quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Those aren't different bust profiles. The image was mirror flipped, that's all. Besides publishers mistakenly doing it anyone with PhotoShop or Picasso or etc., can do it too.
Yes, and as usual Clyde is caught in another lie.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The Sumerians were conquered by the Akkadians the Akkadians spoke a Semitic language. The linguistic evidence makes it clear that the Akkadians originated in the Sudan,migrated across East Africa into Arabia and replaced the Sumerians as the dominate group in Mesopotamia.
Evergreen Posts:
Domesticated Animals from Early Times by Juliet Clutton-Brock
Author(s) of Review: Juris Zarins The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 45, No. 4 (Autumn, 1982), pp. 251-253
"The possibility of cattle pastoralism's having originated in conjunction with early agricultural practices in southern Egypt must now be seriously considered along with the possible diffusion of Neolithic cattle pastoralism into the Sahara, south to East Africa, and across the Red Sea to the SinaiINegev and the Arabian peninsula."
Agreed, but that is a little different from what Clyde suggests. The Akkadians did not originate in Sudan, but likely their Afrasian forebearers did millennia before any Semitic languages existed.
Posts: 26322 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The Sumerians were differentiating themselves from the Gutians.
Gutian ..... Sumerian
Gutian
Sumerian King Gudea
Note the different handshake of the Sumerian and the Gutians. Much of the art published relating to Sumerians, are often pictures of the Gutians when they ruled Lagash.
No Gutian kings of Lagash are mentioned in the Sumerian King List.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The languages spoken in ancient Mesopotamia and the Levant have changed overtime. The first people to dominate the area were the Sumerians. The language spoken by the Sumerians was adopted by the nomadic people living in the area, especially the Gutians.
Akkadian
The Sumerians were conquered by the Akkadians the Akkadians spoke a Semitic language. The linguistic evidence makes it clear that the Akkadians originated in the Sudan,migrated across East Africa into Arabia and replaced the Sumerians as the dominate group in Mesopotamia. The Gutians, once the Akkadians took over the region replaced Sumerian with the Semitic language spoken by the Akkadians. Since Akkadian times Semitic has been the dominate language in Mesopotamia.
Anoth group of Semitic speakers settled the Levant.These people were a great naval power called the Cananites and Phonesians.
The linguistic evidence makes it clear that the Akkadians originated in Africa.
According to Haupt, in 1878, Akkadian , Minaean and Ethiopic all belong to the same group of Semitic languages, even though they are separated in time and by great geographical distance. This is surprising considering the fact that Ethiopic and Akkadian are separated by many hundreds of years. The best example of this unity is the presence of shared archaicism . The linguistic feature of shared archaicism is the appearance of the vowel after the first consonant of the imperfect.
For example, one of the most outstanding features of Ethiopian Semitic languages, is the presence of a vowel following the first consonant in the verb form known as the imperfect, e.g., yi quattul (using the hypothetical verb consonants q-t-l, yi is the person marking prefix) or yi k'ettl 'he kills'. In Southwest Semitic the form of the perfect is yu qtul-u . Here we have the same hypothetical q-t-l form, but there is no vowel following the first consonant of the verb root.
It is common in non-African languages to form words with two consonants. African languages usually have a vowel separting each consonant in a word e.g., unasema kiswahilli "Can you speak Swahilli'.
The fact that Akkadian has shared archaicism with Ethiopian Semitic languages shows that at the time the Akkadians and Ethiopic speakers separated these groups had dialectical unity. The lack of this trait in Arabic and Hebrew shows that they have been influenced by the Indo-European speakers who invaded Palestine and Arabia between 1300 B.C. and 900 B.C.
I call the Semitic languages , Puntite languages since there homeland was probably in the region the Egyptians called Punt.
The Cushitic substratum has strongly influenced the phonology, morphology, syntax and vocabulary of the Puntite languages.
code:
Cushitic English Semitic Saho la wild cow *la-at Somali la id. id.
This supports the view of I.M. Diakonoff that the Semitic speakers and A-Group lived in close proximity in ancient times. Archaeological evidence also supports this reality. A common ceramic style associated with ancient cultures in Northeast Africa and Arabia is the Tihama culture.
The Tihama pottery was related to the C-Group and Kerma people. This supports the movement of some of these groups into the Horn from this region and explains why the Akkadian and Ethiopic are closely related.
The evidence discussed above makes it clear that Arabia, was probably not the original homeland of the Semitic speakers. Modern Ethiopians and the Akkadians originated in Africa, not Arabia.
