After a brief part of one article. a second related article, the thread topic: The genetic history of the Southern Arc: A bridge between West Asia and Europe and it's Supplement which has a lot of DNA data that ties together 3 articles Lazaridis intended as a trio.
the usual Yamnaya steppe migrations that have been covered before are mentioned and then getting into some excerpts including Natufians in the Supplement and their North African input
(lots more charts and text at the link of the second article and download the supplement, PCAs and so on)
These articles cover a large West Asia "Southern Arc" region
the 3 articles,
quote: 1) The genetic history of the Southern Arc: A bridge between West Asia and Europe BY IOSIF LAZARIDIS, SONGÜL ALPASLAN-ROODENBERG, AYŞE ACAR, ET AL., 2022
2) Ancient DNA from Mesopotamia suggests distinct Pre-Pottery and Pottery Neolithic migrations into Anatolia IOSIF LAZARIDIS, 2022
3) A genetic probe into the ancient and medieval history of Southern Europe and West Asia BY IOSIF LAZARIDIS, SONGÜL ALPASLAN-ROODENBERG, AYŞE ACAR, ET AL. 2022
Ancient DNA from Mesopotamia suggests distinct Pre-Pottery and Pottery Neolithic migrations into Anatolia IOSIF LAZARIDIS, 2022
Connecting genes and history Stories about the peopling—and people—of Southern Europe and West Asia have been passed down for thousands of years, and these stories have contributed to our historical understanding of populations. Genomic data provide the opportunity to truly understand these patterns independently from written history. IN A TRIO OF PAPERS , Lazaridis et al. examined more than 700 ancient genomes from across this region, the Southern Arc, spanning 11,000 years, from the earliest farming cultures to post-Medieval times (see the Perspective by Arbuckle and Schwandt).
THE SOUTHERN ARC
On the basis of these results, the authors suggest that earlier reliance on modern phenotypes and ancient writings and artistic depictions provided an inaccurate picture of early Indo-Europeans, and they provide a revised history of the complex migrations and population integrations that shaped these cultures. —SNV
Abstract We present the first ancient DNA data from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of Mesopotamia (Southeastern Turkey and Northern Iraq), Cyprus, and the Northwestern Zagros, along with the first data from Neolithic Armenia. We show that these and neighboring populations were formed through admixture of pre-Neolithic sources related to Anatolian, Caucasus, and Levantine hunter-gatherers, forming a Neolithic continuum of ancestry mirroring the geography of West Asia. By analyzing Pre-Pottery and Pottery Neolithic populations of Anatolia, we show that the former were derived from admixture between Mesopotamian-related and local Epipaleolithic-related sources, but the latter experienced additional Levantine-related gene flow, thus documenting at least two pulses of migration from the Fertile Crescent heartland to the early farmers of Anatolia.
RELATED RESEARCH ARTICLES
The genetic history of the Southern Arc: A bridge between West Asia and Europe BY IOSIF LAZARIDIS, SONGÜL ALPASLAN-ROODENBERG, AYŞE ACAR, ET AL.
A genetic probe into the ancient and medieval history of Southern Europe and West Asia BY IOSIF LAZARIDIS, SONGÜL ALPASLAN-ROODENBERG, AYŞE ACAR, ET AL. [/B]
THE GENETIC HISTORY OF THE SOUTHERN ARC: A BRIDGE BETWEEN WEST ASIA AND EUROPE
BY IOSIF LAZARIDIS, SONGÜL ALPASLAN-ROODENBERG, AYŞE ACAR, ET AL. 2022
Structured Abstract INTRODUCTION For thousands of years, humans moved across the “Southern Arc,” the area bridging Europe through Anatolia with West Asia. We report ancient DNA data from 727 individuals of this region over the past 11,000 years, which we co-analyzed with the published archaeogenetic record to understand the origins of its people. We focused on the Chalcolithic and Bronze Ages about 7000 to 3000 years ago, when Indo-European language speakers first appeared. RATIONALE Genetic data are relevant for understanding linguistic evolution because they can identify movement-driven opportunities for language spread. We investigated how the changing ancestral landscape of the Southern Arc, as reflected in DNA, corresponds to the structure inferred by linguistics, which links Anatolian (e.g., Hittite and Luwian) and Indo-European (e.g., Greek, Armenian, Latin, and Sanskrit) languages as twin daughters of a Proto-Indo-Anatolian language. RESULTS Steppe pastoralists of the Yamnaya culture initiated a chain of migrations linking Europe in the west to China and India in the East. Some people across the Balkans (about 5000 to 4500 years ago) traced almost all their genes to this expansion. Steppe migrants soon admixed with locals, creating a tapestry of diverse ancestry from which speakers of the Greek, Paleo-Balkan, and Albanian languages arose. The Yamnaya expansion also crossed the Caucasus, and by about 4000 years ago, Armenia had become an enclave of low but pervasive steppe ancestry in West Asia, where the patrilineal descendants of Yamnaya men, virtually extinct on the steppe, persisted. The Armenian language was born there, related to Indo-European languages of Europe such as Greek by their shared Yamnaya heritage. Neolithic Anatolians (in modern Turkey) were descended from both local hunter-gatherers and Eastern populations of the Caucasus, Mesopotamia, and the Levant. By about 6500 years ago and thereafter, Anatolians became more genetically homogeneous, a process driven by the flow of Eastern ancestry across the peninsula. Earlier forms of Anatolian and non–Indo-European languages such as Hattic and Hurrian were likely spoken by migrants and locals participating in this great mixture. Anatolia is remarkable for its lack of steppe ancestry down to the Bronze Age. The ancestry of the Yamnaya was, by contrast, only partly local; half of it was West Asian, from both the Caucasus and the more southern Anatolian-Levantine continuum. Migration into the steppe started by about 7000 years ago, making the later expansion of the Yamnaya into the Caucasus a return to the homeland of about half their ancestors. CONCLUSION All ancient Indo-European speakers can be traced back to the Yamnaya culture, whose southward expansions into the Southern Arc left a trace in the DNA of the Bronze Age people of the region. However, the link connecting the Proto-Indo-European–speaking Yamnaya with the speakers of Anatolian languages was in the highlands of West Asia, the ancestral region shared by both.
To quantify the ancestry of Southern Arc individuals, we developed a five-source modeling framework(using qpAdm and F4admix) (1) that allows a high-resolution description of the ancestry of the Southern Arc population as a whole and as individuals. To generate this model, we used an automated procedure that did not preselect a specific set of surrogates for the source populations, but instead explored many possible sets and identified those that, for as many individuals as possible, maximized the quality of the statistical fit of the model while minimizing the standard errors in inferences of ancestry proportions (tables S1 to S21 and figs. S22 to S27). After applying this procedure,
the five sources of ancestry that we used are:
Caucasus hunter-gatherers (CHG) (7),
Eastern hunter-gatherers (EHG) from Europe (8, 9),
Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic (10),
Balkan hunter-gatherers from the Iron Gates in Serbia (3), and
Northwestern Anatolian Neolithic from Barcın (9).
These correspond to the four-source ADMIXTURE model, with further distinction between the Anatolian and Levantine ends of the “Mediterranean” interaction zone (11). These five sources should not be unduly emphasized beyond their utility as a descriptive convenience because (i) they could be swapped for related ones [e.g., Neolithic Iran captures much of the same deep ancestry as Caucasus hunter-gatherers do (10, 11)], (ii) they were themselves derived from earlier (more “distal”) populations [e.g., Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic from earlier Natufian hunter-gatherers (10)], and (iii) they transmitted their ancestry through later (more “proximal”) sources [e.g., Eastern hunter-gatherers through Yamnaya steppe pastoralists (8)]. The inferred proportions of ancestry for individuals are summarized in figs. S2 to S4 and figs. S28 to S76 and are discussed in detail in (1).
_____________________
Supplementary Materials for The genetic history of the Southern Arc: A bridge between West Asia and Europe
Iosif Lazaridis, Songül Alpaslan-Roodenberg et al, 2022
These results don’t fully identify the source populations of the Southern Arc: such a quest may be meaningless, as the Southern Arc was formed by diverse populations inhabiting its geographical area and beyond, composed of varying amounts of related earlier ancestral sources. 184 Nonetheless, they establish that the number of these sources must be at least 4-5 and that when considering 5-way models these sources must include:
quote: 1. An “eastern” source representing northern Mesopotamia, the southern Caucasus, and Iran 2. A “Levantine” source representing Natufians and PPN farmers from the Levant 3. A “western” Anatolian source represented by the farmers of Northwestern/Central Anatolia 4. An “eastern European/steppe” source representing the Eastern hunter-gatherers or later steppe pastoralists 5. A “mainland European/Balkan” source representing the widely distributed Western European hunter-gatherers or the more specific hunter-gatherers from the Balkans (Iron Gates)
Israel
In samples from Israel ((10, 410, 420, 432, 439, 440) and this study) the Levantine ancestry is the most important one in all periods (Fig. S 50). Note that we model Epipaleolithic Natufians(10) (that precede the Neolithic) as derived from the Levantine Neolithic. It has previously been inferred(441) that these can be modeled as a mixture of the Levantine Neolithic with North African Epipaleolithic.(408) We used qpAdm to confirm that this model fits (P=0.16 with 21.2±2% North African input); in the 5-way model used to model individuals here the North African source is not included and hence Natufians are modeled as entirely Levantine Neolithic. When we use qpWave to test whether the Levantine Neolithic forms a clade with Natufians the model fails (p -1.44e-26). Examining the statistics of the form (Levant_PPN, ISR_Natufian_EpiP; X, Mbuti.DG) for the different outgroups, this is significantly positive for X=TUR_Marmara_Barcın_N (0.003824; Z=9.0) and X=Epipaleolithic of Anatolia (Pınarbaşı) (0.003388; Z=4.8), suggesting that there is shared genetic drift between the Anatolian-related populations and the PPN Neolithic of the Levant that was not shared by Natufians. In (11) we show two opportunities for the establishment of this shared drift: first, that the Levantine
Neolithic can be modeled as a mixture of Pınarbaşı and the Natufians (i.e., Anatolian-related influence in the Levant prior to the formation of the Levantine Neolithic; second, that the population sampled at Barcın could be modeled with 12.8±3.3% Levantine Neolithic and 26.8±4.5% Mesopotamian Neolithic ancestry (i.e., Levantine-related influence contributing to the formation of the pottery Neolithic in Anatolia).
To summarize our observations, the data suggests that the Natufian Epipaleolithic is not cladal with the PPN farmers of the Levant but can only be modeled with some North African input. The PPN farmers of the Levant, in turn, share genetic drift with both Epipaleolithic and Neolithic Anatolians which can stem from either admixture prior to their own formation, or a Levantine contribution (via Mesopotamia or directly) to the farming populations of Anatolia. In the Chalcolithic(420), 3 sources are needed: ~2/3 of the ancestry is Levantine Neolithic, ~1/4 Anatolian Neolithic and the remainder (~1/7) related to CHG. The CHG ancestry rises to ~1/3 in the Bronze and Iron Ages. The Levantine ancestry is reduced in each successive epoch reaching ~42% in the Iron Age (of course there is variability in the Iron Age as we will see below). No clear pattern emerges for the Anatolian Neolithic whose temporary dip in the Bronze Age is restored by the Iron Age.
Haplogroup E-V13(476) is an important Southeast European Y-chromosomal lineage, well represented in present-day people of the Balkans.(467, 477-479) Its estimated TMRCA of 4,800 is most consistent with the inference that this represents a Bronze Age expansion(478) rather than Paleolithic/Neolithic expansions as previously proposed. In the ancient data it is only detected (in the Southern Arc) in the Iron Age with four examples at Kapitan Andreevo in Bulgaria (1100-500 BCE) and one from Sv Kriz in Croatia (I5724; 382-206 calBCE). These samples also belong to downstream clades E-Z1057 and E-CTS1273 (with a TRMCA of 4,500 years). Later examples are found in Late Antique and Medieval Spain(449) and Italy(436, 453), while we also find it in Hellenistic and Roman samples from Bulgaria and in a pair of brothers (500-700 CE) from Byzantine Nicaea in Turkey. Its absence in Bronze Age southeastern Europe (n=107) is in remarkable contrast with its ubiquity in the present day, leading us to hypothesize that either it did exist there prior to our sampling but in a specific region from which we have no samples or it arose elsewhere and migrated to southeastern Europe just prior to the earliest sampled individuals. The parent node of E-V13 is E-L618 which is called for an earlier sample from the Lengyel culture in Hungary which was ancestral for the V13 SNP (I1900 4797-4619 calBCE; E-L618(xE-BY64249,E-V13)) and which has an estimated TMRCA of 7,800 years BP. Thus, the evidence appears consistent with a scenario in which E-L618 Y-chromosomes entered Europe during the Neolithic and EV13 representing a remarkably successful lineage within this group that had not yet achieved prominence during the Bronze Age, but had begun to do so by the Iron Age
J-Z2507 (within J2) is found in 21 individuals. It is part of haplogroup J-M102 for which it was written in 2004 on the basis of present-day samples that: “J-M12 is almost totally represented by its sublineage J-M102, which shows frequency peaks in both the southern Balkans and north-central Italy”(471) In the ancient data we find it in 3 samples from Rome,(436) with the earliest being R474.SG (700-600 BCE). All remaining samples are from the Balkans and indeed the Western Balkans (Montenegro, Croatia, Albania) and most of them are from the Bronze Age. Thus, J-Z2507 has a peri-Adriatic ancient distribution in agreement with the present-day distribution and may represent a Bronze Age or later expansion in the area. The immediately upstream nodes of J-Z2507 are J-Z585, J-Z615, J-Z597 with a similar time depth and include two additional Bronze Age samples from Albania and Croatia, and are thus part of the same pattern. J-Z600, the parent node of J-Z585, includes four additional individuals, one of which is from Croatia, and three of which are from the Late Bronze Age Nuragic culture in the island of Sardinia,(20, 453) thus suggesting that this culture included individuals of Bronze Age Western Balkan origin (these might have Italian intermediaries, but we do not detect any J-Z600 in mainland Italy prior to the aforementioned Iron Age sample from Rome).
J-Y2919 (within J1) is found in 17 individuals, 13 of which are from the Levant (Israel, Jordan, and Lebanon).(432, 435, 440) It is also called for an undated sample from Nemrik in Iraq (I6441; 1500-1200BCE) of the Late Bronze Age. It is also found in SE Anatolia at Kilis (I14762; 1736-1541 calBCE), a sample from Dinkha Tepe in Iran (IRN_DinkhaTepe_BIA_A; I3911; 2000-1000 BCE) which belongs to the more Anatolian/Levantine cluster of that site, and an Imperial Roman (R1547.SG)(436) who genetically falls on the Levantine end of the Southern Arc. Thus, this lineage appears to track fairly well with Bronze Age Levantine populations and their descendants. The parent node J-Z1884 is called for a Late Antique Roman(436), a sample from Alalakh in Hatay Province of Turkey (ALA026; 1746-1616 calBCE), and a Canaanite from Lebanon(433). The upstream nodes of J-Z1884 are J-YSC0000234, J-Z2313 and are called for two Middle-to-Late Bronze Age samples from Hatay province,(14) two Bronze/Iron Age samples from Israel,(432) and an Imperial-era sample from central Italy (R835.SG).(436) Further upstream, J-Z2317 is called for two more samples from Alalakh and two more from Bronze Age Israel. One non-Levantine sample from Dzori Gekh (I16120; 1500-1380 BCE) in Armenia belongs to this clade. Further up, J-Z2324 is found in two Bronze Age samples from Jordan and one from Israel,(10, 432) and further up the J-Z2331 clade is found in 6 individuals from the aforementioned Levantine groups, an early Byzantine era individual (I14824; 432-561 calCE) from Balıkesir and a New Kingdom Egyptian (JK2134).(468) Further up, J-Z1853 is found in Ebla in Syria (ETM012; 2574-2467 calBCE)(14) and SE Anatolia (Kilis; I14798; 3000- 2000BCE) as well as a Canaanite from Israel, and four 2nd millennium samples also from Israel could be assigned to the J-Z1865, J-Z643 upstream nodes,(432) a Late Antique (R130.SG; 300- 500CE) Italian to the further upstream node J-CTS9721, and two samples from Ebla in Syria(14) further upstream to J-P58. Thus, the entire clade J-P58 is well-associated with the Levant region, may have expanded beyond it (towards Armenia and Iran), by the Bronze Age, and even more broadly (at least in the Mediterranean world) in later periods. The earliest known examples are from Syria and SE Turkey, consistent with the suggestion(469) based on modern variation that the expansion of this haplogroup occurred from “northeast Syria, northern Iraq and eastern Turkey”. The Bronze Age distribution of this clade in all Levantine countries (Syria, Lebanon, Israel, and Jordan), the inferred recent Neolithic-to-Bronze Age origin of clades within the J-P58 lineage, and the present-day distribution in diverse groups of Semitic speakers(469), all also combine to support its association with the expansion of Semitic languages. The latter has been dated to the Early Bronze Age ~5,750 years ago by Bayesian linguistic phylogenetics,(470) with a first split of West Semitic from Akkadian and a common ancestor of West Semitic languages ~5,400 years ago. All sampled (certain) J-P58 chromosomes postdate this period and could thus be associated with this expansion. We caution, however, that the early splits within the Semitic language family were inferred(470) to have transpired within a millennium and the linguistic affiliation of the ancient individuals is uncertain, although some form of Semitic language is quite plausible 322 given their time and place, so an association of J-P58 with either the Semitic linguistic family as a whole or any of its daughter languages must be clarified by additional ancient DNA study of diverse ancient populations of known or highly likely linguistic affiliation. J-Z2507 (within J2) is found in 21 individuals. It is part of haplogroup J-M102 for which it was written in 2004 on the basis of present-day samples that: “J-M12 is almost totally represented by its sublineage J-M102, which shows frequency peaks in both the southern Balkans and north-central Italy”(471) In the ancient data we find it in 3 samples from Rome,(436) with the earliest being R474.SG (700-600 BCE). All remaining samples are from the Balkans and indeed the Western Balkans (Montenegro, Croatia, Albania) and most of them are from the Bronze Age. Thus, J-Z2507 has a peri-Adriatic ancient distribution in agreement with the present-day distribution and may represent a Bronze Age or later expansion in the area. The immediately upstream nodes of J-Z2507 are J-Z585, J-Z615, J-Z597 with a similar time depth and include two additional Bronze Age samples from Albania and Croatia, and are thus part of the same pattern. J-Z600, the parent node of J-Z585, includes four additional individuals, one of which is from Croatia, and three of which are from the Late Bronze Age Nuragic culture in the island of Sardinia,(20, 453) thus suggesting that this culture included individuals of Bronze Age Western Balkan origin (these might have Italian intermediaries, but we do not detect any J-Z600 in mainland Italy prior to the aforementioned Iron Age sample from Rome).
THE GENETIC HISTORY OF THE SOUTHERN ARC: A BRIDGE BETWEEN WEST ASIA AND EUROPE
Other Supplementary Material for this manuscript includes the following: Data S1 to S5
^^ Take a look at this long list of the detailed haplogroup information with the particular cultures indicated in the "Other Supplementary Material" data It's interesting
posted
Why is the Taz the troll ignoring all this? These findings pretty much answers his question as to what cultures harbored J1, J2, and other paternal lineages.
Posts: 26376 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Why is the Taz the troll ignoring all this? These findings pretty much answers his question as to what cultures harbored J1, J2, and other paternal lineages.
Feel free to explain which part of the information in the OP explains the question I have been asking you about, which is:
The existence of a source showing hg J being introduced to the Levant/Mespotamia via a civilization other than the Kura-Araxes/Hurrian civilization -- via a civilization that was actually related to Hebrews in some form or fashion.
Posts: 2628 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-85883-2 We show that this haplogroup [J1-M267] 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.
Neolithic cultures of northern Mesopotamia: Halafian Culture (c. 6500 B.C. – c. 5500 B.C.), the Samarra Culture (c. 5500 B.C. - c. 4800 B.C.), and the Hassuna Culture (c. 5750 B.C. – c. 5350 B.C.)
Bronze Age Cultures of North Mesopotamia
Iron Age Cultures of North Mesopotamia
Hebrews come from Arpakhshad Until Woolley's identification of Ur, Arpachshad was understood by many Jewish and Muslim scholars to be an area in northern Mesopotamia. This led to the identification of Arpachshad with Urfa-Kasid (due to similarities in the names ארפ־כשד and כשדים) – a land associated with the Khaldis, whom Josephus confused with the Chaldeans. Donald B. Redford asserted that Arpachshad is to be identified with Babylon.
So go ahead motha-f ask me again, but I won't be answering anymore!
Posts: 26376 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
^ where does this source you keep posting or the one in the OP identify a specific Hebrew-related civilization that brought J into the Levant/Mesopotamia?
Neither of them do.
It's funny how in your first comment you say that the OP answers my question, yet you did not even reference anything from the OP.
I only recently realized that you are 100% fully aware of the game you are playing, you just don't want to admit there is no evidence that says what you claim.
Sad
Posts: 2628 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ The source I cited talks about the origin of J1-M267 which is a sub-branch of haplogroup J whose origins are far older. I already explained to your dumb ass that a subgroup of J1 is identified as Cohen modal.
I then simply cited Neolithic cultures in that region where Abraham comes from and then later Bronze Age cultures.
You can't run away from the FACT that Kura-Araxes is NOT associated with hg J anymore than hg G which they also carried, or that they were not the only culture in the region with other cultures predating it! Lioness has cited another source in this thread confirming it. Have you bothered to read that paper? No.
That's because your illiterate ass refuses to read anything that goes against your confirmation bias.
Posts: 26376 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
^ the "cohen gene" proves nothing -- you yourself admit that it has no conclusive evidence to support it and that it's all speculation -- I also referenced a source that says it is not evidence of Aaron's lineage and that it also proves nothing in terms of what we are currently discussing.
Secondly, I never said Kura-Araxes is strictly associated with J, I've simply said the migration into the Levant/Mesopotamia was specifically due to the Kura-Araxes.
You claim that other J-carrying civilizations that could be related to Hebrews also existed in the region and this whole time I have literally been asking you to provide evidence of just that: a civilization other than the kura-araxes who brought J into the Levant/Mesopotamia.
Weeks of back and forth and you still have not identified a single civilization that could be related to Hebrews, that are said to have brought hg J into the Levant/Mesopotamia.
Name a civilization(s) and provide papers showing that they possessed hg J.
Posts: 2628 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
I'm honestly tired of this because I know that no such source exists, because this is just a THEORY that you have.
And I know that we will continue to go in circles because you are too ignorant and prideful to admit that this is merely something you believe, but that it cannot proven with sources.
Posts: 2628 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kura Araxes are to late bronze age J carriers as Natufians and the Levant pottery Neolithic are to late bronze age E carriers
Culturally irrelevant.
Proving a detachment from K/A and late J carriers is as important as detaching late E carriers from Natufians. Proving Abraham's relationship with K/A is as (or maybe less) fruitful than proving his relationship with PPN culture of the Levant.
Luckily, we have scripture to help us understand when and where the patrilineages emerged from. E most likely was not of K/A culture, but it did not expand from Ararat. Natufian/PPN culture has almost nothing to do with the bronze age cultures in contention. And J is unequivocally an Arab marker. And according to scripture Arabs descend from Abraham.
So fundamentally discussions about Kura-Araxes is a strawman at best. I'll advise to move on and stop spamming the forum about them.
Posts: 1785 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
^^^ how am I "spamming about Kura-Araxes" when I have been actually asking for a source that shows a civilization other than the Kura-Araxes bringing hg J into the Levant/Mesopotamia during the time period of the Abraham story?
...........nobody here is talking about the kura-araxes anymore. But since you bring it up, the Kura-Araxes/Hurrian invasion from the caucusus into the Levant/Mesopotamia took place during the same time period (late bronze age) as the Abraham story. They are said to have introduced J into the Levant/Mesopotamia and they were not Hebrews or related to Hebrews.
Posts: 2628 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: ^^^ how am I "spamming about Kura-Araxes" when I have been actually asking for a source that shows a civilization other than the Kura-Araxes bringing hg J into the Levant/Mesopotamia during the time period of the Abraham story?
...........nobody here is talking about the kura-araxes anymore. But since you bring it up, the Kura-Araxes/Hurrian invasion from the caucusus into the Levant/Mesopotamia took place during the same time period (late bronze age) as the Abraham story. They are said to have introduced J into the Levant/Mesopotamia and they were not Hebrews or related to Hebrews.
You don't need a source for that is my point. They're irrelevant. It like me asking you to provide evidence that Natufians brought E to the levant. or that Bronze Age E associated with Semitic speakers were in continuity with PPNB.
It's meaningless. Stop spamming the forum asking for posters to provide irrelevant information please.
Posts: 1785 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
^ It's actually not irrelevant at all because this all took place (Kura-Araxes/Hurrians into the Levant/Mesopotamia) during the same time period as the Abraham story as I pointed out in my last response.
So we can see that J came from an entirely different civilization that Abraham was from, during the same time period that Abraham and his descendants existed.
Djehuti doesn't seem to think it was irrelevant either because he claimed to have posted the evidence I was asking for (although he really didn't).
Either way I was planning to leave it alone because I can see for myself that the claims being made do not line up with the evidence. But just so you know, this thread was created as a response to me and this whole J thing.
Posts: 2628 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
.
Posts: 2628 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: ^ It's actually not irrelevant at all because this all took place (Kura-Araxes/Hurrians into the Levant/Mesopotamia) during the same time period as the Abraham story as I pointed out in my last response.
So we can see that J came from an entirely different civilization that Abraham was from, during the same time period that Abraham and his descendants existed.
Djehuti doesn't seem to think it was irrelevant either because he claimed to have posted the evidence I was asking for (although he really didn't).
Either way I was planning to leave it alone because I can see for myself that the claims being made do not line up with the evidence. But just so you know, this thread was created as a response to me and this whole J thing.
No it did not. "Hurrian invasion" and Abraham's story is separated by at least 2 millennia. J was already in Mesopotamia before Abraham was born.
They're irrelevant.
Noah isn't in the archeological record and scripture never stated that he was born in Mesopotamia, but we know for certain that he moved there from Ararat.Posts: 1785 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Not to mention the fact that fool keeps asking the same question to which he was already answered!
quote:the lying psycho wrote:
You claim that other J-carrying civilizations that could be related to Hebrews also existed in the region and this whole time I have literally been asking you to provide evidence of just that: a civilization other than the kura-araxes who brought J into the Levant/Mesopotamia.
Weeks of back and forth and you still have not identified a single civilization that could be related to Hebrews, that are said to have brought hg J into the Levant/Mesopotamia.
Name a civilization(s) and provide papers showing that they possessed hg J.
Neolithic cultures of northern Mesopotamia: Halafian Culture (c. 6500 B.C. – c. 5500 B.C.), the Samarra Culture (c. 5500 B.C. - c. 4800 B.C.), and the Hassuna Culture (c. 5750 B.C. – c. 5350 B.C.)
Bronze Age Cultures of North Mesopotamia
Iron Age Cultures of North Mesopotamia
The idiot is either blind or lying if he can't see the civilizations in that region from the Neolithic to Iron Age.
Posts: 26376 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Noah isn't in the archeological record and scripture never stated that he was born in Mesopotamia, but we know for certain that he moved there from Ararat.
This is common biblical knowledge:
quote: Noah almost certainly lived in Mesopotamia, the land situated between and around the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. The Greek word Mesopotamia literally means “in the midst of the rivers” or “between the rivers.” The territory generally applies to the entire Tigris-Euphrates Valley, including the area in between and bordering those two rivers down to the Persian Gulf.
Today, the northern reaches of Mesopotamia are called Al-Jazira, the Arabic word for “island.” This region of the Middle East makes up part of northern Iraq and extends to eastern Turkey and the extreme northeast of Syria.
Mesopotamia plays a considerable role in Old Testament history, including the story of Noah. Much of the densely packed narrative in the first eleven chapters of Genesis focuses on this region. The Garden of Eden, where civilization began, was in this general vicinity. Two of the rivers in Eden are identified as the Euphrates and the Tigris (Genesis 2:10–14).
So how would Noah have a hg linked to the caucusus (hg J) if that was not his origin? The oldest hg J sample was found in the caucusus.
If we are now going to pretend that Noah was not originally from Mesopotamia then I think I am comfortable leaving things here.
Posts: 2628 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@Djhetui
I've seen you post that several times but you never showed that any of those civilizations had J markers like how I asked.
Posts: 2628 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ You lying turd! I've cited several sources showing the Y DNA samples from those cultures were predominantly J and Lioness has cited sample tables in those other threads and here!
I hate to go there, but you probably grew up without a father since this type of childish passive behavior would have been slapped out of you as a child.
Posts: 26376 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ You lying turd! I've cited several sources showing the Y DNA samples from those cultures were predominantly J and Lioness has cited sample tables in those other threads and here!
I hate to go there, but you probably grew up without a father since this type of childish passive behavior would have been slapped out of you as a child.
Wow, djehuti's true colors finally show. Is this how you talk to all black men when they upset you? Now I see why you are so biased against hg E. Have to say I'm not surprised though.
If you did post it, it probably got lost in all the pointless back and forth that the lioness was contributing to but I don't remember seeing you post it so feel free to link it so I can take a look at it because I doubt it supports your argument in a way that you feel it does.
Because as I've been saying, there is no evidence of a Hebrew-related population bringing hg J into the Levant/Mesopotamia. I'm not denying that J was there and I've made that clear several times. The oldest J sample was found in the caucusus.
Abraham and his people did not have origins in the caucusus. That's like, the main overall point that I've been driving home.
Kind of crazy how you claim to have posted the evidence in question and accuse me of lying. Yet in recent days when I've asked for it, you post something COMPLETELY different instead of the relevant information.
Posts: 2628 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Noah isn't in the archeological record and scripture never stated that he was born in Mesopotamia, but we know for certain that he moved there from Ararat.
This is common biblical knowledge:
quote: Noah almost certainly lived in Mesopotamia, the land situated between and around the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. The Greek word Mesopotamia literally means “in the midst of the rivers” or “between the rivers.” The territory generally applies to the entire Tigris-Euphrates Valley, including the area in between and bordering those two rivers down to the Persian Gulf.
Today, the northern reaches of Mesopotamia are called Al-Jazira, the Arabic word for “island.” This region of the Middle East makes up part of northern Iraq and extends to eastern Turkey and the extreme northeast of Syria.
Mesopotamia plays a considerable role in Old Testament history, including the story of Noah. Much of the densely packed narrative in the first eleven chapters of Genesis focuses on this region. The Garden of Eden, where civilization began, was in this general vicinity. Two of the rivers in Eden are identified as the Euphrates and the Tigris (Genesis 2:10–14).
So how would Noah have a hg linked to the caucusus (hg J) if that was not his origin? The oldest hg J sample was found in the caucusus.
If we are now going to pretend that Noah was not originally from Mesopotamia then I think I am comfortable leaving things here.
Mesopotamia is the favored hypothesis. but according to literal scripture he disembarked at Ararat. You still have to reconcile with that regardless.
Posts: 1785 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ You lying turd! I've cited several sources showing the Y DNA samples from those cultures were predominantly J and Lioness has cited sample tables in those other threads and here!
I hate to go there, but you probably grew up without a father since this type of childish passive behavior would have been slapped out of you as a child.
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@Elmaestro
So are you saying Noah's hg would have ties to the area where he disembarked the ark (Ararat) and not where he was originally from?
It's not just a "favored hypothesis". Even if I don't reference any of the plethora of scholars and sources that confirm Noah's Mesopotamian origin, the Bible itself lays everything out.
But I understand that the only way hg J works is if you disregard Noah's Mesopotamian origin.
Posts: 2628 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: Wow, djehuti's true colors finally show. Is this how you talk to all black men when they upset you? Now I see why you are so biased against hg E. Have to say I'm not surprised though.
LOL It's funny that you bring up color since such has NEVER even crossed my mind. I've been told you were a black Hebrew Israelite but I don't want to go by hearsay. But to be honest this is the way I talk to ANY man regardless of color if he acts the way you do, though now that you mention it. statistically it makes sense that this would be the case for many black men.
FYI, I grew up in a pretty mixed community with a large number of black boys, now men, all of whom had fathers which is why I've never witnessed this type of behavior from them or really any black men in my personal circle. So whatever your personal issues are I suggest you go seek a therapist and stop annoying me or those with rational thinking minds in this forum.
Posts: 26376 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
So are you saying Noah's hg would have ties to the area where he disembarked the ark (Ararat) and not where he was originally from?
It's not just a "favored hypothesis". Even if I don't reference any of the plethora of scholars and sources that confirm Noah's Mesopotamian origin, the Bible itself lays everything out.
But I understand that the only way hg J works is if you disregard Noah's Mesopotamian origin.
We went back and forth already. I'm not interested in feeding you and your need for attention given your critical lack of knowledge and your incessant need to be right.
Fact of the matter is. E never disseminated from Ararat. So if the flood story was reflective of reality to whatever extent, E can not be a better candidate than J, which finds confluence in every single turn.
If I say "a tree grows upwards" and you say "nuh-uh, there are branches which has their bases on a stem above them." I will respond with "who cares."
Stop plucking branches bruh.
Posts: 1785 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: Wow, djehuti's true colors finally show. Is this how you talk to all black men when they upset you? Now I see why you are so biased against hg E. Have to say I'm not surprised though.
LOL It's funny you that you bring up color since such has NEVER even crossed my mind. I've been told you were a black Hebrew Israelite but I don't want to go by hear say. But to be honest this the way I talk to ALL men regardless of color though now that you mention it statistically it makes sense that this would be the case for many black men.
FYI, I grew up in a pretty mixed community with a large number of black boys, now men, all of whom had fathers which is why I've never witnessed this type of behavior from them or really any black men in my personal circle. So whatever your personal issues are I suggest you go seek a therapist and stop annoying me or those with rational thinking minds in this forum.
Oh look now he's backpedaling and trying to walk back his racist slip up.
Then he wants to assert that statistics support his claims about black people not having fathers?
According to a study done by the CDC, that is bullsh*t -- black fathers are doing the best.
"The CDC Has Debunked the "Absent Black Father" Myth
A study from the Center for Disease Control shows black fathers are just as attentive as white or Latino dads, and sometimes more so."
So have a nice day djehuti, this discussion was obviously too much for you and you let it get to your head. Your true colors have been shown and the reasoning behind your arguments makes A LOT more sense to me now.
Posts: 2628 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@Elmaestro
My need for attention? That's a new one. You know that everytime I post in a thread it's because I'm directly responding to someone who mentioned my name right? Scroll up and look at the first few comments in here.
I would actually LOVE if people stopped mentioning my name
Furthermore, nothing you've said in here makes the case for hg look any better. Nobody has shown hg J being introduced to the Levant/Mesopotamia by a civilization that was actually related to Hebrews, it was brought there by a civilization (Hurrians) that had nothing to do with Hebrews and it doesn't matter how long before Abraham because Abraham's ancestors, like Eber for example, were alive during that time period and they were not the same people as the Hurrians. So the fact that Abraham himself wasn't alive during the Kura-Araxes/Hurrian invasion is irrelevant and a logical fallacy.
If you'd like to pretend that Noah wasn't originally from Mesopotamia then go ahead, I know why you have to do that in order to keep the argument for J alive. But the Bible is clear about Mesopotamia being the location for the Noah story and events prior in Genesis. This is a widely known Biblical fact.
* I honestly stopped taking you seriously concerning this hg J contention after what you said on the last page of this thread:
You told me that I was misrepresenting Dr. Elhaik's work and that he disproved me and disagreed with me when I contacted him about this hg J topic, which is impossible because I literally referenced his work word for word and he 100% stood by everything he said when I conversed with him. He 100% dismissed the claims you guys are making for hg J. And I shared screenshots of his responses to prove it.
So you weren't being honest about that.
Posts: 2628 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
My need for attention? That's a new one. You know that everytime I post in a thread it's because I'm directly responding to someone who mentioned my name right? Scroll up and look at the first few comments in here.
I would actually LOVE if people stopped mentioning my name
Furthermore, nothing you've said in here makes the case for hg look any better. Nobody has shown hg J being introduced to the Levant/Mesopotamia by a civilization that was actually related to Hebrews, it was brought there by a civilization (Hurrians) that had nothing to do with Hebrews and it doesn't matter how long before Abraham because Abraham's ancestors, like Eber for example, were alive during that time period and they were not the same people as the Hurrians. So the fact that Abraham himself wasn't alive during the Kura-Araxes/Hurrian invasion is irrelevant and a logical fallacy.
If you'd like to pretend that Noah wasn't originally from Mesopotamia then go ahead, I know why you have to do that in order to keep the argument for J alive. But the Bible is clear about Mesopotamia being the location for the Noah story and events prior in Genesis. This is a widely known Biblical fact.
* I honestly stopped taking you seriously concerning this hg J contention after what you said on the last page of this thread:
You told me that I was misrepresenting Dr. Elhaik's work and that he disproved me and disagreed with me when I contacted him about this hg J topic, which is impossible because I literally referenced his work word for word and he 100% stood by everything he said when I conversed with him. He 100% dismissed the claims you guys are making for hg J. And I shared screenshots of his responses to prove it.
So you weren't being honest about that.
-Almost everyone who responded to your claims had shown evidence J was introduced to the Levant by people who'd become Hebrews. -It doesn't really matter much where Noah came from. But Noah unlike Haplogroup E has progeny which spread from Ararat, and even before him J was already in Mesopotamia. - Dr. Erin Elheik told you that an expansion from the Caucus region best explains the origin of Hebrews. - I think it's a good idea to "honestly stop talking". You offer no perspective or insight so I wont lose sleep. However, I have the burden of being a moderator so I have to read your shitposts.
Posts: 1785 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now its trolling in this topic about the same shxt? Smh, somebody needs a vacation.
Posts: 2601 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: -Almost everyone who responded to your claims had shown evidence J was introduced to the Levant by people who'd become Hebrews. -It doesn't really matter much where Noah came from. But Noah unlike Haplogroup E has progeny which spread from Ararat, and even before him J was already in Mesopotamia. - Dr. Erin Elheik told you that an expansion from the Caucus region best explains the origin of Hebrews. - I think it's a good idea to "honestly stop talking". You offer no perspective or insight so I wont lose sleep. However, I have the burden of being a moderator so I have to read your shitposts.
You just said "everybody showed evidence that J was introduced by people who'd become Hebrews" ---- meaning they were not Hebrews originally. They had nothing to do with actual Hebrew populations that would have already existed. That is the exact point I've been making. They were not Hebrews originally.
I'd love to see a source that shows a sample of J in Mesopotamia before the Kura-Araxes/Hurrian invasion if that's what you are saying, because everything I've referenced say that Kura-Araxes/Hurrians are how J got there.
And no, Dr. Elhaik did not say "an expansion from the caucus region best explains the origin of the Hebrews".
He said:
quote: "Using ancient GPS, a tool that I developed and will soon be available on https://www.ancientdnaorigins.com/, we see a migration from Turkey to Israel around the time of the Abraham story."
I can repost the screenshots if you'd like.
But he was referring to Anatolia specifically, as can be seen on the website he pointed me to:
quote: ...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.
^ You can see that on this website, Elhaik assigns Abraham to hg E so it makes no sense for you to say that he then turned around and contradicted himself in an email conversation with me.
Dr. Elhaik did not say anything that helps hg J and he actually said the opposite. I asked him specifically about hg J supposedly being Abraham and he dismissed it entirely.
If you say something that is incorrect about me or something that was said by someone else, am I supposed to just shutup and take it?
What's crazy is that this thread was created as a response specifically to me and what I'm saying against hg J. And djehuti even asked why I was not responding to the thread at the beginning of this thread. But as soon as I start responding to the thread, you come and start trying to silence me.
But yeah I've definitely said everything I need to say, and shown everything I need to show.
Posts: 2628 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: Now its trolling in this topic about the same shxt? Smh, somebody needs a vacation.
This topic was created as a response to what I was saying in the other thread smart guy. You see at the beginning of this thread, djehuti asked why I wasn't addressing any of this right?
You definitely aren't the sharpest tool in the shed and you've demonstrated that quite a few times recently.
But don't worry, I've said everything I have to say.
Posts: 2628 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: Now its trolling in this topic about the same shxt? Smh, somebody needs a vacation.
Djehuti summoned him in his first post
Tazarah has the dissenting opinion
I have been in that position and called a troll for it Having a dissenting opinion is not trolling but trolling is something that can be added to that:
trolling:
1) name calling 2) ad hominem personals attacks 3) Harassing people by asking a question beyond say, 4 times
and plenty of that had been going on, trolling is trying to instigate conflict on a personal level
Posts: 43016 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ To be fair this thread is more to the issue the dumb troll obsesses over than the other thread on IAM, Natufians, etc.
Having a dissenting opinion is not trolling, you Lioness were guilty of trolling because you make passive-aggressive remarks without providing evidence. This idiot Taz is worse because he is more annoying by repeating the same questions or demands which we have already provided him multiple times!! We provided evidence which he ignores but then continues demanding evidence. That is not only trolling but pure stupidity.
Lioness has already provided the Y-DNA profiles from samples in the region in question from the paper she cited showing a predominance of J.
Here is a slightly older source from Eva Fernández-Domínguez et al. (2019) showing the autosomal profile of the same region:
THE GENETIC HISTORY OF THE SOUTHERN ARC: A BRIDGE BETWEEN WEST ASIA AND EUROPE By Iosif Lazaridis, Songül Alpaslan-roodenberg, Ayşe Acar, Et Al. 2022 .
. J-Z1853 is found in Ebla in Syria (ETM012; 2574-2467 calBCE)(14) and SE Anatolia (Kilis; I14798; 3000- 2000BCE) as well as a Canaanite from Israel, and four 2nd millennium samples also from Israel could be assigned to the J-Z1865, J-Z643 upstream nodes, a Late Antique (R130.SG; 300- 500CE) Italian to the further upstream node J-CTS9721, and two samples from Ebla in Syria(14) further upstream to J-P58. Thus, the entire clade J-P58 is well-associated with the Levant region, may have expanded beyond it (towards Armenia and Iran), by the Bronze Age, and even more broadly (at least in the Mediterranean world) in later periods. The earliest known examples are from Syria and SE Turkey, consistent with the suggestion based on modern variation that the expansion of this haplogroup occurred from “northeast Syria, northern Iraq and eastern Turkey”. The Bronze Age distribution of this clade in all Levantine countries (Syria, Lebanon, Israel, and Jordan), the inferred recent Neolithic-to-Bronze Age origin of clades within
the J-P58 lineage, and the present-day distribution in diverse groups of Semitic speakers, all also combine to support its association with the expansion of Semitic languages. The latter has been dated to the Early Bronze Age ~5,750 years ago by Bayesian linguistic phylogenetics, with a first split of West Semitic from Akkadian and a common ancestor of West Semitic languages ~5,400 years ago. All sampled (certain) J-P58 chromosomes postdate this period and could thus be associated with this expansion. We caution, however, that the early splits within the Semitic language family were inferred to have transpired within a millennium and the linguistic affiliation of the ancient individuals is uncertain, although some form of Semitic language is quite plausible 322 given their time and place, so an association of J-P58 with either the Semitic linguistic family as a whole or any of its daughter languages must be clarified by additional ancient DNA study of diverse ancient populations of known or highly likely linguistic affiliation.
posted
^ Indeed, all those dates for those J subclades predate the existence of any Kura-Araxes Culture! Which is why low IQ troll's claims that culture is null and void! The samples all date to Neolithic both pre-pottery and pottery i.e. all those cultures I cited like Halafian, Hassunian, etc.
Hebrew is a down stream descendant of Proto-Semitic which developed IN Asia.
linguist Christopher Ehret stated: These are people who have been called Afro-Asiatic and also Afrasian. I'm saying "Afrasan" because I'm trying to get "Asia" out. There is still this idea that the Afro-Asiatic family had to come out of Asia. Once you realize that it's an African family with one little Asian offshoot, well, that itself is a very important lesson for world historians.
We actually have DNA evidence which fits very well with an intrusion of people from northeastern Africa into southwestern Asia. The Y-chromosome markers, associated with the male, fade out as you go deeper into the Middle East.
The exact same argument can be made about Indo-European which associated with Y hg R1a. Most people in India who speak IE languages including those in Sri-Lanka don't carry R1a yet they speak the language.
Why? Because languages can spread without genes. Thus the majority of people in the world who speak Spanish don't have ancestry from Spain anymore than English speakers have ancestry from England, yet the troll Taz is too freaking stupid to realize this!
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: -Almost everyone who responded to your claims had shown evidence J was introduced to the Levant by people who'd become Hebrews. -It doesn't really matter much where Noah came from. But Noah unlike Haplogroup E has progeny which spread from Ararat, and even before him J was already in Mesopotamia. - Dr. Erin Elheik told you that an expansion from the Caucus region best explains the origin of Hebrews. - I think it's a good idea to "honestly stop talking". You offer no perspective or insight so I wont lose sleep. However, I have the burden of being a moderator so I have to read your shitposts.
Indeed Hebrew is a Northwest Semitic language similar to Aramaic and Phoenician. Interestingly the homeland of Hebrew is Arphakhshad named after the ancestor of the Hebrews. This land was later called Aram-Padan not to be confused with Aram proper.
Posts: 26376 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: the "cohen gene" proves nothing -- you yourself admit that it has no conclusive evidence to support it and that it's all speculation -- I also referenced a source that says it is not evidence of Aaron's lineage and that it also proves nothing in terms of what we are currently discussing.
Again, by conclusive evidence, no we don't have tests from ancient kohanim. But we do have CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence in the form of cohen-modal haplotype which is J1-B877 shared by the majority of Cohen families in virtually ALL Jewish minhagim except for the Beta Israel of Ethiopia who whose kohanim are not hereditary. Yet the Cohen families of the Bantu speaking Lemba Jews have it! On the other hand YOU have no evidence at all for your lying claims! This shows that you are a delusional loser who denies all the evidence which goes against your claims of Levi/Cohen hg E. In fact the only Cohen who carry hg E are the Samaritans who are not even actual Jews!
Posts: 26376 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Right, C & G, neither of which are E or J. So how does that fit with the idiot troll's theories?!
Posts: 26376 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
I'm not going back and forth anymore over a "cohen gene" that both djehuti and actual scholars agree has no conclusive evidence to support it.
All of the information about hg J that lioness just referenced does not predate the Kura-Araxes culture.
quote:J-Z1853 is found in Ebla in Syria (ETM012; 2574-2467 calBCE)(14) and SE Anatolia (Kilis; I14798; 3000- 2000BCE) as well as a Canaanite from Israel, and four 2nd millennium samples also from Israel could be assigned to the J-Z1865, J-Z643 upstream nodes, a Late Antique (R130.SG; 300- 500CE) Italian to the further upstream node J-CTS9721, and two samples from Ebla in Syria(14) further upstream to J-P58. Thus, the entire clade J-P58 is well-associated with the Levant region, may have expanded beyond it (towards Armenia and Iran), by the Bronze Age, and even more broadly (at least in the Mediterranean world) in later periods. The earliest known examples are from Syria and SE Turkey, consistent with the suggestion based on modern variation that the expansion of this haplogroup occurred from “northeast Syria, northern Iraq and eastern Turkey”. The Bronze Age distribution of this clade in all Levantine countries (Syria, Lebanon, Israel, and Jordan), the inferred recent Neolithic-to-Bronze Age origin of clades within
the J-P58 lineage, and the present-day distribution in diverse groups of Semitic speakers, all also combine to support its association with the expansion of Semitic languages. The latter has been dated to the Early Bronze Age ~5,750 years ago by Bayesian linguistic phylogenetics, with a first split of West Semitic from Akkadian and a common ancestor of West Semitic languages ~5,400 years ago. All sampled (certain) J-P58 chromosomes postdate this period and could thus be associated with this expansion.
The first relevant date says 3000 to 2000 BCE.
The next relevant date says 5750 years ago. 5750 years ago would be roughly 3729 BCE.
The next relevant date says 5400 years ago, which would be roughly 3400 BCE.
All of these dates fall within the timeframe for the existence of the Kura-Araxes culture. The Kura-Araxes culture existed from about 4000 to 2000 BCE. And I have referenced sources showing the Kura-Araxes bringing J to the Levant/Mesopotamia.
Lastly, none of the information that I've seen in here identifies a Hebrew-related civilization bringing J to the Levant/Mesopotamia. You guys are just referencing information about J ALREADY IN those areas without any sources identifying which civilization brought hg J there, like how I did. Posts: 2628 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
Recall this data on the genomics associated with the spread of Semitic languages.
And recall this 2018 Lazaridis & Reich et ales. study on Chalcolithic Galileans Abstract The material culture of the Late Chalcolithic period in the southern Levant (4500–3900/3800 BCE) is qualitatively distinct from previous and subsequent periods. Here, to test the hypothesis that the advent and decline of this culture was influenced by movements of people, we generated genome-wide ancient DNA from 22 individuals from Peqi’in Cave, Israel. These individuals were part of a homogeneous population that can be modeled as deriving ~57% of its ancestry from groups related to those of the local Levant Neolithic, ~17% from groups related to those of the Iran Chalcolithic, and ~26% from groups related to those of the Anatolian Neolithic. The Peqi’in population also appears to have contributed differently to later Bronze Age groups, one of which we show cannot plausibly have descended from the same population as that of Peqi’in Cave. These results provide an example of how population movements propelled cultural changes in the deep past.
Introduction The material culture of the Late Chalcolithic period in the southern Levant contrasts qualitatively with that of earlier and later periods in the same region. The Late Chalcolithic in the Levant is characterized by increases in the density of settlements, introduction of sanctuaries, utilization of ossuaries in secondary burials, and expansion of public ritual practices as well as an efflorescence of symbolic motifs sculpted and painted on artifacts made of pottery, basalt, copper, and ivory. The period’s impressive metal artifacts, which reflect the first known use of the “lost wax” technique for casting of copper, attest to the extraordinary technical skill of the people of this period.
The distinctive cultural characteristics of the Late Chalcolithic period in the Levant (often related to the Ghassulian culture, although this term is not in practice applied to the Galilee region where this study is based) have few stylistic links to the earlier or later material cultures of the region, which has led to extensive debate about the origins of the people who made this material culture. One hypothesis is that the Chalcolithic culture in the region was spread in part by immigrants from the north (i.e., northern Mesopotamia), based on similarities in artistic designs. Others have suggested that the local populations of the Levant were entirely responsible for developing this culture, and that any similarities to material cultures to the north are due to borrowing of ideas and not to movements of people.
To explore these questions, we studied ancient DNA from a Chalcolithic site in Northern Israel, Peqi’in (Fig. 1a). This cave, which is around 17 m long and 4.5–8.0 m wide (Fig. 1b), was discovered during road construction in 1995, and was sealed by natural processes during or around the end of the Late Chalcolithic period (around 3900 BCE). Archeological excavations have revealed an extraordinary array of finely crafted objects, including chalices, bowls, and churns, as well as more than 200 ossuaries and domestic jars repurposed as ossuaries (the largest number ever found in a single cave), often decorated with anthropomorphic designs (Fig. 1c). It has been estimated that the burial cave contained up to 600 individuals, making it the largest burial site ever identified from the Late Chalcolithic period in the Levant. Direct radiocarbon dating suggests that the cave was in use throughout the Late Chalcolithic (4500–3900 BCE), functioning as a central burial location for the region.
**Previous genome-wide ancient DNA studies from the Near East have revealed that at the time when agriculture developed, populations from Anatolia, Iran, and the Levant were approximately as genetically differentiated from each other as present-day Europeans and East Asians are today**. By the Bronze Age, however, expansion of different Near Eastern agriculturalist populations—Anatolian, Iranian, and Levantine—in all directions and admixture with each other substantially homogenized populations across the region, thereby contributing to the relatively low genetic differentiation that prevails today. Lazaridis et al. showed that the Levant Bronze Age population from the site of 'Ain Ghazal, Jordan (2490–2300 BCE) could be fit statistically as a mixture of around 56% ancestry from a group related to Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic agriculturalists (represented by ancient DNA from Motza, Israel and 'Ain Ghazal, Jordan; 8300–6700 BCE) and 44% related to populations of the Iranian Chalcolithic (Seh Gabi, Iran; 4680–3662 calBCE). Haber et al. suggested that the Canaanite Levant Bronze Age population from the site of Sidon, Lebanon (~1700 BCE) could be modeled as a mixture of the same two groups albeit in different proportions (48% Levant Neolithic-related and 52% Iran Chalcolithic-related). However, the Neolithic and Bronze Age sites analyzed so far in the Levant are separated in time by more than three thousand years, making the study of samples that fill in this gap, such as those from Peqi’in, of critical importance.
In a dedicated clean room facility at Harvard Medical School, we obtained bone powder from 48 skeletal remains, of which 37 were petrous bones known for excellent DNA preservation. We extracted DNA and built next-generation sequencing libraries to which we attached unique barcodes to minimize the possibility of contamination. We treated the libraries with Uracil–DNA glycosylase (UDG) to reduce characteristic ancient DNA damage at all but the first and last nucleotides (Supplementary Table 1 and Supplementary Data 1 provide background for successful samples and report information for each library, respectively). After initial screening by enriching the libraries for mitochondrial DNA, we enriched promising libraries for sequences overlapping about 1.2 million single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). We evaluated each individual for evidence of authentic ancient DNA by limiting to libraries with a minimum of 3% cytosine-to-thymine errors at the final nucleotide, by requiring that the ratio of X-to-Y-chromosome sequences was characteristic of either a male or a female, by requiring >95% matching to the consensus sequence of mitochondrial DNA, and by requiring (for males) a lack of variation at known polymorphic positions on chromosome X (point estimates of contamination of less than 2%). We also restricted to individuals with at least 5000 of the targeted SNPs covered at least once.
This procedure produced genome-wide data from 22 ancient individuals from Peqi’in Cave (4500–3900 calBCE), with the individuals having a median of 358,313 of the targeted SNPs covered at least once (range: 25,171–1,002,682). The dataset is of exceptional quality given the typically poor preservation of DNA in the warm Near East, with a higher proportion of samples yielding appreciable coverage of ancient DNA than has previously been obtained from the region, likely reflecting the optimal sampling techniques we used and the favorable preservation conditions at the cave. We analyzed this dataset in conjunction with previously published datasets of ancient Near Eastern populations to shed light on the history of the individuals buried in the Peqi’in cave site, and on the population dynamics of the Levant during the Late Chalcolithic period.
Results Genetic differentiation and diversity in the ancient Levant A total of 20 Peqi’in samples appear to be unrelated to each other to the limits of our resolution (that is, genetic analysis suggested that they were not first, second, or third degree relatives of each other), and we used these as our analysis set. Taking advantage of the new data point added by the Peqi’in samples, we began by studying how genetic differentiation among Levantine populations changed over time. We replicate previous reports of dramatic decline in genetic differentiation over time in West Eurasia, observing a median pairwise FST of 0.023 (range: 0.009–0.061) between the Peqi’in samples (abbreviation: Levant_ChL) and other West Eurasian Neolithic and Chalcolithic populations, relative to a previously reported median pairwise FST of 0.098 (range: 0.023–0.153) observed between populations in pre-Neolithic periods, 0.015 (range: 0.002–0.045) in the Bronze Age periods, and 0.011 (range: 0–0.046) in present-day West Eurasian populations. Thus, the collapse to present-day levels of differentiation was largely complete by the Chalcolithic (Supplementary Figure 1).
Both the increasing genetic diversity over time, and the reduced differentiation between populations as measured via FST, are consistent with a model in which gene flow reduced differentiation across groups while increasing diversity within groups.
Genetic affinities of the individuals of Peqi’in Cave To obtain a qualitative picture of how these individuals relate to previously published ancient DNA and to present-day people, we began by carrying out principal component analysis (PCA). In a plot of the first and second principal components (Fig. 3a), the samples from Peqi’in Cave form a tight cluster, supporting the grouping of these individuals into a single analysis population (while we use the broad name “Levant_ChL” to refer to these samples, we recognize that they are currently the only ancient DNA available from the Levant in this time period and future work will plausibly reveal genetic substructure in Chalcolithic samples over the broad region). The Levant_ChL cluster overlaps in the PCA with a cluster containing Neolithic Levantine samples (Levant_N), although it is slightly shifted upward on the plot toward a cluster corresponding to samples from the Levant Bronze Age, including samples from 'Ain Ghazal, Jordan (Levant_BA_South) and Sidon, Lebanon (Levant_BA_North). *The placement of the Levant_ChL cluster is consistent with a previously observed pattern whereby chronologically later Levantine populations are shifted towards the Iran Chalcolithic (Iran_ChL) population compared to earlier Levantine populations*, Levant_N (Pre-Pottery and Pottery Neolithic agriculturalists from present-day Israel and Jordan) and Natufians (Epipaleolithic hunter-gatherers from present-day Israel). We also observe an increase in genetic diversity over time in the Levant as measured by the rate of polymorphism between two random genome sequences at each SNP analyzed in our study. Specifically, the Levant_ChL population exhibits an intermediate level of heterozygosity relative to the earlier and later populations (Fig. 2). [/i] ADMIXTURE model-based clustering analyses produced results consistent with PCA in suggesting that individuals from the Levant_ChL population had a greater affinity on average to Iranian agriculturalist-related populations than was the case for earlier Levantine individuals. Figure 3b shows the ADMIXTURE results for the ancient individuals assuming K = 11 clusters (we selected this number because it maximizes ancestry components that are correlated to ancient populations from the Levant, from Iran, and European hunter-gatherers). Like all Levantine populations, the primary ancestry component assigned to the Levant_ChL population, shown in blue, is maximized in earlier Levant_N and Natufian individuals. ADMIXTURE also assigns a component of ancestry in Levant_ChL, shown in green, to a population that is generally absent in the earlier Levant_N and Natufian populations, but is present in later Levant_BA_South and Levant_BA_North samples. This green component is also inferred in small proportions in several samples assigned to the Levant_N, but there is not a clear association to archaeological location or date, and these individuals are not significantly genetically distinct from the other individuals included in Levant_N by formal testing, and thus we pool all Levant_N for the primary analyses in this study (Supplementary Note 1).
Population continuity and admixture in the Levant To determine the relationship of the Levant_ChL population to other ancient Near Eastern populations, we used f-statistics (see Supplementary Note 2 for more details). We first evaluated whether the Levant_ChL population is consistent with descending directly from a population related to the earlier Levant_N. If this was the case, we would expect that the Levant_N population would be consistent with being more closely related to the Levant_ChL population than it is to any other population, and indeed we confirm this by observing positive statistics of the form f4 (Levant_ChL, A; Levant_N, Chimpanzee) for all ancient test populations, A (Fig. 4a). However, Levant_ChL and Levant_N population do not form a clade, as when we compute symmetry statistics of the form f4 (Levant_N, Levant_ChL; A, Chimpanzee), we find that the statistic is often negative, with Near Eastern populations outside the Levant sharing more alleles with Levant_ChL than with Levant_N (Fig. 4b). We conclude that while the Levant_N and Levant_ChL populations are clearly related, the Levant_ChL population cannot be modeled as descending directly from the Levant_N population without additional admixture related to ancient Iranian agriculturalists. Direct evidence that Levant_ChL is admixed comes from the statistic f3 (Levant_ChL; Levant_N, A), which for some populations, A, is significantly negative indicating that allele frequencies in Levant_ChL tend to be intermediate between those in Levant_N and A—a pattern that can only arise if Levant_ChL is the product of admixture between groups related, perhaps distantly, to Levant_N and A35. The most negative f3- and f4-statistics are produced when A is a population from Iran or the Caucasus. This suggests that the Levant_ChL population is descended from a population related to Levant_N, but also harbors ancestry from non-Levantine populations related to those of Iran or the Caucasus that Levant_N does not share (or at least share to the same extent).
So there were at least 3 distinct populations in the region Natufian/Levant Neolithic, Anatolian, and Iranian Chalcolithic. How does this correlate to the 3 sons of Noah if these people were not even closely related??
Posts: 26376 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: I'm not going back and forth anymore over a "cohen gene" that both djehuti and actual scholars agree has no conclusive evidence to support it.
Translation: I'll keep clinging to the hope that they haven't tested any ancient kohen priests, but ignore the fact that modern Kohen all share hg J1.
quote:All of the information about hg J that lioness just referenced does not predate the Kura-Araxes culture.
Most of the info she cited comes from Neolithic cultures that DO predate Kura-Araxes, you lying sh*t!
quote:
quote:J-Z1853 is found in Ebla in Syria (ETM012; 2574-2467 calBCE)(14) and SE Anatolia (Kilis; I14798; 3000- 2000BCE) as well as a Canaanite from Israel, and four 2nd millennium samples also from Israel could be assigned to the J-Z1865, J-Z643 upstream nodes, a Late Antique (R130.SG; 300- 500CE) Italian to the further upstream node J-CTS9721, and two samples from Ebla in Syria(14) further upstream to J-P58. Thus, the entire clade J-P58 is well-associated with the Levant region, may have expanded beyond it (towards Armenia and Iran), by the Bronze Age, and even more broadly (at least in the Mediterranean world) in later periods. The earliest known examples are from Syria and SE Turkey, consistent with the suggestion based on modern variation that the expansion of this haplogroup occurred from “northeast Syria, northern Iraq and eastern Turkey”. The Bronze Age distribution of this clade in all Levantine countries (Syria, Lebanon, Israel, and Jordan), the inferred recent Neolithic-to-Bronze Age origin of clades within
the J-P58 lineage, and the present-day distribution in diverse groups of Semitic speakers, all also combine to support its association with the expansion of Semitic languages. The latter has been dated to the Early Bronze Age ~5,750 years ago by Bayesian linguistic phylogenetics, with a first split of West Semitic from Akkadian and a common ancestor of West Semitic languages ~5,400 years ago. All sampled (certain) J-P58 chromosomes postdate this period and could thus be associated with this expansion.
The first relevant date says 3000 to 2000 BCE.
The next relevant date says 5750 years ago. 5750 years ago would be roughly 3729 BCE.
The next relevant date says 5400 years ago, which would be roughly 3400 BCE.
All of these dates fall within the timeframe for the existence of the Kura-Araxes culture. The Kura-Araxes culture existed from about 4000 to 2000 BCE. And I have referenced sources showing the Kura-Araxes bringing J to the Levant/Mesopotamia.
What difference does it make?! The specific cultures she cited were ALL Semitic speaking cultures NOT Hurrian ones! And again MOST of the evidence comes from cites that predate Kura-Araxes. Again your Kura-Araxes straw doll has been annihilated ages ago, but you are too dumb to realize it.
quote:Lastly, none of the information that I've seen in here identifies a Hebrew-related civilization bringing J to the Levant/Mesopotamia. You guys are just referencing information about J ALREADY IN those areas without any sources identifying which civilization brought hg J there, like how I did.
Hurrians don't speak Semitic languages but Yamhad, Mari, and Qatna do! Seriously when are you going to stop lying and tell the truth for once in your life? Again, I don't care what race is I would do your daddy's job and slap the sh*t out of you!
Posts: 26376 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: What difference does it make?! The specific cultures she cited were ALL Semitic speaking cultures NOT Hurrian ones! And again MOST of the evidence comes from cites that predate Kura-Araxes.
Bro, what the HELL are you talking about, you self-contradicting double talker?
YOU are the one who said language does not equal ethnicity and now all of a sudden since you're desperate, you're using language to try bolstering your argument?
See how you flip flop sh*t and then have the nerve to call me a troll?
The fact that you are so invested in repeatedly trying to defend yourself from a "strawdoll" and so invested in trying to continue debating something that you claim to have already won, speaks volumes as to how you are really feeling.
Furthermore none of those cultures that were listed predate the Kura-Araxes, which is said to have existed from 4000 to 2000 BCE.
Even Elmaestro said earlier in this thread that the "hurrian invasion" and Abraham are separated by at least two millenium. Abraham was born around 2000 BCE. Posts: 2628 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ LOL You lying projecting sh*t. You asked about culture and civilization. And when I mentioned that all those civilizations Lioness cited were Semitic speaking you then try to twist things.
NO dummy. Language is PART of ethnicity but it's not synonymous with genetics. Indo-Aryan speakers in South India and Sri-Lanka don't carry R1a.
Hebrews came from Arphashad a.k.a. Padan-Aram but they spoke Semitic languages. As Lioness and I pointed out the predominant paternal clade there was still J.
I already busted your ass on your past lies.
Like the Greek suffix "ite" meaning descendant when it actually means constituent or part of and had nothing to do with the original Hebrew! Or that Genesis flooded the land eretz in Hebrew and NOT world olam in Hebrew.
If you really are a Hebrew Israelite then you are disgrace to your cult. At least most cultists are better liars and if they're lies don't work they have the decency to shut up and leave.
Posts: 26376 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
Oh yeah, now language matters huh.
Djehuti, I can post screenshot on top of screenshot of you claiming that "language does not equal ethnicity" and that "semitic just means language" and that "you speak english but it doesn't make you an ethnic anglo-saxon", all in an attempt to shoot down sources I was referencing.
Now you're saying "LoOk tHeY wErE sEmiTiC sPeAkeRs" to try supporting your opinion.
I've seriously lost all interest in discussing this with you. I have been promoting the same position from day one but as time goes on, bits and pieces of your position change.
You also love to gish gallop instead of just dealing with one source at a time, one by one.
None of the cultures that you guys listed in this thread predate the Kura-Araxes as you claim.
You can cry about me and try to hurt my feelings all you want, but I'm a grown man and people on the internet can't hurt my feelings.
You and I will never agree on this so there is literally no point in us conversing any further.
Posts: 2628 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: I'm not going back and forth anymore over a "cohen gene" that both djehuti and actual scholars agree has no conclusive evidence to support it.
All of the information about hg J that lioness just referenced does not predate the Kura-Araxes culture.
quote:J-Z1853 is found in Ebla in Syria (ETM012; 2574-2467 calBCE)(14) and SE Anatolia (Kilis; I14798; 3000- 2000BCE) as well as a Canaanite from Israel, and four 2nd millennium samples also from Israel could be assigned to the J-Z1865, J-Z643 upstream nodes, a Late Antique (R130.SG; 300- 500CE) Italian to the further upstream node J-CTS9721, and two samples from Ebla in Syria(14) further upstream to J-P58. Thus, the entire clade J-P58 is well-associated with the Levant region, may have expanded beyond it (towards Armenia and Iran), by the Bronze Age, and even more broadly (at least in the Mediterranean world) in later periods. The earliest known examples are from Syria and SE Turkey, consistent with the suggestion based on modern variation that the expansion of this haplogroup occurred from “northeast Syria, northern Iraq and eastern Turkey”. The Bronze Age distribution of this clade in all Levantine countries (Syria, Lebanon, Israel, and Jordan), the inferred recent Neolithic-to-Bronze Age origin of clades within
the J-P58 lineage, and the present-day distribution in diverse groups of Semitic speakers, all also combine to support its association with the expansion of Semitic languages. The latter has been dated to the Early Bronze Age ~5,750 years ago by Bayesian linguistic phylogenetics, with a first split of West Semitic from Akkadian and a common ancestor of West Semitic languages ~5,400 years ago. All sampled (certain) J-P58 chromosomes postdate this period and could thus be associated with this expansion.
The first relevant date says 3000 to 2000 BCE.
The next relevant date says 5750 years ago. 5750 years ago would be roughly 3729 BCE.
The next relevant date says 5400 years ago, which would be roughly 3400 BCE.
All of these dates fall within the timeframe for the existence of the Kura-Araxes culture. The Kura-Araxes culture existed from about 4000 to 2000 BCE. And I have referenced sources showing the Kura-Araxes bringing J to the Levant/Mesopotamia.
Lastly, none of the information that I've seen in here identifies a Hebrew-related civilization bringing J to the Levant/Mesopotamia. You guys are just referencing information about J ALREADY IN those areas without any sources identifying which civilization brought hg J there, like how I did.
If Kura-Araxes spread J to Levant/Mesopotamia that describes a culture with thousands of people in it
If there were a couple of other J carriers in their same original region who were not part of Kura-Araxes if they then went to Israel and settled it would be an insignificant drop Not part of this hypothetical first spread of J
So if there were multiple cultures in the neighborhood of Kura-Araxes who also carried J but it was the Kura-Araxes that spread it on a mass scale it would be unremarkable if a couple of people carrying J went to Israel later and settled That is not going to show on the radar
How would researchers even know if a couple of people come in later?
There was no Hebrew civilization in Anatolia that migrated to Israel. The Hebrews were regarded as a shepherd culture and even that cannot be archaeologically verified as existing in Anatolia or Mesopotamia somewhere
According to the story Abraham migrated from Ur of the Chaldeans an uncertain location to Canaan with his wife Sarai and his nephew Lot. It is not clear from the Bible whether Abraham’s sons were born before or after they migrated to Canaan, Ishmael maybe. This is a small family's group, not even a tribe, much less a civilization
So while this is a big deal in the (possibly mythological) foundations of Hebrew culture it is irrelevant in terms of mass spreading of a haplogroup.
And genetics researchers have yet to even correlate ancient Hebrew writing artifacts to ancient human remains even in Israel
If Abraham came from Mesopotamia there is no archeological verification for Hebrews being a culture in Mesopotamia. And Hebrews are regarded as shepherds not a civilization.
The idea that Kura-Araxes spread J is not proven it's hypothetical. If they did it doesn't mean there weren't other J carrying cultures in their same region. And it doesn't mean that 2-3 males carrying J could not have migrated to Israel and their names being Abraham and Lot
So why didn't researchers say "Kura-Araxes culture and Abraham and Lot may have spread J in Mesopotamia and the Levant" ?
Because a couple of people migrating would be insignificant to speak of in the same breath as a mass of people migrating
Similarly they are not going to say in a science article "Kura-Araxes culture may have spread J in Mesopotamia and the Levant but Abraham did not he did not carry J"
A genetic researcher can't even verify if Abraham was a real person much less determine his haplogroup so he cannot be expected to be mentioned on way or the other in science article where they are recording the DNA of actual human remains, so mention of Abraham cannot be expected in this type of research
Posts: 43016 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
^ Trying to dismiss it as irrelevant when it clearly is not, is not valid. But each of you are making different arguments and sometimes the things you guys say conflict with what another one of you is saying because although you all are on the same side, you are not all on the same page.
Having to address all of these different claims and positions is tedious and a waste of time in my opinion.
I'm comfortable knowing that one of the world's leading geneticists in the field disagrees with all of you on hg J being Abraham.
Posts: 2628 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: ss all of these different claims and positions is tedious and a waste of time in my opinion.
I'm comfortable knowing that one of the world's leading geneticists in the field disagrees with all of you on hg J being Abraham.
who are you referring to?
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
to Eran▾ 12:15 PM (5 hours ago) Thank you for your response Dr. Elhaik. I have one last question: What would you say is the best response to those who claim Abraham must have been haplogroup J due to the fact that haplogroup J supposedly came from Mesopotamia to the Levant at the same time period Abraham did?
Eran Elhaik to me▾ This is a purely hypothetical question. There will never be an answer to that. 4:04 PM (1 hour ago) ☆
thus it remains an unresolved question, not a rejection of possibility > the same thing I have been saying
Posts: 43016 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ He talking in circles and making idiotic strawman arguments. Nobody said language was irrelevant but that it was not synonymous with ethnicity!
He keeps ignoring the fact that J is not limited to Kura-Araxes and there were other cultures in area whose people were predominantly J. In the Neolithic we don't know what languages they spoke but by Bronze Age times, we have records they were Semitic speakers.
He is a liar and a dummy.
Oh and the ONLY geneticist he's able to cite is Dr. Elhaik whose claims are questioned by other geneticists. Citing ONE questionable guy and nobody else calls things into question. And the way he talks I call Taz's sanity into question.
Posts: 26376 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@the lioness,
Dr. Elhaik posits that Abraham was E and not J, correct?
When I asked him about Abraham being J he dismissed it, correct?
That means he 100% disagrees with all of you. That is my point.
With that being said, I'm not about to start going back and forth with you over nonsense.
Posts: 2628 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic