posted
Note how when their B.S sens of superiority is Ripped from under their feet, the White Racist starts resorting to strawman and other fallacy logic to squirm away from the reality of history.
No one here is talking about Moors, and the person who revealed the info(Me) has fought against black racists who spout that nonsense you bring up in your strawman argument.
What happened sir, No slick comeback, No more Ethiopian Devils scaring the lilly white beautiful mideval European who bathed once a year. I guess St. Maurice's statue sort of seems "Ironic" to you huh, I guess the Saxons were Afrocentrics too building a monestary to the Ethiopian Devils..LOL.
BTW, Where is your whore at?? Im still waiting on that Image of a black man that matches the image of a Grey Devil in Ethiopian art.
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist: Note the contradictory nature of afrocentrism.
We have posts above claiming the moors were blacks who INVADED the indigenous white people of europe, yet at the same time afrocentrics claim whites are not indigenous.
lol.
Posts: 8806 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
More while those 4th Century Xtian Jews were painting that black Moshiach in their Catacombs we have a black lady living in York.
Startling new forensic research has revealed that multicultural Britain is nothing new after discovering black Africans were living in high society in Roman York.
A study of various remains and artefacts from the 4th century at the Yorkshire Museum shows North Africans were living there thousands of years ago.
The most exciting results came from analysis of the so-called 'Ivory Bangle Lady' whose remains were found in 1901 on the city's Sycamore Terrace.
Her skull was found buried with a range of jewellery including jet and elephant ivory bracelets, earrings, pendants and a glass mirror indicating she was wealthy and was of high social status.
The research used modern forensic ancestry assessment to show it was likely she was of North African descent and may have migrated to York from somewhere warmer. Enlarge African queen
An exquisite pristine blue glass jar that was uncovered
The fascinating study was carried out by the University of Reading's Department of Archaeology, and senior lecturer Dr Hella Eckhardt said: 'Up until now we have had to rely on evidence of such foreigners in Roman Britain from inscriptions.
'However, by analysing the facial features of the Ivory Bangle Lady and measuring her skull, analysing the chemical signature of the food and drink she consumed, and analysing evidence from the burial site we are now able to establish a clear profile of her ancestry and social status.
'We're looking at a population mix which is much closer to contemporary Britain than previous historians had suspected.
'In the case of York, the Roman population may have had more diverse origins than the city has now.
'This skull is particularly interesting, because the stone sarcophagus she was buried in, and the richness of the grave goods, means she was a very wealthy woman, absolutely from the top end of York society.
'Her case contradicts assumptions that may derive from more recent historical experience, namely that immigrants are low status and male, and that African individuals are likely to have been slaves.
'Instead, it is clear that both women and children moved across the Empire, often associated with the military.'
The research is published in the March edition of the journal Antiquity.
The 'Ivory Bangle Lady' and he possessions will be the centrepiece of a new exhibition at the Museum in August entitled 'Roman York: Meet the People Of The Empire'.
York, known as Eboracum during Roman Times, was a legendary fortress and civilian settlement which was visited by a string of emperors.
The experts believe these factors provided reasons for potential immigration to the area and for the foundation of a multi-cultural community.
posted
''Anglo_Pyramidologist, who are the Afrocentrist you are lumping everyone else with.
Name names and who believes what.'' ====
egmond codfried, mike111 (or whatever their names are) etc are afrocentrics who post on this forum that the indigenous britons and other europeans were not white people but instead blacks. I don't know if they are serious or do it for parody however there is a whole tun of afrocentric crap like this on the net which is highly insulting to the native white British who have a linage going back thousands of years In Britain. Blacks only arrived here in last century along with Asians, they are immigrants and have no historical roots in UK.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
''Startling new forensic research has revealed that multicultural Britain is nothing new after discovering black Africans were living in high society in Roman York.'' ====
Right, and read the first best rated comment on that link:
'Does one person make a "multicultural" society? Really?'
- They also found a single eskimo remain some years ago in the faroe islands. Does that then mean the faroe Norse were multiculturalists living with eskimos?
Isolated historical happenings can occur. It doesn't mean there were a whole tun of 'black africans' living in Roman Britain. Out of Britain population of about a million at that time, less than 10 were probably non-white. Please put in perspective...
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
"Note the contradictory nature of afrocentrism." Anglo_Pyramidologist -posted 29 May, 2011 06:48 AM
So I will ask once again "What does this have to do with me and my arguments." Where is the contradiction, Do Try debating without using Strawman and other fallacy arguments. It only hurts what little credibility you have.
So what happened with the Ivory Bangle lady, First the monestary to St. Maurice now a black Devil Ethiopian all up in York and sh#t.
Not to mention Morien all Jet black up in British Mythology.
What happened to all them Ethiopian Devils...??
Where was your ancestor's pride??
Its A Damn shame aint it..being all Mulit-racial and ish..LOL.
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist: ''Anglo_Pyramidologist, who are the Afrocentrist you are lumping everyone else with.
Name names and who believes what.'' ====
egmond codfried, mike111 (or whatever their names are) etc are afrocentrics who post on this forum that the indigenous britons and other europeans were not white people but instead blacks. I don't know if they are serious or do it for parody however there is a whole tun of afrocentric crap like this on the net which is highly insulting to the native white British who have a linage going back thousands of years In Britain. Blacks only arrived here in last century along with Asians, they are immigrants and have no historical roots in UK.
Posts: 8806 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 1DumbHo: I'm not surprised that got everyone's knickers in a twist. It's deeply inconvenient for the pan-African race fantasy (or negrocentric-Egyptomania) that neither the way Ramesses was depicted nor his physical remains make him remotely resemble the negro enemies of Egypt who are falling under his horses' hooves.
Even if he is shown to be in the EXACT SAME complexion as some of those "negro" enemies. And again I find it hilarious how you consider the idea of a pan-African race to be a fantasy yet you espouse the notion of a pan-European race that extends outside of Europe! Your hypocrisy is duly noted.
quote:There are images of Ramesses, by the way, which make him a more similar colour to the Syrians, to whom he shows the same tender mercy as he does the Nubains...
*yawn*
You were saying??
The XVIV and XX dynasty heads do not have steep foreheads, receding zygomatic arches or prominent chins. Generally, both glabella and occiput are rounded and projecting to varying degrees. The sagittal contour is usually flattened, at least to some degree, although this sometimes begins before the bregma rather than in post-bregmatic position. The whole mandible is rarely squarish, although the body sometimes has a wavy edge. The latter feature, though, is very common in both ancient and modern Nubians. According to Gill (1986), an undulating mandible is a characteristic of Negroids.
That was rather pathetic. They still look the same colour. You're trying very hard and demonstrating nothing. Obviously the captive semite has a charicatured nose, however Ramesses had a hooked nose by the time of his death, as his mummy attests.
How does that semite prisoner's nose greatly differ from that of the real Ramesses?
posted
Rahotep will use a reconstruction when it favors his views. But when it doesn't, which is pretty much every reconstruction out there, he will try to claim that the forensic specialists basically made up the features on their reconstruction. The hypocrisy is amazing
Question: What is the source for Ramses' reconstruction?
Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
Quote: "Microscopic inspection of the roots of Ramesses II's hair proved that the original color of the king's hair was once red which suggests that he came from a family of redheads."
A 91 to 99 year old man, with other than WHITE ROOTS!
Damn, White people will believe any Dumb-assed sh1t, as long as it says they were there. You are truly some SAD MFs.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz': Rahotep will use a reconstruction when it favors his views. But when it doesn't, which is pretty much every reconstruction out there, he will try to claim that the forensic specialists basically made up the features on their reconstruction. The hypocrisy is amazing
Question: What is the source for Ramses' reconstruction?
^^ Of course! That is why he ignores these reconstructions below...
or else dismisses them as 'Afrocentric' when they were made by mainstream experts.
By the way, to answer your question Calabooz the Ramses reconstruction DaWhore just posted was created by a team working for the Discovery/BBC and first aired in a program on Discovery called 'Ramses: Wrath of God or Man'. Ironically Discovery Channel was also the sponsor of this sixth reconstruction of Tut below years before the 7th and final one by National Geographic.
What's interesting is that the American forensic team who made the reconstruction of Tut was double-blinded, meaning they had no idea who the identity of the skull was and thought they were working with a murder victim! Suffice to say, the team who did the construction of Ramses II and his son were not blinded at all and knew the identities of the skulls they worked with and such was the same with the teams for Nat. Geo.
quote:Originally posted by DaDumb1_01: That was rather pathetic. They still look the same colour. You're trying very hard and demonstrating nothing. Obviously the captive semite has a charicatured nose, however Ramesses had a hooked nose by the time of his death, as his mummy attests.
How does that semite prisoner's nose greatly differ from that of the real Ramesses?
LMAO The pathetic one is YOU! One with decent enough vision can see that the portrait of Ramses has traces of darker paint making his complexion much darker than the Semite, you buffoon!! Also, not only in that portrait but virtually *all* portraits of Ramses show him with a small straight nose which is a common trait among not only Egyptians but other black Africans of north and east Africa!
What's more is that the nose shape of his mummy is hardly reliable since it is broken and stuffed!
Peppercorns were placed in his broken nose to restore its shape and his sense of smell in the after life. His nose may have been broken during the mummification process when his brain was removed through his nose
posted
^The Tut reconstruction by DSC was actually derived from his golden mask, as opposed to his mummy. If I recall, Hawass hadn't authorized permission to CT scan the mummy at that time because he was afraid of how it would be handled. What's ironic however, is that Hawass later denounced the Nat Geo reconstruction in an article for Ancient Egypt Magazine, claiming instead that the mask would have been the best representation of the boy king:
quote:"After taking the scan, we tried to reconstruct the face of the mummy with moder forensic techniques. Three teams were selected: One from America, one from Egypt, and one from France. We gave the CT images of Tutankhamun to each team, and they all create faces that I think do not even look like the king. For example, the French team ended up with the face of a person who looks French, and whose features do not resemble any Egyptian. However, there were some similarities between the three reconstructions, such as the elongated shape of the head....[]...In my opinion, the mask of Tutankhamun from his tomb still gives us the best idea of what he looked in life."
^Also according to him, the only common feature among the three reconstructions was the elongated cranium, which again points to Tut's African affinities. If anything, what we have here in Hawass is the world's biggest flip-flopper.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Hey Asshole did the German Christians think of a blacks as Ugly Devils when they dedicated a Monestary to the following man..
St. Maurice the Upper Egyptian Coptic Saint...
Here is the Peckerwood who financed the St. Maurice Monestary..
Is this man not the ruler of the glorious Saxony,..Known for its blonds and fairskin...yet they have a Monestary praying to the Black Egyptian Saint Maurice, all on those Rosey Red Knees burning candles and sh#t...Giving offerings and asking Maurice to protect them on the battle field..
^^^^^ Chances are you and the Whore-tep Harlot have ancestors that got on those Rosey knees and prayed to this man's visage for intermission to Moshiach. Seeing how the Brits such as yourselves descend from the Saxons, the very land this monestary was built.
Unlike the Whore-tep Harlot's supposed image of a black man, I can show you plenty of blacks that look like Maurice.
Its kind of Ironic, of all the places it could be located...its in your own forefather's backyard...sucks huh...
Where was your ancestors pride?? Building a Monestary to a Black Devil like that..LOL
LMBAO
ROTFLMAOH
Jari, this post of yours and all its wordings cracked me the hell up!
But you are absolutely correct! A popular Medieval Christian Saint was St. Maurice of Theba who was indeed an Egyptian Copt from Thebes Upper Egypt who was martyred.
Saint Maurice was the captain of the Theban Legion, a unit in the Roman army that had been recruited from Upper Egypt and consisted entirely of Christians. Although loyal to the Empire (ruled over by Maximinus Daia and Diocletian), they still remembered the words of Jesus to render to Caesar the things of Caesar, and to God the things of God. During the Bagaude, an uprising of the Gauls, Maximinus marched against them with the Theban Legion as a part of his army. The revolt was quelled, and upon their return to Aguanum (now Saint-Moritz or Saint Maurice en Valais) in Switzerland, Maximinus gave the order that the whole army should give sacrifices to the Roman gods in thanks for the success of their campaign. As part of the celebration, Maximinus ordered the execution of a number of Christian prisoners. The Theban Legion refused to comply with the order and withdrew from the rites, even going so far as to camp away from the rest of the army so as not to be drawn into what they saw as horrifyingly against their beliefs. Maximinus repeatedly ordered the Theban Legion to comply with his orders, and when they continued to refuse, he ordered the unit "decimated," a practice in which every tenth man was put to death. The Legion was not shaken at all, despite threats of a second decimation, which was performed. Maximinus told those remaining that they would all be killed, but their captain, Maurice, inspired them with the example of the soldiers already martyred, and told them that they were all assured of a place in Heaven for holding fast to their faith. Every last man was beheaded by other soldiers, without resistance. Maximinus even went so far as to carry the executions out against every member of the Theban Legion stationed elsewhere in the Empire from Gaul down to Rome itself. A number of miracles are attributed to these holy soldiers. In Zurich, it is said that the beheaded Saints Felix, Regula, and Exuperantius rose up, and carrying their heads in their hands, walked to the top of a hill, knelt down and prayed, and finally lay down in final death. On this spot, a great cathedral was built and the image of the three saints carrying their heads appears on the coat of arms of Zurich today. Saint Maurice is one of the most popular saints in western Europe. There are over 650 sacred places bearing his name in France alone. Over seventy towns bear his name. In the Middle Ages, Saint Maurice was the patron saint of a number of the dynasties of Europe and later of the Holy Roman emperors, many of whom were anointed before the Altar of Saint Maurice at Saint Peter's Cathedral in Rome. King Sigismund of Burgundy donated land for a monastery in his honor in 515. Henry I (919-936) ceded the Swiss province of Aargua in exchange for the Lance of the Saints; and the sacred relic, the Sword of Saint Maurice, was last used in the coronation of Emperor Charles of Austria as king of Hungary in 1916. Saint Maurice's feast day is September 22.
It's funny how DaWhore only claims the Copts of Alexandria and other heavy Europeanized Delta areas as representatives of the indigenous Egyptians but never rural southern Egypt. Yet here we have first hand accounts by Europeans stating otherwise. In fact, the very name Maurice with its root word 'maur' (moor) spoke to the very black identity of this character and his people!
Oh and you are dead on about the pyramidiot claiming that all blacks in Euro-Christiandom art was evil or demonic, when St. Maurice is obviously was not.
How befitting that their ancestors prayed on their "rosy red knees" to kneegrows! LOLPosts: 26307 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: The Tut reconstruction by DSC was actually derived from his golden mask, as opposed to his mummy. If I recall, Hawass hadn't authorized permission to CT scan the mummy at that time because he was afraid of how it would be handled. What's ironic however, is that Hawass later denounced the Nat Geo reconstruction in an article for Ancient Egypt Magazine, claiming instead that the mask would have been the best representation of the boy king:
"After taking the scan, we tried to reconstruct the face of the mummy with moder forensic techniques. Three teams were selected: One from America, one from Egypt, and one from France. We gave the CT images of Tutankhamun to each team, and they all create faces that I think do not even look like the king. For example, the French team ended up with the face of a person who looks French, and whose features do not resemble any Egyptian. However, there were some similarities between the three reconstructions, such as the elongated shape of the head....[]...In my opinion, the mask of Tutankhamun from his tomb still gives us the best idea of what he looked in life."- "Ancient Egypt" issue 44, October/November (2007)
^Also according to him, the only common feature among the three reconstructions was the elongated cranium, which again points to Tut's African affinities. If anything, what we have here in Hawass is the world's biggest flip-flopper.
You're wrong about the Discovery reconstruction! It was based on the skull like *ALL* reconstructions are!! No forensic scientist would ever make a reconstruction based on an artistic portrait!!
"Robin couldn't unwrap this famous mummy to the skeleton, so he built his 3D digital skull by CT scanning a model of the skull, built from X-rays of Tutankhamun, taken in the tomb in the 1960s. You can see some of the X-rays on display at the Science Museum."
What's interesting is that even though the American forensic team was double-blinded and thus supposedly unbiased. They were still somewhat biased in giving Tut a wide nose due to his African ancestry no doubt due to their stereotyping of African phenotype.
If anything I say his painted bust should have been the best model for soft tissue reconstruction.
Posts: 26307 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^OK, I stand corrected. I have no idea where I got that from (likely was confusing Hawass' contradictory statements with my faded memory of the DSC reconstruction) but I do now remember Eurocentrists arguing then that the 2005 reconstructions were supposedly more "accurate" because they were based on CT scans and not X-ray, like the DSC reconstruction. Either way Susan Anton's response to ausar should have put this issue to rest.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist: egmond codfried, mike111 (or whatever their names are) etc are afrocentrics who post on this forum that the indigenous britons and other europeans were not white people but instead blacks. I don't know if they are serious or do it for parody however there is a whole tun of afrocentric crap like this on the net which is highly insulting to the native white British who have a linage going back thousands of years In Britain. Blacks only arrived here in last century along with Asians, they are immigrants and have no historical roots in UK.
Ah Ha! Anglo_Pyramidologist you pathetic liar, your ignorance and lack of education has exposed you as a dimwitted troll.
Every English schoolboy knows that the English are a German people, who are NOT NATIVE to Britain. Only some uneducated American "Teabagger" would think that the British are a native people.
You stupid fool, the British royal house was named Saxe-Coburg and Gotha until they changed it to Windsor in 1917.
BBC story
English and Welsh are races apart. Gene scientists claim to have found proof that the Welsh are the "true" Britons.
The research supports the idea that Celtic Britain underwent a form of ethnic cleansing by Anglo-Saxons invaders following the Roman withdrawal in the fifth century. Genetic tests show clear differences between the Welsh and English It suggests that between 50% and 100% of the indigenous population of what was to become England was wiped out, with Offa's Dyke acting as a "genetic barrier" protecting those on the Welsh side. And the upheaval can be traced to this day through genetic differences between the English and the Welsh.
Academics at University College in London comparing a sample of men from the UK with those from an area of the Netherlands where the Anglo-Saxons are thought to have originated found the English subjects had genes that were almost identical. But there were clear differences between the genetic make-up of Welsh people studied.
The research team studied the Y-chromosome, which is passed almost unchanged from father to son, and looked for certain genetic markers. They chose seven market towns mentioned in the Domesday Book of 1086 and studied 313 male volunteers whose paternal grandfather had also lived in the area.
They then compared this with samples from Norway and with Friesland, now a northern province of the Netherlands. The English and Frisians studied had almost identical genetic make-up but the English and Welsh were very different. The researchers concluded the most likely explanation for this was a large-scale Anglo-Saxon invasion, which devastated the Celtic population of England, but did not reach Wales.
Dr Mark Thomas, of the Centre for Genetic Anthropology at UCL, said their findings suggested that a migration occurred within the last 2,500 years.
It reinforced the idea that the Welsh were the true indigenous Britons. In April last year, research for a BBC programme on the Vikings revealed strong genetic links between the Welsh and Irish Celts and the Basques of northern Spain and south France. It suggested a possible link between the Celts and Basques, dating back tens of thousands of years.
The UCL research into the more recent Anglo-Saxon period suggested a migration on a huge scale. "It appears England is made up of an ethnic cleansing event from people coming across from the continent after the Romans left," he said. Archaeologists after the Second World War rejected the traditionally held view that an Anglo-Saxon invasion pushed the indigenous Celtic Britons to the fringes of Britain.
Instead, they said the arrival of Anglo-Saxon culture could have come from trade or a small ruling elite. But the latest research by the UCL team, "using genetics as a history book", appears to support the original view of a large-scale invasion of England. It suggests that the Welsh border was more of a genetic barrier to the Anglo-Saxon Y chromosome gene flow than the North Sea.
Dr Thomas added: "Our findings completely overturn the modern view of the origins of the English."
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
''Every English schoolboy knows that the English are a German people'' ========
The Anglo-Saxons were only called 'Germanic' because they spoke a Germanic tongue, as many northern europeans did because of their related origin, even the Geats of Sweden did.
Are the Swedes as 'German people'?
You are twisting the terminology.
============== ''who are NOT NATIVE to Britain. Only some uneducated American "Teabagger" would think that the British are a native people.'' ===========
Again this is false. The Anglo-Saxons were kinsmen to the Picts, Scots and other tribes of Britain. All spoke related language, had the same phenotype, genes and even culture. Celtic, Germanic and Norse mythology is all related, many even shared the same Gods, just under different names.
The fact is the ethnic-British - the native white British today descend from these ancient tribes who have been in Britain for well over a millenia, stretching back far further.
In contrast blacks are recent immigrants.
Do you really think if a black immigrant stands next to the statue of Boudicca in Westminster, London they get a historical or spiritual connection??
Its not your heritage. In fact black immigrants who have virtually now taken over London (whites are now under 40%) are all embracing afro-carribean culture. None claim to be indigeous Brits...
Do you really think Boudicca and the indigenous Brits were black africans? If so then you are mentally ill, or just a troll, saying so for parody.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Damn, you are one ignorant, but most tellingly, STUPID Albino boy. Fool don't you read ANYTHING before opening you mouth?
In answer to your "Teabagger" ignorant question: YES YOU FOOL, SWEDES ARE GERMANS TOO!
From Wiki:
The Germania by Gaius Cornelius Tacitus, an ethnographic work on the diverse group of Germanic tribes outside of the Roman Empire, is our most important source on the Germanic peoples of the 1st century.
Migration Period Main article: Migration Period 2nd century CE to 5th century CE simplified migrations
During the 5th century CE, as the Western Roman Empire lost military strength and political cohesion, numerous Germanic peoples, under pressure from population growth and invading Asian groups, began migrating en masse in far and diverse directions, taking them to Great Britain and far south through present day Continental Europe to the Mediterranean and northern Africa. Over time, this wandering meant intrusions into other tribal territories, and the ensuing wars for land escalated with the dwindling amount of unoccupied territory.
Wandering tribes then began staking out permanent homes as a means of protection. Much of this resulted in fixed settlements from which many, under a powerful leader, expanded outwards. A defeat meant either scattering or merging with the dominant tribe, and this continual process of assimilation was how nations were formed.
In Denmark the Jutes merged with the Danes, in Sweden the Geats and Gutes merged with the Swedes. In England, the Angles merged with the Saxons and other groups (notably the Jutes), as well as absorbing some natives, to form the Anglo-Saxons.
Anglo_Pyramidologist - Persistent stupidity like yours is a little scary. I gave you the truth, I gave you the source, and yet you persisted, without checking either. That reminds me of what religious people do. Obvious you are a functioning idiot, if American, which is likely, you probably also have a cache of guns.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ The ignorance and persistent Stupidity of these people, Anglo_Pyramidologist people, could bring EVERYBODY down. It is not safe to allow people like these to have guns and power. It's like giving a gun to a child.
quote:Originally posted by Calabozo': Rahotep will use a reconstruction when it favors his views. But when it doesn't, which is pretty much every reconstruction out there, he will try to claim that the forensic specialists basically made up the features on their reconstruction. The hypocrisy is amazing
Question: What is the source for Ramses' reconstruction?
The source of the Ramesses reconstruction is the mummified head of Ramesses, as you can see, and the nose is perfectly intact so you don't need to guess. That particular image was shown on the Discovery channel.
Also the negroid reconstruction of Tut is laughable, with the enormous nose and lips. Not only do these not resemble any portrait of the king, from the many that we have, but they contradict the mummified remains. Tut's facial features are well enough preserved to show the high, narrow bridge to the nose, and the fact that the lips were full but not fleshy and well within the bounds for a caucasoid type. Three more recent reconstructions, done in France, the US and Egypt, all produced portraits that resembled each other but did not resemble that earlier travesty. (I can only imagine that it was an exercise in political correctness and appeasement towards the afrocentric movement).
Posts: 870 | From: uk | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 1DumbHo: I'm not surprised that got everyone's knickers in a twist. It's deeply inconvenient for the pan-African race fantasy (or negrocentric-Egyptomania) that neither the way Ramesses was depicted nor his physical remains make him remotely resemble the negro enemies of Egypt who are falling under his horses' hooves.
Even if he is shown to be in the EXACT SAME complexion as some of those "negro" enemies. And again I find it hilarious how you consider the idea of a pan-African race to be a fantasy yet you espouse the notion of a pan-European race that extends outside of Europe! Your hypocrisy is duly noted.
quote:There are images of Ramesses, by the way, which make him a more similar colour to the Syrians, to whom he shows the same tender mercy as he does the Nubains...
*yawn*
You were saying??
As you insist on denying the obvious,here's a graphic demonstration of how the darkest flesh region on the semite captive is actually darker than the darkest flesh area on the Egyptian king...
posted
''Anglo_Pyramidologist - Persistent stupidity like yours is a little scary. I gave you the truth, I gave you the source, and yet you persisted, without checking either.'' =============
Albion (Greek: Ἀλβιών) is the oldest known name of the island of Great Britain.
The Latin word alba is the feminine singular form of the adjective albus, meaning 'white'.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Hey Asshole did the German Christians think of a blacks as Ugly Devils when they dedicated a Monestary to the following man..
St. Maurice the Upper Egyptian Coptic Saint...
Here is the Peckerwood who financed the St. Maurice Monestary..
Is this man not the ruler of the glorious Saxony,..Known for its blonds and fairskin...yet they have a Monestary praying to the Black Egyptian Saint Maurice, all on those Rosey Red Knees burning candles and sh#t...Giving offerings and asking Maurice to protect them on the battle field..
^^^^^ Chances are you and the Whore-tep Harlot have ancestors that got on those Rosey knees and prayed to this man's visage for intermission to Moshiach. Seeing how the Brits such as yourselves descend from the Saxons, the very land this monestary was built.
Unlike the Whore-tep Harlot's supposed image of a black man, I can show you plenty of blacks that look like Maurice.
Its kind of Ironic, of all the places it could be located...its in your own forefather's backyard...sucks huh...
Where was your ancestors pride?? Building a Monestary to a Black Devil like that..LOL
LMBAO
ROTFLMAOH
Jari, this post of yours and all its wordings cracked me the hell up!
But you are absolutely correct! A popular Medieval Christian Saint was St. Maurice of Theba who was indeed an Egyptian Copt from Thebes Upper Egypt who was martyred.
Saint Maurice was the captain of the Theban Legion, a unit in the Roman army that had been recruited from Upper Egypt and consisted entirely of Christians. Although loyal to the Empire (ruled over by Maximinus Daia and Diocletian), they still remembered the words of Jesus to render to Caesar the things of Caesar, and to God the things of God. During the Bagaude, an uprising of the Gauls, Maximinus marched against them with the Theban Legion as a part of his army. The revolt was quelled, and upon their return to Aguanum (now Saint-Moritz or Saint Maurice en Valais) in Switzerland, Maximinus gave the order that the whole army should give sacrifices to the Roman gods in thanks for the success of their campaign. As part of the celebration, Maximinus ordered the execution of a number of Christian prisoners. The Theban Legion refused to comply with the order and withdrew from the rites, even going so far as to camp away from the rest of the army so as not to be drawn into what they saw as horrifyingly against their beliefs. Maximinus repeatedly ordered the Theban Legion to comply with his orders, and when they continued to refuse, he ordered the unit "decimated," a practice in which every tenth man was put to death. The Legion was not shaken at all, despite threats of a second decimation, which was performed. Maximinus told those remaining that they would all be killed, but their captain, Maurice, inspired them with the example of the soldiers already martyred, and told them that they were all assured of a place in Heaven for holding fast to their faith. Every last man was beheaded by other soldiers, without resistance. Maximinus even went so far as to carry the executions out against every member of the Theban Legion stationed elsewhere in the Empire from Gaul down to Rome itself. A number of miracles are attributed to these holy soldiers. In Zurich, it is said that the beheaded Saints Felix, Regula, and Exuperantius rose up, and carrying their heads in their hands, walked to the top of a hill, knelt down and prayed, and finally lay down in final death. On this spot, a great cathedral was built and the image of the three saints carrying their heads appears on the coat of arms of Zurich today. Saint Maurice is one of the most popular saints in western Europe. There are over 650 sacred places bearing his name in France alone. Over seventy towns bear his name. In the Middle Ages, Saint Maurice was the patron saint of a number of the dynasties of Europe and later of the Holy Roman emperors, many of whom were anointed before the Altar of Saint Maurice at Saint Peter's Cathedral in Rome. King Sigismund of Burgundy donated land for a monastery in his honor in 515. Henry I (919-936) ceded the Swiss province of Aargua in exchange for the Lance of the Saints; and the sacred relic, the Sword of Saint Maurice, was last used in the coronation of Emperor Charles of Austria as king of Hungary in 1916. Saint Maurice's feast day is September 22.
It's funny how DaWhore only claims the Copts of Alexandria and other heavy Europeanized Delta areas as representatives of the indigenous Egyptians but never rural southern Egypt. Yet here we have first hand accounts by Europeans stating otherwise. In fact, the very name Maurice with its root word 'maur' (moor) spoke to the very black identity of this character and his people!
Oh and you are dead on about the pyramidiot claiming that all blacks in Euro-Christiandom art was evil or demonic, when St. Maurice is obviously was not.
How befitting that their ancestors prayed on their "rosy red knees" to kneegrows! LOL
We have ancestors who bent a knee to the unemployable son of a Jewish carpenter, to fishermen, tax collectors and former harlots, so why should it be an embarrassment to also revere a centurion in the Roman army? However there is no evidence that the original St Maurice was a negro, just because medieval Germans portrayed him as one. All we know is that he was said to be an officer of the Theban legion. He could have been a Roman or an Egyptian, or a citizen of any other country in the Empire. The medieval Catholic Church liked to think itself universal and thus included representatives of all known races among its iconography. In the Eastern Church there was even a Saint Christopher who belonged to a mythical race of dog-headed men!
My theory about the black St Maurice statue in Magdeburg cathedral is that it may be a tribute to Christian Sudanese or Ethiopian warriors who may have allied with the European Crusaders against the Muslims. (This is also what Basil Davidson thought). More often, however, the crusaders encountered black warriors on the Muslim side (for example at the battle of Arsuf).
Posts: 870 | From: uk | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^ LMAO Your personal "theory" is irrelevant to the FACTS. Fact is the statue was meant ot represent St. Maurice. Fact is Saint Maurice was an indigenous EGYPTIAN from rural Thebes and thus best representative of his ancient ancestors unlike the European descended Alexandrians you love to uphold as the 'real' Egyptians!
quote:Originally posted by DaHoslips101: As you insist on denying the obvious,here's a graphic demonstration of how the darkest flesh region on the semite captive is actually darker than the darkest flesh area on the Egyptian king...
LOL First off, your graphic color palette is off as they are obviously not the same color as the highlighted paint on the portraits. The paint on Ramses is not even that light as your silly palette.
Second of all, I find it funny how you highlighted the area around the eyes, when it is a known fact that all eyes were outlined in black paint. No doubt the black paint faded and/or mixed with the lighter paint around it. LOL
Here is a black-white photo of a mural of Ramses in his siege of Dapur.
Here is a European copy of a mural of Ramses battle of Kadesh.
Ramses fighting Meshwesh Libyans.
Ramses was consistently portrayed with a dark brown i.e. chocolate i.e. BLACK complexion. There is no getting around it. Ramses was darker than the Asiatic and was very dark because he is BLACK like all indigenous Egyptians were.
quote: The source of the Ramesses reconstruction is the mummified head of Ramesses, as you can see, and the nose is perfectly intact so you don't need to guess. That particular image was shown on the Discovery channel.
The nose is NOT perfectly in tact for the reasons I gave before. It was broken during the mummification process and then stuffed with peppercorn.
quote:Also the negroid reconstruction of Tut is laughable, with the enormous nose and lips. Not only do these not resemble any portrait of the king, from the many that we have, but they contradict the mummified remains. Tut's facial features are well enough preserved to show the high, narrow bridge to the nose, and the fact that the lips were full but not fleshy and well within the bounds for a caucasoid type. Three more recent reconstructions, done in France, the US and Egypt, all produced portraits that resembled each other but did not resemble that earlier travesty. (I can only imagine that it was an exercise in political correctness and appeasement towards the afrocentric movement).
LMAO You are an ignoramus. You praise the Ramses reconstruction though the more "negroid" one of Tut as you put it was also created by and shown on the Discovery Channel! The only difference is that the team who reconstructed Tut was double-blinded meaning they didn't know who the skull belonged to and therefore were not prone to any political bias, whereas the team who reconstructed Ramses was NOT double-blinded!
You say that reconstruction of Tut doesn't look like his portraits. Which portraits are you referring to?
As I explained the team who did the Tut reconstruction were still bias in giving Tut wide nose because he was African as not all Africans have that. In fact your whole premise of cockasian features such as narrow bridge nose etc. are all b.s. because of the fact that such features have nothing to do with peoples of the Caucasus Mountains or Europe. Many black Africans have those features as well!! And I already cited Dr. Susan Anton who aided in National Geographic's reconstruction and she agrees also that the label of "caucasian" is nonsense!! You have this habit of ignoring evidence while promoting debunk mess! This is why you will always FAIL.
Posts: 26307 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Officer conducts 2 Judeans to the King. Detail of the Assyrian conquest of the Jewish fortified town of Lachish (battle 701 BCE). Part of a relief from the palace of Sennacherib at Niniveh, Mesopotamia (Iraq)
British Museum, London, Great Britain
ANTIQUITIES ORIENTAL:ASSUR RELIEF 10TH-6TH BCE
Assyrian warriors empaling jewish prisoners after conquering Jewish fortress Lachish (battle 701 BCE). Part of a relief from the palace of Sennacherib at Niniveh, Mesopotamia (Iraq) British Museum, London, Great Britain
ANTIQUITIES ORIENTAL:ASSUR RELIEF 10TH-6TH BCE
Assyrian dignitary. Detail of the Assyrian conquest of the Jewish fortified town of Lachish (battle 701 BCE). Part of a relief from the palace of Sennacherib at Niniveh, Mesopotamia (Iraq) British Museum, London, Great Britain
ANTIQUITIES ORIENTAL:ASSUR RELIEF 10TH-6TH BCE
Jewish prisoners with camel and baggage on their way into exile. Detail of the Assyrian conquest of the Jewish fortified town of Lachish (battle 701 BCE). Part of a relief from the palace of Sennacherib at Niniveh, Mesopotamia (Iraq) British Museum, London, Great Britain
ANTIQUITIES ORIENTAL:ASSUR RELIEF 10TH-6TH BCE
2 Jewish captives with folded hands. Detail of the Assyrian conquest of the Jewish fortified town of Lachish (battle 701 BCE). Part of a relief from the palace of Sennacherib at Niniveh, Mesopotamia (Iraq) British Museum, London, Great Britain
ANTIQUITIES ORIENTAL:ASSUR RELIEF 10TH-6TH BCE
Assyrian slingers attacking the Judean fortified town of Lachish (battle 701 BCE). Part of a relief from the palace of Sennacherib at Niniveh, Mesopotamia (Iraq) See also 03-03-02/29 British Museum, London, Great Britain
ANTIQUITIES ORIENTAL:ASSUR RELIEF 10TH-6TH BCE
Assyrian warriors with their spoil from the conquest of the Jewish town of Lachish (battle 701 BCE). Part of a relief from the palace of Sennacherib at Niniveh, Mesopotamia (Iraq) British Museum, London, Great Britain
Posts: 22244 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
ANTIQUITIES ORIENTAL:ASSUR RELIEF 10TH-6TH BCE Judean exiles carrying provisions. Detail of the Assyrian conquest of the Jewish fortified town of Lachish (battle 701 BCE). Part of a relief from the palace of Sennacherib at Niniveh, Mesopotamia (Iraq) British Museum, London, Great Britain
ANTIQUITIES ORIENTAL:ASSUR RELIEF 10TH-6TH BCE
Assyrian warriors leading two horses. Detail of the Assyrian conquest of the Jewish fortified town of Lachish (battle 701 BCE). Part of a relief from the palace of Sennacherib at Niniveh, Mesopotamia (Iraq) British Museum, London, Great Britain
In addition...
Old Testament Art at the Time of the Assyrian Conquest of Israel
By Bonnie Oswald, BFA, MA
Israel, living in wickedness and idolatry, was warned by prophets Elijah, Elisha, and Hosea, to repent or face conquest. Prophets and Kings from Judah offered help, and invited them to return to the temple in Jerusalem. These offers they scorned, becoming ripe for destruction.
The Assyrians viciously brought that destruction.
Reconstruction of Nineveh
As we read in the Old Testament of the Assyrians conquering Israel and much of Judah, it is easy to visualize these people as they were pictured at the time in the palaces of the Assyrians. Nineveh is a rich trove of art showing the Assyrian kings and captives majestically portrayed in magnificent bas reliefs. Assyrian art is instantly recognizable because of the pictures of raw strength. Everyone is shown heavily muscled, even the animals.
"King Assurbanipal decked out for the hunts. British Museum.
Assyrian God from Nineveh wall relief. Note the muscular legs in this figure, typical of Assyrian Art.
Boston Museum of Fine Arts."
Captives were treated particularly harshly. The Geneva Convention was not in the thought process of the Assyrians, who believed in spreading fear among the surrounding enemies.
By about 900 BC, Assyria was becoming a fierce war machine, dominating the Near East for 300 years until they were conquered by the Babylonians. Centuries of warfare — as the predominant aspect of their culture — hardened them into a brutal people.
In the temples and palaces, rich with militaristic art, there are no happy scenes of banquets, dancing, feasting, or happy family scenes. All Assyrian art is centered on power.
Tilgath Pileser (also known in the Old Testament as Pul) reigned from 745-727 BC. He warred against Syria and advanced along the Mediterranean, subjugating Phoenicia and Gaza. He conquered Israel in 721 BC, removing the Israelites, and advanced on Judah. Palace art shows captives and vassals paying tribute to the kings.
Tilgath Pileser (Pul), shown in court in his palace, from an artist's reconstruction from a bas relief. 8th C. BC, Louvre
Kings’ sport was shooting lions while riding in chariots. Dying lions and lion hunts figure prominently in palace art. While people were depicted with little emotion, animals were shown with great sensitivity, as we see in this excellent relief of a dying lioness.
Dying Lioness, limestone, 650 BC, British Museum
Someday, when we get the scriptures from the Ten Tribes, it will be interesting to hear the stories associated with the hardships they suffered under the Assyrians.
Israelite prisoners being marched out of Israel by Assyrian soldiers.
After the defeat of Israel, the Assyrians advanced on Judah, moving south, and conquering as they went. Watch fires were set that could be seen from one city to another, so the next city in line could see what was the state of the battle.
One of the most poignant archaeological finds related to this period is an ostracon from Lachish. Ostracon were broken pieces of fired clay or pottery. Relatively indestructible, they were used as message pads.
The Lachish Ostracon #4, found in the ruins of Lachish, ends a long message with the sad words, "and let my Lord know that we are watching for the signal fires of Lachish... for we cannot see Azekiah." Azekiah had been defeated, Lachish was next, and the giant Assyrian siege ramp is still visible. The message was never sent.
Ostracon #4 from Lachish.
After defeating Lachish, the Assyrians moved on Jerusalem in 701 BC, and laid siege to the city. They were smitten by a plague (probably bubonic) and woke up all "dead corpses." (2 Kings 18, 19.) The king, Sennacherib, returned to Assyrian, abandoning Jerusalem, where he was assassinated by two of his sons while worshiping in the Assyrian temple.
Assyrians transplanted conquered peoples to other areas in their large kingdom, rendering them relatively helpless and disoriented. Their leadership was destroyed, and they were in unfamiliar areas, under guard. Other captive peoples were moved into their vacated lands. Some original Israelites were undoubtedly still in the area of Israel, having evaded capture. Mixed with the newly transplanted people brought by the Assyrians, they intermarried and mixed religious beliefs, absorbing elements of both.
When Judah was allowed to return under the Persians they scorned these people with their false religious practices, as they were despised at the time of Christ. They became known as the Samaritans.
Source: Meridian Magazine
Posts: 22244 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
E-M35, which defines the E1b1b1 (formerly E3b1) haplogroup, is considered to be the second highest, next to J, for "Founding Jewish Lineages" in Europe.
It is found in moderate amounts in all Jewish populations, from Ashkenazi, Sephardic, Kurdish, Yemen, Samaritan and even among Djerba Jewish groups.
Welcome!
The Jewish E Project (formerly Jewish E3b Project) is open to all males in Y-DNA haplogroup E and any of its subclades, who have KNOWN Jewish ancestry on their direct paternal line (your father's father's father, etc).
The E haplogroup has been observed in all Jewish groups world wide. One of its major subclades, E1b1b (formerly E3b) is considered to be the 2nd most prevalent haplogroup among the Jewish population.
E-M35, which defines the E1b1b1 (formerly E3b1) haplogroup, is considered to be the second highest, next to J, for "Founding Jewish Lineages" in Europe.
It is found in moderate amounts in all Jewish populations, from Ashkenazi, Sephardic, Kurdish, Yemen, Samaritan and even among Djerba Jewish groups.
—PN2 clade (E3) bearers in the vicinity of the Sudanese-Central African Republic -Ugandan-Kenyan region give rise to E3a ~ between 21 and 18 ky ago [pending additional or new info]; E3b-M35* would have likely arose relatively earlier than E3a*[as evidenced by its near absence in some the populations that carry this], sometime prior to the Ogolian and the LGM period. At this time, it was likely the M78 derivative that came about ~ between 19 and 15 ky ago. It was also likely during this period, that some E3b-M35 variants spilled over to the "southwest Asia", which would be identified as E-M34. The E-M78* likely arose somewhere in the bidirectional-migration route between Northeast and sub-Saharan East Africa; this location was likely in the region straddling upper Egypt and Sudan of the eastern Sahara, amongst earlier E-M35 migrants from sub-Saharan East Africa. These M78 bearers were increasingly pressured to move further south due to progressive aridity, possibly as far as Uganda-Kenya and/or Tanzanian general region.
Quoting Andrew Lancaster's article:
"As shall be shown, there are obvious reasons for considering whether Y Haplogroup E-M35 male lineages may have been present amongst peoples who spread the earliest Afroasiatic languages as well as the earliest technologies associated with farming and pastoralism in the Middle East, Africa and Europe.
"Ehret et al.(2004) in a short letter to , perhaps represents the first published remark associating E-M35 with the of Afroasiatic languages and Neolithic technologies, a subject this article intends to address in more detail."
"Importantly, we also wish to try to go beyond asserting that E-M35 and Afroasiatic have similar modern regional distributions. Therefore, this article shall also examine what is known of the larger phylogenetic (family tree) structure within which E-M35 is only one branching, as we must if we are to consider carefully how much genetics can add to debates in linguistics and archaeology."
"There are several relatively uncontroversial proposals concerning the ancient movements of Afroasiatic languages, each of which we can immediately compare to Haplogroup E-M35 and its sub-clades in population genetics:
Both E-M35 male lineages on the one hand, and Afroasiatic languages on the other, are seen by specialists in the two respective fields as having moved pre-historically within what Cruciani et al.(2007) refer to as a “bi-directional corridor” along the Nile and/or the western coast of the Red Sea, from the Sinai and Mediterranean, to the Horn of Africa."
Posts: 22244 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Study identifies genetic signatures for 3.5 million Ashkenazi Jews
About 3.5 million of today’s Ashkenazi Jews — 40 percent of the total Ashkenazi population — are descended from just four women, a genetic study indicates.
Those women apparently lived somewhere in Europe within the last 2,000 years, but not necessarily in the same place or even the same century, said lead author Dr. Doron Behar of the Rambam Medical Center in Haifa, Israel.
He did the work with Karl Skorecki of the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology and others.
Each woman left a genetic signature that shows up in their descendants today, he and colleagues say in a report published online by the American Journal of Human Genetics. Together, their four signatures appear in about 40 percent of Ashkenazi Jews, while being virtually absent in non-Jews and found only rarely in Jews of non-Ashkenazi origin, the researchers said.
They said the total Ashkenazi population is estimated at around 8 million people. The estimated world Jewish population is about 13 million.
Ashkenazi Jews are a group with mainly central and eastern European ancestry. Ultimately, though, they can be traced back to Jews who migrated from Israel to Italy in the first and second centuries, Behar said. Eventually this group moved to Eastern Europe in the 12th and 13th centuries and expanded greatly, reaching about 10 million just before World War II, he said.
Maternal lineages traced
The study involved mitochondrial DNA, called mtDNA, which is passed only through the mother. A woman can pass her mtDNA to grandchildren only by having daughters. So mtDNA is “the perfect tool to trace maternal lineages,” Behar said Thursday in a telephone interview.
About 3.5 million of today’s Ashkenazi Jews — 40 percent of the total Ashkenazi population — are descended from just four women, a genetic study indicates. web pagePosts: 22244 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
The origin of Eastern European Jews revealed by autosomal, sex chromosomal and mtDNA polymorphisms
Avshalom Zoossmann-Diskin et al.
Abstract
Background
This study aims to establish the likely origin of EEJ (Eastern European Jews) by genetic distance analysis of autosomal markers and haplogroups on the X and Y chromosomes and mtDNA.
Results
According to the autosomal polymorphisms the investigated Jewish populations do not share a common origin, and EEJ are closer to Italians in particular and to Europeans in general than to the other Jewish populations. The similarity of EEJ to Italians and Europeans is also supported by the X chromosomal haplogroups. In contrast according to the Y-chromosomal haplogroups EEJ are closest to the non-Jewish populations of the Eastern Mediterranean. MtDNA shows a mixed pattern, but overall EEJ are more distant from most populations and hold a marginal rather than a central position. The autosomal genetic distance matrix has a very high correlation (0.789) with geography, whereas the X-chromosomal, Y-chromosomal and mtDNA matrices have a lower correlation (0.540, 0.395 and 0.641 respectively).
Conclusions
The close genetic resemblance to Italians accords with the historical presumption that Ashkenazi Jews started their migrations across Europe in Italy and with historical evidence that conversion to Judaism was common in ancient Rome. The reasons for the discrepancy between the biparental markers and the uniparental markers are discussed.
Reviewers
This article was reviewed by Damian Labuda (nominated by Jerzy Jurka), Kateryna Makova and Qasim Ayub (nominated by Dan Graur).
Background
The genetic affinities of the Jewish populations have been studied since the early days of genetics, yet the origin of these populations is still obscure. Some of the studies, trying to establish the origins of the Jewish populations with autosomal markers, claimed that the Jewish populations have a common origin, but others concluded that the Jews are a very diverse group. This corpus of studies has already been critically reviewed [1].
The origin of Eastern European Jews, (EEJ) by far the largest and most important Ashkenazi population, and their affinities to other Jewish and European populations are still not resolved. Studies that compared them by genetic distance analysis of autosomal markers to European Mediterranean populations revealed that they are closer to Europeans than to other Jewish populations [1-3].
EEJ are the largest and most investigated Jewish community, yet their history as Franco-German Jewry is known to us only since their appearance in the 9th century, and their subsequent migration a few hundred years later to Eastern Europe [4,5]. Where did these Jews come from? It seems that they came to Germany and France from Italy [5-8]. It is also possible that some Jews migrated northward from the Italian colonies on the northern shore of the Black Sea [9]. All these Jews are likely the descendents of proselytes. Conversion to Judaism was common in Rome in the first centuries BC and AD. Judaism gained many followers among all ranks of Roman Society [10-13].
The aim of this study is to establish the likely origin of this major Jewish population by using a larger dataset of autosomal markers, and compare the results to analyses based on the available data for the X and Y chromosomes and for mtDNA.
Methods
Six Jewish populations: EEJ, Moroccan Jews, Iraqi Jews. Iranian Jews, Yemenite Jews and Ethiopian Jews, which have been studied for all the autosomal markers used in this study, are included in the analysis. EEJ are defined on the basis of history as those Jews originating from the areas of the Polish-Lithuanian Kingdom and their descendants in bordering regions, encompassing the territories of Russia, Poland, the Baltic States, Belarus, Moldavia, Moldova (the north-eastern part of Romania) and the Ukraine. The Data on the non-autosomal markers were also available for other Jewish populations: Bulgarian Jews (X, mtDNA), Turkish Jews (X, mtDNA), Tunisian Jews (mtDNA), Libyan Jews (Y, mtDNA) and Djerban Jews (Y).
The seventeen autosomal markers are: AK, ADA, PGM1, PGD, ACP, ESD, GPT, HP, GC, J311 MspI & MetH TaqI (both on chromosome 7 near the CF locus), FV G1691A, FII G20210A, MTHFR C677T, CBS 844ins68, ACE ID and PAH XmnI. All the markers are unique-event-polymorphisms, and apart from two insertions (CBS 844ins68, ACE ID) are all SNPs. The first nine markers are polymorphisms of red cell enzymes and serum proteins, and were typed mostly by protein electrophoresis, but the variation at the protein level is directly related in a 1:1 manner to the SNP variation at the DNA level. Indeed, some of the results for the Jewish populations were obtained by PCR methods [1,14]. The polymorphism of the remaining eight markers can only be detected at the DNA level. J311 MspI and MetH TaqI were typed in all the populations including the Israeli populations (unpublished results) by Southern blotting and hybridization [15,16]. The other 6 markers were typed in the Israeli populations by PCR methods. The data on FV G1691A, FII G20210A, MTHFR C677T and CBS 844ins68 have already been published [3,17]. The data on ACE ID and PAH XmnI are still unpublished. These polymorphisms were typed according to the methods of Rigat et al. [18] and Goltsov et al. [19] respectively. Allele frequencies for all the populations are given in Additional file 1: tables S1-4. Table S2 (Additional file 1) presents four markers on both sides of the CF locus. Because of the linkage between them, I chose to use only the two most distal markers, which are separated by a few centimorgans. Haplogroup frequencies of the non-recombining Y chromosome (NRY), the X chromosome (dystrophin locus, dys44, on Xp21.3) and mtDNA are given in Additional file 1: tables S5, S6 and S7 respectively.
Gower (cited in [20]) recommends, that for microevolutionary studies, when sample sizes are quite variable and gene frequencies do not differ greatly, Sanghvi's G2 [21] would be the most appropriate, and this is the measure I used. Distances were also calculated with Nei's [22] formula and the results were very similar (r = 0.990, genetic distance matrix not shown). The neighbor joining tree was computed by PHYLIP 3.66. Since it does not calculate Sanghvi's G2, I used Reynolds et al. distance [23], which is also based on the assumption that gene frequencies change by genetic drift alone, solely for the calculation of the tree (genetic distance matrix not shown). The significance of nodes in the tree and the standard errors of the genetic distances were computed by bootstrapping 10,000 times. Multidimensional scaling plots and Mantel tests for correlation between genetic distance matrices and between them and matrices of geographic distances were computed by NTSYS 1.70. Geographic distances were calculated as great circle distances between the capitals of the countries of origin of the populations (Warsaw was chosen for EEJ). Mantel test significance was assessed by 10,000 permutations.
Results
The autosomal genetic distances (table 1) do not show any particular resemblance between the Jewish populations. EEJ are closer to Italians in particular and to Europeans in general than to the other Jewish populations. All of the distances, apart from one, differ from zero by more than twice their standard error. A difference between two distances can be considered meaningful, if it is more than twice their largest standard error. The differences between the distance of EEJ from Italians and their distances from the other Jewish populations are meaningful according to this criterion, and the same is also true for all the Non-Jewish populations except for Greeks and Russians. In fact the distance between EEJ and Italians is the smallest distance in the matrix. A multidimensional scaling plot of the genetic distance matrix (figure 1) captures the proximity of EEJ to Italians and other European populations. The same is also true for the neighbor joining tree (figure 2). It should be noted that multidimensional scaling plots are a way to present graphically the intricate relationships of genetic distance matrices. As such they are necessarily less accurate than the matrices on which they are based. In order to understand the genetic affinities of a particular population, one must examine its distances in the matrix itself, not in the plot. The same also applies to the neighbor joining tree. The bootstrap values indicate the robustness of the clustering, but not the significance of individual genetic distances.
X-chromosomal haplogroups demonstrate the same relatedness of EEJ to Italians and other Europeans (table 2, figure 3). In contrast, according to the Y-chromosomal haplogroups EEJ are closest to the non-Jewish populations of the Eastern Mediterranean (table 3, figure 4). MtDNA shows a mixed pattern where EEJ are about equally close to Moroccan Jews, Palestinians, Italians and Bulgarian Jews, but overall are more distant from most populations and hold a marginal position in the MDS plot, rather than a central one like in the other plots (table 4, figure 5).
Correlations between genetic distance and geography and between genetic distance matrices based on different markers (excluding the non-Caucasoid populations Ethiopians and Ethiopian Jews) are shown in table 5. The autosomal polymorphisms have a very high correlation (0.789) with geography in contrast to the more moderate correlations of the X-chromosomal, Y-chromosomal and mtDNA polymorphisms (0.540, 0.395 and 0.641 respectively). In order to compare two competing theories regarding the origin of EEJ, their geographic distances were computed as if they originated from Italy or Israel, i.e. the great circle distances for EEJ were calculated not between Warsaw and other capitals, but between Rome or Jerusalem and other capitals. The correlation between the autosomal genetic distance matrix and geography was slightly higher, 0.804, for Rome but dropped to 0.694 for Jerusalem. Autosomal distances are much better correlated with mtDNA distances (0.826) and with X-chromosomal distances (0.732) than with Y-chromosomal distances (0.437). The correlations between the mtDNA and X-chromosomal matrices and the Y-chromosomal matrix are rather poor (0.206 and 0.241 respectively) and insignificant. When the correlations with geography were only calculated for the genetic distances of EEJ and not for the entire matrix (table 6), the same trends emerge with the autosomal correlation from Rome reaching a high of 0.926. The correlations from Jerusalem are negative for the autosomes, the X chromosome and mtDNA. The reverse is true for the Y chromosome.
Discussion
The autosomal genetic distance analysis presented here clearly demonstrates that the investigated Jewish populations do not share a common origin. The resemblance of EEJ to Italians and other European populations portrays them as an autochthonous European population. A study conducted in a New York college in the 1920s point to the same Ashkenazi - Italian similarity on basis of physical characteristics. Freshmen were asked before they knew one another to indicate the origin of their fellow students. Forty percent of the Italians were taken to be Ashkenazi Jews, and the same percentage of Ashkenazi Jews was adjudged Italians [24]. EEJ seem to be mainly Italian (Roman) in origin, which is easily understood, considering the historical evidence presented above.
The high correlation between the autosomal genetic distances and geography and the reduced correlation when EEJ are taken to originate from the Land of Israel reinforce the European origin of EEJ. In fact the correlation of the autosomal markers with geography is higher than previously described for 49 classical markers (0.503) or ~300,000 autosomal SNPs (0.661) in Europe [25]. If for comparison, only non-Jewish European populations are included, the correlation is lower, 0.689, but still higher than the above mentioned correlations. It is also interesting to note how using the three geographic alternatives for EEJ, changes the correlation, when only European populations are included. The correlation remains almost the same, 0.679, for Rome but drops to 0.490 and 0.571 for Warsaw and Jerusalem respectively; further emphasizing the correct geographic origin of EEJ within Europe.
Biparental versus uniparental markers
At first sight it seems that there is more than one explanation for the differing results produced by the analysis of the NRY haplogroups. It thus seems possible that EEJ founder population in Rome was composed of exiled Israelite males and local Roman females. In its simple form this clearly contradicts the facts, because both the autosomal and X-chromosomal polymorphisms demonstrate that EEJ do not occupy an intermediate position between European and Middle Eastern populations, but rather a strict European one. From table 1 it is clear that Italians are as close or closer to the other Jewish populations and Palestinians as EEJ. It is possible that once the founder population was established no other males but many females joined it, thus creating a population that is almost entirely European in all genetic aspects apart from its Y chromosomes. Such phenomenon was described for the population of Antioquia, Columbia, where the autosomes point to 79% of European ancestry and only 16% of Amerindian ancestry, whereas according to mtDNA the ancestry is 90% Amerindian and only 2% European (there is also a small African component). Historical records demonstrate that local Amerindian females joined the population only at its beginning, whereas European males joined it also in later periods [26]. The suggestion that the proselyte ancestors of EEJ were almost entirely females does not however accord with what we know about conversion to Judaism [10,12,27-29].
The inference that the NRY points to a Middle Eastern origin of EEJ is erroneous not only because the Y chromosomal analysis contradicts the analyses based on the other chromosomes, and because the NRY is a single uniparental marker that does not represent the whole history of the population, but also because its smaller effective population size makes it much more vulnerable to severe genetic drift caused by demographic bottlenecks. The demographic histories of three Jewish populations exemplify how different demographic patterns make the uniparental markers more reliable for Iraqi (Babylonian) Jews and Yemenite Jews and less reliable for EEJ. Both Yemenite Jews and Iraqi Jews resemble populations from their regions of origin according to autosomal markers [1,3,30-32]. Yemenite Jews, who are usually considered a small isolate, were numerous enough to have an independent kingdom in the first centuries AD [33]. They numbered a few hundred thousand in the 12th century AD, and gradually declined; reaching only about 30-40,000 in the beginning of the 20th century [34]. Babylonian Jews numbered more than a million in the first century AD [35], and constituted the majority of the population in the area between the Euphrates and the Tigris in the 2nd-3rd centuries AD [36]. Gilbert [37] estimates that by 600 AD there were 806,000 Jews in Mesopotamia, and according to Sassoon [38] it was inhabited by about a million Jews in the 7th century. In the 14th century the estimates for Baghdad alone range from 70,000 to hundreds thousands [38]. By 1939, 11 years before their emigration, there were 91,000 Jews in Iraq [35]. In contrast, the Jewish population of the Polish-Lithuanian Kingdom (EEJ) went through the opposite process. Their history is one of founder effects, migrations, demographic bottlenecks and finally a rapid expansion. We know nothing about their number in the first millennium, but after their emigration from Italy to Western Europe it is estimated that they numbered 4,000 in 1000 and 20,000 a hundred years later [8]. In 1500 already in Eastern Europe they numbered 10,000-30,000, in 1648 230,000-450,000 and in 1764 750,000 [39-41]. In the 19th century because of the partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Kingdom and the immigrations of Jews to Central and Western Europe and America, the estimation of the number of EEJ becomes more difficult, but there is no doubt that the increase in numbers was impressive, as the number of EEJ under Russian rule alone was 5,200,000 in 1897 [41].
The existence of severe demographic bottlenecks in the history of EEJ has also been suggested by genetic studies of disease-causing-mutations and mtDNA [42-46]. The comparison based on this second uniparental marker, mtDNA, may help to resolve from within genetics itself the problem of the Y chromosome reliability for inferring the origin of the male ancestors of EEJ. If the European and Middle Eastern contributions to the gene pool of EEJ were female and male respectively, then comparisons based on mtDNA must place EEJ among other European populations, distant from Middle Eastern populations. The mtDNA analysis presented in this study does not place EEJ among other European populations rather their position is more intermediate and marginal, as can be seen in figure 5 and in figure 6, where autosomal distances are correlated with mtDNA distances. This lends further support to the notion that because of the unique demographic history of EEJ, their uniparental markers were subjected to stronger genetic drift than the biparental markers and thus should not be used to trace their origin.
The data on the Y chromosome itself also support the unreliability of the uniparental markers for discovering the origin of EEJ. Nebel et al. [47] studied haplogroup R-M17, whose frequency is ~12% in Ashkenazi Jews. By comparing the structure of the STRs network among the various Ashkenazi populations and among the various European non-Jewish populations they reached the conclusion that a single male founder introduced this haplogroup into Ashkenazi Jews in the first millennium. Behar et al. [48] write "It is striking that whereas Ashkenazi populations are genetically more diverse at both the SNP and STR level compared with their European non-Jewish counterparts, they have greatly reduced within-haplogroup STR variability ... This contrasting pattern of diversity in Ashkenazi populations is evidence for a reduction in male effective population size, possibly resulting from a series of founder events and high rates of endogamy within Europe. This reduced effective population size may explain the high incidence of founder disease mutations despite overall high levels of NRY diversity". It is unlikely that EEJ are the descendants of a single population. Admixture coupled with small effective population size and bottlenecks can create the puzzling situation we encounter in the uniparental markers. Thus smaller contributions from several populations, including possibly the original Middle Eastern Jewish population, and a major contribution from Italy combined with the unique demography of EEJ can create the current genetic picture without the need to invoke a major contribution from the Middle East, which contradicts the autosomal and X-chromosomal data.
Comments on previous studies
Some previous studies based on classical autosomal markers concluded that EEJ are a Middle Eastern population with genetic affinities to other Jewish populations. The problems with these studies have been previously discussed in detail [1]. These studies used fewer markers (mostly the less reliable antigenic markers) and failed to include European Mediterranean populations, apart from the discriminant analysis of Carmelli and Cavalli-Sforza [49], which used only four markers and contradicts the results of the later more elaborate discriminant analysis [1], and the genetic distance analysis of Livshits et al. [32], which includes a single European Mediterranean population, Spain. Despite this when a genetic distance analysis was performed, the greater similarity of EEJ to Russians and to a lesser extent to Germans more than to Non-European Jews was evident [32]. In fact Russians were more similar to EEJ than to any Non-Jewish European population in that analysis.
Recently, Cochran et al. [50] used 251 autosomal loci to calculate genetic distances and concluded that "from the perspective of a large collection of largely neutral genetic variation Ashkenazim are essentially European, not Middle Eastern". More recently, thousands of SNPs were used by Need et al. [51] to infer the relationships between Ashkenazi Jews and non-Jewish Europeans and Middle Easterners. They concluded that Ashkenazi Jews lie approximately midway between Europeans and the Middle Easterners, implying that Ashkenazi Jews may contain mixed ancestry from these two regions, and that they are close to the Adygei population from the Caucasus. However these conclusions are ill-founded, because, they used a highly selected set of SNPs, which were selected specifically for the purpose of distinguishing between Ashkenazi Jews and other populations and they inferred the origin of Ashkenazi Jews from principal components analysis (PCA), but as Tian et al. [52] show "PCA results are highly dependent on which population groups are included in the analysis. Thus, there should be some caution in interpreting these results and other results from similar analytic methods with respect to ascribing origins of particular ethnic groups'" Tian et al. [52] also published a table of paired Fst distances based on 10,500 random SNPs, which demonstrates that Ashkenazi Jews are not at all close to the Adygei population, and similarly to what is seen in table 1, their smallest distance is to Italians and then to Greeks. Unlike the assertion of Need et al. [51] on the midway position, and again similarly to what is seen in table 1, Italians and Greeks are closer to the Middle Eastern populations than Ashkenazi Jews.
The same phenomenon is seen in the table of Fst distances of Atzmon et al. [53]. North Italians (Bergamo and Tuscany) are a little closer to the Jewish and Middle Eastern populations than Ashkenazi Jews. The Italians from Tuscany (surprisingly the sample from Bergamo was not used) in Behar et al. [54] are also closer to the Jewish and Middle Eastern populations than Ashkenazi Jews. The Italians from Tuscany are in fact the closest population to Ashkenazi Jews in Behar et al. [54]. There is one sample that is apparently a little closer, what they call Sephardic Jews. Unfortunately this sample is composed of two populations, Turkish Jews and Bulgarian Jews, which should have been studied separately like all other Jewish populations. Bulgarian Jews have been shown in the past based on autosomal classical markers to be closer to EEJ than to populations with Sephardic ancestry and considering their history it was concluded that the Ashkenazi component in their gene pool is at least as large or even larger that the Sephardic component [1]. From both The current study and those of Atzmon et al. [53] and Behar et al. [54] it can be seen that the only Jewish populations that are as close to Ashkenazi Jews as non-Jewish Europeans are those with a significant Sephardic (The descendants of the Jews who were expelled from the Iberian peninsula at the end of the 15th century) component in their gene pool. It is not possible at this stage to say what is the source of this resemblance, since we don't know what is the origin of Sephardic Jews, but considering all the genetic affinities of both groups it likely stems from Sephardic Jews being the descendants of converts in the Mediterranean basin rather than from a common Jewish origin in the Land of Israel. When one compares the autosomal distances of EEJ (current study) or Ashkenazi Jews (in Atzmon et al. [53] and Behar et al. [54]) from the Jewish populations that were investigated in the current study, Iraqi, Iranian, Moroccan, Yemenite and Ethiopian Jews, one finds perfect agreement. EEJ or Ashkenazi Jews are much closer to non-Jewish Europeans than to these Jewish populations in all three studies.
The studies of Atzmon et al. [53] and Behar et al. [54] are based on 164,894 and 226,839 SNPs respectively. While this impressive number reduces the errors of the distances that stem from the number of markers, the errors that stem from sampling only a small number of individuals are much larger in these studies, where sample sizes can be as small as 2-4 individuals. The effect of these errors can be seen in table 7. Despite the small number of markers the current matrix has the highest correlation with geography. Moreover it has a higher correlation with each of the two other matrices than the two of them have with each other. The high correlations between the current matrix and the other two attest for the robustness of the autosomal genetic distances in this study. The lower correlation between the two matrices, which are based on more than 150,000 SNPs, is surprising and even more so, if we remember that the four non-Jewish populations are represented by exactly the same individuals taken from the Human Genome Diversity Panel (HGDP). It is likely then that sampling more individuals, which represent more of the variation of the investigated populations, is far more important than typing many markers. It is also possible that the typing error rates of genome-wide microarray studies are much higher, as demonstrated by the genotyping errors that were discovered in 7 out of 29 (24%) reexamined SNPs [55]. It seems therefore, that good characterization of the genetic relationships between populations can be achieved by a small number of good unique-event-polymorphisms.
Conclusions
EEJ are Europeans probably of Roman descent who converted to Judaism at times, when Judaism was the first monotheistic religion that spread in the ancient world. Any other theory about their origin is not supported by the genetic data. Future studies will have to address their genetic affinities to various Italian populations and examine the possibility of other components both European and Non-European in their gene pool.
Competing interests
The author declares that he has no competing interests.
Reviewers' comments
Reviewer's report 1 Damian Labuda, Pediatrics Department, Montreal University Sainte-Justine Hospital Research Center, Montreal, PQ Canada (nominated by Jerzy Jurka, Genetic Information Research Institute, Mountain View, California USA).
The author compiled and reanalyzed the data on autosomal and sex chromosomes polymorphisms collected by different laboratories on different Jewish and West-Eurasiatic populations. His analysis indicates much greater European component of Eastern European Jews, EEJ (essentially Ashkenazim) than of other Jewish groups. Moreover the analysis points to Italians as the closest population to EEJ.
The question is how to interpret this evidence. Imperial Rome was a very cosmopolitan city culturally and genetically diverse. To what extent a sample of contemporary Italians preserves the genetic link to its population? It can simply reflect a mixture of historical influences from different centers around the Mediterranean Sea. We should thus keep in mind that the Italian connection may simply indicate Southern European and Mediterranean links with the latter including Middle Eastern roots.
Interestingly, this analysis that is based on a limited number of markers provided results that are very similar to a paper of Atzmon and colleagues, published five days ago in the American Journal of Human Genetics, and based on the microarray-based genotyping genome of wide distributed markers. I would like the author to comment on this paper in the context of his findings and his thoughts and reflections on the origin of Jewish Diasporas. Should we go back to the single locus analyses, as in the case of uniparentally transmitted markers, but targeting one by one different individual segments of the nuclear genome? Perhaps, in this way we could partition and identify genetic ancestries of different populations, which due to their history of relative isolation, are considered as genetically homogenous.
The author refers to Sangvi's G2 as the most appropriate distance metrics. Could you make it more clear when this metric was used and when that of Reynolds (only to produce a tree?).
Author's response
The historical sources listed above show that conversion to Judaism was common in ancient Rome among all ranks of the Roman society including the imperial families. It is thus unlikely that the original Roman population did not constitute a significant portion of the proselytes. What else can explain the resemblance of EEJ to a general sample of Italians in this study and to more local samples in the two array studies [53,54]? In all three studies the genetic affinities of the Ashkenazim are very similar to the affinities of the Italians, with the Ashkenazim usually being a bit more distant from the other populations, as can be expected from a population that underwent a stronger genetic drift. It is thus unlikely that the Ashkenazim are a mixture of people from different places in the Mediterranean basin, unless current-day Italians themselves not only have absorbed foreign genetic contributions, but actually constitute such a mixture, and this seems unlikely as well. The very high correlation (0.926) between the genetic distances of EEJ and geographic distances, when the latter are calculated from Rome, also supports the origin of EEJ from Italy or its vicinity and not merely from the Mediterranean basin. The similarity to Italians was also evident when several Italian populations from different provinces were included in a comparison based on classical autosomal markers. Most Italian populations were closer to EEJ than all other populations (data not shown).
My comments on the papers by Atzmon et al. [53] and Behar et al. [54] are in the discussion. Studying autosomal haplotypes will indeed contribute to revealing the ancestries of populations, but in order to gain meaningful insights one ought to study at least several loci and ensure that sample sizes are adequate, this may entail more effort than studying single SNPs, and I am not sure that the affinities between the populations are going to be depicted more accurately. I changed the phrasing in Methods to make it clearer that the formula of Reynolds et al. was only used for the calculation of the tree.
Reviewer's report 2
Kateryna Makova, Department of Biology, Penn State University, Pennsylvania USA.
This is an interesting manuscript that presents intriguing results. I have only a few comments:
1. The introduction is very short, while the discussion is lengthy. I suggest moving parts of the Discussion to the Introduction.
2. Some of the statements in the Discussion are too strong. I disagree with statements about "erroneous Y chromosomal genetic distances", "both uniparental markers should not be used to trace their origin", "uniparental markers being unreliable". The author should modify them.
Author's response
I moved the paragraph on the history of EEJ to the Introduction. The current revised version of the paper includes a new comparison based on mtDNA. I maintain that it adds more weight to my assertion that the uniparental markers should not be used to trace the origin of EEJ. In no way did I mean that the uniparental markers are always unreliable; to clarify it I modified the relevant sentence in the discussion. Indeed from the demographic examples that I give in the Discussion, it seems that the uniparental markers can be used to study the origins of Iraqi Jews and Yemenite Jews.
Reviewer's report 3
Qasim Ayub, The Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, Hinxton, UK (nominated by Dan Graur, Department of Biology and Biochemistry, University of Houston, Houston, USA).
The paper by Zoossmann-Diskin entitled 'The origin of Eastern European Jews revealed by autosomal and sex chromosomal polymorphisms' explores autosomal and sex chromosomal polymorphisms in six Jewish populations using previously published and additional unpublished data. The author concludes that the Jewish populations examined do not share a common origin and that Eastern European Jews are closer to the Italian population.
My major concern is the choice of markers and populations used in this study. The author has analyzed 17 autosomal loci, including 9 polymorphic protein electrophoretic variants in which the genotype was assumed. Although phenotypes often do correlate with genotypes assuming that they do can lead to erroneous results. Of the remaining 8 it is unclear whether the same samples were genotyped as the sample numbers for each locus vary widely (Supplementary Tables 2-4).
The author also uses Y hapologroup frequencies and shows a multidimensional scaling plot of Y chromosomal genetic distance matrix. However, the supplementary data (Supplementary Table 5) lists an outdated nomenclature for Y haplogroups as the M78 marker is no longer considered part of haplogroup E3b1. It would be more appropriate to list which markers are used to designate the haplogroups to ensure that they are comparable. In addition, the haplogroups that are selected for these analyses do not provide phylogenetic resolution to reliably detect male genetic sub-structure within the Middle East. The omission of recent mtDNA studies (Behar et al., 2008, PLoS One 3:e2062) is surprising as is the use of a single X chromosomal locus (DYS44) to make broad conclusions about genetic relatedness.
Current evidence, supported more recently by two major studies carried out on Jewish populations (Atzmon et al., Am J H Genetics 86:850-859; Behar et al., Nature doi:10.1038) using a much larger dataset clearly demonstrate a common genetic thread linking the diverse Mizrahi, Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jewish populations with the populations from the Levant and Middle East. The Ashkenazi show a European component but this is shared with many Eastern and Southern Europeans populations. These studies contradict the author's conclusion and demonstrate the power of using unbiased markers and host populations in corresponding geographic regions to address issues such as genetic relatedness among Jewish and non-Jewish populations
Author's response
I am not sure what Dr Ayub means by "assumed", but I suspect that he means something like the relationships between phenotype and genotype in certain blood groups, in which one (or more) allele is dominant over the other and the gene frequencies of the alleles have to be inferred from the phenotypes assuming Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. In such cases there may indeed be errors in the gene frequencies. Protein electrophoretic markers are completely different. Nothing is inferred! As mentioned in Methods all the protein electrophoretic markers in this study represent a SNP at the DNA level. This SNP causes an amino acid change that can be detected at the protein level. Both alleles are directly viewed on the gel in the same way as both alleles of an RFLP are directly viewed on the gel. Gene frequencies are determined in both cases by simple gene counting and the error rate in protein electrophoresis is no greater than in DNA studies. There is no need to type the same samples for all the polymorphisms, because the unit of study is the population, not the individual. One can use polymorphisms typed by different researchers using different samples and combine them to create a genetic profile of each population. Typing all the polymorphisms on the same sample does not add more credibility to the study. Indeed the renowned works that employed classical autosomal markers to portray the genetic affinities of human populations were based on many different samples typed by many different researchers [56,57].
The nomenclature in the Y chromosome supplementary table has been updated. Following the publication of the study by Behar et al. [54] it was possible to add more Jewish populations to the Y chromosome analysis and increase the number of chromosomes for the Jewish populations. This increase has come however at the expense of resolution, because Behar et al. [54] used fewer haplogroups in their analysis. Consequently the number of haplogroups was reduced from 15 in the original version to 14 in this revised version. I would have been happier if the available data on the Jewish populations had enabled greater resolution to reliably detect male genetic sub-structure within the Middle East, but since this work deals with the genetic affinities of EEJ, the current level is sufficient. The work of Behar et al. from 2008 was instrumental in creating the mtDNA matrix as can be seen in table 7 in Additional file 1. There was no need to cite it previously, as it did not contain any genetic distance analysis that could further clarify the origin of EEJ. I am surprised at Dr Ayub's surprise at the use of a single X chromosomal locus. It would have been better to use many X chromosomal loci, but even the use of single loci is advantageous, as I am sure even Dr Ayub would agree regarding the two other single loci that I use, the non-recombining Y chromosome (NRY) and mtDNA.
As written in the Discussion the genetic distance matrices of Atzmon et al. [53] and Behar et al. [54] do not contradict my results, but reinforce them. I completely reject Dr Ayub's claim that the markers or populations I used are biased in anyway, and I let the reader judge, where exactly the bias lies.
Posts: 22244 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Structural position of the Pleistocene Gesher Benot Ya'aqov site in the Dead Sea Rift zone
N. Goren-Inbar and S. Belitzky
Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel 91905
Department of Geology, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel 91904
Received 29 June 1988. Available online 19 November 2004.
Abstract
Newly discovered outcrops of the middle Pleistocene Benot Ya'aqov Formation are strongly disturbed due to recent tectonic activity along the Dead Sea Rift. The lacustrine-fluviatile sediments of this formation comprise the littoral facies of a paleo-lake that occupied the adjacent Hula Basin. Acheulian artifacts, found embedded in the formation, have typical African characteristics. The geographical position of the site (the northern extension of the East African Red Sea Rift System) is important for understanding hominid diffusion from Africa to Eurasia.
Posts: 22244 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^^ LMAO Your personal "theory" is irrelevant to the FACTS. Fact is the statue was meant ot represent St. Maurice. Fact is Saint Maurice was an indigenous EGYPTIAN from rural Thebes and thus best representative of his ancient ancestors unlike the European descended Alexandrians you love to uphold as the 'real' Egyptians!
quote:Originally posted by DaHoslips101: As you insist on denying the obvious,here's a graphic demonstration of how the darkest flesh region on the semite captive is actually darker than the darkest flesh area on the Egyptian king...
...
First off, your graphic color palette is off as they are obviously not the same color as the highlighted paint on the portraits. The paint on Ramses is not even that light as your silly palette.
Second of all, I find it funny how you highlighted the area around the eyes, when it is a known fact that all eyes were outlined in black paint. No doubt the black paint faded and/or mixed with the lighter paint around it. LOL
Here is a black-white photo of a mural of Ramses in his siege of Dapur.
--- Here is a European copy of a mural of Ramses battle of Kadesh.
---
hariot_RamesesII_Kadesh.jpg[/IMG]
Ramses fighting Meshwesh Libyans.
--- Ramses was consistently portrayed with a dark brown i.e. chocolate i.e. BLACK complexion. There is no getting around it. Ramses was darker than the Asiatic and was very dark because he is BLACK like all indigenous Egyptians were.
[QUOTE][qb] The source of the Ramesses reconstruction is the mummified head of Ramesses, as you can see, and the nose is perfectly intact so you don't need to guess. That particular image was shown on the Discovery channel.
The nose is NOT perfectly in tact for the reasons I gave before. It was broken during the mummification process and then stuffed with peppercorn.
quote:Also the negroid reconstruction of Tut is laughable, with the enormous nose and lips. Not only do these not resemble any portrait of the king, from the many that we have, but they contradict the mummified remains. Tut's facial features are well enough preserved to show the high, narrow bridge to the nose, and the fact that the lips were full but not fleshy and well within the bounds for a caucasoid type. Three more recent reconstructions, done in France, the US and Egypt, all produced portraits that resembled each other but did not resemble that earlier travesty. (I can only imagine that it was an exercise in political correctness and appeasement towards the afrocentric movement).
LMAO You are an ignoramus. You praise the Ramses reconstruction though the more "negroid" one of Tut as you put it was also created by and shown on the Discovery Channel! The only difference is that the team who reconstructed Tut was double-blinded meaning they didn't know who the skull belonged to and therefore were not prone to any political bias, whereas the team who reconstructed Ramses was NOT double-blinded!
You say that reconstruction of Tut doesn't look like his portraits. Which portraits are you referring to?
...
As I explained the team who did the Tut reconstruction were still bias in giving Tut wide nose because he was African as not all Africans have that. In fact your whole premise of cockasian features such as narrow bridge nose etc. are all b.s. because of the fact that such features have nothing to do with peoples of the Caucasus Mountains or Europe. Many black Africans have those features as well!! And I already cited Dr. Susan Anton who aided in National Geographic's reconstruction and she agrees also that the label of "caucasian" is nonsense!! You have this habit of ignoring evidence while promoting debunk mess! This is why you will always FAIL.
You show a b/w drawing (not a photo) based on an carved scene of the siege of Dapur, which retains no colour in actuality...
I'm sure the Hittites (who actually won the battle of Kadesh) were lighter skinned than the Egyptians, but that doesn't make the Egyptians blacks.
There was nothing wrong with my contrast image comparing Ramesses to the Syrian captive. Syrians didn't outline their eyes, as a rule, either, and I could easily have taken darker colour from elsewhere on the face. You're still denying the obvious. As for the mummy, Ramesses' nose retained its shape because of the stuffing, it was not distorted.
As for 'cockasoid', Egypt was and is closer to the Caucasus region than to black Africa.
North Africans are primarily caucasoid and not black. The fact remains that Anton and co identified Tut's skull as a North African, clearly having the present day population in mind, not knowing the age of the skull. This indicates that the ancient Egyptians resembled present-day north Africans. No portrait that can be found of Tutankhamun matches the broad-nosed, big lipped reconstruction (A). Anton's team's reconstruction (B), (similarly produced working double-blind), seems to be closer to the portraits.
Theban Egyptians do not resemble the Magdeburg statue of St Maurice, and no Medieval German sculptor is likely to have had a good idea what Theban Egyptians looked like 900 years previously. That's if St Maurice was even an actual Theban, which is hardly establised. Troops are not usually stationed in their home towns, especially when they are serving someone else's empire.
Posts: 870 | From: uk | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Millions of Jews traced to four women
Study identifies genetic signatures for 3.5 million Ashkenazi Jews
About 3.5 million of today’s Ashkenazi Jews — 40 percent of the total Ashkenazi population — are descended from just four women, a genetic study indicates.
Rasol/Great Jew, Media sensationalism left out the fact that the *origins* of the women are not conclusive. It says "likely from a Hebrew/Levantine mtDNA pool", no ones knows for sure even Hammer admitted it.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DaDumb1_01: You show a b/w drawing (not a photo) based on an carved scene of the siege of Dapur, which retains no colour in actuality...
Your point? Ramses' complexion is quite clear.
quote:I'm sure the Hittites (who actually won the battle of Kadesh) were lighter skinned than the Egyptians, but that doesn't make the Egyptians blacks.
Even though the Egyptians have chocolate dark complexions. Of course not! LOL
quote:There was nothing wrong with my contrast image comparing Ramesses to the Syrian captive. Syrians didn't outline their eyes, as a rule, either, and I could easily have taken darker colour from elsewhere on the face. You're still denying the obvious. As for the mummy, Ramesses' nose retained its shape because of the stuffing, it was not distorted.
You moron, I was referring to the way eyes were outlined as they were colored or drawn in portraits! As for Ramses' nose, it was explained to you how many times that the nasal bones were broken and then the nose was stuffed. How the hell can the stuffing retain its original shape if it was broken. In fact Explorer cited a source showing how the nasal bone was missing, perhaps discarded by the priests after it was broken during mummification!!
quote:As for 'cockasoid', Egypt was and is closer to the Caucasus region than to black Africa.
Sure. In your mind "black Africa" means Sub-Sahara or the Congo even though blacks are indigenous to *ALL* of Africa including Egypt, dummy!
quote:North Africans are primarily caucasoid and not black. The fact remains that Anton and co identified Tut's skull as a North African, clearly having the present day population in mind, not knowing the age of the skull. This indicates that the ancient Egyptians resembled present-day north Africans. No portrait that can be found of Tutankhamun matches the broad-nosed, big lipped reconstruction (A). Anton's team's reconstruction (B), (similarly produced working double-blind), seems to be closer to the portraits.
And again, you keep repeating the DEBUNKED concept of "caucasoid"! You realize that many black peoples in Sub-Sahara were also classified as "caucasoid" which is why the classification as all racial ones are debunked in the first place!! And correction, Dr. Anton described the skull as African PERIOD. NOT "North African", as she herself states the skull shape is common throughout the continent not just the northern part, liar. Also Dr. Anton's team was NOT double-blinded like the American team from Discovery channel, you twit. You complain about the Discovery reconstruction not looking like his other portraits however ALL of the portraits portray a BLACK person!!
quote:Theban Egyptians do not resemble the Magdeburg statue of St Maurice, and no Medieval German sculptor is likely to have had a good idea what Theban Egyptians looked like 900 years previously. That's if St Maurice was even an actual Theban, which is hardly establised. Troops are not usually stationed in their home towns, especially when they are serving someone else's empire.
That's because the Germans do what many Europeans and white peoples like yourself still do today-- they STEREOTYPE. Thus one stereotypical "Negro" to them is any black person including a Theban Egyptian! LOLPosts: 26307 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
The pathetic one is YOU! One with decent enough vision can see that the portrait of Ramses has traces of darker paint making his complexion much darker than the Semite, you buffoon!! Also, not only in that portrait but virtually *all* portraits of Ramses show him with a small straight nose which is a common trait among not only Egyptians but other black Africans of north and east Africa! 
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic