...
EgyptSearch Forums Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» EgyptSearch Forums » Deshret » For Michael.....Turks?

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: For Michael.....Turks?
xyyman
Member
Member # 13597

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for xyyman   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
hats off to 111
Who are the Khazars...I don't know.

https://khazardnaproject.wordpress.com/2016/05/05/responding-to-the-criticism-for-des-et-al-2016/

Responding to the criticism for Das et al. (2016)
Posted on May 5, 2016 by eelhaik
In Das et al. (2016), we applied the Geographic Population Structure (GPS) algorithm to the genomes of Yiddish and non-Yiddish speaking Ashkenazic Jews (and other Jewish and non-Jewish populations) to study the origin of their genomes. Since genetics, geography, and linguistics are well correlated we surmised that the origin of the DNA would point to the origin of the Yiddish language. Surprisingly, GPS traced 93% of the samples to northeastern Turkey where we found four villages whose names may be derived from the word Ashkenaz. By the proximity of this region to Slavic lands and combined with other historical and linguistic evidence our findings were in support of Prof. Wexler’s Slavic hypothesis rather than the dominant Rhineland hypothesis proposing a Germanic origin to Yiddish.


Next-generation genotype imputation service and methods - Sayantan Das,

Article metrics
Genotype imputation is a key component of genetic association studies, where it increases power, facilitates meta-analysis, and aids interpretation of signals. Genotype imputation is computationally demanding and, with current tools, typically requires access to a high-performance computing cluster and to a reference panel of sequenced genomes. Here we describe improvements to imputation machinery that reduce computational requirements by more than an order of magnitude with no loss of accuracy in comparison to standard imputation tools. We also describe a new web-based service for imputation that facilitates access to new reference panels and greatly improves user experience and productivity.


The study has been published two weeks ago and has been picked up by the media. It has been received nearly 100% positive coverage in over 100 media outlets and numerous blogs. Expectedly, we have also received a bit of criticism, some of it will be addressed here and some of it will be ignored because it is merely ad hominem, not science.

Genetic criticism

None has been received, however some people have voiced their concerns about the implications of our results to their potential relatedness to the ancient Judaeans. I have commented at length on this issue to the Israeli Globes (Hebrew). Briefly, our study did not focus on the origin of Jews or even all Ashkenazic Jews, but rather the origin of Yiddish using a third of the Ashkenazic Jewish community for which genomic data were available. Testing whether one is related to the ancient Judaeans, Jesus, Moses, or Muhammad requires actually sequencing the genomes of these people and meticulously comparing it with modern day genomes looking for shared biomarkers. As opposed to the latter three we actually have plenty of ancient Judaeans skeletons that no one has ever sequenced (and probably never will). Why the DNA of the ancient Judaeans has not being sequenced and settle the question of relatedness once and for all is a question that should be directed to Israeli archeologists. It is most unfortunate that the members of the general public have been mislead to believe (no doubt after paying a lot of money to DTC companies) that they are related to ancient figures without any shred of evidence. However, this is not something our study aims to prove or disprove.

--------------------
Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming

Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
xyyman
Member
Member # 13597

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for xyyman   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"In “Scholars Blast New Study Tracing Ashkenazi Jews to Khazars of Ancient Turkey” Mr. Liphshiz cites two academics who criticized on our study, or more precisely, criticized the press release: most blasting indeed. First is Prof. Sergio DellaPergola, a demographer who proposed that including Sephardic Jews would have changed our findings.

serious research would have factored in the glaring genetic similarity between Sephardim [sic] and Ashkenazim [sic], which mean Polish Jews are more genetically similar to Iraqi Jews than to a non-Jewish Pole.

First, let us start with a basic biology. Each person has unique DNA: studying the DNA of non-Ashkenazic Jews would not change the DNA of Ashkenazic Jews nor the predicted origin of their DNA (i.e., “ancient Ashkenaz” in northeastern Turkey). GPS is an unbiased algorithm, that is, including or excluding other samples does not change the results for the test samples. GPS also cannot relocate the villages bearing the name of Ashkenaz to Germany.

Second, Iraqi and Iranian Jews are extremely similar, and the latter were indeed included in the study. The genetic similarity between Ashkenazic Jews and Iranian Jews was explained by their shared Iranian-Turkic past.

Had Prof. DellaPergola bothered to read our study rather than rely on the above figure, which was produced for the press and for simplicity included only Ashkenazic Jews, he would have found that we have analyzed Sephardic Jews (The yellow and pink triangles below in Figure 4 from Das et al. 2016 correspond to Iranian and Mountain Jews considered “Sephardic Jews”).

Ashkenaz

Third, to date, only three biogeographical analyses were carried out for Ashkenazic Jews. The first was done by Elhaik (2013) who mapped Ashkenazic Jews to western Turkey, ~100km away from “ancient Ashkenaz” and included only Ashkenazic Eastern European Jews. The second was done by Behar et al. (2013), who included both Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jews and mapped Ashkenazic Jews to Eastern Turkey, ~600km away from “ancient Ashkenaz.” Using a large dataset that include mostly Ashkenazic Jews and some Sephardic Jews and a more accurate algorithm, the third study by Das et al. (2016) discovered “ancient Ashkenaz.” In summary, all three studies pointed to Turkey. Interestingly, Behar et al. (2013) interpreted their results in favor of a Middle Eastern (Israelite) origin, although it is unsupported by their data. The inclusion of Sephardic samples did not change the Turkish geo location for the latter two studies.

Unlike Prof. DellaPergola, historian Prof. Shaul Stampfer, went to an even greater length enlightening us with his well supported criticism of our study:
"

--------------------
Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming

Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
xyyman
Member
Member # 13597

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for xyyman   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To those who are interested on how I came across this bombshell. It was by shear accident. I did not go looking to confirm these people in the middle East are Turks as Mike pointed out many times. I was following up...as usual....on a cited piece of work done by Das et al. A piece of software called GPS(genetics that is). Apparently GPS is more accurate than TreeMix. In this study(2017) that used GPS. They pinpointed the ancestral population of Indian Siddis to LWK and Botswana!!! You heard right. Fugcking Botswana. So obviously the followup question is what is the "documented' historical connection? Between Botswana and India. There is none!!!! So the author..being European...made something up. As expected of Europeans. But that wasn't the only thing that oddle my noodles. The suprising thing is the software can NOT pinpoint the Bantu origin!!!

I said there was never a Bantu expansion.

Next? .....GPS!!!!!

--------------------
Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming

Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Thereal
Member
Member # 22452

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Thereal     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Really? Botswana I supposed they used boat technology or are older than the 700 years I've read of.
Posts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Linda Fahr
Suspended
Member # 21979

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Linda Fahr   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Indian Siddi people are descents of Kenyans and Ethiopians.

In reference to Bantu people, it is my sincere belief, after years of observation and study of their culture, that they are of mixed ethnic groups of local Sub saharans, Egyptians, Nubians and Hittites. The Bantu people which became the Zulu tribe of South Africa, are the segment of the descents of Egyptians, Nubians and Hittites which migrated south, possibly during and after foreign invasions of ancient Egypt and Nubia. For sure, the Zulu's migrated south long after the battle of Kadesh between Egyptian Empire and Hittite Empire under King Ramesses II.

--------------------
---lnnnnn*

Posts: 198 | From: USA | Registered: Aug 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
xyyman
Member
Member # 13597

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for xyyman   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am not an expert on "documented" history or cultural observation. Why? These things are SUBJECTIVE to political beliefs and societal misbeliefs.

On the other hand. Science and genetics do not lie.

The facts are from the study.
1, The Siddis are VERY distant from Africans.
2, But of Africans, the closest match is NOT the "historical" connected population of East Africa but Botswana and LWK.

go figure. Someone is lying....what a surprise!

--------------------
Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming

Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
xyyman
Member
Member # 13597

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for xyyman   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This blew my mind....

"ally have plenty of ancient Judaeans skeletons that no one has ever sequenced (and probably never will). Why the DNA of the ancient Judaeans has not being sequenced and settle the question of relatedness once and for all is a question that should be directed to Israeli archeologists. It is most unfortunate that the members of the general public have been mislead to believe (no doubt after paying a lot of money to DTC companies) that they are related to ancient figures without any shred of evidence. However, this is not something our study aims to prove or disprove."


"Second, Iraqi and Iranian Jews are extremely similar, and the latter were indeed included in the study. The genetic similarity between Ashkenazic Jews and Iranian Jews was explained by their shared Iranian-Turkic past."

""In “Scholars Blast New Study Tracing Ashkenazi Jews to Khazars of Ancient Turkey” Mr. Liphshiz cites two academics who criticized on our study, or more precisely, criticized the press release: most blasting indeed."

--------------------
Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming

Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
xyyman
Member
Member # 13597

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for xyyman   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is off the chains!!!!


Quote

Figure from Das et al. (2017)

The results were replicated in a separate analysis. The evidence for the non-Levantine origin of AJs is very strong. Interestingly, these findings also explain the results of previous genetic studies that relied on the similarity between AJs and Palestinians to claim Levantine origins for AJs. This similarity, however, is likely based on the Iranian and Turkish components of Palestinians (about 40%), not the Levantine one that Jews don’t have. The only ones with a full Levantine ancestry (as far as we know) are about half of the Bedouins (far left). Please note, that Semitic DNA from Israel is still missing, however Lebanese Semitic genomes and Egyptian ones were published. These genomes exhibit high similarity to the Levantine genomes used in our study, so we do not expect major surprises when Israelite Semitic data would be published.

--------------------
Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming

Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
xyyman
Member
Member # 13597

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for xyyman   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What is this blah! blah! all about?

What Mike had mentioned all along. And I did to some extent.

1, The ruling elite in the Near East/Levant are Turks
2, The indigenous peoples of the Levant are Bedouns

3. Lebanese and Egyptians are heavily admixed with Turks. But they contain the MOST amount of Bedoiun ancestry.

4 DNATribes charts are correct!!! "West Asians" are Turks. That is why West Asians are NOT grouped with Saharo-Arabians,


I knew it!!!!!! It feels good to be right,

--------------------
Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming

Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
xyyman
Member
Member # 13597

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for xyyman   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To those missing the REAL key piece of information!!! How does this tie in with the Abusir paper?

Remember the closest genetic match to the Abusir(based upon what was published) are BEDOIUNS!!!!, Yemenis, Neolithic Levantines and Tunisians, Tunisians are the purest Africans in the Maghreb. Heavily admixed with SSA just as the Bedoiuns.

Europeans, Syrians, Druze etc do NOT make up the Abusirs.

I love being right!!

--------------------
Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming

Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
xyyman
Member
Member # 13597

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for xyyman   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
See Lioness. That is why I am 110% assured the AEians can not be nothing else but pure Africans. They can never prove otherwise=!! Now it looks like the REAL Jews are the Africanized Bedoiuns.

I can't make this stuff up.

To those who follow my work. When I analyzed the Behar et al paper I made the claim based upon the data he presented that Judiasm is more North African than Levantine. I may be proven correct once again.

Note also - Das et al is accusing researchers of manipulating the data to get the result they want. I said that many times. Das et al did a deep dive like me. If you look at data closely a completely different conclusion is obtained. They don't fool everyone!!!

So Mike was correct. The Ottoman Turks and Period(1000Ad - 1700AD) transformed the entire Levant and Middle East. From Iranians, Iraqis, Syrians, And of course Arabia and Lower Egypt.

--------------------
Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming

Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Thereal
Member
Member # 22452

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Thereal     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Any specific group in Tunisia?
Posts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
xyyman
Member
Member # 13597

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for xyyman   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
?? for Abusir mummies. The Methods Section 'may" list the sampled populations within Tunisia.

Notice Tunisians are not Turks. But modern Egyptians carry as much as 18% Turks. Jews of Morocco are Turks. Mazb are pure Africans. NAians and SSA.

Africans do not have one look.

 -

--------------------
Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming

Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
IronLion
Member
Member # 16412

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for IronLion     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Where is Mike? Did they ban him again and he left in disgust?

--------------------
Lionz

Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Thereal
Member
Member # 22452

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Thereal     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nah,he stopped posting and lurks around,I'm not sure if he'll return but he has made some more YouTube videos and still updates his site.
Posts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
IronLion
Member
Member # 16412

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for IronLion     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thereal what is his Youtube channel?

--------------------
Lionz

Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Thereal
Member
Member # 22452

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Thereal     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ancient historian 1,its one word,though he uploaded 3 videos this month he doesn't have much in term s of content.
Posts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
xyyman
Member
Member # 13597

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for xyyman   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Mike was banned. Click on any of his post you will see it says "banned" member!

--------------------
Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming

Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
xyyman
Member
Member # 13597

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for xyyman   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Localizing Ashkenazic Jews to Primeval Villages in the Ancient Iranian Lands of Ashkenaz - Ranajit Das

QUOTES:
Like most Eurasians, Yiddish speaker genomes are amedley of three major components: Mediterranean (X= 52%),
Southwest Asian (X= 24%), and Northern European (X= 16%) (fig. 2A), although, like the ancient pre-Scythian, they
also exhibit a small and ****consistent sub-Saharan African component ****(X~2%), in general agreement with Moorjani et al.

(2011). GPS positioned nearly all Ashkenazic Jews (AJs) on the


We generated the admixture signatures of 100 or 200 “native” individuals from six areas associated with the origin of
Yiddish and AJs
(fig. 4, supplementary figures S4 and S5, Supplementary Material online, and table 1): Germany,
Ukraine, Khazaria, Turkish “Ashkenaz,” Israel, and Iran (fig. 5A and C). We first tested the genetic affinity of these “native”
populations by examining their genetic distances (d) to modern-day populations residing within the same regions (fig.
5B). For Israelites, we used Palestinians and Bedouins, and for Khazars we used Armenians, Georgians, Abkhazians,
Chechens, and Ukrainians.

To identify additional potential founding populations, we assessed the genetic distances between AJs and all non-Jewish
individuals in this study, including populations excluded from the reference population panel. Most of the individuals cluster
along an ‘A’-shaped structure with the ends corresponding to Scandinavians and North Africans. AJs, due to their large
number, formed the apex of the ‘A’, connecting Southern Europeans with Near Eastern (fig. 6). AJs overlapped with
few Greeks and Italians within an Irano-Turkish super-cluster.


The mitochondrial haplogroup L2a1 is found in five Ashkenazic maternal lineages, where
80% of the mothers speak ***solely ****Yiddish
(supplementary table S3, Supplementary Material online). A search in the
Genographic public dataset found 229 individuals with that haplogroup. Of those, 169 described their maternal descent
as African (156), European (4), or “Jewish” (9), mostly Ashkenazic.


Our findings are also consistent with the vast majority of genetic findings that AJs are closer to Near Eastern (e.g.,
Turks, Iranians, and Kurds)
and South European populations (e.g., Greeks and Italians) as opposed to Middle Eastern populations
(e.g., Bedouins and Palestinians). Remarkably, with only few exceptions (e.g., Need et al. 2009; Zoossmann-
Diskin 2010), these findings have been consistently misinterpreted in favor of a Middle Eastern Judaean ancestry, although
the data do not support such contention for either Y chromosomal (Hammer et al. 2000; Nebel et al. 2001;
Rootsi et al. 2013) or genome-wide studies (Seldin et al. 2006; Kopelman et al. 2009; Tian et al. 2009; Atzmon et al.
2010; Behar et al. 2010; Campbell et al. 2012; Ostrer and Skorecki 2012). To promulgate a Middle Eastern origin despite
the findings,
various dispositions were adopted. Some authors consolidated the Middle East with other regions whereas
other authors abolished it altogether. For example, Seldin et al. (2006) wrote that the “southern [European]” component
is “consistent with a later Mediterranean origin,” whereas Rootsi et al. (2013) declared it as part of the Near
East, ...

--------------------
Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming

Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
xyyman
Member
Member # 13597

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for xyyman   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So... have we been fooled about who the Turks are in the Middle/Near East or Levant

--------------------
Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming

Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nice find. Yes the Turks have only arrived recently in the areas in which they live. For a long time the Europeans have attempted to maintain that the ancestors of the Turks were the Sumerians but this is false.

Kushites of Sumer and Akkad


Controversy surrounding the Kushite/African/Black origins of the Elamites, Sumerians, Akkadians and “Assyrians” is simple and yet complicated. It involves both the racism exhibited toward the African slaves in the Western Hemisphere and Africans generally which led to the idea that Africans had no history ; and the need of Julius Oppert to make Semites white, to accommodate the “white” ancestry of European Jews.

To understand this dichotomy we have to look at the history of scholarship surrounding the rise of Sumero-Akkadian studies. The study of the Sumerians, Akkadians. Assyrians and Elamites began with the decipherment of the cuneiform script by Henry Rawlinson. Henry Rawlinson had spent most of his career in the Orient. This appears to have gave him an open mind in regards to history. He recognized the Ancient Model of History, the idea that civilization was founded by the Kushite or Hamitic people of the Bible.

As result, Rawlinson was surprised during his research to discover that the founders of the Mesopotamian civilization were of Kushite origin. He made it clear that the Semitic speakers of Akkad and the non-Semitic speakers of Sumer were both Black or Negro people who called themselves sag-gig-ga “Black Heads”. In Rawlinson’s day the Sumerian people were recognized as Akkadian or Chaldean, while the Semitic speaking blacks were called Assyrians.

 -

Rawlinson identified these Akkadians as Turanian or Scythic people. But he made it clear that these ancient Scythic or Turanian speaking people were Kushites or Blacks.

A major supporter of Rawlinson was Edward Hincks. Hincks continued Rawlinson’s work and identified the ancient group as Chaldeans, and also called them Turanian speakers. Hincks, though, never dicussed their ethnic origin.

A late comer to the study of the Sumerians and the Akkadians was Julius Oppert. Oppert was a German born of Jewish parents. He made it clear that the Chaldean and Akkadian people spoke different languages. He noted that the original founders of Mesopotamia civilization called themselves Ki-en-gi “land of the true lords”. It was the Semitic speakers who called themselves Akkadians.

Assyrians called the Ki-en-gi people Sumiritu “the sacred language”. Oppert popularized the Assyrian name Sumer, for the original founders of the civilization. Thus we have today the Akkadians and Sumerians of ancient Mesopotamia.

Oppert began to popularize the idea that the Sumerians were related to the contemporary Altaic and Turanian speaking people, e.g., Turks and Magyar (Hungarian) speaking people. He made it clear that the Akkadians were Semites like himself . To support this idea Oppert pointed out that typological features between Sumerian and Altaic languages existed. This feature was agglutination.

The problem with identifying the Sumerians as descendants from contemporary Turanian speakers resulted from the fact that Sumerian and the Turkish languages are not genetically related. As a result Oppert began to criticize the work of Hincks (who was dead at the time) in relation to the identification of the Sumerian people as Turanian following the research of Rawlinson.

Oppert knew Rawlinson had used African languages to decipher cuneiform writing. But he did not compare the Sumerian to African languages, probably, due to the fact that he knew they were related given Rawlinson's earlier research.

It is strange to some observers that Oppert,never criticized Rawlinson who had proposed the Turanian origin of the Ki-en-gi (Sumerians). But this was not strange at all. Oppert did not attack Rawlinson who was still alive at the time because he knew that Rawlinson said the Sumerians were the original Scythic and Turanian people he called Kushites. Moreover, Rawlinson made it clear that both the Akkadians and Sumerians were Blacks. For Oppert to have debated this issue with
Rawlinson, who deciphered the cuneiform script, would have meant that he would have had to accept the fact that Semites were Black. There was no way Oppert would have wanted to acknowledge his African heritage, given the Anti-Semitism experienced by Jews living in Europe.

Although Oppert successfully hid the recognition that the Akkadians and the Sumerians both refered to themselves as sag-gig-ga “black heads”, some researchers were unable to follow the status quo and ignore this reality. For example, Francois Lenormant, made it clear, following the research of Rawlinson, that the Elamite and Sumerians spoke genetically related languages. This idea was hard to reconcile with the depiction of people on the monuments of Iran, especially the Behistun monument, which depicted Negroes (with curly hair and beards) representing the Assyrians, Jews and Elamites who ruled the area. As a result, Oppert began the myth that the Sumerian languages was isolated from other languages spoken in the world evethough it shared typological features with the Altaic languages. Oppert taught Akkadian-Sumerian in many of the leading Universities in France and Germany. Many of his students soon began to dominate the Academe, or held chairs in Sumerian and Akkadian studies these researchers continued to perpetuate the myth that the Elamite and Sumerian languages were not related.

There was no way to keep from researchers who read the original Sumerian, Akkadian and Assyrian text that these people recognized that they were ethnically Blacks. This fact was made clear by Albert Terrien de LaCouperie. Born in France, de LaCouperie was a well known linguist and China expert. Although native of France most of his writings are in English. In the journal he published called the Babylonian and Oriental Record, he outlined many aspects of ancient history. In these pages he made it clear that the Sumerians, Akkadians and even the Assyrians who called themselves şalmat kakkadi ‘black headed people”, were all Blacks of Kushite origin. Eventhough de LaCouperie taught at the University of London, the prestige of Oppert, and the fact that the main centers for Sumero-Akkadian studies in France and Germany were founded by Oppert and or his students led to researchers ignoring the evidence that the Sumerians , Akkadians and Assyrians were Black.

 -

In summary, the cuneiform evidence makes it clear that the Sumerians, Akkadians and Assyrians recognized themselves as Negroes: “black heads”. This fact was supported by the statues of Gudea, the Akkadians and Assyrians. Plus the Behistun monument made it clear that the Elamites were also Blacks.

The textual evidence also makes it clear that Oppert began the discussion of a typological relationship between Sumerian and Turkic languages. He also manufactured the idea that the Semites of Mesopotamia and Iran, the Assyrians and Akkadians were “whites”, like himself. Due to this brain washing, and whitening out of Blacks in history, many people today can look at depictions of Assyrians, Achamenians, and Akkadians and fail to see the Negro origin of these people.

To make the Sumerians “white” textbooks print pictures of artifacts dating to the Gutian rule of Lagash, to pass them off as the true originators of Sumerian civilization. No Gutian rulers of Lagash are recognized in the Sumerian King List.

 -
Gutian .... Sumerian..


William Leo Hansberry gives a great discussion of the evidence of African Kushites ruling in Asia and Africa. Some ancient scholars noted that the first rulers of Elam were of Kushite ( Kerma ? ) origin.

Founder of Elamite civilization came from Kush in Africa. According to Strabo, the first Elamite colony at Susa was founded by Tithnus, a King of Kush. Strabo in Book 15, Chapter 3728 wrote that in fact it is claimed that Susa was founded by Tithonus Memnon's father, and his citadel bore the name Memnonium. The Susians are also called Cissians. Aeschylus, calls Memnon's mother Cissia.


William Leo Hansberry, African History Notebook, (1981) Volume 2 noted that:

In Persia the old Negroid element seems indeed to have been sufficiently powerful to maintain the overlord of the land. For the Negritic strain is clearly evident in statuary depicting members of the royal family ruling in the second millenium B.C.

Hundreds of years later, when Xerxes invaded Greece, the type was well represented in the Persian army. In the remote mountain regions bordering on Persia and Baluchistan, there is to be found at the present time a Negroid element which bears a remarkable resemblance to the type represented on the ancient mounments. Hence the Negritic or Ethiopian type has proved persistent in this area, and in ancient times it seems to have constituted numerically and socially an important factor in the population" (p.52) .

. Here is Cyrus

 -

 -

 -

 -





Check out my videos on the Asian Kushites: Click this Picture
.
 -


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfzjgJ88Vr8


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-2xjWIIxK8



Enjoy

--------------------
C. A. Winters

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Below is from a debate I had with Polat Kaya on the history of the Turks back in 2004
quote:

> Polat Kaya <tntr@...> wrote:To:

> Dear Dr. K. Loganathan and friends,
>
> Hi. When I read your response I was appalled that
> you label my work a "linguistic game". This only
> shows that either you do not understand what I am
> saying and showing, or, you do understand what I am
> talking about but you are not in a mood to accept
> the correctness of what I am claiming about the
> ancientness of Turkish language and its being used
> as the source language for the manufacture of many
> languages.....

> On the other hand, as I have said repeatedly, the IE
> linguists did a fantastic job to use this simple
> technique of manufacturing languages from Turkish.
> They had done an awesome job of disguising
> everything so well that it was virtually impossible
> to see what went on. Nevertheless, the whole thing
> was plagiarism, or plainly, stealing from the
> Turanian civilization. >>>>

Mr. Polat Kaya is offended by Loga’s assertion
that his work is an example at playing “linguistic
game[s]”. Polat Kaya argues that his method is
scientific. Although this is Polat Kaya’s view, in
reality there is no science in the work of Polat Kaya.

Traditional linguistic research is based on
the classification or taxonomy of languages.
Linguistic taxonomy is the foundation upon which
comparative and historical linguistic methods are
based. Linguistic taxonomy serves a number of purposes

. First, it is necessary for the identification of
language families. Secondly, linguistic taxonomy gives
us the material to reconstruct the Proto-language of a
people and discover its regular sound correspondences.
There are three major kinds of language
classifications: genealogical, topological, and areal.

A genealogical classification groups languages
together into language families based on the shared
features retained by languages since divergence from
the common ancestor or Proto-language.

An areal classification groups languages into linguistic areas
based on shared features acquired by a process of
convergence arising from spatial proximity. A
topological classification groups languages together
into language types by the similarity in the
appearance of the structure of languages without
consideration of their historical origin and present,
or past geographical distribution.

COMPARATIVE METHOD

The comparative method is used by linguists to
determine the relatedness of languages, and to
reconstruct earlier language states. The comparative
linguist has two major goals (1) trace the history of
language families and reconstruct the mother language
of each family, and (2) determine the forces which
affect language. In general, comparative linguists are
interested in determining phonetic laws, analogy/
correspondence and loan words.

The comparative method is useful in the
reconstruction of Proto-languages. To reconstruct a
Proto-language the linguist must look for patterns of
correspondences. Patterns of correspondence is the
examination of terms which show uniformity.

This uniformity leads to the inference that languages are
related since conformity of terms in two or more
languages indicate they came from a common ancestor.
A basic objective of the comparative linguist is
to isolate words with common or similar meanings that
have systematic consonantal agreement with little
regards for the location and/or type of vowels.

Consonantal agreement is the regular appearance of
consonants at certain places in words having similar
meanings and representing similar speech sounds.
If Polat Kaya’s work is based on science we
should expect to find consonantal agreement between
the Turkic terms and Sumerian terms. Below we will
compare the terms:
  • Consonantal Pattern

    Sumerian Dingir Dng
    Turkic Tingur Tngr
These terms suggest some affinity. The other terms
lack this type of agreement.
  • Consonantal Pattern

    Sumerian Gilgamesh glgmsh
    Turkic Bilgamesh blgmsh

    Consonantal Pattern
    Sumerian Indra Ndr
    Turkic Danri Dnr

    Consonantal Pattern
    Sumerian Enlil Nll
    Turkic Han Yel Hnyl

    Consonantal Pattern
    Sumerian Lalartu ‘phantom’
    Llrt
    Turkic Lal artu ‘tongueless man
    Llrt


    Consonantal Pattern
    Sumerian Nishaba Nshb
    Turkic Ni izaditu baimenagiri N
    zdt bmngr

    Consonantal Pattern
    Sumerian Enemebaragesi Nmbrgs
    Turkic Enetikeme ebakin aragikor
    agerika ezi Ntkm bkn rgk grk z

    This comparison of Sumerian and Turkic terms make
    it clear that these terms show no systematic
    consonantal agreement. As a result we can not accept
    the view of Polat Kaya that his work is science. The
    linguistic evidence makes it clear that there is no
    science in the methods used by Polat Kaya to compare
    Turkic languages , and the Sumerian and Tamil
    languages, I must agree with Loga, that Polat Kaya is
    playing games with lexical items.

    This begs the question, why does Turkic , show a
    relationship to Tamil and Sumerian. The answer is the
    Turks lived in close proximity to Tamil speakers for
    hundreds of years and over time they adopted some
    Tamil and Sumerian terms.

    Archaeological and historical evidence make it
    clear that Tamil speaking people were the dominate
    agro-pastoral group in Central Asia between 1000 BC ,
    and especially 500 BC. This is supported by the
    Dravidian-Altaic relationship viz Turkic and
    Mongolian. As a result we find that they share lexical
    parallels and analogous case and verbal affixes.

    The Dravidians (mainly Tamil speakers) formerly
    lived in Turkmenia, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Mongolia
    and the Gansu Province of China, beginning in Harappan
    times. During this period the Tamil had intimate
    relationships with the Turkic speaking people. The
    close relationship between Turkic and Tamil should be
    recognized as an areal linguistic relationship, not
    genetic as maintained by Polat Kaya.

    This agrees with J. Vacek’s idea that an axial
    relationship exist between the Dravidian languages and
    the Altaic group. Vecek based his conclusion on the
    geographical distribution of these languages along the
    north south axis between the Altaic and Dravidian
    languages.
    [b]
    Finally, Polat Kaya, claims that the Turks are
    related to the ancient Turanian people. This is a lie.
    Col. Rawlinson the decipherer of the cuneiform writing
    makes it clear that the ancient Turanians were the
    “Hamitic Nations” mentioned in the Bible: Kush (Cush),
    Misraim (Egypt), Nimrud ( Sumerians and Elamites) and
    Canaan (Phonesians) (see: C.B. Rawlinson, "Notes on
    the early history of Babylon", Jour. Royal Asiatic
    Society (First Series) 15, p.230. ). The
    archaeological research make it clear that Dravidians
    and Harappans were related to the Kushites (see: Lal,
    B , "The Only Asian expedition in threatened
    Nubia:Work by an Indian Mission at Afyeh and
    Tumas", The Illustrated London Times , 20 April
    1963.).
    There is no evidence of the Turkic speaking
    people having any relationship with the ancient
    Turanians, except a course, the Tamil/Dravidian people
    of Central Asia. Polat Kaya, like the IE researchers
    he admonishes, is stealing the history of the authentic
    ancient Turanians.

    Hi Polat Kaya

    Thanks for your response, You make it clear in this
    post that you do not believe in finding systematic
    correspondence among lexical items when you use your
    science to compare terms from different languages. I
    must reject your method because as noted by Loga, you
    are just making up lexical items to support your view.
    As I said in the earlier post the ancient
    Turanians were Kustites, not Turks. Central Asia was
    called Kushiya in ancient times not Turkstan.
    According to Col. Rawlinson Iran was called Kushiya
    or Kushiva in the cuneiform literature. When the
    Kassites, ruled Iran it was called Kashshu, and the
    ruling people called themselves Kassites.
    Anatolia was also called Kush. The people ruling
    the area before the coming of the Hittites were the
    Kaska and Hattian people. The gods of the Hattic
    people were Kashu and Kusuh.

    The major rulers of Central Asia were the
    Kushan> Kus> people. You called these people
    Tokarian. This is the Hindu name for the Kushan
    people. We refer to these people as Kushana. The
    Kushan ruled Turkestan until the 8th Century, when
    the Uighurs invaded the area. The Uighurs destroyed
    the Kucha and Karasahr empires.

    The Kushan people were originally Dravidian
    speaking people. The Tokarian language was a trade
    language which allowed the diverse ethnic groups to
    have a lingua franca for purposes of communication.
    This is obvious when we compare Dravidian and Kushan
    terms. Below we compare the Kushan, Dravidian and
    Mande ( an African language)
    [list]
  • Village Cow Son Chief, King

    Dravidian uru kode, naku curral mannan
    Mande furu knogo,gunga Si, Sey mansa
    Kushan por ko Se maha


    Plow, hoe high official,sage land of cultivation

    Dravidian kari, pari gasa(n) kalam

    Mande para gana ga

    Kushan aare Kassi tkam
These terms show analogy, they are not made up of
terms like the ones you present in your post. They
show that Dravidian speaking people lived in Central
Asia, long before the Turks came into Central Asia in
the 5th Century.

You claim that no Dravidian place names exist in
Central Asia, this is false. There are many Dravidian
place names in Central Asia, the most common Dravidian
place names are associated with names for mountains
i.e., sand, and kara for cities and bodies of water.
Other Dravidian toponyms in the area were formed by
mal, and ar , according to Lahovary.
Mr. Polat Kaya I must reject your method of
research. It lacks internal and external validity
because it is not founded on analogy and systematic
correspondence of the consonants that form the words
under review. This means that you can say any word you
wish is analogous to another word in a different
language eventhough they are formed by a different
consonantal pattern. To illustrate a unity between
terms we must find regularity within the pattern of
consonants for the words under examination :
  • Mountains boat road horse deluge
    Dravidian kunru kalam calai pari amaru
    Sumerian kur klam sila paru ‘mule’ maari
    Mande kuru kulu sila pari mara ‘zone of pond’

Above we see regular consonantal agreement for the
terms compared above. None of these terms have to be
reconstructed by the linguists, like the terms used by
Mr. Polat Kaya. Mr. Polat Kaya , I must reject your
research method. They show none of the systematic
consonantal agreement used by Loga , other linguistics
and myself.


[QUOTE]

--- "K. Loganathan" <ulagankmy@...> wrote:

>
>
> Polat Kaya <tntr@...> wrote:To:
> bcn_2004@yahoogroups.com,
> historical_linguistics_2@yahoogroups.com,
> Polat_Kaya@yahoogroups.com
> From: Polat Kaya <tntr@...>
> Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 10:02:49 -0400
> Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [akandabaratam] Fwd: Re:
> [bcn2004] Dialog Loga- Polat Kaya-6 : The Place of
> Scientific Objectivity in Historical Linguistic
>
> Dear Clyde Winters and K. Loganathan,
>
>
> Hi. Please find my response interspersed with your
> posting below.
>
>
>
> K. Loganathan forwarded the following writing by
> Clyde Winters:
>
>
> clyde winters <olmec982000@...> wrote: To:
> akandabaratam@yahoogroups.com,
> tolkaappiyar@googlegroups.com
> From: clyde winters <olmec982000@...>
> Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 20:38:32 -0700 (PDT)
> Subject: Re: [akandabaratam] Fwd: Re: [bcn2004]
> Dialog Loga- Polat Kaya-6 : The Place of Scientific
> Objectivity in Historical Linguistics
>
>
>
> > Polat Kaya <tntr@...> wrote:To:
>
> > Dear Dr. K. Loganathan and friends,
> >
> > Hi. When I read your response I was appalled that
> > you label my work a "linguistic game". This only
> > shows that either you do not understand what I am
> > saying and showing, or, you do understand what I
> am
> > talking about but you are not in a mood to accept
> > the correctness of what I am claiming about the
> > ancientness of Turkish language and its being used
> > as the source language for the manufacture of many
> > languages.....
>
> > On the other hand, as I have said repeatedly, the
> IE
> > linguists did a fantastic job to use this simple
> > technique of manufacturing languages from Turkish.
> > They had done an awesome job of disguising
> > everything so well that it was virtually
> impossible
> > to see what went on. Nevertheless, the whole
> thing
> > was plagiarism, or plainly, stealing from the
> > Turanian civilization. >>>>
>
> Mr. Polat Kaya is offended by Loga’s assertion
> that his work is an example at playing “linguistic
> game[s]”. Polat Kaya argues that his method is
> scientific. Although this is Polat Kaya’s view, in
> reality there is no science in the work of Polat
> Kaya.
> Traditional linguistic research is based on
> the classification or taxonomy of languages.
> Linguistic taxonomy is the foundation upon which
> comparative and historical linguistic methods are
> based. Linguistic taxonomy serves a number of
> purposes
> Polat Kaya: Dear Mr. Winters. Polat Kaya's view
> about his work is very strong and very valid. That
> is why he insists that his work is scientific. In
> order to overcome your doubts, let me explain to you
> about the word "science", what it means and how it
> is made up. First, the concept of "SCIENCE" is
> defined as: 1. branch of knowledge or study dealing
> with a body of facts and truths systematically
> arranged and showing the operation of general laws:
> the Mathematical sciences. 2. systematic knowledge
> of the physical or material or material world. 3.
> systematized knowledge in general. 4. knowledge as
> of facts or principles; knowledge gained by
> systematic study. 5. A particular branch of
> knowledge. 6. skill; proficiency. [ from Latin
> "scienta" knowledge, equiv. to SCI- (root of scire
> to know) + -ENTIA ence]. {This definition is from
> the Random House Dictionary of the English
> Language", Random House, New York, 1967, p. 1279}
>
> I have no quarrel with this definition except for
> the etymology part of the word "science".
>
> The so-called Latin word "SCIENTA" meaning
> "knowledge", when rearranged letter-by-letter as
> "CANISTE" where the letter C is a distortion of
> Turkish letter "K" and/or "G" which then makes the
> word "GANISTE" or "KANISTE". When the "Latin" word
> "SCIENTA" is viewed in this format, it is the
> Turkish word "GANIShTI" or "KANIShTI" meaning "it is
> understanding". If one understands how someting is
> madeup or functions, then he has "KNOWLEDGE" about
> the makeup or functionality of that thing. With
> this clear cut explanation, I can say without
> hesitation that I have the "knowledge" of of knowing
> the make up of the so-called Latin word "SCIENTA".
> It is a word which is the restructured and disguised
> form of the Turkish word "GANIShTI" or "KANIShTI".
> My knowledge of this so-called Latin word is a
> special knowledge that I know but you, Mr. Winters,
> do not. And when I demonstrate to you how the term
> "science" was made up, I am demonstrating my special
> knowledge in a "scientific" way. You
> cannot quarrel with that "knowledge", that is, that
> "science" of mine. You do not understand this
> because you are not used to hear it in this way or
> form before.
>
> Additionally, there is one more thing that I can
> scientifically demonstrate to you about the make up
> of the term "SCIENTIFICALLY" which is supposedly
> from the word "science". But yet it also has an
> immense dishonesty associated with it. When this
> word is rearranged letter-by-letter as
> "FENCILICLA-ISTY", this English word
> "SCIENTIFICALLY" is found to be the restructured and
> disguised form of the Turkish expression "FENCILIKLE
> IShTU" (Fencilikli isdi) meaning "it is work with
> science". Thus the Turkish data base used in the
> makeup of the English word "SCIENTIFICALLY" is the
> Turkish expression "FEN-CI-LIK-LI ISh-DI". In this
> expression Turkish "FEN" means "science", "FEN-CI"
> means "he who deals with science" (i.e., scientist)
> where Turkish suffix "-CI" provides the "doer"
> quality to the noun, "FEN-CI-LIK" means "scientific"
> where Turkish suffix "-LIK" provides this quality to
> the noun, -LI/LE (ILE) means "with", ISh means
> "work" and the suffix "-TU" (-ti, -du, -di) is
> verbal suffix
> meaning "it is". Of course whole expression could
> have been said in Turkish with the word
> "FEN-CI-LIK-LE" meaning "the work with science" or
> "scientifically".
>
> In the makeup of this English word, there is the
> superflous addition "ISTU" to the main Turkish
> expression. This addition is important to the IE
> linguist who takes Turkish words and phrases to
> manufacture words for English or other IE languages
> because he has to disguise the Turkic source
> materal. These additonal Turkish words are used as
> "linguistic wrappings" to disguise the Turkish
> source text of the IE word. In other words, Turkic
> additions to the source text provides the "paint"
> required to do a new paint job on a "stolen car".
>
> Hence the dictionary claim that the words "science"
> and "scientifically" are from "Latin" source is a
> BOGUS claim and is a LIE.
>
> Mr. Winters, with all this explanation, I just
> demonstrated to you and to all a bundle of
> "KNOWLEDGE" and "SCIENCE". I have also demonstrated
> with complete clarity how Turkish is a true
> "agglutinative" language which has a science to its
> word formation. After all this, you should take back
> your unwarranted false claim that "what Polat Kaya
> does is not scientific".
>
> Now that I have said what needed to be said about
> your "science" requirement, I would like to point
> out to you that your "traditional linguistic
> research" is based on false premises that languages
> are "natural" occurances. I just demonstrated to
> you that words used in English and Latin are not
> genuine and hence these languages are not authentic.
> In view of this fact, modern linguistics overlooks
> or forgets all this artificiality about the IE
> languages and directs research along a "false"
> avenue. Therefore, its findings are not trustable.
> What it is doing might appear "scientific" to some
> people, but what is actually being done,
> intentionally or unintentionally, is a coverup job
> that buries the deceptions that have been
> perpetrated in manufacturing Indo-European and
> Semitic languages.
>
> Let me also tell you that languages are man made
> artifacts and have been formed mostly under the
> influence of religion. Modern linguistics either
> does not know this or knows it but disregards it.
> Religion and Language have held hands very closely
> in the past . For example the Turkish OGUZ religion
> (Sky-God, Sun and Moon combination) and the AGUZ
> (meaning "word", "language") are the earliest
> example of this very important concept.
>
>

--------------------
C. A. Winters

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hi Polat Kaya

I can not argue with you about your interpretation of
any word in any language because you make up words to
suit your Turkic comparisons. None of the lexical
items compared in your work have regular consonantal
agreement and therefore must be rejected.

I will repeat, the ancient inhabitants of Central
Asia were Dravidian speaking people. The Tocharians
called themselves Kushan not Turk Han Oyi, therefore
you can not claim affinity to this group based on your
Turkic interpretation of Tocharian.

I must also disagree with your interpretation of
the name for Troy. The word Troy has nothing to do
with the original name of this Kushite city. The Greek
term for this city was Ilion/ Ilium or Ilios.

In Egyptian the name for Troy was probably Wilusiya, not Tur Oy.

quote:

>
>
> Polat Kaya <tntr@...> wrote:To:
> bcn_2004@yahoogroups.com,
> historical_linguistics_2@yahoogroups.com,
> Polat_Kaya@yahoogroups.com
> From: Polat Kaya <tntr@...>
> Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 11:54:24 -0400
> Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: [akandabaratam] Fwd:
> Re: [bcn2004] Dialog Loga- Polat Kaya-6 : The Place
> of Scientific Objectivity in Historical Linguistic
>
> Dear Clyde Winters,
>
> Hi. Please find my responses interspersed with your
> writing below.
>
> ulagankmy wrote:
>
> --- In akandabaratam@yahoogroups.com, clyde winters
> <olmec982000@y...> wrote:Hi Polat KayaThanks for
> your response, You make it clear in thispost that
> you do not believe in finding
> systematiccorrespondence among lexical items when
> you use yourscience to compare terms from different
> languages. Imust reject your method because as
> noted by Loga, youare just making up lexical items
> to support your view.
>
> Polat Kaya: First of all, let me remind you that
> while I responded to your previous response to me
> line-by-line, you dodged all of my very valid points
> and now you are diverging onto something else. I get
> the impression that: a) you did not read my response
> properly, or b) you did not understand my response,
> or c) you read it and understood it but you have no
> comeback. I suspect it is a mixture all of these.
> Now you are rejecting my method because Loga noted
> and you are repeating, "you are just making up
> lexical items to support your view". I must say
> that you are holding onto a straw floating on a sea.
> How much protection can this give you from sinking?
> Especially since your swimming is not up to par!
>
> Yes I do not believe that you will find systematic
> correspondences of consonant arrangement between
> Turkish words and the so-called Indo-European words
> because the words of Indo-European languages are the
> mostly re-arranged, that is, re-shuffled form of
> Turkish words and phrases. This is evident from the
> fact that the IE words are manufactured from
> Turkish. The letters of the Turkish source text
> were shuffled around to disguise the Turkish source.
> This was done so skillfully that only I was, by
> chance, able to discover it. Thus, because of this
> action, the medium that you are trying to study is
> already altered from its original form. The thing
> that you are studying is not the genuine thing
> anymore. After this alteration, you say that what I
> see is two different things from the consonantal
> point of view and you reject what I am presenting.
> Well Mr. Winters, you can reject my science for the
> rest of your life but your Indo-European and Semitic
> languages are still manufactured
> from Turkish.
>
> You are complaining that "I am just making up
> lexical items to support my view". Let me give you
> one lexical item to see if you can understand that.
> There is the so-called "Greek" word "AUTAPODEIKTON"
> meaning "self-evident", (Divry's Modern
> English-Greek and Greek-English Desk Dictionary", D.
> C. Divry, Inc., Publishers, New York, 1988, p.
> 446). This word is supposedly made up from Greek
> "AUTOS" meaning "self" + "APODEIKTON" meaning
> "provable". I say this is a bogus etymology. Let
> me explain:
>
> When the Greek word AUTAPODEIKTON is rearranged
> letter-by-letter as "OTO-APA-KENDITU", it is found
> to be the restructured and disguised form of the
> Turkish expression "UTU APA KENDITU" (or "APA UTU
> KENDITU") meaning "It is the Father Sun-God
> Himself" which is a perfect example of defining the
> concept of "self-evident". There is nothing more
> "self-evident" (i.e., obvious) than the "SUN"
> itself. This Turkish expression which has been used
> as the source text for this "Greek" word includes
> the Turkish words "APA" meaning "father", "UTU"
> meaning "Sun-God", "KENDI" meaning "self" and
> Turkish suffix -TU meaning "it is". Thus in this
> Turkish expression there are all the elements of
> "self evidency" but all are in Turkish. The
> following results are deducted from this
> re-construction:
>
> - the so-called Greek "autos" meaning "self" has
> no place in this word, hence "auto" is an
> artificially madeup bogus "prefix"; the meaning
> "self" attributed to it is coming from the Turkish
> word "KENDI" meaning "self". Supposedly
> "APODEIKTON" meaning "provable" comes from the
> remaining of the Turkish expression "UTU APA
> KENDITU". Thus it is unquestionably clear that this
> Turkish expression was abducted, restructured,
> disguised and separated into two parts one being
> "AUTO" meaning 'self" and the other being
> "APODEIKTON" meaning "provable."
>
> - All words having this "auto" prefix in the
> front and belonging to Indo-European languages are
> not authentic, and are deceptively manufactured from
> Turkish expressions and the "Greek" dictionary
> provided no etymological reference for these words -
> although we are told that most of them are said to
> be from Greek source. This is a LIE.
>
> - As can be seen the source for the concept is a
> religous one since it used the ancient Turanian
> words UTU APA" (UT U APA) meaning "Father Sun-God"
> or "Father That Fire" in Turkish. Thus the
> religion and language are working hand-in-hand to
> describe the Sun-worshipping beliefs of ancient
> Turanian Tur/Turk peoples.
>
> After having demonstrated this crystal clear
> example, I can say that you, and many like you, who
> think they know how languages were made, are not
> even close to understanding the concept yet. You are
> misinformed and mis-guided in this regard.
>
> Now you take the Greek and the Turkish source text
> and compare them for what you call "consonantal
> agreement" as follows:
>
> Greek: AUTAPODEIKTON ==> TPDKTN
>
> Turkish: UTU APA KENDITU" ==> TPKNDT
>
> As you can see, the so called orderly "consonantal
> agreement", as you propose, does not exist because
> the first one follows TPDKTN and the second one
> follows TPKNDT. But there is a disorderly
> consonantal agreement, as I explained in my last
> posting to you, that is, a 'mixed' mode. This is so
> because somebody manhandled the Turkish source text
> to come up with the "Greek" word. If you notice
> they kept the meaning of the concept in a very vague
> manner. They never explained in "Greek" what they
> mean by "self evident". Yet the Turkish source text
> says that "IT IS THE FATHER SUN ITSELF" which is
> "self evident". It is logical, it is 100% correct
> and there is no if and buts about it. Sun is the
> most self evident object in our solar system. You
> would never know in your life time that this "Greek"
> word was secretly referring to the "sun" in Turkish.
> And that is why I say that Greek, Latin, Sanskrit
> and all the rest of the Indo-European and Semitic
> languages have all been artificially
> made up from the Turkish language. Hence Turkish
> was the universal language that the "whole world
> spoke". Thus I rest my case for you and for all in
> this subject.
>
> You said:
>
> As I said in the earlier post the
> ancientTuranians were Kustites, not Turks. Central
> Asia wascalled Kushiya in ancient times not
> Turkstan.According to Col. Rawlinson Iran was
> called Kushiya or Kushiva in the cuneiform
> literature. When theKassites, ruled Iran it was
> called Kashshu, and theruling people called
> themselves Kassites.
>
> Polat Kaya: You proved me right again! Evidently
> what you do not know or you do not want to know is
> the fact that TURKS are also known by the names GOZ,
> GUZ, OGUZ, UZ, OKUS, KUS, US peoples because these
> words are forms of the Turkish OGUZ name. For
> example, the names "OTOMAN" (UTU-MAN) meaning
> "Sun-God people", "OSMAN" from Turkish "OUS-MAN"
> meaning "Oguz people", "TURKMAN" meaning "Turk
> people", "KUS-HAN" (OGUS-HAN) peoples, are examples
> of the usage of these names as applied to OGUZ/TUR
> peoples. The name OGUZ is given to countless
> numbers of Turkish males in the Turkish world.
>
> Thus when you have the Turkish words "KUS + HAN"
> (OGUS + HAN) in a title of a Turanian peoples
> meaning "LORD OGUZ" (LORD O-GÖZ) people, then you
> eventually end up with the distorted name "KUSHAN".
> However, this alteration of joining Turkish "KUS"
> and "HAN" with each other does not change the fact
> that these "KUSHANS" were Turks and Oguz peoples.
> You need to read my response to you very carefully
> without skipping a word of it, then you will see
> what I am talking about. You, either knowingly or
> unknowingly, are playing deceptively with Turkish
> words, just like the ancient cabalist priests of all
> kinds did, in order to distance or alienate TURK
> (TUR)

Hi
Polat Kaya, Ram is correct the Egyptian name for Troy
is believed to have been W'iwry (see: Rechard Poe,
Black Spark White Fire (p. 71), not Wilusiya or Tur Oy
(my bad).

But we do know that Greeks ruled many parts
of Central Asia for hundreds of years. It is likely
that during this period of Greek rule nomadic Turks
interacted with Greeks and adopted many Greek lexical
items, just as they adopted Tamilian terms.

If two linguistic groups lived in close proximity
to one another like the Turks, and Greeks, Turks &
Tamil speakers for hundreds of years make it clear
that you can not claim a priority of Turkic over these
other groups, when the history of Turkic migration
into Anatolia and Central Asia is clearly documented
after the settlement of these areas by Tamil and Greek
speaking people.


--- "K. Loganathan" <ulagankmy@...> wrote:

>
>
> Polat Kaya <tntr@...> wrote:To:
> bcn_2004@yahoogroups.com,
> historical_linguistics_2@yahoogroups.com,
> Polat_Kaya@yahoogroups.com
> From: Polat Kaya <tntr@...>
> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 17:50:49 -0400
> Subject: Re: [bcn2004] Re: The Place of Scientific
> Objectivity in Historical Linguistic
>
> Dear Ram and friends,
>
> Hi everyone. I want to share the following names
> which will also be a response to Clyde Winters.
>
> About the name TROY:
>
> The Greek form of the name TROY is in the form of
> "TROIA". Let us take a look at the construction of
> the word TROIA which is made up with two consonants
> followed by three vowels which is linguistically an
> unnatural situation. The meaning of this formation
> is that the word has been intentionally
> re-structured and distorted from an original source
> text. Even when one vocalizes the name "TROIA", it
> is in the form of "TUROYA".
>
> The Greek word "TROIA" is made of two parts in the
> form of: "TRO-IA" where "TRO" is a form of Turkish
> "TOR" (TUR) + the suffix "IA" meaning land, country,
> home" which is the distorted form of the Turkish
> word "�Y" or "�Y�" meaning
"home, house, land,
> country". Thus TROIA is really the restructured and
> disguised form of the Turkish name "TUR �Y "
or "TUR
> �Y�" meaning "Tur home". TUR is the
name of Tur/Turk
> peoples who are also known as OGUZ (OKUS) peoples.
> The names TUR/TURK and TURAN are one and the same.
>
> The Greek form of the English word "TROJAN" is given
> as "TRWIKOS" (Divry's, English-Greek, Greek-English
> Dictionary, New York, 1988, p. 354). The name
> "TROJAN" is from Turkish "TUR CAN" where Turkish "C"
> has been replaced with the bogus letter "J" which is
> vocalized as "Y" in this case. "TUR CAN" means "Tur
> man, Tur life, Tur people" where "CAN is "life, man,
> living being, people". Latin word "GENS" meaning "a
> clan, stock, people, tribe, nation" is also a
> distorted form of Turkish "CAN" meaning the same.
> CAN has also been anagrammatized into English and/or
> Biblical name "JOHN" which in one sense means "life"
> and "soul".
>
> When the Greek name "TRWIKOS" where W = UU, is
> re-arranged as "I-TUR-OKUS" or "I-OKUS-TUR", we find
> both the TUR and OGUZ names of Turkish peoples
> embedded in this "Greek" word. One cannot help but
> wonder why? Evidently these correspondences could
> not be the result of chance events.
>
> Additionally, the expression "I-TUR-OKUS" or
> "I-OKUS-TUR" read as "AY TUR OKUS" (AY TUR OGUZ)
> means, from the religion point of view, that the
> "Moon is TUR and OGUZ".
>
> About the name "ILIUM":
>
> The so-called "Greek" name ILIUM is actually the
> distorted form of the Turkish name "ILUM" or "ILIM"
> meaning "my country". By this term Homer has
> declared that TROY was his country, and thus he was
> a "TUR man" rather than a "Greek", as his name
> "HOMER", which is from Turkish "�MER / OMAR",
> implies.
>
> Dr. Ilhami Durmus, a Turkish writer, in his book
> entitled, "Iskitler (Sakalar)", (T�rk
K�lt�r�n�
> Arastirma Enstit�s� yayinlari, No.
141, Ankara,
> 1993, p. 100) indicates that one of the Iskit kings
> had the name HOMARGES which carries the name "HOMER
> / HOMAR / OMAR".
>
> Homer's works have been "re-edited", in other words,
> altered completely after the invasion of Anatolia by
> Alexander the Great and afterwards. In this
> alteration, Homer's works have been "Hellenized".
> Thus the ancient Turanian stories have become
> "European".
>
> Names using the "IA" suffix from Turkish "�Y"
or
> "�Y�":
>
> We can give many other examples in this name
> formation. For eaxmple:
>
> a) The name "TURKIYA" (T�RKIYE) is made up
from
> Turkish words "TURK" + "IYA" which is a form of
> Turkish "TURK + �Y�" meaning "Home of
Turks".
> Indeed TURKIYA was in the past and still is the home
> of some millions of Turks in reality.
>
> b) The name "THRACIA" is defined as "the country
> of Thrace" without referring to the name "TURK"or to
> an ethnic group, (Cassell's Latin -English
> Dictionary, MACMILLAN, USA, 1987, p. 223). In this
> definition, the writer drags his foot in order not
> to mention the name TURK, and instead gives the
> Latin name THRACIA as versus the English name THRACE
> without any reference to whose country it was. The
> adjective form of the name is given as "THRACIUS" as
> if it was an original language of "Latin".
>
> THRACIUS, when rearranged letter-by-letter as
> "TURCS-HAI", is the restructured and disguised form
> of Turkish name "TURK �Y�" meaning
"home of Turks".
> Again the name "TUR/TURK" has been intentionally
> suppressed or camouflaged in the name THRACIA.
>
> Similarly the name "THRACIA", when re-arranged
> letter-by-letter as "TARC + HAI", is the rearranged
> and disguised form of the Turkish name "TURK +
�Y�"
> meaning again "home of Turks".
>
> The BALKAN geograpy known as "THRACIA" has always
> been known as the home lands of Tur/Turk peoples.
>
> c) The name "ETRURIA", which was the name of the
> country of Etruscans in the present day Italy, when
> separated as "TUR + ER + IA", is the distorted and
> disguised form of Turkish expression "TUR ER
�Y�"
> meaning "home of Tur man" (home of Turk man). The
> alternative expanation is that the second "R" in
> "ETRURIA" could have been alphabetically upshifted
> from a "Q" - a trick that European linguists have
> used repeatedly. This would make "ETRURIA" as
> "ETRUQIA" or "ETRUKIA" which means that it would
> have been constructed from the Turkish source "TURK
> �Y�"
>
> d) The ancient city name TYRE, the chief city of
> Phoenicians, is again from the Turkish name "TUR E"
> meaning "home of TUR", where "E" is Sumerian "house,
> home" and Turkish "EV" (�Y) meaning "house,
home".
>
> e) The ancient name of TRACHONITIS in the ancient
> Middle East (present day Jordan), that is, to the
> east of so-called "Sea of Galilee" from a map
> entitled "Palestine During the Ministry of Jesus",
> p. 1647 of the book called "New World Translation of
> the Holy Scriptures" by New World Bible Translation
> Comittee, 1984.)
>
> The name TRACHONITIS, when re-arranged
> letter-by-letter as "TORC-HAN-ITIS", is the Turkish
> expression "TURK HAN IDI" meaning "they were Turk
> lords". The suffix "-ITI, -ITE, -ITIS" is the
> Turkish word "iti / idi" meaning "it is". The name
> TRACHONITIS is just like the name "THRACIANS", that
> is, a different arrangement of the names of Turkish
> peoples so that they cannot be recognized as Turks.
> This is more suppression of the name TUR/TURK by the
> wandering peoples.
>
> f) The name ITURAEA, a group of peoples living in
> the area north of "Sea of Galilee", (same map, p.
> 1647 of the same reference source). The name ITURAEA
> is very similar to the name "ETRURIA" of the land of
> Tur/Turk Etruscans. "ITURAEA" when rearranged
> letter-by-letter as "AI-TUR-EA" or "TURAY-EA" is the
> Turkish expression "AY TUR �Y�" or
"TURAY �Y�"
> meaning "home of AY TUR" or "Home of TURAY". The
> name TURAY or AYTUR is a widely used male name in
> the Turkish world. Similarly "AYTURA" or "TURAYA"
> is female name used in the Turkish world. These
> names also indicate the "moon worshipping" religion
> of ancient Tur/Turks.
>
> g) The name PEREA, east of Jordan River and the
> land where the "YARMUK river, the eastern branch of
> Jordan river, flows. The name YARMUK is very much
> Turkish. In fact it is the confused Turkish name
> "IRMAK U"meaning "it is river". The name "PEREA" is
> the Turkish name "PER �Y" (BIR-�Y)
meaning "Home of
> ONE" referring to the ancient Turanian "BIR-O" the
> Sky-God. The Pharaohs of the ancient Tur/Turk
> Masarian state used this name in the form of "PERU"
> to describe themselves as God on earth. Their
> palace was also called by the name "PERU", that is,
> Turkish "BIR �Y" meaning the "King's house"
or
> "God's house" (i.e., palace). For name Yarmuk River
> see map:
> http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/seagal.htm
>
>
> In this area, there was also the Scyhtian city
> called by the "Greek" name "Scythopolis" or
> "Beth-shean" city. (see the maps on Internet):
>
>
http://www.bible-history.com/geography/ancient-israel/galilee.html
>
http://www.bible-history.com/geography/ancient-israel/cities-of-the-decapolis.ht\
ml
>

--------------------
C. A. Winters

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
xyyman
Member
Member # 13597

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for xyyman   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This paper was/is a bomb shell. But as Das pointed out serious attempts were made to 'silence' the paper. In his response back to critics he pointed out the many techniques used by European to manipulate or skew the data which I have mentioned many times. I am onto their games and trickery.

He stated the pre-scythians(not sure who they are, lol!) carried sub-saharan African ancestry and the basal forms of Jews carry Sub-Saharan ancestry(African Bedoiuns). But the topic is really about Turks. He agrees with Mike that The base population of the Levant and Near East are Africans. The Turks came in now dominate all of the Levant and far into Egypt. That is why the DNATribes chart show such high Turkish ancestry in Egypt and Moroccan Jews as much as 50%.


This the proof needed to show that the elites of the Levant and Egypt are Turks. I am not sure anyone noticed but in his paper Das pointed out the time line is more like 600AD. 600AD!! 600AD! Think Nina Hollfielder et al. The Arab expansion NEVER occurred. These were Turks moving south into Africa.

--------------------
Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming

Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
This paper was/is a bomb shell. But as Das pointed out serious attempts were made to 'silence' the paper. In his response back to critics he pointed out the many techniques used by European to manipulate or skew the data which I have mentioned many times. I am onto their games and trickery.

He stated the pre-scythians(not sure who they are, lol!) carried sub-saharan African ancestry and the basal forms of Jews carry Sub-Saharan ancestry(African Bedoiuns). But the topic is really about Turks. He agrees with Mike that The base population of the Levant and Near East are Africans. The Turks came in now dominate all of the Levant and far into Egypt. That is why the DNATribes chart show such high Turkish ancestry in Egypt and Moroccan Jews as much as 50%.


This the proof needed to show that the elites of the Levant and Egypt are Turks. I am not sure anyone noticed but in his paper Das pointed out the time line is more like 600AD. 600AD!! 600AD! Think Nina Hollfielder et al. The Arab expansion NEVER occurred. These were Turks moving south into Africa.

The Pre-Scythians were Kushites.

 -

.

--------------------
C. A. Winters

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
xyyman
Member
Member # 13597

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for xyyman   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So Bronze Age Levantines were black? Lol!

Continuity and Admixture in the Last Five Millennia of Levantine History from Ancient Canaanite and Present-Day Lebanese Genome Sequences - Haber M et al

Quote:
"light intermediate skin pigmentation, brown eyes, and dark hair) with similar frequencies of the underlying causal variants in SLC24A5 and HERC2, but with Sidon_BA probably having darker skin than Lebanese today from variants in SLC45A2 resulting in darker
pigmentation (Table S2)."

To those who don't know. Tropical Africans carry as much as 25% SLC24A5(rs654) but about 4% SLC45A2(rs1982). Look at TableS2. These are black people. I can't make this stuff up!!!!!!

--------------------
Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming

Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Thereal
Member
Member # 22452

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Thereal     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tropical Africans carry as much as 25% SLC24A5(rs654) but about 4% SLC45A2(rs1982). Look at TableS2. Is that meant as the Africans carrying the mutated form of that gene?
Posts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
xyyman
Member
Member # 13597

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for xyyman   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes. Africans carry the mutated form of the gene. Shriver et al and Beleza et al.


That is why the effect is cumulative (Shriver et al). He concluded that Africans already carried the mutated gene BEFORE leaving Africa.(look at Native Americans in the chart below)

Keep in mind SOME Europeans carry the ANCESTRAL form of the gene and yet are white in complexion. Again...the effect is cumulative. SLC45A2 and SLC24A5 are the MAJOR genes. In other words the genetic profile of the Canaanites are like Nigerians.

But the Author put his spin to it and used the word "darker than present day" peoples living in the Levant.


But being a European or a lackey of one. I don't expect anything more than LIES and spin.

Notice "some" northern Europeans carry the ancestral form like Nigerians
 -

--------------------
Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming

Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | EgyptSearch!

(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3