I wish we could separate the history of the Middle East from race, but it is impossible to do so because of the desire of Eurocentrists to make Semitic speakers members of the “white” race.
The controversy surrounding the Kushite/African/Black origins of the Elamites, Sumerians, Akkadians and “Assyrians” is simple and yet complicated. It involves both the racism exhibited toward the African slaves in the Western Hemisphere and Africans generally which led to the idea that Africans had no history ; and the need of Julius Oppert to make Semites white, to accommodate the “white” ancestry of European Jews.
To understand this dichotomy we have to look at the history of scholarship surrounding the rise of Sumero-Akkadian studies. The study of the Sumerians, Akkadians. Assyrians and Elamites began with the decipherment of the cuneiform script by Henry Rawlinson. Henry Rawlinson had spent most of his career in the Orient. This appears to have gave him an open mind in regards to history. He recognized the Ancient Model of History, the idea that civilization was founded by the Kushite or Hamitic people of the Bible.
As result, Rawlinson was surprised during his research to discover that the founders of the Mesopotamian civilization were of Kushite origin. He made it clear that the Semitic speakers of Akkad and the non-Semitic speakers of Sumer were both Black or Negro people who called themselves sag-gig-ga “Black Heads”. In Rawlinson’s day the Sumerian people were recognized as Akkadian or Chaldean, while the Semitic speaking blacks were called Assyrians.
Rawlinson identified these Akkadians as Turanian or Scythic people. But he made it clear that these ancient Scythic or Turanian speaking people were Kushites or Blacks.
A major supporter of Rawlinson was Edward Hincks. Hincks continued Rawlinson’s work and identified the ancient group as Chaldeans, and also called them Turanian speakers. Hincks, though, never dicussed their ethnic origin.
A late comer to the study of the Sumerians and the Akkadians was Julius Oppert. Oppert was a German born of Jewish parents. He made it clear that the Chaldean and Akkadian people spoke different languages. He noted that the original founders of Mesopotamia civilization called themselves Ki-en-gi “land of the true lords”. It was the Semitic speakers who called themselves Akkadians.
Assyrians called the Ki-en-gi people Sumiritu “the sacred language”. Oppert popularized the Assyrian name Sumer, for the original founders of the civilization. Thus we have today the Akkadians and Sumerians of ancient Mesopotamia.
Oppert began to popularize the idea that the Sumerians were related to the contemporary Altaic and Turanian speaking people, e.g., Turks and Magyar (Hungarian) speaking people. He made it clear that the Akkadians were Semites like himself . To support this idea Oppert pointed out that typological features between Sumerian and Altaic languages existed. This feature was agglutination.
The problem with identifying the Sumerians as descendants from contemporary Turanian speakers resulted from the fact that Sumerian and the Turkish languages are not genetically related. As a result Oppert began to criticize the work of Hincks (who was dead at the time) in relation to the identification of the Sumerian people as Turanian following the research of Rawlinson.
It is strange to some observers that Oppert,never criticized Rawlinson who had proposed the Turanian origin of the Ki-en-gi (Sumerians). But this was not strange at all. Oppert did not attack Rawlinson who was still alive at the time because he knew that Rawlinson said the Sumerians were the original Scythic and Turanian people he called Kushites. Moreover, Rawlinson made it clear that both the Akkadians and Sumerians were Blacks. For Oppert to have debated this issue with Rawlinson, who deciphered the cuneiform script, would have meant that he would have had to accept the fact that Semites were Black. There was no way Oppert would have wanted to acknowledge his African heritage, given the Anti-Semitism experienced by Jews living in Europe.
Although Oppert successfully hid the recognition that the Akkadians and the Sumerians both refered to themselves as sag-gig-ga “black heads”, some researchers were unable to follow the status quo and ignore this reality. For example, Francois Lenormant, made it clear, following the research of Rawlinson, that the Elamite and Sumerians spoke genetically related languages. This idea was hard to reconcile with the depiction of people on the monuments of Iran, especially the Behistun monument, which depicted Negroes (with curly hair and beards) representing the Assyrians, Jews and Elamites who ruled the area. As a result, Oppert began the myth that the Sumerian languages was isolated from other languages spoken in the world evethough it shared typological features with the Altaic languages. Oppert taught Akkadian-Sumerian in many of the leading Universities in France and Germany. Many of his students soon began to dominate the Academe, or held chairs in Sumerian and Akkadian studies these researchers continued to perpetuate the myth that the Elamite and Sumerian languages were not related.
There was no way to keep from researchers who read the original Sumerian, Akkadian and Assyrian text that these people recognized that they were ethnically Blacks. This fact was made clear by Albert Terrien de LaCouperie. Born in France, de LaCouperie was a well known linguist and China expert. Although native of France most of his writings are in English. In the journal he published called the Babylonian and Oriental Record, he outlined many aspects of ancient history. In these pages he made it clear that the Sumerians, Akkadians and even the Assyrians who called themselves şalmat kakkadi ‘black headed people”, were all Blacks of Kushite origin. Eventhough de LaCouperie taught at the University of London, the prestige of Oppert, and the fact that the main centers for Sumero-Akkadian studies in France and Germany were founded by Oppert and or his students led to researchers ignoring the evidence that the Sumerians , Akkadians and Assyrians were Black.
In summary, the cuneiform evidence makes it clear that the Sumerians, Akkadians and Assyrians recognized themselves as Negroes: “black heads”. This fact was supported by the statues of Gudea, the Akkadians and Assyrians. Plus the Behistun monument made it clear that the Elamites were also Blacks.
The textual evidence also makes it clear that Oppert began the discussion of a typological relationship between Sumerian and Turkic languages. He also manufactured the idea that the Semites of Mesopotamia and Iran, the Assyrians and Akkadians were “whites”, like himself. Due to this brain washing, and whitening out of Blacks in history, many people today can look at depictions of Assyrians, Achamenians, and Akkadians and fail to see the Negro origin of these people.
To make the Sumerians “white” textbooks print pictures of artifacts dating to the Gutian rule of Lagash, to pass them off as the true originators of Sumerian civilization. No Gutian rulers of Lagash are recognized in the Sumerian King List.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: [QUOTE] It seems most probable that two types existed in the Tigres-Euphrates area by the early neolithic - a modified "Australoid" type that was spread from Australia, through India and into the vicinity of modern Iran/Iraq. There was also a semitic element that spread out of Africa and around the so-called fertile cresent during the early Holocene. A third, chariot-wielding element may have entered the region during the Bronze Age.
Evergreen Writes:
Further to this point, it seems that populations stretching from Senegal to Australia shared in the common M1 mtDNA lineage. These populations were Black and known as Eastern and Western Ethiopians (Blacks) by ancient Eurasians. These Black populations also seemed to have recognized their own Blackness with references to Kush/Kham/Ham/Kish evolving in relation to the emergence of chariot-wielding elements that may have entered the region during the EBA.
posted
The Midde East: An Anglo-American Invention
Sedat Laciner
In short, for a territory to be distinctive from the others, it must have some meaningful particularities or at least some common characteristics.
When considered on the basis of these criteria, there is no region called the Middle East.
The term has a function and considered from this point, the region called the “Middle East”, in fact, means Britain, and then American Zone of Interest.
The Middle East is the name given to a “zone of interest” and it implies an appetite which has no sense of getting full. The more the appetite grows, the larger the region becomes. http://www.turkishweekly.net/editorial.php?id=30Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Black-Asians are closely aligned with Africans based upon the instinctive knowledge (memory of Australian Aborigines) they took with them when they left Africa during the UP. Unlike northern Eurasians, Black-Asians RETAINED this African instinct in tandem with an essentially African physiology.
Specify this -knowledge based affinity-.
A list would be preferrable.
Is this and attempt at mystification?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Black-Asians are closely aligned with Africans based upon the instinctive knowledge (memory of Australian Aborigines) they took with them when they left Africa during the UP. Unlike northern Eurasians, Black-Asians RETAINED this African instinct in tandem with an essentially African physiology.
Specify this -knowledge based affinity-.
A list would be preferrable.
Is this and attempt at mystification?
Evergreen Writes:
To answer your last question first, no - this is an effort to demystify the nature of Black people. I would certainly enjoy engaging you on this topic. Would you reccomend we create a new thread, not to dillute this one?
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Black-Asians are closely aligned with Africans based upon the instinctive knowledge (memory of Australian Aborigines) they took with them when they left Africa during the UP. Unlike northern Eurasians, Black-Asians RETAINED this African instinct in tandem with an essentially African physiology.
Specify this -knowledge based affinity-.
A list would be preferrable.
Is this and attempt at mystification?
Evergreen Writes:
To answer your last question first, no - this is an effort to demystify the nature of Black people. I would certainly enjoy engaging you on this topic. Would you reccomend we create a new thread, not to dillute this one?
quote:Black-Asians are closely aligned with Africans based upon the instinctive knowledge (memory of Australian Aborigines) they took with them when they left Africa during the UP. Unlike northern Eurasians, Black-Asians RETAINED this African instinct in tandem with an essentially African physiology.
Specify this -knowledge based affinity-.
A list would be preferrable.
Is this and attempt at mystification?
Evergreen Writes:
To answer your last question first, no - this is an effort to demystify the nature of Black people. I would certainly enjoy engaging you on this topic. Would you reccomend we create a new thread, not to dillute this one?
Sure.
Evergreen Writes:
Ok. We can begin to study and understand the relationship between tropical adaptation, the pineal gland, melatonin, sleep/wake cycles, dreams and Procedural memory (Knowledge or Gnosis). We should also explore Human Physiological Adaptations to the Arctic Climate and pineal calcification.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Winter the picture is just mirror flipped, flip it either way but you can still not deny reality that the helmet has straight hair combed to a bun.
posted
Evergreen, are you suggesting that black peoples somehow share a kind of genetic memory of their paleolithic identity as blacks?? Posts: 26322 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: ]Evergreen Writes:
What is the correlation between the evolution of modern Eurasian phenotype and haplogroup J. Cranial and genetic evidence indicates that the earliest Europeans shared phenotypic traits with modern and ancient Sub-Saharan Africans.
But how genetically distant from Africans were the original bearers of haplogroup J?
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what I understand, about as distant as other non-African haplogroups.
From Wiki: In human genetics, Haplogroup J (previously known as HG9 or Eu9/Eu10) is a Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup. It is defined by the 12f2.1 genetic marker, or the equivalent M304 marker.
Haplogroup J is believed to have arisen 31,700 years ago (plus or minus 12,800 years) in the Near East (Semino et al. 2004). It is most closely related to Haplogroup I, as both Haplogroup I and Haplogroup J are descendants of Haplogroup IJ (S2, S22). Haplogroup IJ is in turn derived from Haplogroup F. The main current subgroups J1 and J2, which now account between them for almost all of the population of the haplogroup, are both believed to have arisen very early, at least 10,000 years ago... Posts: 26322 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by demMuhfughan African AmericanZ:
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: ]Evergreen Writes:
What is the correlation between the evolution of modern Eurasian phenotype and haplogroup J. Cranial and genetic evidence indicates that the earliest Europeans shared phenotypic traits with modern and ancient Sub-Saharan Africans.
But how genetically distant from Africans were the original bearers of haplogroup J?
Evergreen Writes:
The fact of the matter is we don't yet know. In fact they may have been Africans.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
To the extent that Hg J is a descendant of F-M89 and without getting into the technical details thereof, it is as genetically distant as other F-M89 descendants - namely, K, I, H and G, from African groups bearing pre-F-M89 clades.
To the extent that groups bearing F-M89 ancestral clades - sans the downstream lineages mentioned above - were newly arrived Africans themselves, the genetic relationship obviously doesn't get any closer than that.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: When context is considered...
To the extent that Hg J is a descendant of F-M89 and without getting into the technical details thereof, it is as genetically distant as other F-M89 descendants - namely, K, I, H and G, from African groups bearing pre-F-M89 clades.
To the extent that groups bearing F-M89 ancestral clades - sans the downstream lineages mentioned above - were newly arrived Africans themselves, the genetic relationship obviously doesn't get any closer than that.
Mystery Solver When are you going to organize your vast knowledge into a book discussing spread of Africans based on genetic evidence. You could publish your study at lulu.com
posted
^Perhaps I'm reading too much into your post, but could this be a trick question, to getting me to divulge certain information? Lol, in any event...
Basic material on which I base my observations on various genealogical matters are already available in published works. Sure, such material don't exist in what may be deemed as a one-stop site, but then isn't that part of the reason we maintain this site - Egyptsearch? Basic material on which I base my observations are actually quite accessible to those who avail themselves of them, but it takes a little more effort and adequate research, not to leave out enthusiasm and perceptiveness, to acquire the necessary knowledge to extrapolate beyond basic material and *still be able to remain objective*.
Ps - Thanks for the Lulu.com reference. Watch for a space therein, is all I can say about that at this moment.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: ^Perhaps I'm reading too much into your post, but could this be a trick question, to getting me to divulge certain information? Lol, in any event...
Basic material on which I base my observations on various genealogical matters are already available in published works. Sure, such material don't exist in what may be deemed as a one-stop site, but then isn't that part of the reason we maintain this site - Egyptsearch? Basic material on which I base my observations are actually quite accessible to those who avail themselves of them, but it takes a little more effort and adequate research, not to leave out enthusiasm and perceptiveness, to acquire the necessary knowledge to extrapolate beyond basic material and *still be able to remain objective*.
Ps - Thanks for the Lulu.com reference. Watch for a space therein, is all I can say about that at this moment.
No its not a trick. Yes the information is out there but the Africalogical significance of certain information is missing and I believe you can help educate the world to this knowledge base.
My specialty includes learning theories and educational attributions, given this fact I can not close my mind to the individual nature knowledge is acquired, maintained and transfered. As a result, just because we argue does not mean I don't respect you and believe you can teach us much. I have been researching and writing on Africana history since the 1970's so I feel everyone has a right to their opinion.
I am above all a falsificationist. As a result, by ideas will stand or fall on the basis of data and I am sure some of the ideas I have propagated will be modified over time.
ES is not enough. Must people don't believe that a topic has been examined until it is book length. In my opinion you are the person to spread the news.
Back in the 1980' we often discussed the idea of morphogenic fields. This theory is that if knowledge is known in one place, it can and will be learned somewhere else since we have placed the idea into the universe. This means that someone out there is thinking about the same things we are and if they have the finances their work will be put out there. My hope is that you can be the one to illuminate the African origination and significance of the data.
If I find the time I hope to discuss the genetic evidence for the expansion of Africans into Asia, Europe and the Americas, since 6,000 BC (i.e., my Proto-Saharans).
Only because of this RETARDED Euro Centered world view do you get the idea that Arabians and Africans have no historical biological relationship.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ We have been over this many timesbefore. "Arabs" of Arabia proper consist of diverse lineages, some of which are without a doubt from Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: When context is considered...
To the extent that Hg J is a descendant of F-M89 and without getting into the technical details thereof, it is as genetically distant as other F-M89 descendants - namely, K, I, H and G, from African groups bearing pre-F-M89 clades.
To the extent that groups bearing F-M89 ancestral clades - sans the downstream lineages mentioned above - were newly arrived Africans themselves, the genetic relationship obviously doesn't get any closer than that.
I have always wondered about this myself-- does this explain the existence of F* in Sudan or is it that this was introduced by foreigners?
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Mystery Solver When are you going to organize your vast knowledge into a book discussing spread of Africans based on genetic evidence. You could publish your study at lulu.com
We need the work.
.
At least what Mystery does is real scholarship not like the psuedo mess you and your screwy linguistics dish out. Posts: 26322 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But wouldn't that ultimately mean that all World lineages are directly African. In human genetics, Haplogroup F (defining mutations M89, P14, and M213) is a Y-chromosome haplogroup. This haplogroup and its subclades contain more than 90% of the world's extant male population, including almost everyone outside of Africa.
Haplogroup F is an ancestral haplogroup to Y-chromosome haplogroups G (M201), H (M52), I (M170), J (12f2.1), and K (M9) along with K's descendant haplogroups (L, M, N, O, P, Q, and R)
Posts: 6 | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Comworks: But wouldn't that ultimately mean that all World lineages are directly African.
Evergreen Writes:
Yes, non-African genes are really a sub-set of African genetic diversity. Keep in mind that in many cases, such as early Upper Paleolithic Europe the phenetic traits of these populations were still akin to Africans.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Comworks: But wouldn't that ultimately mean that all World lineages are directly African. In human genetics, Haplogroup F (defining mutations M89, P14, and M213) is a Y-chromosome haplogroup. This haplogroup and its subclades contain more than 90% of the world's extant male population, including almost everyone outside of Africa.
Haplogroup F is an ancestral haplogroup to Y-chromosome haplogroups G (M201), H (M52), I (M170), J (12f2.1), and K (M9) along with K's descendant haplogroups (L, M, N, O, P, Q, and R)
That is the very meaning of Out of Africa.
Small groups of settlers expanding outward from Africa are the most likely progenitors of the modern human population worldwide.
While still a student at Yale Medical School, Tishkoff developed a novel way to analyze DNA from living people's blood. Then, by determining the frequency of mutations in DNA from various populations, she was able to conclude that African lineages are the oldest on Earth and that at some relatively -recent- time in the past, a -small group- of people migrated out of East Africa and populated the rest of the world.
posted
Tidy bits of examples of differences and similarities between an exemplary Ethio-Semitic language and an exemplary "Middle Eastern" Semitic language has been touched on: here, here, and here. For an elaborate comparison, one would have to familiarize themselves with an elaborate enough lexicon of both Ethio-Semitic languages and Semitic languages of the "Near East", along with discernable syntax prosecutions between them. Some of the differences in Ethio-Semitic languages, will naturally have arose from co-habitation with Cushitic and other non-Cushitic Afrasan language groups in the African Horn.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you look at your own post I think you will see that F* is direct while F*'s "grandchildren" are indirect.
Also, the map helps to see where the individual clades are thickest, and -- taking within-clade diversity into account -- where they most likely originated.
Any clade numerically predominate and originating in so-called SW Asis is nothing but directly African, call it far north-east Africa, the African extension or external Africa. Among population geneticists, at least Wells recognizes that the area in the time considered was nothing but Africa.
It appears to me that only when we start dealing with K*'s "children" that we no longer have any direct type of African under consideration. Of course there are interesting anomalies making or taking exception(s) to my view.
quote:Originally posted by Comworks: But wouldn't that ultimately mean that all World lineages are directly African. In human genetics, Haplogroup F (defining mutations M89, P14, and M213) is a Y-chromosome haplogroup. This haplogroup and its subclades contain more than 90% of the world's extant male population, including almost everyone outside of Africa.
Haplogroup F is an ancestral haplogroup to Y-chromosome haplogroups G (M201), H (M52), I (M170), J (12f2.1), and K (M9) along with K's descendant haplogroups (L, M, N, O, P, Q, and R)
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes very fascinating how a single North African lineage F gave birth to almost all people outside of Africa. F* seems to be real winner,Darwinism at it finest.
posted
Actually - the amazing thing is not that 1 or 2 lineages account for most non Africans - that is simply and *effect*.
What is amazing is *the cause* - The entire world population lived in Africa as little as 60 thousand years ago - and all non Africans are descendant of a small subset of this population.
The earliest assumptions of anthropology and the scientific hypothesis of "race", pre-supposed ancient sub-speciations of humanity into various typologies dating back to early hominids hundreds of thousands to millions of years ago.
This is not the case.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
I thought Sumerian was a Niger-congo language. I have seen a good demonstration by Fari Supiya in the book('when we ruled')which was very convicing.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Well then you've been fooled. Sumerian is not Niger-Congo and is part of any African phylum at all.
Posts: 26322 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mentu: Clyde and others
I thought Sumerian was a Niger-congo language. I have seen a good demonstration by Fari Supiya in the book('when we ruled')which was very convicing.
Sumerian is one of those languages that are claimed by many different linguists - sometimes using the most bizarre rationale imaginable.
There is one Eurocentric pseudo-linguist who tries to claim Sumerian is Nordic and related to Finnish.
He then tries to deny that Sumerians referred to themselves as Blacks - by finding a feintly similar Finnish word for *north*, replacing the meaning Black in Sumerian with *north* in Finnish, and then arguing that Sumerians are ancient Nordes.
It's one of the more desparate/hilarious exibitions you will see of how pseudos can invent a rationale for vitually any argument, no matter how illogical, or prepostrous.
The lesson?
Beware pseudo-linguistics.
They can easily exploit the fact that *all* languages have some similarities, by selectively cherry-picking examples needed to relate - or disclaim relation- of any two langages they choose.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
All languages have similarities but there is a degree of probability that once surpassed,results cannot be explained away as chance.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mentu: Clyde and others
I thought Sumerian was a Niger-congo language. I have seen a good demonstration by Fari Supiya in the book('when we ruled')which was very convicing.
It is . Don't forget Bantu is a member of the Niger-Congo family of languages.
Fari did an excellent Job. I am very impressed with his recent progress in finding deep spiritual meaning in the Egyptian language based on Bantu cognates.
What makes Fari's work very interesting is that Fari is very cautious and now that he is taking the lead in researching ideas from an original perspective he is making great progress in expanding our understanding of the ancient world. Although he prefers not to be called an Afrocentric scholars his work will create jealousy among many Eurocentrists who will try to lable this promising young scholar.
Fari and Asar are rapidly expanding our understanding of the Egyptian language by looking at its Africaness to find the true meaning of many Egyptian words. This is something we have needed for a long time.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic