AJ's are 20 to 30% near eastern autosomally and in truth they cannot identify the exact origin of the near eastern DNA it could be Syrian, Anatolia, Greece, Israel.
It's pretty interesting to me. Looking at the Bronze Age chart at the top of this page, three sites in Israel most of which the maternal DNA is not K but there are two K bearers at one of the sites, Megiddo. K is the most prominent mitochondrial DNA of Ashkenazi Jews 31% of their total maternal lineages (N1 is there second founder lineage). Jews bearing haplogroup K are closer maternally to Queen Tiye and some of the fam then they are to particular Syrians, Anatolians, those of them who do not carry K
Looking at the chart below it, the haplogroups of the 14th Century German Jews, the middle Eastern J1 and J2 is there, also E1b1b but unlike the Bronze age where there where no Individuals carrying R1b, several at the German site are R1b (as were Amenhotep III, Akhenaten, and Tutankhamun)Akhenaten and Tut (but not Amenhotep III were also Hap K on their female side) R1b is not considered Middle Eastern so of the individuals at the 14th century German site who were R1b lowers the paternal percentage of Middle Eastern in these 14th century German Ashkenazi Jews
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: The ancient Israelites were birthed in ancient Egypt by mixing with the ancient Egyptians, according to the Torah.
If you listened to the podcast, it was found that the N1 Mtdna was Khazar/Far eastern
Also, because K is " syrian " you can't say it actually came from a Jewish genetic community
Again, J1, J2 and even E1b1b are generally, Near Eastern, if you listened there where Syrian converts to Judaism, it does not necessarily point to a genetic community def from Israel
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: MTDNA N is probably indigenous so the incoming J1 from the caucus mated with local women.
Mama teaches the language. This might be how J1 picked up Semetic.
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: If you listened to the podcast, it was found that the N1 Mtdna was Khazar/Far eastern
Also, because K is " syrian " you can't say it actually came from a Jewish genetic community
Again, J1, J2 and even E1b1b are generally, Near Eastern, if you listened there where Syrian converts to Judaism, it does not necessarily point to a genetic community def from Israel
as you do the two step and throw the E1b1b bearing Natufians out the window at the same time
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: the game is if the mere existence of haplogroups goes against the biblical narrative and you believe in the bible, then to try to prove statement is true because a geneticist said so is dishonest.
Egyptology forum over the years has members who typically review genetics articles and decide if they agree with them or not, not instantly believe them as if they were high priests or had written an infallible book
And many of these geneticists have different opinions about ancient DNA and may disagree with each other. I made this point already. The game is pretending not to hear certain things and going in circles. This whole forum regularly finds things said by geneticists say that they think are biased or in error and don't subscribe to appeal-to-authority arguments. No matter how expert they are they still need to lay out evidence and a convincing argument. I asked you to outline their argument but you just suggest repetitiously we are to believe whatever a geneticist says (yet at the same time you don't believe in genetics) and this assumes they even actually laid out an argument. Further, science updates all the time. New findings can change the opinion of scientists as time goes on. What may have seemed true yesterday may today be overturned by new information. Also the purpose of peer review is not to agree or disagree with theories presented in an article. The purpose of peer review is to evaluate the paper's quality and suitability for publication and that they are using proper scientific standards and methods, although could still be entirely wrong in their conclusions.
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @Baalberth
The problem we have here is that the Bible (ancient text and history of the Israelites) establishes the fact that the Israelite nation had its genesis in Egypt (Africa), not the Caucusus.
Also, J is not semitic according to genetic methodology. That cannot be overlooked.
The early Israelites were foreigners in a sense, but when I say foreign I'm saying that according to genetics, these J lineages would have been foreign to the Israelites.
The most likely Judaean (Israelite) progenitors did not have J markers.
^ When you showed the article image mentioning Natufians, this was your first comment, not to detail an argument about how the Israelites were supposedly connected to the Israelites but instead to exclude Ashkenazis from being connected to the Israelites
Although the second post in the thread, Jari's was ridicule unfortunately, I'm not sure he knew you would be offended
^^^^^^^
I made my position on genetics clear earlier in this thread and also clearly explained why I even reference genetics to begin with. You obviously did not comprehend that part. Please go back and read.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: 1. I agree, the Bible does not support the linguistic/genetic methodology that scientists use.
That's because the Bible has nothing to do with linguistics or genetics. It is a collection of narrative books by a specific people. That said, that doesn't meant there is necessarily contradiction between science and the Biblical narrative if one is trying to correlate the two with proper context. This is why most Biblical scholars who know about linguistics and genetics don't make the silly mistake of identifying Shem with the Proto-Semitic.
quote:2. How does J fit more with the Biblical narrative than any other group? The Bible says nothing about the Hebrews or Israelites or their ancestors abandoning their original culture and adopting the entire culture of another civilization. It also says nothing about Abraham and his ancestors coming from the Caucasus region
The Bible makes it clear that Hebrews come from Shinar (Mesopotamia) and that there were two divisions-- southern and northern. The expansion of J from Mesopotamia does seem to correlate with Hebrew expansion that included the Levant. Who said they "abandoned" their culture, especially since Hebrew shows more affinity to Babylonian culture than anything else??
Lioness is right, that the Bible as a narrative has been twisted and distorted to many ends, take for example the 'Hamitic Hypothesis' which presumes the Hamites which includes Egyptians and Nubians to be black-skinned caucasians. So yes the Bible can be perverted to fit any agenda claiming to be scientific. The DNA findings on ancient Israelites stands and just because you don't like the results doesn't mean they contradict the Bible. LOL
You are contradicting yourself
@Djehuti
You are definitely contradicting yourself here as Lisa pointed out.
You assert that the Biblical narrative is not a reliable source but at the same time you try to assert that J markers correlate with the Biblical narrative, and thus J = Israelite. I thought the Biblical narrative is not reliable? Is it only reliable when you decide it is? Only when you believe it supports your position right?
LOL!
Please make up your mind. I knew that all I had to do was ask the right questions to poke holes in this nonsense.
Also, a body being buried in ancient Israel next to pots and pans does not make it an ethnic Israelite. It's wild how someone who tries to present themself as a genius on this website is reckless enough to claim that the first "Israelite" remains found in ancient Israel are the remains of an actual ethnic Israelite (descendant of Abraham > Isaac > Jacob) without any corroborating evidence.
Not even the lioness was silly enough to accept and support such a claim.
Nobody ever denied "J markers" (or people who had "J markers") could or would be found in Israel, as I've said multiple times: ancient Israel had plenty different races of people who lived there. But that does not automatically make them descendants of Abraham > Isaac > Jacob.
P.S., genetic methodology (not Tazarah) says J carriers abandoned their culture and adopted a culture that was not originally theirs. Nowhere does the Torah/Tanakh/Bible say or even support this as being something that the Hebrews, Israelites, or their ancestors ever did. And if it does then please show us where. Actually you already claimed the Bible is not reliable so don't even bother.
"Under the scenario of an African origin of Afro-Asiatic languages, the occurrence of Eurasian Y-chromosome haplogroups J, K, and R among Afro-Asiatic-speaking populations of North Africa and East Africa would imply Eurasian immigration or gene flow into northern Africa, accompanied by the loss of the Eurasians' ancestral language and assimilation into the indigenous Afro-Asiatic cultures."
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Djehuti and everybody, Tazarah is in repeat mode now. This means any argument you make now has probably been made already in the thread.
He ignores many arguments and proceeds to keep repeating other arguments he has already made in the thread ad infinitum, using genetics when it suits him such as this piece on Haplogroup F, as well as genetics based arguments about Natufians or that Haplogroup J carriers can't have been the Israelites of the bible > and rejecting other genetics based arguments and data when it doesn't suit his desired conclusions
It's tempting to want to have the last word but having the last word is just the doorway to repetition and that's what he wants, an opportunity to say the same thing over and over again, hoping that if he says something 10 times and you say something 4 times, that saying something 10 times wins
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
Lioness, you just lied and tried to claim I was using genetics to bolster my position when I clearly and emphatically told Elmaestro that I don't subscribe to genetics and only reference it to point out contradictions in different positions. I've even told you this personally in the past. When you start lying, I stop reading and I start ignoring the remainder of the text in your comment.
Djehuti claims the Biblical narrative is inaccurate and not reliable (when convenient) but at the same time claims J markers correlate with the Biblical narrative and that the Biblical narrative is in agreement with J markers being Israelite.
But Tazarah is the problem? Lioness, stop the nonsense and bs. You were removed from mod duties for a reason.
Djehuti ASKED me "who said J markers abandoned their original culture?" (I literally quoted them asking me in my previous comment) so I posted the source again so they could see it. Try to keep up.
We don't all have to agree on this topic but stop doing the "Tazarah bad" thing, it's silly.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: Lioness, you just lied and tried to claim I was using genetics to bolster my position when I clearly and emphatically told Elmaestro that I don't subscribe to genetics and only reference it to point out contradictions in different positions.
Yes but you telling El maestro you don't believe in genetics didn't stop you from trying to use genetics repeatedly make arguments about who is and who is not an Israelite
In other words if someone said "trust me I would never steal from you" and later you find your wallet's missing, the fact that they said that does not mean they didn't steal your wallet.
And if I don't believe in ghosts I should not be arguing that there was a ghost in one house but not in another. That is the realm for believers in ghosts
Now please permit me to exit your repeat mode because nothing relevant is being added to the thread, it's just going in circles
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
Read this again, then enjoy the silence from me ignoring you.
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: when I clearly and emphatically told Elmaestro that I don't subscribe to genetics and only reference it to point out contradictions in different positions. I've even told you this personally in the past. When you start lying, I stop reading and I start ignoring the remainder of the text in your comment.
What part of I do not subscribe to genetics do you not understand? According to your logic, atheists who use the Bible to try debunking the existence of God and the validity of Christianity are now Bible-believers.
You're trolling now, goodbye.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
If what I was saying, and if my points truly had no merit, you wouldn't even waste your time responding to me or telling others not to respond.
U ain't slick.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
You are definitely contradicting yourself here as Lisa pointed out.
You assert that the Biblical narrative is not a reliable source but at the same time you try to assert that J markers correlate with the Biblical narrative, and thus J = Israelite. I thought the Biblical narrative is not reliable? Is it only reliable when you decide it is? Only when you believe it supports your position right?
LOL!
Please make up your mind. I knew that all I had to do was ask the right questions to poke holes in this nonsense.
Incorrect. I never said the Biblical narrative is "not a reliable source"! In fact, archaeology is proving the Biblical narrative to be correct all along. If you properly read what I wrote, you would see that I said the experts in the past were unreliable in the way they used the Biblical narrative. The narrative is what it is. The problem is when they try to fit linguistics and/or genetics onto the narrative in an unfeasible way.
quote:Also, a body being buried in ancient Israel next to pots and pans does not make it an ethnic Israelite. It's wild how someone who tries to present himself as a genius on this website is reckless enough to claim that the first "Israelite" remains found in ancient Israel are the remains of an actual ethnic Israelite (descendant of Abraham > Isaac > Jacob) without any corroborating evidence.
One can only make assumptions about ancient body based on the archaeological context. That he was a citizen of Israel is likely. Does that mean he was on of the 12 Tribes is another question. The same way the Late Period Abusir mummies are 'Egyptians' does that mean their ethnic roots are entirely Egyptian going back to predynastic times? Of course not.
quote:Not even the lioness was silly enough to accept and support such a claim.
She's just going by what the source is saying. Nothing more.
quote:Nobody ever denied "J markers" (or people who had "J markers") could or would be found in Israel, as I've said multiple times: ancient Israel had plenty different races of people who lived there. But that does not automatically make them descendants of Abraham > Isaac > Jacob.
J is a common marker in the Middle East today and has been for a while. The Biblical narrative says that Abraham-- ancestor of the Israelites-- and his family originally came from Mesopotamia. His migration as well as that of other Hebrews does support the genetic findings of hg J spreading throughout Southwest Asia. So where is the hole in my argument??
quote:P.S., genetic methodology (not Tazarah) says J carriers abandoned their culture and adopted a culture that was not originally theirs. Nowhere does the Torah/Tanakh/Bible say or even support this as being something that the Hebrews, Israelites, or their ancestors ever did. And if it does then please show us where. Actually you already claimed the Bible is not reliable so don't even bother.
Since when does genetics say anything about a culture or its abandonment?? See this is the type of foolhardy thinking that Swenet and I speak of. Again I never said the Bible is unreliable but those who misuse it! Tell us where are you getting this "cultural abandonment" idea from?? Last time I checked the Israelites and even their modern Jewish descendants still maintain Mesopotamian calendar and customs.
quote:"Under the scenario of an African origin of Afro-Asiatic languages, the occurrence of Eurasian Y-chromosome haplogroups J, K, and R among Afro-Asiatic-speaking populations of North Africa and East Africa would imply Eurasian immigration or gene flow into northern Africa, accompanied by the loss of the Eurasians' ancestral language and assimilation into the indigenous Afro-Asiatic cultures."
Correct. This explains North Africa. What about Southwest Asia? Explain why the vast majority of Semitic speaker carry J.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@Djehuti
* You said:
"One can only make assumptions about ancient body based on the archaeological context. That he was a citizen of Israel is likely. Does that mean he was on of the 12 Tribes is another question. The same way the Late Period Abusir mummies are 'Egyptians' does that mean their ethnic roots are entirely Egyptian going back to predynastic times? Of course not.
^^^ exactly my point. I'm glad we can agree on this right here. The problem is, you called the sample an Israelite (and so does the article). Israelite = descendant of Jacob/Israel. The suffix "ite" denotes lineage.
* You said:
"J is a common marker in the Middle East today and has been for a while. The Biblical narrative says that Abraham-- ancestor of the Israelites-- and his family originally came from Mesopotamia. His migration as well as that of other Hebrews does support the genetic findings of hg J spreading throughout Southwest Asia. So where is the hole in my argument??"
J did not originate in Mesopotamia, it was found in the caucusus before the Levant area. One could argue that Abraham's ancestors migrated from the caucusus since that's near the area where Noah's ark settled after the flood, but then the question arises: why don't all other haplogoups have an origin in the same area -- especially the haplogroups that came before J?
Regarding the remainder of your comment, Lioness was trying to assert that the Bible is unreliable in this conversation for xyz reasons, so why even affirm that position when you yourself are trying to correlate these J markers to what the Bible says?
In regards to the paper I referenced about J adopting a culture that wasn't theirs -- yes, that paper is talking about north africa. But it logically follows that if semitic/afro-asiatic culture wasn't the original culture of J in north africa, it wasn't their original culture anywhere else either. Otherwise, it wouldn't say that they assimilated and lost their original culture.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do have one question about the scenario Swenet described in which Proto-Semitic peoples passed through the Levant but settled down in Mesopotamia. Wouldn't all these migrations from one region to another have taken several generations? I would think that, once you had a large group of people passing through a region as big as the Fertile Crescent, many of them would "get off the bus" on multiple "stops" along the way. It couldn't have been like one tribe of Proto-Semitic people in the northeastern corner of Africa thought, "Hey, let's all pass through the Levant nonstop before settling down in Mesopotamia" (as if they would have been carrying maps of the whole region back then).
That being said, I can see a scenario in which Proto-Semitic people dispersed across the whole Fertile Crescent, but the subset of them that had settled in Mesopotamia experienced a population explosion thereafter. Mesopotamia, so named because it has two major rivers passing through it, does seem like a more logical location for a population explosion than the Levantine coast.
posted
What part of the Biblical Narriative is being proven correct? As far as I can tell several aspects of the Biblical mythology is based on distortions, exaggerations, lies, omitions etc. Just off the top of my head the Jewish community at Elephantine contained an older verion of Judaism that was polytheistic, unlike the strict Monotheism that the biblical narriative tries to pretend was the original religion..etc.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB]Incorrect. I never said the Biblical narrative is "not a reliable source"! In fact, archaeology is proving the Biblical narrative to be correct all along.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
This is why I am careful not to give the impression that the absence so far of Y-DNA E before and after MBII is a real absence, and why I mentioned sites like Sinai and Azor with seemingly more African ancestry than the Bronze Age Levantine average.
There would have been nomadic pastoralists and wandering groups (e.g. like the Habiru) whose bones would be more difficult to find than tombs linked to large settlements that archaeologists have identified as sites of interest due to well known biblical stories. Sites like Megiddo, that have cultural meaning for western people (it's the origin of the word Armageddon), get more attention.
Years ago I moved away from Ehret's concept of a single mass of people corresponding to his Proto-Semitic stage (ie his green 6ky old triangle). I believe that mass of people existed, but I think it was just one of several population centers that were mostly east of Palestine. Some may remember that Bronze Age South Asian sample with E, which matches the mixed Indo-European people in southern Russia posted by Evergreen. At least some of these samples from southern Russia were said to date specifically to the late neolithic and Bronze Age.
I've moved on to Lipinski's position of "wave after wave" of N African migrants, based on the 5.9 kiloyear event. Working with the geological event itself as opposed to linguistic concepts/constructs like "proto Semitic", it becomes obvious that some of these migrants weren't even Semitic speakers. We could have incipient languages getting lost in Africa during this event, and getting absorbed into Egyptian and Semitic. There has been talk of a Lower Egyptian Afroasiatic language, for instance, that was different than the Egyptian that was spoken in Upper Egypt before unification.
I've already hinted at things like this in previous discussion where I noted that the Middle Egyptian language that Afrocentrics claim is Bantu, could be a form of Egyptian that is more stereotypically African than Coptic, for instance. I mentioned modern Egyptian E-M2 that forms a clade with some Fulani E-M2, with the arrival in Egypt dating to the Middle Egyptian language, as well as women like Kemsit in Middle Kingdom tombs, who are more 'southern' in appearance than dynastic Egyptians. So I'm no longer thinking along those lines of languages as self-contained stages that are passed down kit and kaboodle, as linguists often present them. Forms of Egyptian were tied to dynasties, with Middle Egyptian being connected to the Middle Kingdom. Then other dialects of Egyptian could have taken over in later dynasties, that had other admixtures.
Semitic is probably much more like a palimpsest, with the 5.9 kiloyear migrants simply being the biggest or latest contribution to an already existing Afroasiatic presence in the Middle East. E-M123 in the Middle East is older than both Natufians and the 5.9 kiloyear event. This is also why I said in the 3 abstract thread that balance is shifting with the African side of this population (alKhiday, Olduvai Man, Loosdrecht's Taforalt) only being clarified in the last 11 years as being roughly equal in size as the portion that settled Eurasia. I wasn't just thinking of Natufians as the counterpart that settled Eurasia.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just want to say whether you are atheist or religious lets be respectful to both views.... This is not directed at anyone.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^Sorry don't want to come off as too demeaning against the religious posters, Im honestly curious to the parts of the Bible being proven correct, I just think its a stretch to say it as a whole is...
I Think I might make another thread on Biblical critical research, its blown up on YT in recent years(With channels like Mythvision and Gnostic Informant) and though mostly about being critical to the Xtian narriative, its very interesting. One that stuck with me was Jesus and "The Egyptian" Prophet, connection who Paul is mistaken for in the book of Acts..etc.
But I don't want to destract the thread with OT stuff...so just Ignore me...lol
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic