Topic: In First, Archaeologists Extract DNA of 2 "Ancient Israelites"
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@the lioness,
1. I never said I believe the earth is 6,000 years old
2. It's very pleasing to see that you understand my position. Secular science does not line up with the Bible, even if we ignore the whole "age of the earth" thing and only deal with topics like what actually constitutes a Biblical Semite.
Posts: 2519 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Swenet To be honest, I'd ignore any claims stating that the Iberomaurasians had "lightskin." I beleive the tabloid started when one of the bloggers categorized them as brown skinned/ or intermediate because of a variation in one of the Melanocortin 1 receptor genes. (MC1R). Such a criteria by their own reporting makes 1/4-1/3 of the Yoruba from Ibadan intermediate/lightskinned. I exposed it on one of these sites but I can't find it atm.
Also. I've been saying over and over since schuenemman 2017 that there is importance in the overlap with the Abusir mummies and bronze age near eastern populations. Using actual academic methods and tools it was discerned that when grouped (The three autosomes of Abusir el Melek) they are near indistinguishable from Bronze age levantines, albeit with minor elevated levels of SSA related ancestry.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
1. I never said I believe the earth is 6,000 years old
2. It's very pleasing to see that you understand my position. Secular science does not line up with the Bible, even if we ignore the whole "age of the earth" thing and only deal with topics like what actually constitutes a Biblical Semite.
Your definition of Semitic seems to be "a people deriving from Shem"
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: I have no idea how people can just change the meanings of words like that in the name of "science".
"Semites, Semitic peoples or Semitic cultures is an obsolete term for an ethnic, cultural or racial group. The terminology is now largely unused outside the grouping "Semitic languages" in linguistics. 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, together with the parallel terms Hamites and Japhetites."
From what I have read this is incorrect, that the term was first coined by members of the Göttingen School of History to indicate language and racial implications came later, maybe associated with German interest in Aryan purity. Also while a German invention, neither the word "Semite" or "anti-semite" was invented by German Jews. And a wikipedia entry doesn't settle that. You would have to go into sources of the entry and ultimately the primary, and exact quote translated of exactly what members of the Göttingen School of History in terms of how they originally defined it. BUT it's not that important. "this biblical terminology for race was derived from Shem" You assume this means a "Semite" is a person literally descended from Shem rather than it's just a word the Göttingen School invented derived from Shem but not literally derived from him as an actual foundational ancestor. You can go about finding the primary source or a book quoting them to clarify if they meant it means people literally descended from Shem or not. but why even bother getting into that? Why even use the word "Semitic". If you want that to mean "descended from Shem" then just use that,"descended from Shem" why get into all this ambiguity about a word made up by some white Germans in the in the 1770s? Writers of genetics articles today are not using the word to mean "literally descended from Shem" so whatever the exact intent was of the the Göttingen School, circa the 1770s may not be synonymous to the word's current usage. Further in the 1770's they would not have any way of testing people to see if they thought they should be deemed "Semites" could be corelated to something biologically measurable.
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
The Bible does not even support an earth that is 40,000 years old, let alone 200,000 years old (first haplogroup) or 1,000,000 years old. Yet another reason why I do not subscribe to genetics
Thus in order to proceed in this dialogue about Semites, if you would like to use the definition "People descended from Shem" (a biblical figure) you will need to inform us of the age or ballpark range of the earth's beginning according to you and the bible otherwise it makes no sense for other people to comment on what you are saying when they are using other definitions of "Semitic" and talking about haplogroups and Semitic being much broader and thousands of years older, which is a different concept of reality. So let us know.
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
The Bible does not even support an earth that is 40,000 years old,
OK under 40,000 years but how far under? How old is the earth according to the bible?
And why even bring up Semitic which even if you subscribe to a racial interpretation has strong linguistic implications much broader than Hebrew or Canaanite
It's a word some Germans made up in the 1770s. Typically it's used in the 21st and 20th century to describe a long list of languages including Hebrew, Arabic, Canaanite, Edomite, Akkadian, Babylonian, Druze, Moabite and many more and the speakers of these languages so why bother with "Semitic" with all this baggage if it's of Shem, just deal with > descended from Shem < and forget about this made up term "Semitic". The genetics papers don't use a literal Biblical meaning for Semite and often don't use it all to describe a race or people because it is usually mentioned in contemporary articles as a language group
"Israelites" and "Hebrews" is clearly a people
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: what actually constitutes a Biblical Semite.
You can dig for exactly what by members of the Göttingen School of History meant and the word's intended usage in the 1770s but whatever that is why is there any need to use this word they made up in a biblical context?
We have clear words "Hebrews" , "Israelites" "Jews" "Hebrew language" "Aramaic" etc
"Semite" is a modern word, not biblical and why did these German historians even pick Shem to create this new word instead of Noah or even some biblical figure before Noah? It seems arbitrary and not scientific. The answer to this would have to be a deeper source, quoting exactly what some Göttingen School historian said verbatim
Science articles accept this as Semitic but a strict biblical interpretation might argue many of these languages and peoples are not descended from Shem for instance Canaanite, biblically said to have descended from Ham
So if you are going to represent the bible it's for clarity's sake it's better to not use this modern term "Semitic" at all and instead say "descended from Shem" or not even bother with that and talk about Hebrew without this special focus on Shem
The term "Semite" going back to the origins of the word was not intended to be a synonym for Hebrew. The intent of it was to link it with Arabic, Akkadian and Aramaic languages (or racially Hebrews with Arabs, Akkadians, Aramaic speakers etc, this whole chart ) as all part of the same group, Semites
So if if a scientist makes a remark about it in this broader context whatever they say might not apply to a narrower Shem descended definition
Posts: 42932 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: @Swenet To be honest, I'd ignore any claims stating that the Iberomaurasians had "lightskin." I beleive the tabloid started when one of the bloggers categorized them as brown skinned/ or intermediate because of a variation in one of the Melanocortin 1 receptor genes. (MC1R). Such a criteria by their own reporting makes 1/4-1/3 of the Yoruba from Ibadan intermediate/lightskinned. I exposed it on one of these sites but I can't find it atm.
Don't you mean, MC1R accounts for 25-33% of skin lightening in Nigerian individuals who possess the gene? I've read similar conclusions before about the oversized effect of well known pigmentation genes. But the literature seems inconsistent in the lightening effect of these genes, so I stopped looking into it. One of the last papers that came to my attention was this one, posted by BBH:
Rather, the remainder of the genome explains the overwhelming majority of the heritability (Figure 3B, σ2GS1=0.08 vs σ2Genome=0.82, pGenome=2.7e-5; σ2GS2=0.09 vs σ2Genome=0.79, pGenome=3.3e-4; and σ2GS1=0.08 vs σ2GS2=0.09 vs σ2Genome=0.71, pGenome=2.5e-3, respectively). This result contrasts with conclusions from previous studies and indicates that the vast majority of variation in KhoeSan skin pigmentation arises from pigmentation genes yet to be discovered, providing strong evidence for a complex, polygenic architecture. GS3 explains a small but significant fraction of the heritability, as discussed below.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Also. I've been saying over and over since schuenemman 2017 that there is importance in the overlap with the Abusir mummies and bronze age near eastern populations. Using actual academic methods and tools it was discerned that when grouped (The three autosomes of Abusir el Melek) they are near indistinguishable from Bronze age levantines, albeit with minor elevated levels of SSA related ancestry.
Makes sense.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@the lioness,
According to a Biblical website:
"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)."
According to the Bible, Noah and his three sons (and their wives) repopulated the earth.
If you go to 1 Chronicles chapter 1, there are 7 generations from Noah to Abraham.
Then, Matthew 1:17 says there are 14 generations from Abraham to King David, and 28 generations from King David to Christ.
That's 49 generations from Noah (the repopulation of the earth) to Christ.
Next we calculate from Christ to now. Let's just says 100 generations from Christ to now, just to be generous.
So that would be 149 generations from Noah to now.
There is no way in the world that 149 generations is equal to 200,000 years, which is supposed to be the age of the oldest haplogroup.
And remember, I added extra generations to be generous but even with those extra generations, the math comes nowhere close to 200,000 years, which is the reported age of Haplogroup A (the oldest haplogroup).
Posts: 2519 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
There is no way in the world that 149 generations is equal to 200,000 years, which is supposed to be the age of the oldest haplogroup.
And remember, I added extra generations to be generous but even with those extra generations, the math comes nowhere close to 200,000 years, which is the reported age of Haplogroup A (the oldest haplogroup).
How old is the earth according to the bible?
If not one number, a range approximation
Posts: 42932 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
"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)."
more from that website, defining a non-biblical term "Semite" :
quote: Scholars of philology, the study of language, traditionally classify the Semitic family of languages into three topographical divisions. East Semitic (sometimes classified as Northeast) was used in ancient Babylon and Assyria and includes the Akkadian (or Accadian) language. The Northwest classification takes in Hebrew, Aramaic, Canaanite, Syrian, Phoenician, Samaritan, Palmyrene, Nabatean, Eblaite, and Ugaritic languages. South Semitic languages include Arabic, Sabean, Minean, and Ethiopic. Of the more than 70 different known forms of Semite languages, some contain vast libraries of literature; others have only a small collection, and some remain entirely unwritten. Modern Semitic languages in common use include Hebrew, Arabic, Neo-Aramaic, Amharic, and Maltese.
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: according to the Torah/Tanakh, the Canaanites were a completely separate people from the Israelites and the Canaanites had different ancestors.
According to your source both are Semites
Posts: 42932 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@the lioness,
I would say from 6,000 to 15,000 years.
A lot of Biblical scholars say 6,000 but from what I learned it is more than that.
Regardless, given the generations listed in scripture, it's nowhere near 200,000 years old.
Regarding the second part of your second comment about the Semites, that part is dealing with scholars who study language. It's not saying the Canaanites descend from Shem, or that the Bible asserts that. The Canaanites were Hamites, descendants of Ham.
The part I quoted in my previous comment clearly explains who the Semites were according to the Bible.
Posts: 2519 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @the lioness, Regarding the second part of your second comment about the Semites, that part is dealing with scholars who study language. It's not saying the Canaanites descend from Shem, or that the Bible asserts that. The Canaanites were Hamites, descendants of Ham.
The part I quoted in my previous comment clearly explains who the Semites were according to the Bible.
The word "Semite" should not be used by believers of the bible, it's not a biblical word and it is common used to describe this:
Thus word is loosely inspired by Shem But if a strict biblical basis is used, the word "Semite" should not be used at all, instead use "descendants of Shem"
Thus if a science article mentions "Semites" they refer to all the people and timelines of the people on the above chart and some extracted things they says about Semites cannot be expected to match in context to a strict bible inspired definition.
I can't even say biblical definition because the word is not in the bible
And if one were to use such a strict definition, all the more impossible to determine who is a Semite by haplogroup since the haplogroup of Shem or any patriarch of the Hebrews is unknown and impossible to determine if he was or was not of the same haplogroup as the Natufians tested thus far, of males, 5 individuals in a cave in Israel
Posts: 42932 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: [QB] @the lioness,
I would say from 6,000 to 15,000 years.
How could you possibly get near 15,000? that is over twice the traditional estimate
Posts: 42932 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@the lioness,
Almost all Bible-believers would disagree with your opinion on the word Semite.
Why are you more concerned with how I got 15,000 instead of being concerned with how none of the possibilities allow for a 200,000 year old origin of the first haplogroup?
Posts: 2519 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote: “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.”
p. 161 Repertorium für biblische und morgenländische Litteratur. 8. 1781 ~ August Ludwig von Schlözer (b. 1735) a member of the Göttingen School of History.
August Ludwig von Schlözer (5 July 1735, in Gaggstatt – 9 September 1809, in Göttingen) was a German historian and pedagogist who laid foundations for the critical study of Russian medieval history. He was a member of the Göttingen School of History.
His father, grandfather, and great-grandfather all were Protestant clergymen. In 1751, he followed them and began his studies in theology in University of Wittenberg, moving in 1754 to the increasingly renowned University of Göttingen to study history.
Schlözer had broad interests. He translated a pedagogical piece by the Frenchman La Chalotais in 1771, as well as a travel book about Jamaica for children and an introductory work on world history (Vorbereitung zur Weltgeschichte für Kinder, 1779).
Schlözer also developed a structure for a universal history, separating it in six epochs:
•Urwelt (primeval world) – from the creation to the Flood
•Dunkle Welt (dark world) – from the flood to Moses and the first written sources
•Vorwelt (preworld) – up to the Persian Empire
•Alte Welt (old world) – up to the fall of the Roman Empire in 476 AD
•Mittelalter (Middle Ages) – up to the discovery of America by Christopher Columbus in 1492 Neue Welt (the new world) – up to the present
Schlözer's most important innovation, however, was his suggestion to count backwards from the birth of Jesus. An incentive for this was the growing disbelief of the biblical Creation and the then generally acknowledged creation date of 3987 BC.
Johann David Michaelis and the Colonial Imaginary: Orientalism and the Emergence of Racial Antisemitism in Eighteenth-Century Germany * Jonathan M. Hess
The specific link between theological antagonism toward Judaism and a racially conceived, politically charged antisemitism, however, is not entirely a nineteenth-century innovation. This connection was forged as early as the 1780s, in the context of the initial debates on the question of Jewish emancipation and at a point when modern concepts of race were first in the process of being formulated. Johann David Michaelis (1717-91), the Orientalist who trained Schlözer and Eichhorn in Göttingen, was not just the author of the standard eighteenth-century work on Jewish law, the six-volume Mosaisches Recht (Mosaic Law, 1770-75). As one of the Enlightenment's foremost authorities on--and admirers of--ancient Judaism, Michaelis also took an engaged role in the early debates on whether to grant contemporary Jews civil rights, vehemently arguing against the systematic proposals for the "civic improvement" of the Jews that the Prussian official Christian Wilhelm von Dohm had set forth in his 1781 treatise Ueber die bürgerliche Verbesserung der Juden (On the Civic Improvement of the Jews). 5
Historians of antisemitism routinely take note of Johann David Michaelis’ polemics against Jewish emancipation.43 In his critical review of Christian Wilhelm Dohm’s Über die bürgerliche Verbesserung der Juden (1781), Michaelis argued that it was for political reasons that Jews could not be granted citizenship.44 He believed that Jewish dietary laws and the Jews’ adherence to the Sabbath prevented them from becoming soldiers, and that their desire to return to Palestine meant that they were incapable of patriotism.45 He even asserted that Jews were twenty-five times more likely to engage in criminality than other inhabitants of Germany. 46 Anna-Ruth Löwenbrück contends that Michaelis’ review marked a new stage in the history of antisemitism.47 Michaelis did not talk about ‘Jews and Christians’ but rather ‘Jews and Germans’. He recognised that the state had developed into a secular institution, which meant that the Jewish presence in Prussia could not be opposed using theological arguments.
Posts: 42932 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
The root word of "Semite" is Shem.
The suffixe "ite" denotes lineage.
Good luck trying to divorce the word from it's actual meaning, especially in a Biblical context.
Posts: 2519 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] Don't you mean, MC1R accounts for 25-33% of skin lightening in Nigerian individuals who possess the gene? I've read similar conclusions before about the oversized effect of well known pigmentation genes. But the literature seems inconsistent in the lightening effect of these genes, so I stopped looking into it. One of the last papers that came to my attention was this one, posted by BBH:
Rather, the remainder of the genome explains the overwhelming majority of the heritability (Figure 3B, σ2GS1=0.08 vs σ2Genome=0.82, pGenome=2.7e-5; σ2GS2=0.09 vs σ2Genome=0.79, pGenome=3.3e-4; and σ2GS1=0.08 vs σ2GS2=0.09 vs σ2Genome=0.71, pGenome=2.5e-3, respectively). This result contrasts with conclusions from previous studies and indicates that the vast majority of variation in KhoeSan skin pigmentation arises from pigmentation genes yet to be discovered, providing strong evidence for a complex, polygenic architecture. GS3 explains a small but significant fraction of the heritability, as discussed below.
No, MC1R can't give anything near 25% variation in human pigmentation.
quote:Despite Africa being home to the greatest range of pigmentation globally, remarkably few genetic studies of pigmentation have been published to date in continental Africans (Crawford et al., 2017; Jablonski and Chaplin, 2014; Relethford, 2000). Instead, the genetic basis of skin color has primarily been studied in Eurasians and admixed African Americans (Beleza et al., 2013a, 2013b; Candille et al., 2012; Sturm and Duffy, 2012; Sulem et al., 2007, 2008); selective sweeps in high-latitude populations have been interpreted as resulting from strong environmental selection pressure. For example, the derived Ala111Thr allele (rs1426654) of SLC24A5 that swept to near fixation in western Eurasian populations confers the largest known effect on skin color variability (Beleza et al., 2013b; Lamason et al., 2005). Loci in/near SLC45A2, GRM5/TYR, and APBA2/OCA2 also have divergent allele frequencies between Europeans and Africans, with large lightening effects in Europeans (Beleza et al., 2013b; Norton et al., 2007). Smaller effects, including associations in/near MC1R, TYR, IRF4, and ASIP, contribute to the relatively narrow variation within Europeans (Sulem et al., 2007, 2008). Light skin pigmentation in Eurasians arose through both convergent evolution (e.g., rs1800414 in OCA2 in East Asians) and similar selective sweeps (e.g., KITLG)(Miller et al., 2007; Yang et al., 2016).
10.1016/j.cell.2017.11.015
For reference slc24a5 (homozygous) accounts for around 25% 10.1371/journal.pgen.1003372
No one has evidence that they were light skinned. It was and has always been conjecture like most things in the bio-antro space.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
^The 2018 Henn et al paper posted by BBH discusses that Beleza et al 2013 paper, and says the genes have an even smaller skin lightening effect than that (see the Henn et al quote I posted).
This result contrasts with conclusions from previous studies ... --Henn et al
The papers are all over the place and the science seems too immature for my taste, so I've not been keeping up after that Henn et al paper.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^The 2018 Henn et al paper posted by BBH discusses that Beleza et al 2013 paper, and says the genes have an even smaller skin lightening effect than that (see the Henn et al quote I posted).
This result contrasts with conclusions from previous studies ... --Henn et al
The papers are all over the place and the science seems too immature for my taste, so I've not been keeping up after that Henn et al paper.
I concur. I actually agree with Henn 2018. Which is why I hinted that cases where the allele is at least homozygous can yield high variance. I mainly was using it as a reference for MC1R.
Skin color is very tricky for non scientific reasons. It was a lil immature when I was studying it but I wouldn't call it that now as we know quite a bit more. Scientifically, very specific causes in terms of ancestry leads to known skin lightening on a global scale. High mutational load in populations bearing a "light-skinned" phenotype was the hint from the get go. Approaching this area of study with a molecular-bio lens brings the most clarity. But most seem to project evolutionary nonsense which seems to make sense under rigid framework.
@Tazarah
Last question.
How does Noah and his sons relate to the Akkadians? Did they descend from them? (In your POV of course)
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
What are your thoughts on this article? I just saw some dude on Twitter with the username "Ancient Europeans" link to it to justify his own artistic depictions of Cheddar Man and earlier Paleolithic Europeans as uniformly pale-skinned.
posted
^ come on make a new thread please, you're obsessed with skin color > or one of the other Cheddar cheese threads or reconstruction thread,
Posts: 42932 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
2008 results of an analysis by Hassan of modern Sundanese entitled Chromosome Variation Among Sudanese: Restricted Gene Flow, Concordance With Language, Geography, and History[68]
included 39 Nubians found to be of the following Y Chromosome Haplogroups:
J1 41% J2 2% E3b1 (E-M78) 15.3% E3 (E-M215) 7.6% R1b 10.3% B-M60 7.7% F 10.2% I 5.1%
Haplogroup J has been found at a frequency of approximately 18% in Ethiopians, with a higher prevalence among the Amhara, where it has been found to exist at levels as high as 35%, of which about 94% (17% of total) is of the type J1, while 6% (1% of total) is of J2 type.[67] On the other hand, 26% of the individuals sampled in the Arsi control portion of Moran et al. (2004) were found to belong to Haplogroup J.
____________________________________________
Look at this, Nubians their highest percentage is J, 43% For the skin enthusiasts, we know these are dark skinned people, Ethiopians 18% J
Posts: 42932 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
This period in the Levant involved the devolution of many urban societies at the end of the Early Bronze Age (Richard 2003a) and their replacement with new urban societies that were culturally and morphologically distinct at the start of the Middle Bronze Age ( Ilan 2003). Our analysis suggests that the shift in urban populations during the Early to Middle Bronze Age may be temporally associated with the wider expansion of Central Semitic in the Levant.
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2701 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
2008 results of an analysis by Hassan of modern Sundanese entitled Chromosome Variation Among Sudanese: Restricted Gene Flow, Concordance With Language, Geography, and History[68]
included 39 Nubians found to be of the following Y Chromosome Haplogroups:
J1 41% J2 2% E3b1 (E-M78) 15.3% E3 (E-M215) 7.6% R1b 10.3% B-M60 7.7% F 10.2% I 5.1%
Haplogroup J has been found at a frequency of approximately 18% in Ethiopians, with a higher prevalence among the Amhara, where it has been found to exist at levels as high as 35%, of which about 94% (17% of total) is of the type J1, while 6% (1% of total) is of J2 type.[67] On the other hand, 26% of the individuals sampled in the Arsi control portion of Moran et al. (2004) were found to belong to Haplogroup J.
____________________________________________
Look at this, Nubians their highest percentage is J, 43% For the skin enthusiasts, we know these are dark skinned people, Ethiopians 18% J
What are the MTDNA's of the Nubians And while you are at it tell me the significance of J1 being found with MTDNA's of N? Is N autochthonous to North Africa, Arabia & Levant?
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2701 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
[QUOTE] Urheimat See also: Afroasiatic homeland Since all modern Semitic languages can be traced back to a common ancestor, Semiticists have placed importance on locating the Urheimat of the Proto-Semitic language.[6] The Urheimat of the Proto-Semitic language may be considered within the context of the larger Afro-Asiatic family to which it belongs.
The previously-popular hypothesis of an Arabian Urheimat has been largely abandoned since the region could not have supported massive waves of emigration before the domestication of camels in the 2nd millennium BC.[6]
There is also evidence that Mesopotamia and adjoining areas of modern Syria were originally inhabited by a non-Semitic population. That is suggested by non-Semitic toponyms preserved in Akkadian and Eblaite /QUOTE]
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2701 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: And while you are at it tell me the significance of J1 being found with MTDNA's of N? Is N autochthonous to North Africa, Arabia & Levant?
I don't know The Bronze age study I posted on page 3 a quarter down the page shows some males whose DNA was J1 and whose maternal DNA was N but also some other J1 with different mtDNA combinations and also listed some Y groups there other than J
Posts: 42932 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
MTDNA N is probably indigenous so the incoming J1 from the caucus mated with local women.
Mama teaches the language. This might be how J1 picked up Semetic.
quote:A study (Vai et al. 2019), finds a basal branch of maternal haplogroup N in early Neolithic North African remains from the Libyan site of Takarkori. The authors propose that N most likely split from L3 in the Arabian peninsula and later migrated back to North Africa
Rare unclassified haplogroup N* has been found among fossils belonging to the Cardial and Epicardial culture (Cardium pottery) and the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B.[22] A rare unclassified form of N has been also been reported in modern Algeria.[23]
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2701 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@Elmaestro
I haven't really done any research into the akkadians and know little to nothing about them, but from my POV if they were actual Semites then they would be descendants of Noah, through his son Shem (the progenitor of the semites)
Not sure if that answers your question, but I don't really know much about them other than the fact that they had an empire of Mesopotamia
Posts: 2519 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:According to the Bible, Nimrod, a son of Cush , was the founder and king of Babylon, Erech, Akkad and Calneh, in Shinar
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2701 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Elmaestro Maybe one day I'll look into it and see how the different reports can be reconciled.
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: @ Elmaestro and Swenet
What are your thoughts on this article? I just saw some dude on Twitter with the username "Ancient Europeans" link to it to justify his own artistic depictions of Cheddar Man and earlier Paleolithic Europeans as uniformly pale-skinned.
Article quotes newspaper:
"Large study kills the myth of the blonde viking. He was rather Latino"
First I chuckled at the adjective used. Then I had a smh moment. The media being handed science sometimes is like giving a child a bulldozer.
As for the article itself, I'm not qualified to have an opinion. Might look into Eurasian pigmentation at some later point, but I feel what we've been told so far is not enough to have an opinion about WHG pigmentation levels other than "darker than moderns".
It's not the more simple math that African depigmentation is. In Africa we have the rock art and different clues like proto anthro texts to put side-by-side with the morphological and genetic data.
@Lioness Your thread. Your choice.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since all modern Semitic languages can be traced back to a common ancestor, Semiticists have placed importance on locating the Urheimat of the Proto-Semitic language.[6] The Urheimat of the Proto-Semitic language may be considered within the context of the larger Afro-Asiatic family to which it belongs .
The previously-popular hypothesis of an Arabian Urheimat has been largely abandoned since the region could not have supported massive waves of emigration before the domestication of camels in the 2nd millennium BC.[6]
There is also evidence that Mesopotamia and adjoining areas of modern Syria were originally inhabited by a non-Semitic population. That is suggested by non-Semitic toponyms preserved in Akkadian and Eblaite.
Levant hypothesis A Bayesian analysis performed in 2009 suggests an origin for all known Semitic languages in the Levant around 3750 BC, with a later single introduction from South Arabia into the Horn of Africa around 800 BC. This statistical analysis could not, however, estimate when or where the ancestor of all Semitic languages diverged from Afroasiatic.[7] It thus neither contradicts nor confirms the hypothesis that the divergence of ancestral Semitic from Afroasiatic occurred in Africa.
Map of Semitic languages and statistically inferred dispersals. One hypothesized location of the divergence of ancestral Semitic from Afroasiatic between the African coast of the Red Sea and the Near East is also indicated. In another variant of the theory, the earliest wave of Semitic speakers entered the Fertile Crescent via the Levant and eventually founded the Akkadian Empire. Their relatives, the Amorites, followed them and settled Syria before 2500 BC.[8] Late Bronze Age collapse in Israel led the southern Semites southwards, where they arrived in the highlands of Yemen after the 20th century BC until those crossed Bab el-Mandeb to the Horn of Africa between 1500 and 500 BC.[8]
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2701 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't ask about the Urheimat of Semitic languages
Of haplogroup J carriers what was the first Semitic language they spoke and where did this occur?
Posts: 42932 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: I didn't ask about the Urheimat of Semitic languages
Of haplogroup J carriers what was the first Semitic language they spoke and where did this occur?
You keep posting the picture from the Bayesian analysis from 2009 but it's obvious you never read it. Anything I say would be speculation because even the experts cannot say definitively but my guess based on geography is East Semitic
The most important point is... so it does not get lost is that J1, J2, H2, & T are NOT the originators of the semetic language.s
quote:Subclade J1-P58, the Central Semitic branch of haplogroup J1, appears to have expanded from the southern Levant (Israel, Palestine, Jordan) across the Arabian peninsula during the Bronze Age, from approximately 3500 to 2500 BC. Camels were domesticated in Somalia and southern Arabia c. 3,000 BCE, but did not become widely used in the southern Levant before approximately 1100 BCE.
Camels played an important role in the further diffusion of J1-P58 lineages, notably with the Bedouins in the desertic parts of the Middle East and North Africa. Bedouins now make up a substantial percentage of the population of Sudan (33%), Libya (15%), the United Arab Emirates (8%) and Saudi Arabia (5%).
The two most common Jewish subclades of J1 downstream of P58 are Z18297 and ZS227. The latter includes the Cohanim haplotype. Most of the other branches under P58 could be described as Semitic, although only FGC12 seems to be genuinely linked to the medieval Arabic expansion from Saudi Arabia.
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2701 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just thought of an aspect of the Biblical view of ancestry and how it corresponds with modern science including genetics.
According to the Bible Noah had three sons: Shem, Ham and Japhet. So Noah was their father and they were brothers. That means they all had the same paternal haplogroup. From the Bible one gets the impression that Noah and his sons were ancestors to all people who came after them. That means that all men should have the same haplogroup as Noah and his sons.
Since we now have very many male haplogroups it means either that not all men descend from Noah and his sons, or that the mutation rate to create all of todays paternal haplogroups must have been exceedingly fast if one shall try try to fit them all into the Biblical time span of maybe 6000 years (or maybe up to 15000 years according to some). Something does not add up.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2685 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a former Christian who has looked into this as a youth, I can tell you that people have already tried to peg haplogroups onto Noah's tree, and that it doesn't work.
People have also tried to put nations distant to the Hebrews, like East Asians and West Africans on the tree of Noah and that doesn't work, either.
This shows the lack of comprehension of people who insist on projecting modern notions into ancient times, arguing that Cush was Africa or that Japhet was Europe.
If you plot all the descendants of Noah on a map you will see they will not extend further beyond a certain point, outward from Palestine, and you will see they are all inside a circle, with the center of the circle being Palestine, and with the southern portion of the circle going no further south that Yemen. Hence, Jesus being quoted in the bible as describing the kingdom of Sheba as being "at the ends of the earth".
So, large portions of the Horn, the Sahara, Europe and Asia are excluded because the table of nations simply reflects the extent of proto-anthropology and proto-geophraphy of learned men among the Hebrews, as well as possibly some more profound meaning known only to the ancient Hebrews (that Christians are ignorant of), but not some divinely inspired tree of human 'races'.
If the Table of Nations were written by Phoenician explorers, it would be much more elaborate as they were the first to circumnavigate Africa (allegedly) and visit many parts of the Mediterranean and beyond, before others (e.g. the Greeks, who put up many colonies in the wider Mediterranean, and had explorers like Pytheas, who visited Britain and other places).
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, the Sudese Nile basin is within that circle, so it's still better than saying Cush is Africa.
In some verses, Cush really does seem to be more or less the same thing as the area controlled by Kush.
But I think those are younger layers of the bible, dating to the 25th dynasty or later.
If you look closely you can find in the older layers of the bible very large difference in view compared to the younger layers of the bible.
One major example of that is what Ehret correctly points out are hints of henotheisim in the bible, where the Hebrews seem to argue that their deity is not a universal deity, and coexisted with other deities, some of whom were patrons/protectors of other nations. These were acknowledged, but not to be worshiped and were sometimes depicted as being in battle with Yahweh.
Later on this changed completely, as we can see in Christianity, for instance, where the notion of the existence of other deities appropriate for other nations (but not appropriate for Hebrews) is completely lost and replaced with hostility to other religions sometimes seen as the work of the devil.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Although this thread is not about the bible or what "Semitic" means (although I did stray into that diversion) It's about the DNA of human remains thought to be Israelites not biblical genealogy
Posts: 42932 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Sahakyan, H., Margaryan, A., Saag, L. et al. Origin and diffusion of human Y chromosome haplogroup J1-M267 Sci Rep 11, 6659 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-85883-2
Abstract Human Y chromosome haplogroup J1-M267 is a common male lineage in West Asia. One high-frequency region—encompassing the Arabian Peninsula, southern Mesopotamia, and the southern Levant—resides ~ 2000 km away from the other one found in the Caucasus. The region between them, although has a lower frequency, nevertheless demonstrates high genetic diversity. Studies associate this haplogroup with the spread of farming from the Fertile Crescent to Europe, the spread of mobile pastoralism in the desert regions of the Arabian Peninsula, the history of the Jews, and the spread of Islam. Here, we study past human male demography in West Asia with 172 high-coverage whole Y chromosome sequences and 889 genotyped samples of haplogroup J1-M267. We show that this haplogroup evolved ~ 20,000 years ago somewhere in northwestern Iran, the Caucasus, the Armenian Highland, and northern Mesopotamia. The major branch—J1a1a1-P58—evolved during the early Holocene ~ 9500 years ago somewhere in the Arabian Peninsula, the Levant, and southern Mesopotamia. Haplogroup J1-M267 expanded during the Chalcolithic, the Bronze Age, and the Iron Age. Most probably, the spread of Afro-Asiatic languages, the spread of mobile pastoralism in the arid zones, or both of these events together explain the distribution of haplogroup J1-M267 we see today in the southern regions of West Asia.
Y chromosome haplogroup J-M304 represents the major male lineage in West Asia today. The 12f2a13 deletion and single nucleotide polymorphic (SNP) biallelic markers M3049 and P20914 define and characterize this haplogroup. It splits off from haplogroup IJ-M429 at ~ 45 thousand years ago (kya), while the time to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) of haplogroup J-M304 lineages is ~ 33 kya15,16. Studies associate haplogroup J-M304 with the spread of farming from the Near East to Europe . Around the time of the Neolithic demographic transition3, the genome-wide ancestry of West Asian populations was geographically structured into three groups. Among them, haplogroup J-M304 is found in the Caucasus/Iranian and Anatolian hunter-gatherers and farmers, but not in the Levantine ones. Unfortunately, so far aDNA studies are missing from the Arabian Peninsula and Mesopotamia, where haplogroup J-M304 is frequent nowadays. This haplogroup splits into J1-M267 and J2-M1729,. While haplogroup J2-M172 is associated more with agriculture in the northern latitudes of West Asia, haplogroup J1-M267 has been connected with the spread of the pastoral economies in the West Asian arid zones
The expansion of haplogroup J1-M267 occurred over a long period—spanning the Chalcolithic, the Bronze Age, and the Iron Age. Many demographic events in the region could maintain the uninterrupted expansion of this haplogroup. During the Chalcolithic and the Bronze Age, people were moving intensively across West Eurasia21,22,57,63,64. At this time, the Levantine Neolithic ancestry increased in the northern areas of West Asia22, where the shared Caucasus hunter-gatherer/Iranian Neolithic ancestry or the Anatolian Neolithic ancestry were prevalent before. At the beginning of the population expansion, people belonging to haplogroup J1a1a1-P58, probably migrated also to the northern regions of West Asia and Europe from the Arabian Peninsula, southern Mesopotamia, and the Levant. Therefore, in the case of West Asia this evidence—based on the TMRCAs of the shared J1a1a1-P58 branches—mirrors that of genome-wide ancestry22. The migration of the J1a1a1-P58 lineages, though, was less pronounced towards the northern regions of West Asia and Europe, since the frequency of this haplogroup and the number of such branches are low there. During this time and especially thereafter, the spread within the Arabian Peninsula, southern Mesopotamia, and the southern Levant was more intense, resulting in a large number of local branches and the high frequency we find today. This expansion resembles the spread of Afro-Asiatic languages in West Asia65. Both the spread of J1a1a1-P58 and Afro-Asiatic languages could have been caused by the change of climatic conditions and the emergence of arid pastoralism as suggested earlier23.
Conclusions Y chromosome haplogroup J1-M267 evolved in the northern parts of West Asia around the LGM. A limited number of founders migrated south—to the Arabian Peninsula, the southern Levant, and southern Mesopotamia, where the J1a1a1-P58 branch evolved in the early Holocene. Haplogroup J1-M267 expanded during the Chalcolithic, the Bronze Age, and the Iron Age, coinciding with the spread of Afro-Asiatic languages combined with the diffusion of arid pastoralism in the desert regions of West Asia. The spread of Islam did not substantially affect the distribution of haplogroup J1-M267 in West Asia.
Posts: 42932 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
The most important point is... so it does not get lost is that J1, J2, H2, & T are NOT the originators of the semetic language.s
This thread is not about the first Semitic language it's about the Israelites
...... the Israelites would have descended from those original Shemites.
Posts: 2519 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Yatunda I can't get a clear picture of what you're suggesting with your quotes. But I can say this with confidence though. The Maternal haplogroup profile within the region is quite a bit more diverse that the Paternal. You'd have a better chance arguing E1b1b continuity... And I have a hunch you're getting the bigger picture of why even that's unlikely to explain the lineage by decent of both Semitic speakers and the descendants of Shem.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
No one in this thread said Cush was " Africa " that is a strawman argument
I never suggested that Mtdna N was the only haplogroup in the Levant. Only that it showed up with J1 P58 in that study that lioness posted.
Language does not equal genetics, that is obvious and yet that does not stop geneticists from declaring human remains in the Levant as " Israelites"
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2701 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
Sahakyan, H., Margaryan, A., Saag, L. et al. Origin and diffusion of human Y chromosome haplogroup J1-M267 Sci Rep 11, 6659 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-85883-2
[ haplogroup J-M304 is found in the Caucasus/Iranian and Anatolian hunter-gatherers and farmers, but not in the Levantine ones. Unfortunately, so far aDNA studies are missing from the Arabian Peninsula and Mesopotamia, where haplogroup J-M304 is frequent nowadays. This haplogroup splits into J1-M267 and J2-M1729,. While haplogroup J2-M172 is associated more with agriculture in the northern latitudes of West Asia, haplogroup J1-M267 has been connected with the spread of the pastoral economies in the West Asian arid zonesqb]
quote:Subclade J1-P58, the Central Semitic branch of haplogroup J1, appears to have expanded from the southern Levant (Israel, Palestine, Jordan) across the Arabian peninsula during the Bronze Age, from approximately 3500 to 2500 BC. Camels were domesticated in Somalia and southern Arabia c. 3,000 BCE, but did not become widely used in the southern Levant before approximately 1100 BCE.
J1 P58 could not have spread in the Arabian peninsula before the domestication of Camels.
quote: , but did not become widely used in the southern Levant before approximately 1,100 BCE. Camels played an important role in the further diffusion of J1-P58 lineages
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2701 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
Bronze Age expansion of J1-P58 Subclade J1-P58, the Central Semitic branch of haplogroup J1, appears to have expanded from the southern Levant (Israel, Palestine, Jordan) across the Arabian peninsula during the Bronze Age, from approximately 3500 to 2500 BC. Camels were domesticated in Somalia and southern Arabia c. 3,000 BCE, but did not become widely used in the southern Levant before approximately 1100 BCE.
J1 P58 could not have spread in the Arabian peninsula before the domestication of Camels.
It says J1-P58 appears to have expanded from the southern Levant to the Arabian peninsula from 3500 to 2500 BC.
But it also says Camels did not become widely used in the southern Levant before approximately 1100 BCE You seem to be disputing the idea that J1-P58 from the southern Levant spread to the Arabian peninsula from 3500 to 2500 BC because they did not have domesticated of Camels in the southern Levant until 1100 BC because such a spread would be absolutely dependent on camels? Are you saying they would write this contradicting what they said in their first sentence with their second sentence?
quote:J1-P58, the Central Semitic branch of J1, appears to have expanded from the southern Levant (Israel, Palestine, Jordan) across the Arabian peninsula during the Bronze Age, from approximately 3,500 to 2,500 BCE. Camels were domesticated in Somalia and southern Arabia c. 3,000 BCE, but did not become widely used in the southern Levant before approximately 1,100 BCE. Camels played an important role in the further diffusion of J1-P58 lineages, notably with the Bedouins in the desertic parts of the Middle East and North Africa. Bedouins now make up a substantial percentage of the population of Sudan (33%), Libya (15%), the United Arab Emirates (8%) and Saudi Arabia (5%).
It's not exactly clear but they seem to be saying J1-P58 did spread to the Arabian peninsula 3500 to 2500 BC but it didn't get to other places like North Africa or deeper into desert regions of Arabia until after 1,100 BC via camel transport
Posts: 42932 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: Language does not equal genetics, that is obvious and yet that does not stop geneticists from declaring human remains in the Levant as " Israelites"
Thank you.... lol.
Posts: 2519 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
A video about the spread of Y-DNA haplogroup J2. One can see that it was spread over a rather large area during the time of the Israelite tomb.
It seems it occurs in what is now Israel already about 2500 BC (we have an example from Yehud).
Disclaimer: I can not guarantee how good of a picture the video gives and I do not know anything about the videomakers credentials.
quote:Haplogroup J was created in Western Asia 42900 years ago, and its direct descendants J1 and J2 are estimated to have formed in the vicinity of J 31600 years ago. The J2 is also referred to as the J-M172. The age of haplogroup J is at the midpoint of the ages of representative Y-DNA haplogroups. In the last episode, I introduced the current distribution and celebrities of the half group J1, phylogenetic trees, and the ancient Y-DNA with J1. In this video, I will introduce J2.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: A video about the spread of Y-DNA haplogroup J2. One can see that it was spread over a rather large area during the time of the Israelite tomb.
It seems it occurs in what is now Israel already about 2500 BC (we have an example from Yehud).
Disclaimer: I can not guarantee how good of a picture the video gives and I do not know anything about the videomakers credentials.
Yes, thirteen individuals from Yehud (central Israel), dating to the Intermediate Bronze Age are documented in the 2020 article I posted with the DNA chart at link:
Thirteen individuals from Yehud (central Israel), dating to the Intermediate Bronze Age
Tel Yehud (Tell el-Yehudia) is situated on the northeastern side of the Ono valley in the eastern part of the central coastal plain of Israel,
2,500-2,000 BC
six females from Tel Yehud. mitochondrial DNA T1a, Tia2, U1, H40a, J1c2i, N1b1a2
males, J, J, J2b
_______________________________
and Megiddo samples from 1,900 - 923 BC most 1,600 BC there were several J's one was J2 a couple of E's also from these clades: E1b1b1b1b2a1 E1b1b1b1b2a1b One T Two Rs
________________________
Israelite time period 1200 - 1020 B.C. or 2,000 - 587 (Southern Kingdom (Judah) and First Temple destroyed-Babylonian exile 587)
So the region is diverse before and during the Israelite time period
It is impossible to know Jacob's or Abraham's haplogroup unless bodily remains are discovered, the Patriarchs of the Israelites and Hebrews respectively and their ancestors going back not to just Shem but to his father Noah, father of two more sons Japheth and Ham, one 'bloodline and same haplogroup (whatever it was) of Noah Thus impossible at this time to know if any human remains or living people were or are Israelites (if Israelites are only those people descended from Jacob), impossible for anyone to prove they are descendant of Abraham or Jacob. Also the Bible does not exclude Arabs from being descendants of Abraham. Also with this
quote: Genesis 15:1 and 7 After these things the word of the Lord came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.
7 And he said unto him, I am the Lord that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.
This suggests an ancestral location that is not even Israel, potentially rendering the biblical Hebrews and Israelites not even wholly indigenous to Israel as a location corresponding to modern Israel, although settled there (but this is unresolved). What language Shem and his father (if real people) actually spoke is unknown and there is no claim Shem invented his own new language
Also from the Bible, it cannot be assumed that descendants of Japheth and Ham are Europeans and Africans these who were blood brothers and along with Shem, sons of Noah.
suggesting such an idea seems ridiculous as Swenet pointed out (I paraphrase) and even saying that haplogroups exist and suggest varying ancestry seems to go against the biblical narrative
It does seem reasonable to speculate that an ancient site of the time period of the Israelites might be a Hebrew burial site based on certain objects, archaeological details and burial type
Posts: 42932 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: This suggests an ancestral location that is not even Israel, potentially rendering the biblical Hebrews and Israelites not even wholly indigenous to Israel as a location corresponding to modern Israel, although settled there (but this is unresolved). What language Shem and his father (if real people) actually spoke is unknown and there is no claim Shem invented his own new language
Also from the Bible, it cannot be assumed that Japheth and Ham are Europeans and Africans these who were blood brothers and along with Shem, sons of Noah.
suggesting such an idea seems ridiculous as Swenet pointed out (I paraphrase) and even saying that haplogroups exist and suggest varying ancestry seems to go against the biblical narrative
Well damn! Look at the lioness making my argument for me
There are plenty examples available to show how and why the field of population genetics actually goes against the biblical narrative
Posts: 2519 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: and Megiddo samples from 1,900 - 923 BC most 1,600 BC there were several J's one was J2 a couple of E's also from these clades: E1b1b1b1b2a1 E1b1b1b1b2a1b One T Two Rs
Just now had a closer look at your screenshot on seeing the 1,600 BC date you mentioned. Feels good when predictions check out 🗸🗸🗸.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: This indicates to me that most of the Semitic speakers, who were not just speakers, but biologically Egyptian/N. African, passed through the Levant, but settled elsewhere, and then impacted the Levant in a roundabout way after a delay (ie a 'backmigration). By then they looked like their African ancestry was diluted (e.g. they had brachycephaly).
Most of the MBII samples that have been studied are dated to the MBIIB or MBlle. Specimens studied here are derived from Efrat, Nahal Refaim, Tel Dan, Ganei HaTa'arucha, Megiddo, Sasa and Hazar (see Figure 4). They show significant differences from all of the earlier populations in this region in craniofacial characteristics. In the MBII samples the head is shorter and wider, with a high rounded skull and shorter broader face and nose than in any of the earlier or most of the later populations inhabiting Israel. Statistically significant differences are present in five out of the seven measurements shown in Figure 5, and the direction of change found differs from that to be expected as the result of micro evolutionary trends or environmental factors affecting growth and development. The MBII samples studied here then represent an intrusive group, and their characteristics suggest that they originated from a damper and/or more temperate climate than that of Israel. Determination of their exact point of origin is now planned, using DNA analysis. People of the Holy Land from prehistory to the recent past https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/PEOPLE-OF-THE-HOLY-lAND-FROM-PREHISTORY-TO-THE-PAST-Patr%C3%ADcia/ac3b6ee13fd0624509af075cd75032c811b34a1e [/QB]
According to wiki, Middle Bronze Age II corresponds to 1750 BCE – 1650 BCE. Couldn't post wiki link due to html restrictions. To see the corresponding dates of various Bronze Age subdivisions, Google the following:
List of archaeological periods (Levant)
Translation? Increase of Y-DNA E in MBII-LBI times (Hazor and Megiddo), but (so far) not before MBII times, and also not after LBI times. Amounts to a clear short-lived spike of Y-DNA E that corresponds to similarly short-lived spike in African-like morphological measurements. Have to go back to Chl times and earlier periods to find another E bearing sample.
Of course, does not mean Y-DNA E was not there in between EBI and MBII times. Just means the "intrusive MBII group" involves well known Canaanite sites where the morphological change was already noticed (see Patricia Smith quote above), making it easier to detect.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
if you go to the website tinyurl.com and put in the URL, a shortened version will result work here as a link
The bronze age article, supp data I just posted as URL because there's a regular image of it already in the thread
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
To see the corresponding dates of various Bronze Age subdivisions, Google the following:
List of archaeological periods (Levant)
Translation? Increase of Y-DNA E in MBII-LBI times (Hazor and Megiddo), but (so far) not before MBII times, and also not after LBI times. Amounts to a clear short-lived spike of Y-DNA E that corresponds to similarly short-lived spike in African-like morphological measurements. Have to go back to Chl times and earlier periods to find another E bearing sample.
yes such a study is in the thread page 1 posted 27 October, 2023 01:08 AM (2/3 down) "Ancient DNA from Chalcolithic Israel reveals the role of population mixture in cultural transformation" Interestingly no J, one instance of E the rest is all Y group T (ponder, possible horn connect but also found in modern Jews + Toubou) but importantly, just one cave location: 22 individuals from Peqi’in Cave, Israel.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Of course, does not mean Y-DNA E was not there in between EBI and MBII times. Just means the "intrusive MBII group" involves well known Canaanite sites where the morphological change was already noticed (see Patricia Smith quote above), making it easier to detect.
the E is there with the 5 Natufians, there are many sites but DNA tested just these 5 individuals from one cave (another) (although prior to your between times) their MT DNA : 2 J2s (not the Y version) and an 1 N1.
Posts: 42932 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic