The facts are that all evidence points to the regions along the Nile between Upper Egypt and Lower Sudan as the cultural heartland of the Nile Valley between the last Wet Phase and 5,000 BC. And this period involved many different populations who came and went over time in this region as part of seasonal migrations and interacted with others who had a more settled lifestyle. And this migratory pattern ties into the populations in the Sahara during the last wet phase as well. The languages all these groups spoke over the time frame from 10kya to 5kya is not known. And unfortunately there is little if any DNA from these time periods either...
Suffice to say, the later dynastic culture emerged from earlier cultures on the Nile like the Halfan and Kubbaniyan which were part of a settlement complex on the Upper Nile that goes back to the Pleistocene and further. So this firmly shows that the root of these cultural traditions and early populations migrating along the Nile was in Africa.
Another more modern narrative of these cultural traditions, but again using misleading phrasing because all of these traditions were African (note the last bit about the Harifian, when all the evidence on the Nile points to an indigenous African pastoral complex evolving in the Sahara/Sahel and on the NIle):
It just shows how desperate these people are to associate anything to do with the dynastic era, even if it comes from further south or in the central Sahara, with Eurasia.
What if Levantine/Eurasian like populations arose in Africa? What then?
Posts: 200 | From: Nibiru | Registered: Mar 2023
| IP: Logged |
The Songhai for example who even formed their own empire had they language classified as 'Nilo-Saharan' once only for linguists to realize it really wasn't.
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
Which linguists dispute that Songhai is not Nilo Saharan?
Likely he meant to say that the Songhai languages had once been classified as Niger-Congo langauges, but he can correct me if i am misrepresenting his position. But to your question, Which linguists dispute that Songhai is not Nilo Saharan? The leading scholar in Songhai languages, Robert Nicolaď, disagrees that the Songhai languages belong in the Nilo-Saharan language phylum, but rather that they're Berber - Mande creoles, with some more "berberized" than others (Tadaksahak for example).
To your point about the Nabtan's possibly being Nilo-Saharan speakers, please elaborate on what this entails? We are currently speaking in English, does that mean that we are of Anglo-Saxon heritage? Fulani pastoralists speak Niger-Congo languages yet still cluster with certain Nilo-Saharan and Chadic groups. The fact that the people who were at Nabta Playa may or may not have spoken Nilotic-Saharan languages could mean nothing more than cultural contact between two different groups, nothing genetic related, they could've still been a majority Levantine/Eurasian population.
Offtopic, but does anybody know the name of the scholar who believed that the Ancient Egyptians actually spoke a Nilo-Saharan language? I've seen him mentioned on this site but can't
Let's think about that bolded statement for a minute. Creole and pidgen languages for the last 500 hundred years in the west have been created by certain power dynamics.
Taking this quote from another thread sums up what might be the impetus for such conclusions that Songhay is not nilo saharan but a pidgen language.
quote:quote: The FRENCH ( my empahsis) colonial conquerors saw the upper strata of Tuareg society as white and, according to some, even of European descent. They have been portrayed, among other things, as the descendants of the Vandals, lost crusaders, or even a Caucasian-populated sunken Atlantis (Henry 1996). Meanwhile, the lower strata of Tuareg society, the slaves and blacksmiths, were seen as racially black. Thus, in colonial European presentations of African history, the Tuareg elite was presented as an alien invader which had subdued an indigenous African population, an image that would resurface at various times after independence. In the colonial mind, Tuareg society and its historical white European origins mirrored the colonial project itself. This may have been at the root of the positive appreciation of Tuareg society by French colonial rulers.
To the Malian administration, the Tuareg elite was just as white as it had been to the colonial administration. However, where the latter appreciated their whiteness positively, the Malian Government saw it as a sign of otherness and as a threat. In the 1950s and in the first years after independence, the Malian political leaders made it quite clear that they perceived the Tuareg their whiteness and their way of life as a problem (Lecocq 2002). In the vision of ruling US-RDA politicians, the Tuareg had been colonial favourites because of their whiteness, which had given them a misplaced superiority complex.
As for the Tuareg themselves, their own concepts of race have slightly more sophisticated nuances, but they are nevertheless important in classifying people. Three physical categories are perceived: koual, black; shaggaran, red; and sattafan, greenish or shiny black. Social status is connected to these categories. Koual is the appearance of the blacksmiths and slaves,- shaggaran is associated with the free, but not the noble,- and sattafan is the colour of nobility. Finally, we could note the specifically racial denominator esherdan in the Air and Hoggar dialects, which means mulatto of a "black" and a "red" parent - black and red here meaning African and Arab-Berber, not slave and master (Alojaly 1980)
Thus, local terms to describe racial and social status cannot easily be translated into Western racial or racialist concepts as the French conquerors did. Yet, that is what happened. In 1951, a French Commander could still note about the Tuareg nobility of the Niger Bend, which would most likely be qualified as sattafan, that "many are black and generally do not have the noble appearance of the inhabitants of the [Algerian] Hoggar." Through their own racial bias and despite fifty years of colonial presence, the French commanders translated shaggaran (red) as "white" and "white" as nobles . Indigenous Tuareg physical distinctions have gradually incorporated these more European notions. When speaking French, a Tuareg will now translate koual as "noir." However, both shaggaran (red) and sattafan (greenish black) will be translated "blanc." Source: " target="_blank">https://sci-hub.se/https://www.jstor.org/stable/25067450[/QUOTE]
Let's not forget what the French did in North Africa and HOW they did it.
quote:How France engineered North African ethnic rivalry to further colonisation France wielded ethnic and cultural diversity as a weapon and engineered sectarian discord to achieve its colonial goals. To realise its dreams of North African hegemony,
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
Reviewed Work: Parentés linguistiques (ŕ propos du songhay) by Robert Nicolaď Review by: Gerrit J. Dimmendaal Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 55, No. 3 (1992), pp. 610-612 (3 pages)
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Indeed, where exactly is the dividing line between African and "Eurasian" if proto-Eurasian originated in Africa??
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: Which linguists dispute that Songhai is not Nilo-Saharan?
There are many but two I can think of are Gerrit Dimmendaal (2008) and Westermann & Bryan (2017)
quote:What vestige languages are NOT Nilo Saharan nor Afroasiatic in the Sahel & The Horn are you speaking of? What are their names and what ethnic groups speak them?
I already gave examples of 2 in Ethiopia in my previous post-- Degere and the old language of the Waata which became extinct. Here's another Ongata.
quote:How do you dispute Ehret's "conjecture" on Songhai as a a Nilo-Saharan language? What is your linguistic evidence to the contrary?
Ehret is just going along with Joseph Greenberg's 4 phyla model which has been disputed for the longest. In fact I myself have been schooled in this issue in this forum which was discussed multiple times.
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: Which linguists dispute that Songhai is not Nilo-Saharan?
There are many but two I can think of are Gerrit Dimmendaal (2008) and Westermann & Bryan (2017)
quote:What vestige languages are NOT Nilo Saharan nor Afroasiatic in the Sahel & The Horn are you speaking of? What are their names and what ethnic groups speak them?
I already gave examples of 2 in Ethiopia in my previous post--Degere and the old language of the Waata which became extinct. Here's another Ongata.
quote:How do you dispute Ehret's "conjecture" on Songhai as a a Nilo-Saharan language? What is your linguistic evidence to the contrary?
Ehret is just going along with Joseph Greenberg's 4 phyla model which has been disputed for the longest. In fact I myself have been schooled in this issue in this forum which was discussed multiple times.
Where any of the vestige languages in the green sahara practicing cattle pastoralism? All of these groups are in SW Ethiopia, Kenya & Tanzania.
Ongata southwest Ethiopia. seems has a Nilo Sarahan substrate...
quote:Ongota has features of both Afroasiatic and Nilo-Saharan languages that confuse its classification, and linguists and anthropologists have been unable to clearly trace its linguistic roots so far. Savŕ and Tosco (2007) claim that Ongota's morphology is Ts'amakko and that ~50% of the lexicon can be connected to Ts'amakko roots. They also report that Aklilu Yilma of Addis Ababa University considers Ongota to be a pidginised creole. They state that this "conclusion is strengthened by a local legend stating that Ongota originated from a multiethnic melting pot." They further report that Lionel Bender considers Ongota to be Cushitic, Václav Blažek (1991, 2001, and forth.)[full citation needed] Nilo-Saharan, and Cushiticist Maarten Mous (2003)[full citation needed][3] mentions it as a language isolate. Savŕ and Tosco (2003, 2007), themselves, believe it to be an East Cushitic language with a Nilo-Saharan substratum—that is, that Ongota speakers shifted to East Cushitic from an earlier Nilo-Saharan language, traces of which still remain.
Waata - Southern Cushitic. The Waata (Waat, Watha), or Sanye, are an Oromo-speaking people of Kenya and former hunter-gatherers.
quote:The Waata (Waat, Watha), or Sanye, are an Oromo-speaking people of Kenya and former hunter-gatherers. They share the name Sanye with the neighboring Dahalo.
The current language of the Waata may be a dialect of Orma or otherwise Southern Oromo. However, there is evidence that they may have shifted from a Southern Cushitic language, a group that includes Dahalo
Degere -former hunter-gatherers of Kenya and Tanzania,
quote:The Degere are a Mijikenda-speaking group of former hunter-gatherers of Kenya and Tanzania, now settled along the Ramisi, Mwena and Umba rivers, with a few along the coast. They may number no more than a few hundred to at most a few thousand. They are believed to be related to, possibly descended from, the Oromo-speaking Waata. They are variously reported to speak Duruma, Digo, a similar Mijikenda dialect of their own, or to speak Mijikenda with grammatical errors (such as incorrect verb tenses) much as the Waata do when they speak Mijikend
Westermann has been dead since 1956 the book was not written in 2017 as you link implies. Westermann's conclusion was that Songhai was an isolate language.
quote:The Languages of West Africa is a book written by Diedrich Westermann and Margaret Arminel Bryan. It was published in 1952 by the International African Institute
Gerrit Dimmendaal on the nilo saharan classification of Songhai, there is definitely conditional language in his concluding paragraph on the subject from his 2019 work.
Now if you are looking for vestige langauges that actually might be related to the ancient Nilo Saharans of the green sahara, why not the Laal speakers
Toubou autosomal DNA was Eurasian in origin, and their African ancestral component was best represented by Laal-speaking populations.
quote:Laal remains unclassified, although extensive Adamawa (specifically Bua) and to a lesser extent Chadic influence is found. It is sometimes grouped with one of those two language families, and sometimes seen as a language isolate. Boyeldieu (1982) summarizes his view as "Its classification remains problematic; while it shows certain lexical, and no doubt morphological, traits with the Bua languages (Adamawa-13, Niger–Congo family of Joseph H. Greenberg), it differs from them radically in many ways of which some, a priori, make one think of geographically nearby Chadic languages." Roger Blench (2003), similarly, considers that "its vocabulary and morphology seem to be partly drawn from Chadic (i.e. Afro-Asiatic), partly from Adamawa (i.e. Niger–Congo) and partly from an unknown source, perhaps its original phylum, a now-vanished grouping from Central Africa." It is the last possibility which attracts particular interest; if this proves true, Laal may be the only remaining window on the linguistic state of Central Africa before the expansion of the main African language families—Afro-Asiatic, Nilo-Saharan, and Niger–Congo—into it
Laal people were cattle herders 200 years ago, prior to being forced off the savannah and reduced to fishing
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: Where any of the vestige languages in the green Sahara practicing cattle pastoralism? All of these groups are in SW Ethiopia, Kenya & Tanzania.
Your question makes no sense. We don't know all the languages that existed in the green Sahara unless you know of a time machine we can use. I cited two of many linguists who show that Songhay should be classified as its own language phylum which was likely spoken in the Sahara.
quote:Ongata southwest Ethiopia. seems has a Nilo Sarahan substrate...
quote:Ongota has features of both Afroasiatic and Nilo-Saharan languages that confuse its classification, and linguists and anthropologists have been unable to clearly trace its linguistic roots so far. Savŕ and Tosco (2007) claim that Ongota's morphology is Ts'amakko and that ~50% of the lexicon can be connected to Ts'amakko roots. They also report that Aklilu Yilma of Addis Ababa University considers Ongota to be a pidginised creole. They state that this "conclusion is strengthened by a local legend stating that Ongota originated from a multiethnic melting pot." They further report that Lionel Bender considers Ongota to be Cushitic, Václav Blažek (1991, 2001, and forth.)[full citation needed] Nilo-Saharan, and Cushiticist Maarten Mous (2003)[full citation needed][3] mentions it as a language isolate. Savŕ and Tosco (2003, 2007), themselves, believe it to be an East Cushitic language with a Nilo-Saharan substratum—that is, that Ongota speakers shifted to East Cushitic from an earlier Nilo-Saharan language, traces of which still remain.
Yes that's the theory. Ongata is either a pigeon language or an isolate due to its mixture of features.
quote:Waata - Southern Cushitic. The Waata (Waat, Watha), or Sanye, are an Oromo-speaking people of Kenya and former hunter-gatherers.
quote:The Waata (Waat, Watha), or Sanye, are an Oromo-speaking people of Kenya and former hunter-gatherers. They share the name Sanye with the neighboring Dahalo.
The current language of the Waata may be a dialect of Orma or otherwise Southern Oromo. However, there is evidence that they may have shifted from a Southern Cushitic language, a group that includes Dahalo
The Waata today currently speak Cushitic language yes, but during colonial times it was documented they spoke something else entirely different which became extinct. By the time of European colonialism there were only a few words and sentences that were preserved.
quote:Degere -former hunter-gatherers of Kenya and Tanzania,
quote:The Degere are a Mijikenda-speaking group of former hunter-gatherers of Kenya and Tanzania, now settled along the Ramisi, Mwena and Umba rivers, with a few along the coast. They may number no more than a few hundred to at most a few thousand. They are believed to be related to, possibly descended from, the Oromo-speaking Waata. They are variously reported to speak Duruma, Digo, a similar Mijikenda dialect of their own, or to speak Mijikenda with grammatical errors (such as incorrect verb tenses) much as the Waata do when they speak Mijikend
Westermann has been dead since 1956 the book was not written in 2017 as you link implies. Westermann's conclusion was that Songhai was an isolate language.
quote:The Languages of West Africa is a book written by Diedrich Westermann and Margaret Arminel Bryan. It was published in 1952 by the International African Institute
Gerrit Dimmendaal on the nilo saharan classification of Songhai, there is definitely conditional language in his concluding paragraph on the subject from his 2019 work.
Now if you are looking for vestige langauges that actually might be related to the ancient Nilo Saharans of the green sahara, why not the Laal speakers
Toubou autosomal DNA was Eurasian in origin, and their African ancestral component was best represented by Laal-speaking populations.
quote:Laal remains unclassified, although extensive Adamawa (specifically Bua) and to a lesser extent Chadic influence is found. It is sometimes grouped with one of those two language families, and sometimes seen as a language isolate. Boyeldieu (1982) summarizes his view as "Its classification remains problematic; while it shows certain lexical, and no doubt morphological, traits with the Bua languages (Adamawa-13, Niger–Congo family of Joseph H. Greenberg), it differs from them radically in many ways of which some, a priori, make one think of geographically nearby Chadic languages." Roger Blench (2003), similarly, considers that "its vocabulary and morphology seem to be partly drawn from Chadic (i.e. Afro-Asiatic), partly from Adamawa (i.e. Niger–Congo) and partly from an unknown source, perhaps its original phylum, a now-vanished grouping from Central Africa." It is the last possibility which attracts particular interest; if this proves true, Laal may be the only remaining window on the linguistic state of Central Africa before the expansion of the main African language families—Afro-Asiatic, Nilo-Saharan, and Niger–Congo—into it
Laal people were cattle herders 200 years ago, prior to being forced off the savannah and reduced to fishing
I don't know why you seem so die-hard on the Greenberg model considering that there is so much evidence showing that there was a greater diversity of African languages than the 4 family model. Especially considering that Africans have the greatest genetic diversity. Are you even aware that the Khoisan grouping is the most artificial?? This reduction of African languages into 4 families is no more than a homogenization process used by European colonialists.
Here's another good paper: The linguistic importance of language isolates: the African case One of the most telling proofs of the problematic status of "Nilo-Saharan" is that two recent attempts at reconstructing "proto-Nilo-Saharan" (Bender 1996 and Ehret 2001) end up with two very different - in fact incompatible - internal classifications of the phylum. Even "Eastern Sudanic" which should presumably prove most resistant to restructuring does not escape entirely unscathed: Greenberg's "Teuso", (nowadays more generally called Kuliak, a remnant language group in eastern Uganda) is taken by Bender outside of the "Eastern Sudanic" family altogether, whereas Ehret firmly retains it (in fact many contemporary researchers would consider Kuliak an isolate)
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually I am not die hard on the nilo saharan classification of Songhai... what I am interested in is the misinformation that I see some on this site spouting left and right. I find that some here are actually just repeating what other people say and not actually reading and comprehending some of these sources.
I am reading Blench's Niger Saharan and he disputes both Dimmendal and Nicolai
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wasn't Nilo-Saharan often used as a linguistic wastebasket? If so, there's got to be a ton of linguistic isolates in there. I always thought it was strange that the cradle of humanity had almost all its languages sorted into only four phyla. You find way more linguistic phyla in the Americas despite the human arrival there being much more recent.
posted
^ That's why I'm suspicious about the way some of these African languages are classified. I'd say Nilo-Saharan is roughly equivalent to say Altai-Siberian or Altaic phylum in Asia. I always took it for granted that these Western linguists were accurate as accurate in their assessments as they were with Indo-European, so imagine my surprise some years ago when I found out how tenuous the construct was. [And yes I knew Korean, Japanese, and definitely Ainu were not included] However I always thought Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic were more genetically related than I thought. In regards to African linguistics, Christopher Ehret's specialty is Afroasiatic which all linguists agree is a true genetic phylum. I'm not saying that Nilo-Saharan is not a true genetic phylum, but as you Brandon stated some linguists who are not a accurate are quick to group isolates in there due to apparently superficial features.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shebitku: What if Levantine/Eurasian like populations arose in Africa? What then?
Then that original population would be rightfully called African. However, the issue is distinguishing those parent populations and their descendants that stayed in Africa versus those other descendants that left. But that would be primarily at a much greater time scale over 20kya. Most of the issues at this point is related to lack of ancient DNA from Northern Africa of any time scale and across the Sahara and Nile Valley, including Chad, Niger, Mauretania, Southern Libya, Sudan and Ethiopia.
quote:Originally posted by Shebitku:
quote:Originally posted by jehuti:
The Songhai for example who even formed their own empire had they language classified as 'Nilo-Saharan' once only for linguists to realize it really wasn't.
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
Which linguists dispute that Songhai is not Nilo Saharan?
Likely he meant to say that the Songhai languages had once been classified as Niger-Congo langauges, but he can correct me if i am misrepresenting his position. But to your question, Which linguists dispute that Songhai is not Nilo Saharan? The leading scholar in Songhai languages, Robert Nicolaď, disagrees that the Songhai languages belong in the Nilo-Saharan language phylum, but rather that they're Berber - Mande creoles, with some more "berberized" than others (Tadaksahak for example).
To your point about the Nabtan's possibly being Nilo-Saharan speakers, please elaborate on what this entails? We are currently speaking in English, does that mean that we are of Anglo-Saxon heritage? Fulani pastoralists speak Niger-Congo languages yet still cluster with certain Nilo-Saharan and Chadic groups. The fact that the people who were at Nabta Playa may or may not have spoken Nilotic-Saharan languages could mean nothing more than cultural contact between two different groups, nothing genetic related, they could've still been a majority Levantine/Eurasian population.
Offtopic, but does anybody know the name of the scholar who believed that the Ancient Egyptians actually spoke a Nilo-Saharan language? I've seen him mentioned on this site but can't find the thread.
The idea that the Nabtans were of Levantine/Eurasian heritage is very unlikely. Their temporal and geographic location puts them at the crossroads of ancient migrations between the drying Sahara and Nile Valley. And it is that same geographical and temporal location that he question of what languages they spoke and its relation to known language groups is intriguing but currently unknown.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ My original contention with Yatunde was in regards to what phylum the Nabtans' language belonged not their own physical genetics. Yatunde claims it's Nilo-Saharan, while my opinion is that it's very much possible but without actual evidence we won't know for certain.
Language and population are two different entities that are related but not synonymous. I tried to explain this to Tarazah who identifies E-M215 in Southwest Asia with Semitic yet most Semitic speakers today carry J. This shows that languages can be transferred without genes. This is why the majority of English speakers in the world today have NO English that is Anglo-Saxon ancestry.
As to the actual genetics of the Nabtans, we don't have any genetic samples as far as I know but we do have samples from the Bronze Age Pre-Kerman site of Kadruka.
^ The sample is almost half "Eurasian".
Yet Kadruka lies much farther south than Nabta.
So the question is when did this allegedly Eurasian ancestry enter that far south in the Nile Valley?
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ My original contention with Yatunde was in regards to what phylum the Nabtans' language belonged not their own physical genetics. Yatunde claims it's Nilo-Saharan, while my opinion is that it's very much possible but without actual evidence we won't know for certain.
Language and population are two different entities that are related but not synonymous. I tried to explain this to Tarazah who identifies E-M215 in Southwest Asia with Semitic yet most Semitic speakers today carry J. This shows that languages can be transferred without genes. This is why the majority of English speakers in the world today have NO English that is Anglo-Saxon ancestry.
As to the actual genetics of the Nabtans, we don't have any genetic samples as far as I know but we do have samples from the Bronze Age Pre-Kerman site of Kadruka.
^ The sample is almost half "Eurasian".
Yet Kadruka lies much farther south than Nabta.
So the question is when did this allegedly Eurasian ancestry enter that far south in the Nile Valley?
Not sure where that DNA sample is from but I assume it is from that Kadruka hair sample from 4000 years ago. Obviously one sample is just a drop in the bucket and would need more data to show how it relates to overall population movements.
The bigger issue is that the Upper Nile and Lower Sudan has more sites of settlement going back 20,000 years or more than the Lower Nile. Because for a long time that area was more suitable than the Lower Nile for human occupation. And it is during that time that you see population settlements moving between the Sahara and the Nile. Ancient Kerma (prior to 5,000 BC) or the Khartoum Mesolithic and other sites attest to this, along with Nabta Playa, Wadi Halfa and so forth. To characterize these clusters of populations as "Eurasian" makes no sense. And of course it is from this region that the question of the origin of cattle domestication on the Nile has come up numerous times.
Kadruka hair study: 4000-year-old hair from the Middle Nile highlights unusual ancient DNA degradation pattern and a potential source of early eastern Africa pastoralists https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-25384-y
quote: The cemetery of Ghaba, consisting of 265 graves, was excavated under direction of Y. Lecointe by the Section Française de la Direction des Antiquités du Soudan (1982–1985). The cemetery dates to 4750–4350 and 4000–3650 cal BC (Salvatori and Usai, 2007, Salvatori and Usai, 2008b, Salvatori et al., 2015), thus being partly contemporaneous with R12. Organic material included bucrania of domestic cattle, few tools made of bone from domestic and/or wild animals, and freshwater molluscs. In 39 graves, whitish deposits that were similar to those from R12 were recorded (see Supplementary data file 1). Two samples from graves 233 and 295 were available for analysis. Initially, these deposits were intuitively interpreted as remains of mats and/or leather clothes (Lecointe, 1987, p. 73, p. 78).
The earlier obtained identifications of silica skeletons, phytoliths and starch from dental calculus from R12 and Ghaba as well as the 14C dates are presented in Madella et al. (2014). At R12, phytoliths were obtained from grave 46 (Fig. 3) that belongs to a cluster of graves that represents the oldest phase of the site and which included a grave dated to 4933–4688 cal BC (grave 18B). The silica skeletons in this sample show dominance of inflorescences (chaff) of the C3 grasses Hordeum sp. and/or Triticum sp. (Triticeae) (see Fig. 4). Although phytoliths of these taxa do not allow for a distinction between wild and domesticated plants, the finds from R12 are interpreted as domesticated emmer wheat and/or hulled barley since wild relatives of these taxa are not known from this region and period (Weiss and Zohary, 2011, Zohary et al., 2012). The phytolith sample was directly radiocarbon dated to 5311–5066 cal BC (2σ) and corresponds with the earliest phase of the site. In contrast to R12, the silica skeletons from Ghaba have shown dominance of inflorescences of various C4 panicoid grasses, including Brachiaria sp. and Echinochloa sp., directly dated to 5620–5480 cal BC and 4730–4540 cal BC (2σ) (see Fig. 4). Again the phytoliths do not allow for a distinction between wild and domesticated taxa. Although some form of plant management may have taken place, the most parsimonious assumption for these taxa is that it concerns wild grasses since there is no substantial evidence of domesticated panicoid taxa for this region and period. The Ghaba phytolith samples also verified a minor component of Hordeum sp./Triticum sp.
quote: With the research on the issue in its initial phases, the behaviour and hunting strategies of MSA communities inhabiting the Nile Valley in the Late and Terminal Pleistocene have been fragmentarily recognised thus far. Osteological materials from the area of the Affad Basin in the Middle Nile Valley, recorded in archaeological contexts and dated to the sixteenth millennium BP using OSL methods, have significantly enhanced our knowledge in this regard. It is the first time that an opportunity has occurred to construct a reliable model of the environment exploitation and the behaviour of human groups producing lithic tools using Levallois methods in the Terminal Pleistocene. Archaeozoological analyses have allowed the identification of taxa, species and anatomical origin of remains and enabled the establishment of a database of osteometric measurements. The animals hunted in the Sudanese Nile Valley during the Terminal Pleistocene have been classified with a view to refer the data to the results of analogous studies on MSA in South Africa. The behaviour of the communities occupying the Affad Basin 15,000 years ago was connected to the environment of the tree-covered, swampy savannah and extensive backwaters. Medium-sized antelope (kobus) was hunted most often. People hunted also, albeit less frequently, for large ruminants (buffalo), guenons and large rodents. Remains of fish and mega-fauna (hippopotamus and elephant) have been found in isolated concentrations, away from the camp sites. Remains of molluscs or ostrich eggs have not been registered. The condition of the osteological materials, notably their anatomical distribution, is shown to have been largely affected by wetland environment, rich in iron and manganese.
quote: In northeastern Africa, the Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) weather system influenced biotic productivity and people's abilities to live away from major rivers and oases in what is now the Sahara. During the Holocene Saharan humid phase (8500 to 5300 BC), the ITCZ was far north of its present location, and human populations settled the suddenly green and well-watered Saharan grasslands as semi-sedentary foragers who developed widespread ceramics in the tenth millennium BC (Caneva, 1987; Huysecom et al., 2009; Kuper & Kröpelin, 2006).[b] Within this context, pastoralism—rather than farming—was the earliest food production system in most of Africa except for the Nile delta (Linseele, 2010; Marshall & Hildebrand, 2002; see Salvatori & Usai, 2019 for a dissenting view). The adoption of cattle herding spread throughout the Sahara, Eastern Saharan oases, and along the Nile between 7000 and 4000 years BC, and Southwest Asian sheep and goats were introduced within a millennium (Gifford-Gonzalez & Hanotte, 2011; Linseele, 2010). Although scholars have offered a variety of explanations for the initial adoption of pastoralism in the Sahara, most agree that experimentation with herding and increasing mobility provided Saharan populations with a means of buffering themselves against the consequences of climate change (Di Lernia, 2001; Marshall & Hildebrand, 2002; Nicoll, 2004; Stojanowski & Knudson, 2014). By 3500 BC, an even more dramatic decrease in rainfall caused Saharan populations to concentrate themselves into the wadis (seasonal watercourses), oases, and remaining marshes (Hoelzmann et al., 2001; Kuper & Kröpelin, 2006; Kuper & Reimer, 2013). When these areas dried up, some Saharan populations shifted east into the Nile Valley and Eastern Saharan oases (Brooks, 2006; Di Lernia, 2006; Hassan, 2002), where pasturelands and water would have been attractive for seasonal migrations (Haaland & Haaland, 2013).
Meanwhile, Holocene peoples along the Nile had developed economies based on intensive gathering of wild plants and exploitation of wild animals, some becoming semi-sedentary (Haaland, 1992; Nicoll, 2004; Wetterstrom, 1997). By 6000 BC, these Nile Valley subsistence strategies began to accommodate the initial influx of caprines from Southwest Asia (Wengrow et al., 2014). After 5300 BC, the ICTZ's maximum northward movements shifted south, and the Sahara Desert expanded (Kuper & Kröpelin, 2006). By extension, changes in the ITCZ's location also impacted the Nile, increasing water flow and becoming more attractive for herding peoples fleeing Saharan desiccation.
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Language and population are two different entities that are related but not synonymous. I tried to explain this to Tarazah who identifies E-M215 in Southwest Asia with Semitic yet most Semitic speakers today carry J. This shows that languages can be transferred without genes. This is why the majority of English speakers in the world today have NO English that is Anglo-Saxon ancestry.
First of all, I did not identify anything. Actual geneticists identified it and I simply referenced their work. Secondly, I never claimed that language had to be transferred with genes. I argued that proto-semitic speakers would have been the biological ancestors of the Hebrews and Israelites and I referenced papers to show it. According to the Biblical narrative (and common sense), Shem, the ancestor of the Hebrews and Israelites, would have been apart of the same bloodline that was responsible for the creation of the semitic languages. Yes, millions of people speak english today but that does not mean they are descendants of the original and native english speakers. That is the exact point I have been making when it comes to semitic languages.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ But as I explained to you before the Hebrew language is not the same Proto-Semitic and the Biblical ancestry of the Hebrew people lies in northern Mesopotamia NOT Africa. Again language vs. population.
To Doug, I am of the opinion that the PPN ancestry in the Kadruka study is the same as Natufian ancestry and that such ancestry is also African as was shown here. This is why Nubians' position is East African but as an outlier as was shown here.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Please stop stating Mesopotamian ancestry for he Hebrews as a fact because it is NOT. The claim of Mesopotamian Ancestry by the Hebrews is a myth,
The book of the Bible was written by different authors in different spaces and times.
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ So are you saying the Biblical stories are fabrications? What about all the Hebrew customs in Genesis that are Mesopotamian which I listed here? Where did modern Jews including Middle Eastern Jews of Levite and Cohen surname inherit their hg J, then?
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ So are you saying the Biblical stories are fabrications? What about all the Hebrew customs in Genesis that are Mesopotamian which I listed here? Where did modern Jews including Middle Eastern Jews of Levite and Cohen surname inherit their hg J, then?
All and I mean all of the bronze age patriarchal ancestors are legends, myths, eponymous ancestors. And how many times you gonna make me debunk this claim.
quote:The Nuzi texts are ancient documents found during an excavation of Nuzi, an ancient Mesopotamian city southwest of Kirkuk in modern Kirkuk Governorate of Iraq, located near the Tigris river. They were found on cuneiform tablets written in the Akkadian language.[1] The site consists of one medium-sized multiperiod tell and two small single period mounds. The texts are mainly legal and business documents. They have previously been viewed as evidence for the age and veracity of certain parts of the Old Testament, especially of the Patriarchal age, but that attribution is now doubted by most scholars
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ But as I explained to you before the Hebrew language is not the same Proto-Semitic and the Biblical ancestry of the Hebrew people lies in northern Mesopotamia NOT Africa. Again language vs. population.
I never said the Hebrews originated in Africa, and there are geneticists (Dr. Eran Elhaik for example) who label Abraham (a Hebrew) as an E carrier who came from Turkey (Mesopotamia) during the same time period that the Biblical narrative records.
The chosen lineage that the Bible gives us is:
Adam > Seth > Noah > Shem > Abraham > Isaac > Jacob/Israel
For those who do subscribe to genetic methodology, it is complete madness to assert that Shem himself would not have been apart of the same bloodline responsible for the creation and dispersal of SEMITIC/SHEMITIC languages (haplogroup E), regardless of whether or not modern secularists say Semitic = Shem.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: To Doug, I am of the opinion that the PPN ancestry in the Kadruka study is the same as Natufian ancestry and that such ancestry is also African as was shown here. This is why Nubians' position is East African but as an outlier as was shown here.
I wasn't disagreeing with that, except to put this in its proper context. My larger argument has always been that the Nile Valley and Sahara were a evolutionary cradle for the survival strategies that would lead to pastoralism and early agriculture. But the time frame for this is much older than 4KYA and likely somewhere between 20kya and 10kya to be a common ancestor between various ancient Northern/Northeastrn African populations and Natufians. The links I provided show all the ongoing research uncovering the large numbers of sites in he Upper Nile between Sudan and Egypt going back to the holocene as a key site of human evolutionary survival strategies.
Finding that common ancestor is the issue and would help clarify all these issues of the classification of African DNA lineages as "Eurasian" even far away from Eurasia. That Kadruka hair sample is far too late to identify that potential common ancestor as well. But we are far from having enough ancient DNA to see this bigger picture, with "basal Eurasian", various "ghost populations" and Natufians being strong hints in that direction. Keeping in mind this Eurasian affinity goes beyond the initial waves of OOA due to subsequent African migrations from a more recent time frame. Of course that whole discussion of back migrations from Eurasia obfuscates this as well.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
For those who do subscribe to genetic methodology, it is complete madness to assert that Shem himself would not have been apart of the same bloodline responsible for the creation and dispersal of SEMITIC/SHEMITIC languages (haplogroup E), regardless of whether or not modern secularists say Semitic = Shem.
According to the bible what groups are Semites?
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@the lioness,
This is from a well known christian website:
"Who are Semites?
Semites are a group of Near Eastern and African peoples descended from Shem. Called the father of the Semites, Shem was a son of Noah. He and seven other members of his family entered the ark, escaped the flood, and lived to repopulate the earth. Through Shem passed the line of descent to the Messiah, Jesus Christ. Shem’s great-grandson Eber was the father of those who were eventually called “Hebrews,” including Abram (see Genesis 10 and 11 for more on Shem’s line)."
Semites are a group of Near Eastern and African peoples descended from Shem. Called the father of the Semites, Shem was a son of Noah. He and seven other members of his family entered the ark, escaped the flood, and lived to repopulate the earth. Through Shem passed the line of descent to the Messiah, Jesus Christ. Shem’s great-grandson Eber was the father of those who were eventually called “Hebrews,” including Abram (see Genesis 10 and 11 for more on Shem’s line)."
quote: The Elamites, Assyrians, Lydians, Arameans, and several Arab tribes were known to be descendants of Shem.
So I assume you believe Arabs are descendants of Shem
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
Duh..... so are the Edomites, Moabites, Ammonites, and several other nations. Not sure what your point is
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
For those who do subscribe to genetic methodology, it is complete madness to assert that Shem himself would not have been apart of the same bloodline responsible for the creation and dispersal of SEMITIC/SHEMITIC languages (haplogroup E), regardless of whether or not modern secularists say Semitic = Shem.
Shem, Abraham or Jacob have nothing whatsoever to do with genetic methodology. And it doesn't matter if a geneticist makes a remark about a character in the bible, the remark steps outside of genetics, has absolutely nothing to do with genetics.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: All and I mean all of the bronze age patriarchal ancestors are legends, myths, eponymous ancestors. And how many times you gonna make me debunk this claim.
Yes the patriarch narratives are indeed legends not myths. Maybe you need to know the difference between these concepts. Legends have the greatest historicity next to actual historical documents themselves unlike myths. As far as eponymous ancestors are concerned, most scholars agree that the patriarchs are either based on ancient tribal leaders. Like all Semitic speaking peoples in the Middle East especially Arabs where tribes are named after their founders as they are in many cultures in around the world including in Africa. What is there to debunk?
Aside from myths of unions between gods and mortals, are you saying there is no basis in the Greek legends of their own matriarchs and patriarchs like Helen forefather of the Hellenic (Greek) nation or the 4 tribes who comprise that nation which is reflected in the 4 ancient dialects such as Dorian, Ionian, and Aeolian? Is there no truth to the ancient Egyptian legends about their own ancestors-- the Anu and Mesinitu? What about the Hindu legends of the 5 Aryan ethne descending from the 5 patriarchs of Chandravamsha (lunar race)? Or the Chinese tradition of descent from the 5 tribes of Huaxia? Even Western anthropologists, specifically ethnologists, are realizing that folk legends about ancestral origins held more accuracy and truth than what was originally believed, but doesn't mean every detail of the legend was accurate. How plausible is it that the 'War of the 9 Kings' a.k.a. 'Battle of Siddim' described in Genesis in which Abraham and his family was involved in was a total fabrication? About as plausible as the Rig-Vedic 'Dāsharājńá yuddhá' (Battle of the 10 Chiefs) yet I find it funny how many Western historians and philologists find the Vedic tradition more believable than the bible.
quote:The Nuzi texts are ancient documents found during an excavation of Nuzi, an ancient Mesopotamian city southwest of Kirkuk in modern Kirkuk Governorate of Iraq, located near the Tigris river. They were found on cuneiform tablets written in the Akkadian language.[1] The site consists of one medium-sized multiperiod tell and two small single period mounds. The texts are mainly legal and business documents. They have previously been viewed as evidence for the age and veracity of certain parts of the Old Testament, especially of the Patriarchal age, but that attribution is now doubted by most scholars
Of course the attribution is doubted because the Nuzi texts date to the late part of the Bronze Age (1450-1350 BC). Nobody is saying that the Hebrews received their customs from Nuzi, but what the texts indicate is that such customs did exist and it's not just Nuzi. The same Hebrew customs are found in the Code of Hammurabi (1755–1750 BC), and the Code of Lipit-Ishtar (1934–1924 BC). The point is that Hebrew customs show more affinities to Mesopotamia than anything else. In fact, I remember reading a paper from a Jewish female anthropologist whose thesis was that part of the conflict between the Israelites and Canaanites was a clash of cultures in which the former rejected certain customs of the latter not just religious ones.
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: I never said the Hebrews originated in Africa, and there are geneticists (Dr. Eran Elhaik for example) who label Abraham (a Hebrew) as an E carrier who came from Turkey (Mesopotamia) during the same time period that the Biblical narrative records.
The chosen lineage that the Bible gives us is:
Adam > Seth > Noah > Shem > Abraham > Isaac > Jacob/Israel
For those who do subscribe to genetic methodology, it is complete madness to assert that Shem himself would not have been apart of the same bloodline responsible for the creation and dispersal of SEMITIC/SHEMITIC languages (haplogroup E), regardless of whether or not modern secularists say Semitic = Shem.
That's the problem!-- Even though name of the language group 'Semitic' was named after the Biblical ancestor Shem, NO educated Jew accepts this linguistic correlation with the Biblical lineage. Semitic is as branch of so-called Afroasiatic which originated in Africa. In fact the older name for the language phylum is Hamito-Semitic named after both Ham and Shem but "Hamitic" is used for all the branches of Afroasiatic that are spoken in Africa with Semitic being the only branch that developed outside of that continent. Therefore the genetic relations of the language do NOT reflect Biblical genealogy. At the same time according the same genealogy one of Shem's sons is Elam yet the historical Elamites spoke an entirely different language that is genetically unrelated to any other known language. Either the Bible is wrong about genealogy OR that genealogy has no correlation to linguistic genealogy.
Genetics shows that haplogroup E originated in Africa and traveled into Asia how then is E from Turkey unless it's a back-migration. Also that does not explain the modal-Cohen marker hg J which is found in Cohens and Levites who are allegedly male descendants of Abraham and we know that J originated somewhere near Turkey.
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Most scholars view the patriarchal age, along with the Exodus and the period of the biblical judges, as a late literary construct that does not relate to any particular historical era,[8] and after a century of exhaustive archaeological investigation, no evidence has been found for a historical Abraham .[9] It is largely concluded that the Torah, the series of books that includes Genesis, was composed during the early Persian period, c. 500 BC , as a result of tensions between Jewish landowners who had stayed in Judah during the Babylonian captivity and traced their right to the land through their "father Abraham", and the returning exiles who based their counterclaim on Moses and the Exodus tradition of the Israelites
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ That "Let there be light" statement in the book of Genesis takes on profound meaning if you get acquainted with Einstein's theory of Relativity.
Posts: 32 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2023
| IP: Logged |
posted
This thread is going all over the place. please let's try to find the topic and stay on it.
@Geometer please open a thread on Metaphysics or something. Your contribution is way off topic.
This is also not a thread to talk about the validity of religious texts. There's a whole subsection of the forum strictly for religious talk.
//MODPosts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: That's the problem!-- Even though name of the language group 'Semitic' was named after the Biblical ancestor Shem, NO educated Jew accepts this linguistic correlation with the Biblical lineage. Semitic is as branch of so-called Afroasiatic which originated in Africa. In fact the older name for the language phylum is Hamito-Semitic named after both Ham and Shem but "Hamitic" is used for all the branches of Afroasiatic that are spoken in Africa with Semitic being the only branch that developed outside of that continent. Therefore the genetic relations of the language do NOT reflect Biblical genealogy. At the same time according the same genealogy one of Shem's sons is Elam yet the historical Elamites spoke an entirely different language that is genetically unrelated to any other known language. Either the Bible is wrong about genealogy OR that genealogy has no correlation to linguistic genealogy.
Genetics shows that haplogroup E originated in Africa and traveled into Asia how then is E from Turkey unless it's a back-migration. Also that does not explain the modal-Cohen marker hg J which is found in Cohens and Levites who are allegedly male descendants of Abraham and we know that J originated somewhere near Turkey.
This is fine, you are entitled to your opinion but:
1. Dr. Elhaik says that E is what Abraham would have had and that a mass migration of E came from Turkey (Mesopotamia) during the same time period of the Abraham story in the Bible. I asked you several times to draft a prompt message for me to forward to Dr. Elhaik in which you could question him about his methodology but each time you refused (yet you kept talking and implying that he is wrong, which leads me to believe you only want to preach to the choir). I then drafted my own message and emailed him and he explained his methodology.
And like I said it's complete madness to assert that Shem was not apart of the bloodline responsible for the creation and dispersal of shemitic languages, regardless of what modern secularists say or claim. They did not magically come up with the terms "Semitic/Shemitic", regardless of what they currently claim Semite/Shemitic means. And just because Elamites did not speak a semitic language, does not mean they were not Shemites. The Bible tells us they were Shemites.
2. There is no evidence that the "cohen haplotype" or gene is something that ancient Levites actually had, it's 100% speculation and you yourself have admit this so I've no idea why you keep bringing it up. Imagine if I admit something had no conclusive evidence to prove it, but then I kept bringing it up as a fact to support my arguments.
3. If you are going to try using the origin of haplogroup E as a way to try disqualifying it, you will always run into problems when trying to marry genetic methodology with the Bible because according to you Abraham supposedly had J, this would have to mean Shem and Noah also had J. But if that's the case then how does E supposedly predate haplogroup J, when Noah (supposedly J) and his sons repopulated the earth?
This is the part where you claim the flood was not global, even though God himself says that he killed ALL flesh during the flood. Because Noah > Shem > Abrahram being J can only be possible if you pretend the Biblical flood was not global, which it 100% was according to God himself. You only believe in the Bible when you believe it supports your opinions.
And then this is the part where I lose interest in talking to you and leave it to future readers with common sense to put the puzzle pieces together themselves.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ You are correct that if Abraham carried J then his ancestor Shem did and Shem's brothers also, which is why I DON'T identify Biblical genealogies specifically of Noah and his sons with genetic populations. In fact most educated Jews don't do it for the reasons you cited. I already cited a paper on Chalcolithic Canaanites here showing that in Southwest Asia there were at least 3 distinct populations in that region. If you want to identify them as Shemites, Hamites, and Japhethites fine, but you can't say they descend from biological brothers. Funny how you are so keen on Dr. Elhaik's theory even though most geneticists including Israeli geneticists disagree with him. Yes hg E is one of the main hgs shared in common by Jewish males but the predominant one is J, and I already showed you that is what the Modal Cohen marker is real as proven here.
You are beginning to be look like Antalas in that no matter how much evidence is cited in your face you will still believe in your doctrines.
To Yatunde, yes I know that the patriarchal narratives and the Torah in general were probably penned as recently as the Babylonian Exile but that still doesn't change the fact that these came from oral traditions that were preserved among the people like those found in virtually all peoples around the world. What is your point?
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@Djehuti
When I questioned you about it the other week, this is what you said about the "cohen gene" on the last page of that same thread:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ No there is no conclusive evidence like the remains of an Israelite priest or Levite being tested.
*** Now all of a sudden it's been proven. This is why I do not take you seriously, and why your insults and ad homs mean literally nothing.
You can claim israeli geneticists disagree with Dr. Elhaik, but there are others who agree with him and who also assert that modern jewish populations are actually descendants of proselytes (converts).
Furthermore, as I have already pointed out several times, your theory about Noah > Shem > Abraham being J carriers can only be possible if the Biblical flood was not global, but the Bible clearly says it was, and that only Noah and those on the ark with him survived. It's funny how you try to discredit Elhaik yet his research is actually congruent with the Biblical narrative, while your opinions are not.
quote: GENESIS 7:21-24
"21 All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land, died. 23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark. 24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days."
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: geneticists (Dr. Eran Elhaik for example) who label Abraham (a Hebrew) as an E carrier who came from Turkey
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: You can claim israeli geneticists disagree with Dr. Elhaik, but there are others who agree with him and who also assert that modern jewish populations are actually descendants of proselytes (converts).
If you believe or want to suggest that only someone E1b1b can be Israelite, modern Jews, for instance Ashkenaz in multiple genetic studies show they are 16-23% of E1b1b but yet that is a substantial amount, about 2 out of 10. Why do you hide that? That's not honest
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
If it makes you feel any better, chances are most likely that I am E1b1a or some type of R... so that would eliminate me and almost every other African American from being an Israelite
You want to eliminate Ashkenazi from having Israelite ancestry so badly as to excludes yourself in the process, although you don't point to the later frequently. And did you consider the possible motive Elhaik's speculation on the biology of a person not even proven to have existed (but may have) is to support the legitimacy of his own haplogroup? My speculation here is as good as his speculation
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: You can claim israeli geneticists disagree with Dr. Elhaik, but there are others who agree with him and who also assert that modern jewish populations are actually descendants of proselytes (converts).
If you believe or want to suggest that only someone E1b1b can be an Israelite, you would have to modify the above statement to say>>
"only around 20% of Ashkenazi Jews could be Israelites since only 16-23% are E1b1b"
so at least if you said that you would be consistent but I don't hear you saying this
However this thread is about "Proto-Semitic"
The word "Semite" or "Semitic" is not in the bible. If you want to talk the bible you should be saying "descended from Shem" and stop talking about this 18th century word "Semite"
However in this thread we are not talking about the bible we are talking about what linguists call "proto-semitic". Even though the word "Semitic and "Semite" were made up by German historian in the 18th century and these words are inspired by Shem linguists don't use this word in the literal context of the bible which says that at the time of Noah the world only spoke one language but later God created other languages.
Linguists use this word "Semitic" to link together languages they think show similarities and thus seem to have organically evolved from the same area not due to supernatural creation by God at the time of Babel.
If instead you say multiple languages were created by God then one being similar to the other does not mean anything significant as evidence of culture exchange so it makes more sense to stick to biblical concepts if you are going to speak of Shem and words not language family theory concepts as purported by language scientists
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ But as I explained to you before the Hebrew language is not the same Proto-Semitic and the Biblical ancestry of the Hebrew people lies in northern Mesopotamia NOT Africa. Again language vs. population.
From what Tazarah has been saying, it seems to be consistent with a belief that haplogroup E originated in Mesopotamia or some place outside of Africa.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@the lioness,
I am not going to put much effort into engaging your nonsensical attempts at refuting what you think I believe.
I'm not trying to exclude ashkenazi, ashkenazi/israeli geneticists are excluding the ashkenazi and I've referenced them. I did not write those papers.
Furthermore, I referenced a well known and reputable christian source that acknowldges Semites from a Biblical standpoint are descendants of the Biblical patriarch Shem. And there are plenty more sources that say the same. I wrote none of these sources.
The word "trinity" is not in the Bible, nor are plenty of other words. Retarded argument on your part.
And I explained how and why it's silly it is to try divorcing modern usage of the word Semite from what it actually means, even if modern secularists changed the meaning of the usage from it's original context.
Also, I've told you personally close to a dozen times that I only reference genetics to show how it DOES NOT line up with the Bible. According to genetics, almost nobody who claims to be a Jew is actually a Jew or Israelite if we take the Biblical narrative into account.
The fact that after all this time you still haven't comprehended that this is what I've been trying to say is pathetic. I've explained this an overwhelming amount of times yet you keep making retarded comments like the one above.
For like the 15th or 16th time, I do not subscribe to genetic methodlogy due to the fact that it contradicts the Biblical narrative. When I do reference genetic sources, it is only do demonstrate that a lot of genetic claims being made are contradicted by what the Bible actually says.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
I'm not trying to exclude ashkenazi, ashkenazi/israeli geneticists are excluding the ashkenazi and I've referenced them. I did not write those papers.
of course you are. You are selectively picking out from geneticists who have multiple theories the particular unproven theory you believe and saying it over and over again like a broken record in various threads
And you are also leaving out that around 20% of these modern Jews are included by the same means you want to exclude the other 80%. That's called lying by omission
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
Furthermore, I referenced a well known and reputable christian source that acknowldges Semites from a Biblical standpoint are descendants of the Biblical patriarch Shem. And there are plenty more sources that say the same. I wrote none of these sources.
The word "trinity" is not in the Bible, nor are plenty of other words. Retarded argument on your part.
And I explained how and why it's silly it is to try divorcing modern usage of the word Semite from what it actually means, even if modern secularists changed the meaning of the usage from it's original context.
this is what it means from the 18th century German historian (not theologian) Ludwig Schlozer who invented the term:
quote: Ludwig Schlozer 1781:
“from the Mediterranean Sea to the Euphrates and from Mesopotamia down to Arabia, as is known, only one language reigned. The Syrians, Babylonians, Hebrews and Arabs were one people. Even the Phoenicians who were Hamites spoke this language, which I might call the Semitic.”
^^ thus if you want to refer to the original meaning of the word, this is it
But It doesn't matter if some Christian site uses the word, it's not scriptural and as we can see does not come out of a literal connection to Shem. It comes from language analysis. This is what these Germans were attempting to do. So again stop the BS. You are using the word "Semitic" so you can take the word out of context when convenient
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@the lioness,
Instead of crying to me and begging for my attention, go cry to the Israeli geneticists who publish research excluding ashkenazi jewish people from being Israelites.
If your argument is that a word needs to be in the Bible for it to be a valid concept then you need to come up with a better argument. In any case, I'm not interested in what you have to say.
quote: "First used in the 1770s by members of the Göttingen School of History, this biblical terminology for race was derived from Shem (Hebrew: שֵׁם), one of the three sons of Noah in the Book of Genesis,[9] together with the parallel terms Hamites and Japhetites."
posted
History is an important discussion especially if geneticists are going to name DNA remains after historical/mythological figures.
In the following Finklestein theorizes that Abraham is an autochthonous Eponymous figure and NOT from Mesopotamia. In other words a local indigenous hero from the SOUTH
II. I. Finkelstein and T. Römer, Comments on the I. Finkelstein and T. Römer, Comments on the Historical Background of the Abraham Narrative: Between "Realia" and Exegetica", I.
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am well aware of Finkelstein's theory. Yet all the temporal contexts in the Abraham story i.e. War of 9 Kings, Destruction of Cities in the Plains, are associated with the Bronze Age and the customs and traditions practiced by Abraham's people are associated with Mesopotamia not Canaan. What's funny is how one Jewish scholar believes the Abraham legend is indigenous and dates later to the Iron Age while another Jewish scholar (Dr. Elhaik) agrees with the tradition that Abraham's family originates from norther Mesopotamia (Turkey) and dates from the Bronze Age.
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @Djehuti
When I questioned you about it the other week, this is what you said about the "cohen gene" on the last page of that same thread:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ No there is no conclusive evidence like the remains of an Israelite priest or Levite being tested.
*** Now all of a sudden it's been proven. This is why I do not take you seriously, and why your insults and ad homs mean literally nothing.
Bro, I stopped taking you seriously long time ago in that very thread due to your dishonesty and you prove it again when you leave out the rest of my above post.
quote:No there is no conclusive evidence like the remains of an Israelite priest or Levite being tested. But it is an interesting inference that so many Levites and Cohens today from different communities of Jews share that same clade and NOT E. So the circumstantial evidence of today's populations do not favor your desire.
So while there is no conclusive evidence, we do have circumstantial evidence that J is the cohanic/Levite lineage, which is more than what can be said about Elhaik's hg E theory.
quote:You can claim Israeli geneticists disagree with Dr. Elhaik, but there are others who agree with him and who also assert that modern Jewish populations are actually descendants of proselytes (converts).
Most geneticists in general (Jew & Gentile) disagree with him for the following reason that the predominant Middle Eastern clade in all endogamous major Jewish groups is J.
And that among Levi and Cohen, J occurs at almost 100%.
quote:Furthermore, as I have already pointed out several times, your theory about Noah > Shem > Abraham being J carriers can only be possible if the Biblical flood was not global, but the Bible clearly says it was, and that only Noah and those on the ark with him survived. It's funny how you try to discredit Elhaik yet his research is actually congruent with the Biblical narrative, while your opinions are not.
If you paid attention to what I wrote I don't have a theory as to what haplogroup Shem and his father Noah had because the story of Noah's flood is a legend that borders on mythology. The story of a single patrilineage populating all the known regions of the Biblical world contradicts the paper I cited about (at least) 3 distinct groups populating the Levant alone.
quote: GENESIS 7:21-24
"21 All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land, died. 23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark. 24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days."
Again, this narrative is based on the perspective of the person/people telling the story and the word translated as "earth" is the Hebrew word eretz which means land and not necessarily the entire globe. Are you aware that there are similar flood myths like Vaivasvata Manu in India and Deucalion of Greece. While the great deluge was similar, there are obvious differences between these versions.
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Instead of crying to me and begging for my attention, go cry to the Israeli geneticists who publish research excluding ashkenazi jewish people from being Israelites.
If your argument is that a word needs to be in the Bible for it to be a valid concept then you need to come up with a better argument. In any case, I'm not interested in what you have to say.
quote: "First used in the 1770s by members of the Göttingen School of History, this biblical terminology for race was derived from Shem (Hebrew: שֵׁם), one of the three sons of Noah in the Book of Genesis,[9] together with the parallel terms Hamites and Japhetites."
It is unlikely that an “Israelite gene” ever existed since Iron Age Israelite tribes exchanged genes with their neighboring tribes. Had there been a paternal “Israelite gene” on the Y chromosome, it would have been lost due to the transition to matrilineal descent. Had there been a maternal “Israelite gene” on the mitochondrial chromosome, it would have been lost due to the initial period of partilineal descent. Had there been an autosomal “Israelite gene,” it would have been lost due to the high rates of movements into the religion. Had there been an autosomal “Israelite gene,” it would not be unique to Jews due to the high rates of movements out of the religion. Had there been an autosomal “Israelite gene” that survived to modern days, it would have been extremely rare and undetectable by popular search approaches that prioritize findings common to a large fraction of Jews.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I am well aware of Finkelstein's theory. Yet all the temporal contexts in the Abraham story i.e. War of 9 Kings, Destruction of Cities in the Plains, are associated with the Bronze Age and the customs and traditions practiced by Abraham's people are associated with Mesopotamia not Canaan. What's funny is how one Jewish scholar believes the Abraham legend is indigenous and dates later to the Iron Age while another Jewish scholar (Dr. Elhaik) agrees with the tradition that Abraham's family originates from norther Mesopotamia (Turkey) and dates from the Bronze Age.
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @Djehuti
When I questioned you about it the other week, this is what you said about the "cohen gene" on the last page of that same thread:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Djehuti: [qb] ^ No there is no conclusive evidence like the remains of an Israelite priest or Levite being tested.
.
This Dr. Elhaik? What is his first name and can you cite an article by him
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
Everybody pay attention to how:
1) I have quoted Djehuti admitting the other week that the "cohen gene" is not supported by any conclusive evidence (in his own words) yet he constantly appeals to it and is now saying it has "been proven". He must have forgotten that he already admit there was no conclusive evidence to support it.
2) I have shown multiple times that the context in Genesis clearly and undeniably demonstrates a global flood happening, God himself says he killed all flesh under heaven (Genesis 6:17) and that the only people who survived the flood was Noah and his family that was on the ark with him (Genesis 7:23).
Yet Djehuti will continue trying to deflect attention away to this red herring about the hebrew word used for earth supposedly not meaning the entire world as a whole, which is irrelevant because all of the context in Genesis demonstrates the flood was undeniably global and killed everyone except for Noah and his family.
Djehuti has to try convincing himself and others that the flood was not global and an isolated event that didn't kill everyone on the planet so that he can have an explanation for why other haplogroups predate J, which he claims is NOAH > Shem > Abraham. When the Biblical narrative is taken into account, it is IMPOSSIBLE for haplogroup J to be Noah > Shem > Abraham.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
Is it possible you made up him saying that and you've been bluffing all this time? prove me wrong. I hope it's on some other website
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@the lioness,
This is a prime example of why I largely ignore you, you always want to respond to things I've said yet 9/10 times you do not even comprehend what I'm saying, nor do you pay attention to things I've said. You pick and choose things to respond to in order to try making it seem as if I don't know what I'm talking about, because you are a troll.
I linked the source where Elhaik said Abraham was an E carrier in the thread you are referring to, and I linked it more than once.
Here it is again:
quote: "Yet, these averages mask the high heterogeneity among all Jewish communities. Some people may share the highest similarity with Gal (named after Wonder Woman actress Gal Gadot), a young Neolithic woman – only 6200 years old, and other people may find that they are close to Abraham, a Turkish man (E1b1) who led a group of Anatolians to what he must to have felt was the promised land."
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: When the Biblical narrative is taken into account, it is IMPOSSIBLE for haplogroup J to be Noah > Shem > Abraham.
what is your reasoning here to say any haplogroup in mentioned in the above statement is impossible?
For instance if someone said
"When the Biblical narrative is taken into account, it is IMPOSSIBLE for haplogroup E to be Noah > Shem > Abraham. "
What's the difference?
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@the lioness,
Again, this is something I've explained already. This will probably be my last response to you especially since you had nothing to say about Dr. Elhaik assigning Abraham to haplogroup E, after implying that I lied about him saying it.
According to the Biblical narrative, God killed everything underneath heaven with a flood. Only Noah and his sons + their wives survived. Noah's sons would have had the same Y marker as their father Noah.
If Noah and his sons had J markers and they were the only males to survive the flood, there should be no existing haplogroups that predate J because they would have been killed off during the flood and only J would have survived. However there are multiple Y haplogroups in current existence that predate J.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
Back and forth and back and forth, mods should lock this topic, its getting lame.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic