posted
Just came back to visit, and have not been keeping up with the forum here.
I was surprised to find last month Edward Lipinski's text and that there were any relatively recent European scholars out there - aside from Ehret, that had (based on forensics, archaelogy and linguistics) wisely acknowledged the relationship between the so-called "dolichocephalic Mediterranean types", black Africans - Cushitic speakers in particular - and the spread of the original Afro-Asiatic-speakers into Eurasia.
Diop of course said similarly a long while back.
Edward Lipinski not only asserted this but also stated that East AFricans were the people that spread into Palestine and Akkad in the early Bronze Age(although he tried to imply they were separate them from other sub-Saharans i.e. negroes.)
We have to keep in mind however that he was asserting this before the more recent advances in genetics including anthropological studies on genetic determinants as in (Brace 2005) which found Natufians (also categorized as mesolithic "Eurasians") to be largely tied to Niger-Congo groups as well.
Maybe this stuff by Lipinski has been posted already, but I'm just adding it here in case it hasn't been.
Lipinski has contended the following as late as the year 2001 in his publications.
" This implies that the speakers of Proto-Semitic were still dwelling in Africa in the 5th millennium B.C., in the Neolithic Sub-pluvial (ca. 5500-3500 B.C.), when the Sahara’s climate was much wetter, so that erosion took place as in other moist temperate subtropical regions…Settlement was undoubtedly widespread in the Sahara at that time and there is ample evidence of Neolithic culture with rock drawings showing animals that no longer live there. A worsening of environmental conditions is indicated in North Africa ca. 3500 B.C. with disappearance off vegetation, a major faunal break, desertification and desertion. This might have been the period when the speakers of Proto-Semitic passed through the Nile delta afrom the wWest to the East, and reached Western Asia, where written documents of the third millennium B.C. preserve noticeable traces of Pre-Semitic and, in Mesopotamia, also of Pre-Sumerian substratum. The collapse of the Ghassulian culture in Palestine around 3300 B.C. and the Egyptian finds in southern Palestine from the Early Bronze period I (ca.3300-3050 B.C. ) may testify to the arrival of these new population groups. The Palestinian tumuli, belonging to the culture of seminomadic groups during much of the fourth and third millenia B.C. seem to confirm this hypothesis, since a very similar type of sepulture characterizes prehistoric North Africa, especially Algeria and it is a typical feature of the old Libyco-Berber tradition. It is now attested also in the Eastern Sahara, where the megalithic complex and the tumuli of Nabta Playa, about 100 km west of Abu Simbel, are dated from the fifth millennium B.C. Thus, from North Africa, wave after wave of Semitic migrations would seem to have set forth. The earliest of these migrants and those who went furthest to the East, were the Akkadians who, journeying along the Fertile Crescent through Palestine and Syria, and crossing over into Mesopotamia, reached Northern Babylonia ca. 3000 B.C. and founded the first Semitic Empire at Kish ….The Amorites and their congeners would appear to have followed as far as Syria before the 2500 B.C. The Southern Semites would seem to have reached the moister highlands of the Yemen and Hadramawt after 2000 B.C. following the collapse of the Early Bronze culture in Palestine, while the Ethiopians would have crossed over to the Horn of Africa when drier conditions prevailed in South Arabia ca. 1500-500 B.C. …The Libyco-Berbers continued, instead, to occupy the original language area of the speakers of Afro-Asiatic. Their African origins may even be confirmed by a possible relationship of Afro-Asiatic with Bantu languages which form the central group of the large Niger-Congo family …” (Lipinski, 2001, Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar, pp. 44 and 45)
See especially pages 43-47 on google books
Interestingly Lipinski asserts that the true Berbers are dark-skinned and were the early megalithic builders of the Maghreb and parts of southern Europe.
I hope some of the Africans on here still trying to make the ancient Maghreb peoples into some half-European type start to get the message. Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is a bit outdated, especially with his notion of Sumerian "sub-stratum." Sumerian is a Kongo-Saharan language which would mean those in that area were Kongo-Saharians, not Semites.
Semitic didn't originate in Africa, but in the Levant. Therefore, there was no "waves" of Semites coming from North Africa into Western Asia. I argue that it was probably from a Cushitic language from which Semitic branched out. We also have to remember that Kushites are not Cushitic speakers, but Nilo-Saharan. I don't know about Berbers still occupying the original Afro-Asiatic homeland as it is believed to had begun around Ethiopia where no Berber speakers are known to currently live. See Martin Bernal _Black Athena Vol. III: The Linguistic Evidence_.
Andrew Kitchen,*, Christopher Ehret, Shiferaw Assefa and Connie J. Mulligan1. "Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of Semitic languages identifies an Early Bronze Age origin of Semitic in the Near East"
Blench, Roger. (2010). ―The Semiticisation of the Arabian Peninsula and the Problem of its reflection in the archeological record.‖ Paper presented at the Conference Red Sea V: Navigated spaces, connected places: Institute for Arab and Islamic Studies, University of Exeter, 16-19th September, 2010.
Posts: 853 | From: Houston | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Semitic speakers, i.e., Amorites, Akkadians, Hebrews, Ugarites, Assyrians, etc, are not genetically like Horners. Any genetic commonality with Horners is due to geneflow on top of a West Asian substratum, not because they were biologically Horner from the get go. In Afrasan speaking West Asians we basically see the same situation as with Chadic speakers; the adoption of an Afrasan language without much Afrasan genetic impact.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Semitic speakers i.e. KUSHITES like the Amorites, Akkadians, Hebrews ARE THE HORNERS and related peoples extending into Mesopotamia who gave their name to Akkad and Assyria. Period! The later peoples of Assyria and Ugarit are the people these earlier Afro-Asiatics conquered.
I am not interested in debating or to "argue" with people who can only express opinion, SWENET. Ehret acknowledges that black AfroAsiatics i.e. "proto-Semites" - came from Africa to the Levant and semitic formed there FROM THEM, Asar.
Does Lipinsky not say the semites came from the Bedja, ASAR. I'm not understanding what your response is about?! Who are you arguing with. I don't think anyone is proposing the Cushitic wasn't first even though that shouldn't make a difference. Apparently you are not aware or find it hard to accept the Cushitic is not different enough from semitic to be considered a separate language. They are ONE AND THE SAME hence the term "Afro-Asiatic" is now used.
Akkadian was first translated by way of so called Cushitic dialects! That is the reason we UNDERSTAND IT TODAY. Sumerian has nothing to do with these tall black shepherds - "Semites" - that invaded Mesopotamia from the Syro-Arabian deserts, and I agree with Graham-Dunn that Sumerians/Elamites came at some point from Africa carrying their Bantu affiliated dialects either before or after the kushitic/semitic speakers.
Sumerian language physical type and culture is closely related to the Tamil, Dravidian-speaking peoples who ALSO came from Africa and were separate from the Amurru like the Chub or Ka'b and Nabataeans who are still found BLACK in southern Mesopotamia and north Arabia under THEIR ANCIENT NAMES.
And I don't know what this means - "We also have to remember that Kushites are not Cushitic speakers, but Nilo-Saharan." Nilo-Saharans are represented by different groups of Africans of varied biological origin - just like Bantu speakers are.
Maybe U need to remember THAT.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
The Westward wanderings of Cushitic pastoralists : Explorations in the Prehistory of Central Africa Roger Blench 1999 internet resource
“Blazek (in press) has proposed that Elamite. an extinct language of the Ancient Near East, either constitutes a seventh branch of Afroasiatic or is CO-ordinate with it. Elamite is usually classified with Dravidian, spoken in South India, but does show clear resemblances with Afroasiatic. Blazek proposes a structure where Afroasiatic is related to Dravidian at a higher level and Elamite forms a bridge between the two. Whether the links between Elamite and Afroasiatic reflect a genetic relationship or are simply a case of extensive loanwords, remains to be explored.”
-------------------- D. Reynolds-Marniche Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm, interesting info Dana. What do you have on the pre-SUmerians and do you have a citation from Ehret on the proto-Semitics?
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, my critique is against the notion that Semitic BEGAN in Africa. One cannot claim that there were waves of Semites coming from Africa into the Levant if the language started in the Levant. It's an issue of accuracy. It is my opinion the "Semitic" language developed as a result of language contact with Indo-European, thus some of the affinities with Indo-European. See the book _SEMITIC AND INDO-EUROPEAN: THE PRINCIPAL ETYMOLOGIES WITH OBSERVATIONS ON AFRO-ASIATIC, Saul Levin (1995)_. Semitic is Semitic because of grammatical innovations unique to it. There is a reason why Semitic is not Cushitic. It is the same reason Nuba is not Bantu. This is how linguist separate families (by observing shared innovations).
From here we can better understand Blench's work which discusses the Semitization of Arabia by way of the Levant, not coming through Ethiopia up to Mesopotamia. The Africans who lived in Arabia before the moving down of Semites were Nilo-Saharan speakers which explains the affinities of Dravidian and Kongo-Saharan languages (Niger-Congo being a branch of Nilo-Saharan; all originating and spreading in the proto-saharan region).
It also explains why most Semitic speakers do not "look" like Cushites, but Indo-Europeans. The Cushites didn't exist in large numbers in comparison to the Indo-Europeans and were absorbed by the dominant group (the same happened to the Sumerians). There was no Sumerian "substratum" of Semitic because Semitic and Sumerian were formed in two different regions (one in the Levant, the other in Africa) and met-up (Sumerian and Akkadian) fully formed. Sumerian and Semitic never belonged to the same proto-speech community.
Based on linguistic evidence, both Indo-European and Afro-Asiatic derive from Proto-Kongo-Saharan and this is why one sees some affinities between Afro-Asiatic, Sumerian and Elamite. But these are at very distant levels.
Posts: 853 | From: Houston | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Asar Imhotep: This is a bit outdated, especially with his notion of Sumerian "sub-stratum." Sumerian is a Kongo-Saharan language which would mean those in that area were Kongo-Saharians, not Semites.
Semitic didn't originate in Africa, but in the Levant. Therefore, there was no "waves" of Semites coming from North Africa into Western Asia. I argue that it was probably from a Cushitic language from which Semitic branched out. We also have to remember that Kushites are not Cushitic speakers, but Nilo-Saharan. I don't know about Berbers still occupying the original Afro-Asiatic homeland as it is believed to had begun around Ethiopia where no Berber speakers are known to currently live. See Martin Bernal _Black Athena Vol. III: The Linguistic Evidence_.
“I then went from Aden by sea, and after four days came to the city of Zayla. This is a settlement, of the Berbers, a people of Sudan, of the Shafia sect. Their country is a desert of two months' extent; the first part is termed Zayla, the last Makdashu….." Ibn Battuta of Morocco 13th c. cited in - First Footsteps in East Africa: Or an Exploration of Harar. p. 68, 2011 edition.
The Berber dialect developed in north Africa AFTER THE BERBERS GOT THERE PEOPLE.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Hmm, interesting info Dana. What do you have on the pre-SUmerians and do you have a citation from Ehret on the proto-Semitics?
Hi Zaharan - I posted the quotes from Ehret on this forum a few months ago and got the same illogical responses. As for the ancient Sumerians I would suggest the new info I posted on Graham-Dunn's work.
posted
As Ausar has pointed out, you use of 'Kushite' is entirely made up and unsupported by the literature. The term Kesh/Kash and other variations in languages other than Medu Neter (Hebrew, Assyrian, Greek) were never applied to Abyssinians.
There are plenty of depictions of Amorites and they're all pasty--never brown skinned. Smith (2002) has decisively demonstrated that Bronze age Syrio-Palestinians, especially folks at Byblos, are physically (post-cranially and cranio-facially) distant to contemporary predynastic Nile Valley groups.
None of your/Lipinsky's patchy conjecture is predicated on skeletal remains or linguistic evidence. As Asar notes, Semitic languages didn't move into Mesopotamia directly from Africa, per the latest research (Ehret 2009). Proto-Semitic stayed in the Levant where it got into contact with IE languages prior to migrating to the East (Akkadians) and South (Arabians, Ethiopians).
As for skeletal remains, what Akkadian/Amorite skeletal remains show affinities with Africans? Just like you abuse Finkelstein by attributing false statements to him, you're now attributing false statements to Ehret. Ehret is clearly of the mindset that West Asians adopted Proto-Semetic, with little to no gene-flow.
In his interview (2003) Ehret correlates the introduction of Afrasan to the Levant with a lineage that was introduced to the Levant in the terminal pleistocene. This lineage is not associated with Proto-Semetic (which dates to the Bronze age), but with pre Proto-Semetic (Ehret 2010), which he tacitly correlates with the Mushabian. In his interview (2003) he notes, like all authorities do, that this lineage (E-M78), fades as you go deeper into the Middle East.
Sorry, you can throw a fit and write in caps all you want, but the African lineages in the Middle East and the Balkan are (mostly) associated with the Terminal Pleistocene, not with the Bronze Age. Maybe you can show evidence of African lineages that date to the Bronze Age introduction of Proto-Semetic, if Akkadians and other Bronze Age Semitic speakers in the Middle East are really biologically African in their foundation, as you say.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: As Ausar has pointed out, you use of 'Kushite' is entirely made up and unsupported by the literature. The term Kesh/Kash and other variations in languages other than Medu Neter (Hebrew, Assyrian, Greek) were never applied to Abyssinians.
There are plenty of depictions of Amorites and they're all pasty--never brown skinned. Smith (2002) has decisively demonstrated that Bronze age Syrio-Palestinians, especially folks at Byblos, are physically (post-cranially and cranio-facially) distant to contemporary predynastic Nile Valley groups.
None of your/Lipinsky's patchy conjecture is predicated on skeletal remains or linguistic evidence. As Asar notes, Semitic languages didn't move into Mesopotamia directly from Africa, per the latest research (Ehret 2009). Proto-Semitic stayed in the Levant where it got into contact with IE languages prior to migrating to the East (Akkadians) and South (Arabians, Ethiopians).
As for skeletal remains, what Akkadian/Amorite skeletal remains show affinities with Africans? Just like you abuse Finkelstein by attributing false statements to him, you're now attributing false statements to Ehret. Ehret is clearly of the mindset that West Asians adopted Proto-Semetic, with little to no gene-flow.
In his interview (2003) Ehret correlates the introduction of Afrasan to the Levant with a lineage that was introduced to the Levant in the terminal pleistocene. This lineage is not associated with Proto-Semetic (which dates to the Bronze age), but with pre Proto-Semetic (Ehret 2010), which he tacitly correlates with the Mushabian. In his interview (2003) he notes, like all authorities do, that this lineage (E-M78), fades as you go deeper into the Middle East.
Sorry, you can throw a fit and write in caps all you want, but the African lineages in the Middle East and the Balkan are (mostly) associated with the Terminal Pleistocene, not with the Bronze Age. Maybe you can show evidence of African lineages that date to the Bronze Age introduction of Proto-Semetic, if Akkadians and other Bronze Age Semitic speakers in the Middle East are really biologically African in their foundation, as you say.
Swenet all you have written here is OPINION. The use of the term Kushitic as I am using it is the way it was used in the recent past for present day east Africans who speak Beja and closely related Afro-Asiatic dialects.
Where is your indication that this is so Swenet - "Ehret is clearly of the mindset that West Asians adopted Proto-Semetic, with little to no gene-flow." That is as far as I am concerned your misguided opinion. And what West Asians are you talking about the black ones represented by the dominant dolichocephalic crania or the later large nosed brachycephals who adopted their dialects!?
The term Kushitic was properly or academically used in the recent past only in a LINGUISTIC SENSE for present day east Africans who speak Beja and closely related Afro-Asiatic dialects.
Ehret refers to these populations as representatives of proto-Erythraiotes and asserts they were ANCESTRAL to the original semitic speakers. "Another group of Erythraite communities, speaking a language ancestral to the later Semitic languages moved northward at some point across the Sinai and Peninsula and into the Palestine-Syrian region of far southwestern Asia." History and the Testimony of Language, 2011, p. 76
On page 77 "Among the Erythraite peoples who made Capsian civilization who made the Capsian archaelogical cultures of those areas, domestic cattle were probably present in by sometime in the 7th millenium, if not before."
If you want to keep pretending he said otherwise and say I misinterpreted them go right ahead. It is you who misinterprets things SWENET based on your Egyptophile bias apparently afraid these Europeans will take something away from the Nile Valley or Bantus.
Pity.
Furthermore as Josephus said the term "Kush" was used for all Ethiopic i.e. black peoples of Asia, so if we are going to mince words and parse meanings and pretend that linguists are in agreement that such a thing as Kushite exists that still doesn't change the fact the ancestors of proto-Semitic speakers i.e. Afro-Asiatics originated in Africa like Lipinski and Ehret BOTH flat-out say.
If you don't like the fact that they are Europeans who are recognizing this just say so and stop trying to prove they are untrustworthy because of it.
Secondly I'm not sure what Amorites you are talking about as they are only depicted in one way, and certainly anything BUT pasty. If anything those depicted in Mari and Syria are very much like the modern darker skinned Berbers in Morocco with some apparent intermixture with non-Africans.
The original Amorites, Philistines, Phoenicians were all the same people. "Amurru" was a generic name used by late Assyrians for peoples of the western region and is not necessarily the same name for the Biblical peoples known as Amorite, Amurat or Murad true semites in their Yemenite mountains today still citing their folktales of Hadad.
I thought I specifically mentioned that that dolichocephalic Mediterranean black peoples up until the early Bronze Age were found in the Levant and the Syro-Arabian deserts. The fact that they came to share the region with other some brachycephalic white people occupied the Syrian- Byblos after a certain point doesnt change that.
"Pasty" Amorites?
It is also well known that at a certain point another wave of dolichocephalic Mediterraneans made their way into Syria and disappeared at around the same time the Syro-Phoenicians left or were dispersed into the Mediterranean around the 9th century B.C..
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Something Egyptophiles should take note of is the fact that not all black people in Southwest Asia were craniometrically similar to gracile proto-Egyptian or Beja types. The presence of the so- called "Eurafrican" man (tall black nomadic Asians represented in the Syro-Arabian deserts) in Early Bronze Age towns like Khirbet Kerak and other places in the Levant is testified to and is different from both the smaller Proto-Egyptian or Lachish type i.e. Beja type and the hairsute brachycephalic white population that became numerous there particularly after the start of the late Bronze Age.
I think that's where part of the confusion comes in.
In my opinion the tall black pastoral Afro-Asiatics found in the Neolithic B cultures, and well depicted in the Syro-Arabian deserts and Sahara could have developed from the earlier Natufian or Mechtoid population that intermingled with the smaller gracile Mediterraneans as found at Shukbah. If and whether this happened in the Levant or in the Nile Valley is up to archaeologists and forensic specialists to determine.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Asar Imhotep: Again, my critique is against the notion that Semitic BEGAN in Africa. One cannot claim that there were waves of Semites coming from Africa into the Levant if the language started in the Levant. It's an issue of accuracy. It is my opinion the "Semitic" language developed as a result of language contact with Indo-European, thus some of the affinities with Indo-European. See the book _SEMITIC AND INDO-EUROPEAN: THE PRINCIPAL ETYMOLOGIES WITH OBSERVATIONS ON AFRO-ASIATIC, Saul Levin (1995)_. Semitic is Semitic because of grammatical innovations unique to it. There is a reason why Semitic is not Cushitic. It is the same reason Nuba is not Bantu. This is how linguist separate families (by observing shared innovations).
From here we can better understand Blench's work which discusses the Semitization of Arabia by way of the Levant, not coming through Ethiopia up to Mesopotamia. The Africans who lived in Arabia before the moving down of Semites were Nilo-Saharan speakers which explains the affinities of Dravidian and Kongo-Saharan languages (Niger-Congo being a branch of Nilo-Saharan; all originating and spreading in the proto-saharan region).
It also explains why most Semitic speakers do not "look" like Cushites, but Indo-Europeans. The Cushites didn't exist in large numbers in comparison to the Indo-Europeans and were absorbed by the dominant group (the same happened to the Sumerians). There was no Sumerian "substratum" of Semitic because Semitic and Sumerian were formed in two different regions (one in the Levant, the other in Africa) and met-up (Sumerian and Akkadian) fully formed. Sumerian and Semitic never belonged to the same proto-speech community.
Based on linguistic evidence, both Indo-European and Afro-Asiatic derive from Proto-Kongo-Saharan and this is why one sees some affinities between Afro-Asiatic, Sumerian and Elamite. But these are at very distant levels.
I personally believe both Dravidic and Eritraean "semitic" peoples lived in Arabia. I agree with Blench's research (see below). But, I don't think either Lipinsky or Ehret has suggested the "semitic" dialects came to Akkad from Ethiopia, or that Sumerian was some kind of substratum of "semitic" . So again ASAR I don't know what you are arguing about or now, in fact, what you are talking about. Ehret and Lipinsky both make the claim -although they diverge with regard to the time periods- that proto-semitic came to Asia by way of the Levant.
I've never thought anyone's research has claimed Sumerian as a substratum of "semitic". HAVE YOU?
No - its an issue of semantics not accuracy, since you have your own ideas of what "semitic" is. As I have mentioned the term Afrosan or Afroasiatic is preferred. Most semitic-speakers dont look like the original "semites" for the simple reason that they were converted to Arabic less than a thousand years ago by some black people from the Arabian peninsula known as "the Arabs" - plain and simple. Lastly, most semitic dialects are found in Ethiopia with the representatives of the original semitic speakers - not surprisingly!
My point in my post was not to debate when the "semitic" and "Cushitic" dialects or Indo-European diverged as there is no agreement among scholars. I will leave that up to you and other linguists to surmise.
It was just to show that it is still recognized by western scholarship that the proto-semitic i.e. Afrosan speakers are correspondent with the black types that was denoted until recently by anthropologists with the euphemism of dolichocephalic "proto-Mediterranean" , rather than the predominant brachycephalic type (now blanketing the Middle East and Mediterranean, often WRONGLY imagined to be representative of the earliest semitic-speakers.)
These late-coming brachycranic Eurasiatics people as I have been mentioning do not become numerous in the Near East until the latter part of the Bronze Age and did not even predominate in north Arabia until recently. They probably adopted the Subaro-Hurrian, IndoEuropean and Afroasiatic dialects early on as suggested by Graham -Dunn.
Thankfully, Zarahan in one recent posting also verifies scientists have discovered these hairsute brachycranic Eurasiatic types only become numerous in southern Iran after the Acahaemenid period when Scythians move into the area.
"Blench (2009): "There is no real doubt that the ancestors of both epigraphic (ESA) and modern South Arabian (MSA) were languages spoken in the Near East rather than Ethiopia. But the date and processes whereby the speakers of these languages migrated and diversified are unknown. Apart from inscriptions that can be read, some contain evidence for completely unknown languages co-existing with ESA. Beeston (1981: 181) cites an inscription from Marib which begins in Sabaean but then switches to an unknown language. He mentions several other texts which have similar morphology (a final –k suffix) and which may represent an unknown non-Semitic language (or possibly a Nilo-Saharan language such as Kunama, for which such a feature would be typical)." The Semiticisation of the Arabian Peninsula
I also read a long time back the Minaean in particular was thought to have been influenced by Dravidic somehow. This earlier assessment might be related to more recent speculation about Nilo-Saharan.
There were different black populations existing in ancient Arabia just as there were in east Africa. Obviously they could have originally been speaking completely different dialects.
Let's also keep in mind the only people speaking the ancient Arabian dialects in Arabia today are black, but they apparently claim a remote African origin.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
Although there may be controversy over where the semitic speakers originated certainly Blench doesn't confuse the issue of what population the earliest semitic speakers belonged to in his latest 2012 article. They were Afro-Asiatics - like Cushitic-speakers.
The Semitization of the Arabian Peninsula...
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:The use of the term Kushitic as I am using it is the way it was used in the recent past for present day east Africans who speak Beja and closely related Afro-Asiatic dialects.
Again, unsupported. They aren't called Kushites (which is an ethnonym), but 'Cushitic speakers', which is a linguistic grouping. And if you're using it in the linguistic sense, then there isn't much sense in calling Semitic speakers Kushites, is there?
quote:Where is your indication that this is so Swenet - "Ehret is clearly of the mindset that West Asians adopted Proto-Semetic, with little to no gene-flow." That is as far as I am concerned your misguided opinion.
We actually have DNA evidence which fits very well with an intrusion of people from northwestern African into southwestern Asia. The Y-chromosome markers, associated with the male, fade out as you go deeper into the Middle East. --Ehret
The DNA evidence he speaks of (E-M78) is thought of by him as having been introduced in the Terminal Pleistocene--nothing Chalcolithic about it.
quote:And what West Asians are you talking about the black ones represented by the dominant dolichocephalic crania or the later large nosed brachycephals who adopted their dialects!?
Those cephalic 'types' are pseudoscientific and have no relationship to ancestry. Additionally, both dolichocephaly and brachycephaly predate the influx of Proto-Semitic in the Near East.
quote:Ehret refers to these populations as representatives of proto-Erythraiotes and asserts they were ANCESTRAL to the original semitic speakers.
You're reaching. Ehret said that they SPOKE A LANGUAGE that was ancestral to later Semitic speakers (Amorites and Akkadians).
quote:If you want to keep pretending he said otherwise and say I misinterpreted them go right ahead.
All you did was cite irrelevant data about proto-Erythraic speakers who spoke a language ancestral to Semitic. This notion is ancient in the academic world; you will be hard pressed to find a credible researcher who denies ties between Semitic languages and languages that were spoken along the Western coast of the Red Sea. None of that is a contention here. You're not off the hook. You said that Ehret supported the idea that West Asian Semitic speakers (Akkadians, Amorites, Hebrews) were forensically African. Where is your osteological data?
quote:Furthermore as Josephus said the term "Kush" was used for all Ethiopic i.e. black peoples of Asia,
That is not at all what Josephus said. What Josephus said in that passage was that the Ethiopians over whom Cush himself reigned, are still regarded as Cushites. Still no reference to Abyssinians.
quote:Secondly I'm not sure what Amorites you are talking about as they are only depicted in one way, and certainly anything BUT pasty.
Take it up with reality:
A painting in a tomb (No. 34) at Thebes, belonging to the Eighteenth Dynasty, further illustrates an Amorite chief with "white skin and red-brown hair" (Sayce, 1891: 113).
quote:The original Amorites, Philistines, Phoenicians were all the same people. "Amurru" was a generic name used by late Assyrians for peoples of the western region and is not necessarily the same name for the Biblical peoples known as Amorite, Amurat or Murad true semites in their Yemenite mountains today.
Even more fabrications. Amorites of the Bible are clearly described as a Levantine populations, identical with the Martu of Mesopotamia and the Amar of Egypt. They have nothing to do with Yemenites, whatsoever. We've already been through this, and no, the biblical events still didn't take place in Arabia. The discussion usually stales at your end when you're confronted with the fact that the ancient documents mentioning biblical events/characters/toponyms, are found exclusively inside of the Levant, NOT Arabia.
quote:I thought I specifically mentioned that that dolichocephalic Mediterranean black peoples up until the early Bronze Age were found in the Levant and the Syro-Arabian deserts. The fact that they came to share the region with other some brachycephalic white people occupied the Syrian- Byblos after a certain point doesnt change that.
What you're saying makes no sense in relation to what I've just told you. During the time when you say Semitic speakers took over West Asia, the populations there are distinct from their supposed source population (Nile Valley groups).
quote:"Pasty" Amorites?
Clearly not an Amorite or Northeast African, as they look no different from how Elamites depicted themselves. Northeast Africans definitely don't look like that. Mesopotamians knew what Northeast Africans looked like, as they frequently sculpted Egyptian and Nubian figures with Northeast African physiognomies. Conversely, Ancient Egyptians also knew what dark skinned Mesopotamians/Syrians looked like, as they depicted them with Dravidian like features, identical to the Mari painting you've posted.
Additionally, you're only shooting yourself in the foot, since ancient Mari remains have been bone tested, and none of them show Horner specific mtDNA lineages.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: As Ausar has pointed out, you use of 'Kushite' is entirely made up and unsupported by the literature. The term Kesh/Kash and other variations in languages other than Medu Neter (Hebrew, Assyrian, Greek) were never applied to Abyssinians.
There are plenty of depictions of Amorites and they're all pasty--never brown skinned. Smith (2002) has decisively demonstrated that Bronze age Syrio-Palestinians, especially folks at Byblos, are physically (post-cranially and cranio-facially) distant to contemporary predynastic Nile Valley groups.
None of your/Lipinsky's patchy conjecture is predicated on skeletal remains or linguistic evidence. As Asar notes, Semitic languages didn't move into Mesopotamia directly from Africa, per the latest research (Ehret 2009). Proto-Semitic stayed in the Levant where it got into contact with IE languages prior to migrating to the East (Akkadians) and South (Arabians, Ethiopians).
As for skeletal remains, what Akkadian/Amorite skeletal remains show affinities with Africans? Just like you abuse Finkelstein by attributing false statements to him, you're now attributing false statements to Ehret. Ehret is clearly of the mindset that West Asians adopted Proto-Semetic, with little to no gene-flow.
In his interview (2003) Ehret correlates the introduction of Afrasan to the Levant with a lineage that was introduced to the Levant in the terminal pleistocene. This lineage is not associated with Proto-Semetic (which dates to the Bronze age), but with pre Proto-Semetic (Ehret 2010), which he tacitly correlates with the Mushabian. In his interview (2003) he notes, like all authorities do, that this lineage (E-M78), fades as you go deeper into the Middle East.
Sorry, you can throw a fit and write in caps all you want, but the African lineages in the Middle East and the Balkan are (mostly) associated with the Terminal Pleistocene, not with the Bronze Age. Maybe you can show evidence of African lineages that date to the Bronze Age introduction of Proto-Semetic, if Akkadians and other Bronze Age Semitic speakers in the Middle East are really biologically African in their foundation, as you say.
I have to agree with Swenet, to an extent. He is correct that Bronze Age remains in the Levant and Mesopotamia show a contrast to earlier remains in the same region. This is no doubt due to immigrations of new people from the north as evidenced by the archaeology. Even the Ghassulian culture shows influence from northern cultures and the remains show affinities with people in Anatolia and the Caucasus.
I do agree with you Dana that the early Akkadians and definitely their predecessors in the Neolithic did indeed have African affinities.
From Buxton and Rice (1931): The second type is also dolichocephalic, and in some case it is not always easy to distinguish it from the other, although typical specimens are clear enough. The main distinction occurs in the contours which are rounded, when viewed from the top, and not angular as in the previous type. The eyebrow ridges which in the first type were well marked are nearly absent, and the occiput is especially prominent. The orbits are usually horizontal and the whole build is markedly slender. There can be little hesitation in ascribing this type to the people who have been called by Elliot Smith ‘the brown race.’
The 'first type' by the way, refers to the Ubaidian/Proto-Euphratean type. But as you can see the Akkadian type is no different from the gracile Natufian. While these black African peoples may well be responsible for introducing proto-Semitic or something ancestral to that in the area, one can hardly say that by Bronze Age times and certainly by Iron Age times, all Semitic speakers in the area were black or African looking.
Posts: 26280 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Clearly not an Amorite or Northeast African, as they look no different from how Elamites depicted themselves. Northeast Africans definitely don't look like that. Mesopotamians knew what Northeast Africans looked like, as they frequently sculpted Egyptian and Nubian figures with Northeast African physiognomies. Conversely, Ancient Egyptians also knew what dark skinned Mesopotamians/Syrians looked like, as they depicted them with Dravidian like features, identical to the Mari painting you've posted.
Exactly what do you mean by "Dravidian" features?? Also, what of the dark-skinned or black Syrians? Are you saying they have no relation to northeast Africans despite the Natufian or more recent Harifian ancestry from Africa?? Even Biblical or at least extra-Biblical literature in the form of Rabbinical texts describe certain tribes especially those south in the Negev and Sinai areas as black. I'm just curious what ancestry you make of these people. I should also point out that Tiye's bust of her obviously black face was actually taken by some scholars as possible 'Syrian' ancestry.
Syrian Bedouins
Canaanites
^^ Note the fair-skinned or 'pasty' types with long hair paying tribute alongside the dark-skinned or black types with short curly hair.
quote:Additionally, you're only shooting yourself in the foot, since ancient Mari remains have been bone tested, and none of them show Horner specific mtDNA lineages.
Do you care to tell us what kind of mt lineages or Y lineages these people possessed, or point me to the studies?? I would appreciate it greatly.
Posts: 26280 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Exactly what do you mean by "Dravidian" features??
That the Mari folks posted by Dana look like Dravidians and Elamites, rather than Northeast Africans. This is not rocket science:
I can't believe elementary stuff like this is still debatable... by you.. of all people.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Also, what of the dark-skinned or black Syrians? Are you saying they have no relation to northeast Africans despite the Natufian or more recent Harifian ancestry from Africa??
^Please read my post. I said that the most important African ancestry in the Middle East mostly dates to the Terminal Pleistocene. I'm not excluding more recent flow (following the Terminal Pleistocene), but there is no evidence that the folks in the pictures you've posted are biological descendants of Proto-Semetic speakers who exited Africa ~7kya--which is what Dana is claiming.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Do you care to tell us what kind of mt lineages or Y lineages these people possessed, or point me to the studies?? I would appreciate it greatly.
Scroll down for the pdf's. Its in Spanish, good luck trying to make sense of it all. The gist of it is that 1/6 Mari samples carry L2a, and 2/20 PPN (Pre Pottery Neolithic) samples (both in Syria) carry a closely related L2a lineage. Note that the L2a of both Syrian sites are related, so the Mari L2a is most likely from whatever source the PPN samples got it from (Natufian?). The haplotype matches are with L2a types in Europe and the Canary Islands and Sub Saharan Africa. Further confirmation that the fossil Syrio-Palistine L2a types are unrelated to Horner L2a, see this:
quote:Hi all,
Well, I just got the previously-discussed FGS results back. I've now gone from being mis-assigned to a Scots-Irish cluster in mtDNA haplogroup H2* to...drumroll please...an all-Ashkenazic cluster in mtDNA haplogroup L2a1 !
Yes, the L's are nearly all sub-Saharan African haplogroups, and L2a is the most common mtDNA haplogroup among African-Americans at 18%. But my only matches at the HVR1+HVR2 level are all Ashkenazim.
In the merely "L2" group at the HVR1+HVR2 level, I have two matches from Germany, and one each from Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russia, and Ukraine. All have the user-directed comment "Ashkenazi" next to them except for the Romania result, but that one might be an oversight, as not everyone knows they can request to add comments to their results. At the "L2a" HVR1+HVR2 level, I have one match each from Germany, Lithuania, and Russia, all Ashkenazic, and at the most precise "L2a1" HVR1+HVR2 level, I have one match each from Latvia and Poland, again both Ashkenazic. Obviously, those two are of the most interest to me, since my lineage is from Poland...
If I go back to the HVR1-only level, then there's a large number of matches listed, but split quite obviously between Jewish and African groups -- a number of different specific tribes from Cameroon, Guinea-Bissau, and Sierra Leone, in particular, are listed. There are *no* matches listed from Egypt, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia, or Sudan, which is the area of the world where you'd expect to see an African/Jewish overlap. So how this Jewish L2a and L2a1 group split off from the much larger African L2a community is a mystery.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: That the Mari folks posted by Dana look like Dravidians and Elamites, rather than Northeast Africans. This is not rocket science:
I can't believe elementary stuff like this is still debatable... by you.. of all people.
I never said I agreed with Dana that the Mari people in the mural were Africans, though I do question your use of 'Dravidian'. Elamite perhaps, judging by their features and the approximate close proximity to Elam. I am weary about the use or overuse of 'Dravidian' for a general look or appearance especially when strictly speaking Dravidian is a linguistic phylum and not a common ethnicity let alone phenotype. Even your example of Veddas are technically not Dravidian since the native Vedda languages not Dravidian.
quote:Please read my post. I said that the most important African ancestry in the Middle East mostly dates to the Terminal Pleistocene. I'm not excluding more recent flow (following the Terminal Pleistocene), but there is no evidence that the folks in the pictures you've posted are biological descendants of Proto-Semetic speakers who exited Africa ~7kya--which is what Dana is claiming.
That depends which pictures you are referring to. I agree with you that the Mari and other eastern Syrian people are not Africans, though I don't know about the pictures I posted of Canaanites and southern Levantine folk. I'm not saying they are, but they do bear a resemblance to Africans especially Delta Egyptians.
quote:http://www.tesisenred.net/handle/10803/795
Scroll down for the pdf's. Its in Spanish, good luck trying to make sense of it all. The gist of it is that 1/6 Mari samples carry L2a, and 2/20 PPN (Pre Pottery Neolithic) samples (both in Syria) carry a closely related L2a lineage. Note that the L2a of both Syrian sites are related, so the Mari L2a is most likely from whatever source the PPN samples got it from (Natufian?). The haplotype matches are with L2a types in Europe and the Canary Islands and Sub Saharan Africa. Further confirmation that the fossil Syrio-Palistine L2a types are unrelated to Horner L2a, see this:
quote:Hi all,
Well, I just got the previously-discussed FGS results back. I've now gone from being mis-assigned to a Scots-Irish cluster in mtDNA haplogroup H2* to...drumroll please...an all-Ashkenazic cluster in mtDNA haplogroup L2a1!
Yes, the L's are nearly all sub-Saharan African haplogroups, and L2a is the most common mtDNA haplogroup among African-Americans at 18%. But my only matches at the HVR1+HVR2 level are all Ashkenazim.
In the merely "L2" group at the HVR1+HVR2 level, I have two matches from Germany, and one each from Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russia, and Ukraine. All have the user-directed comment "Ashkenazi" next to them except for the Romania result, but that one might be an oversight, as not everyone knows they can request to add comments to their results. At the "L2a" HVR1+HVR2 level, I have one match each from Germany, Lithuania, and Russia, all Ashkenazic, and at the most precise "L2a1" HVR1+HVR2 level, I have one match each from Latvia and Poland, again both Ashkenazic. Obviously, those two are of the most interest to me, since my lineage is from Poland...
If I go back to the HVR1-only level, then there's a large number of matches listed, but split quite obviously between Jewish and African groups -- a number of different specific tribes from Cameroon, Guinea-Bissau, and Sierra Leone, in particular, are listed. There are *no* matches listed from Egypt, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia, or Sudan, which is the area of the world where you'd expect to see an African/Jewish overlap. So how this Jewish L2a and L2a1 group split off from the much larger African L2a community is a mystery.
That's very interesting. As for the pdf, I know a little Spanish so I'll read it and see what I can get out of it and let you know.
Posts: 26280 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Exactly what do you mean by "Dravidian" features??
That the Mari folks posted by Dana look like Dravidians and Elamites, rather than Northeast Africans. This is not rocket science:
I can't believe elementary stuff like this is still debatable... by you.. of all people.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Also, what of the dark-skinned or black Syrians? Are you saying they have no relation to northeast Africans despite the Natufian or more recent Harifian ancestry from Africa??
^Please read my post. I said that the most important African ancestry in the Middle East mostly dates to the Terminal Pleistocene. I'm not excluding more recent flow (following the Terminal Pleistocene), but there is no evidence that the folks in the pictures you've posted are biological descendants of Proto-Semetic speakers who exited Africa ~7kya--which is what Dana is claiming.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Do you care to tell us what kind of mt lineages or Y lineages these people possessed, or point me to the studies?? I would appreciate it greatly.
Scroll down for the pdf's. Its in Spanish, good luck trying to make sense of it all. The gist of it is that 1/6 Mari samples carry L2a, and 2/20 PPN (Pre Pottery Neolithic) samples (both in Syria) carry a closely related L2a lineage. Note that the L2a of both Syrian sites are related, so the Mari L2a is most likely from whatever source the PPN samples got it from (Natufian?). The haplotype matches are with L2a types in Europe and the Canary Islands and Sub Saharan Africa. Further confirmation that the fossil Syrio-Palistine L2a types are unrelated to Horner L2a, see this:
quote:Hi all,
Well, I just got the previously-discussed FGS results back. I've now gone from being mis-assigned to a Scots-Irish cluster in mtDNA haplogroup H2* to...drumroll please...an all-Ashkenazic cluster in mtDNA haplogroup L2a1 !
Yes, the L's are nearly all sub-Saharan African haplogroups, and L2a is the most common mtDNA haplogroup among African-Americans at 18%. But my only matches at the HVR1+HVR2 level are all Ashkenazim.
In the merely "L2" group at the HVR1+HVR2 level, I have two matches from Germany, and one each from Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russia, and Ukraine. All have the user-directed comment "Ashkenazi" next to them except for the Romania result, but that one might be an oversight, as not everyone knows they can request to add comments to their results. At the "L2a" HVR1+HVR2 level, I have one match each from Germany, Lithuania, and Russia, all Ashkenazic, and at the most precise "L2a1" HVR1+HVR2 level, I have one match each from Latvia and Poland, again both Ashkenazic. Obviously, those two are of the most interest to me, since my lineage is from Poland...
If I go back to the HVR1-only level, then there's a large number of matches listed, but split quite obviously between Jewish and African groups -- a number of different specific tribes from Cameroon, Guinea-Bissau, and Sierra Leone, in particular, are listed. There are *no* matches listed from Egypt, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia, or Sudan, which is the area of the world where you'd expect to see an African/Jewish overlap. So how this Jewish L2a and L2a1 group split off from the much larger African L2a community is a mystery.
Actually the Mari people I posted look nothing like the pure Dravidians who were and ARE short and black.
If anything those Amorites of Mari that I posted they look like the modern Murad of Yemen mixed with some white Syrians.
Furthermore the Amorites were described as giants like their modern representatives in Central Arabia.
Posting photos of people who have been modified over the thousands years they've been in India also doesn't throw light on matters. Almost all modern day Indians whether Dravidians or Indic speakers or Austric peoples are the result of a mixture of the various peoples that have occupied that subcontinent forf the last 5,000 years.
Finally Elamites and Persians of Anshan in Elam were two distinct people and cultures as is clear from physical anthropology and linguistics!
Elamite
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Semitic speakers, i.e., Amorites, Akkadians, Hebrews, Ugarites, Assyrians, etc, are not genetically like Horners. Any genetic commonality with Horners is due to geneflow on top of a West Asian substratum, not because they were biologically Horner from the get go. In Afrasan speaking West Asians we basically see the same situation as with Chadic speakers; the adoption of an Afrasan language without much Afrasan genetic impact.
lol! Hebrews, Amorites and Akkadians had very little to do with the white brachycephalic people that occupied Ugarit and came to occupy Assyria after the Amorites.
BTW - I would like for you to point out what Akkadians you have studied to determine what you said above. Are they still living?!!!
Just like the modern dark- skinned kinky Arabs of modern Iraq are not related to the fair-skinned semitic speakers who have ADOPTED the Arab dialects from them.
"Semite" is not a "racial" population and Hebrew i.e. Canaanite is the name of original people traditionally descended from Heber or Abir in early Afrosemitic tradition originally from the Qahtan/Peleg peoples from the Erythraean Sea who COLONIZED SYRIA.
Semitic is another name for Afro-Asiatic speakers, PERIOD!
I would like for you to also tell us which people were predominating in Anatolia and Mesopotamia for 10,000 years up until the late Bronze Age. Where do you think the people of Catal Huyuk went? Who do you think built Gobekli Tepe a culture with its strong similarities to the ancient Anatolians, early Mesopotamia and megalithic Northern Africa.
The timing in which your so-called "semites" fair-skinned brachycephalic folk of "Ugarit and Assyria and the Diyala plains is well documented in forensics. They enter Anatolia in significant numbers only during the Bronze Age and are found in Cyprus with a palaeolithic culture at the time Neolithic black peoples were first populating the Levant, KALONJI.
That is why Brace found modern populations of the Mediterranean (INCLUDING NORTHERN AFRICA) had little connection to ancient neolithic or even early Bronze AGE peoples there through his forensic studies of genetically- determined traits!
It has been confirmed lately by the work of other anthropologists who have shown such people were not even present in any significant number in Mesopotamia until a very late period, much later than had been previously thought.
Thus we have a recent study stating this -
"this study suggests that the Himrin population was relatively dolichocranic and generally UNALTERED UNTIL THE PARTHIAN PERIOD AS IN SOUTHERN MESOPOTAMIA (Keith, 1927; Ehrich, 1939; Swindler, 1956), but sometime in or AFTER THE PARTHIAN PERIOD a more brachycranic population came into this northern Mesopotamian area and craniofacial characteristics within the inhabitants in this area probably became more diverse, as preliminarily suggested by Ishida and Wada (1981) and Wada (1986). It has been suggested based on archeological data that the population of Mesopotamia began to be influenced by Persians after the Achaemenean domination, and more foreigners were settled and mixed with the native population in the Parthian period (Roux, 1992). The present results do not contradict this view. Furthermore, this study depicts the dolichocranic population as tending to have a relatively lower orbit and broader (lower) nose, and vice versa in the brachycranic population. These results are consistent with the findings of Wada (1986), indicating that the present morphometric analysis successfully extracted the morphological characteristics derived from conventional craniometry."
"Geometric morphometric study of temporal variations in human crania excavated from the Himrin Basin and neighboring areas, northern Iraq" by Naomichi Ogihara, Haruyuki Makishima, Hidemi Ishida Anthropological Science (2009) Volume: 117, Issue: 1, Pages: 9-17
Unfortunately the author confuses the Persians with the Scythians who entered in the Parthian period but at least we know what era brachycranic "whites" start entering in significant numbers in Semitic Mesopotamia
Catal Huyuk
Hamer tribe continue their Neolithic NEGRO traditions
Dolichocephalic Mediterranean i.e. NILOTIC NEGROES of Catal Huyuk with their early cattle jumping traditions
Your right Kalonji, this is NOT "rocket science".
According to archaealogists Catal Huyuk culture forms a link between Gobekli Tepe and the prepottery cultures of the Levant, Mesopotamia as well as some of the megalithic culture of Northern Africa and West European. The populations continued in Mesopotamia and the Near East virtually unaltered except for in certain places in the Northern Levant as at Yarmuk where these brachcycranic people entered with their NON-Semitic cultural traits and physical appearance.
Nostratic, Afroasiatic, megalithic culture of ancient southwest Asia, Europe and Northern and Eastern Africa 13 to 4000 years ago was occupied by NEGRO civilizations - KALONJI. I am sorry that you do not like THE ARABS but thats the way it was!
Wherever the H_ _ _ "semitic" came from it was from THE NEGRO!
ALL forensic skeletal evidence recent and early has already shown this. Nothing in modern genetics has nullified these facts. Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Amorites of the Bible are clearly described as a Levantine populations, identical with the Martu of Mesopotamia and the Amar of Egypt. They have nothing to do with Yemenites, whatsoever." ?!!! That is your opinion Kalonji for which there is absolutely no evidence WHATSOEVER.
There have never been any other peoples mentioned in the Genesis book of the Bible but the ancient Afrosemitic peoples who colonized Syria from their Sabaean culture existing in the 4th and 3rd millenium between southern Arabia and eastern Africa still almost all known under their same Canaanite and Israelitish names in southern Arabia in Africa.
I am sorry you don't like the Sudanese Arabs, Kalonji, but history and the Biblical scholarship thankfully doesn't revolve around your likes and dislikes.
Who the h_ _ _ are you to determine what is and what is not pseudoscientific and whats by established peer-reviewed scholars KALONJI. The only thing pseudoscientific I've been posting is YOUR RESPONSES. There is a reason the Mediterranean is dominated today by brachycranic, non-black people. Come back when you've figured out the purpose of mentioning it!
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: dana, love, at what time period did whites become a majority in Europe?
There is much info about when the dolichocephalic Mediterraneans i.e. Negroes disappeared or were absorbed into the non-black populations. Ricault and Waelkens talk about it and Brace in fact talks about it in his paper. Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
KALONJI - regardless of what Sayce said - not every Syrian bedouin was an "Amorite" i.e. Canaanite. Amurru or westerner maybe but not a Canaanite. And the inhabitants of Mari wre not all alike as obvious from the Ugaritic Eblaitic appearance of many statues from that place.
The tribe name "Amorite" or Amurat has little to do with the word "westerner" AmMurru and as I have mentioned the former people are still known as Amurat or Murad in Yemen and Syria related to the Abs (Yabs or (Jebuzites), Numayr ibn Cassit (Nimrod son of Kush) and Kaab (Chub) other dark brown Arabs originally from the Central Arabian deserts to Wadi Kunawna across from Sudan the (valley of the Canaanites) their true homeland. Its a shame you've obviously ignore all my posting on the original Arabian Nabataean peoples whom the Syrians called Kush, as well as Kamal Salibi's work.
Original Arabs from the Nejd are still living as in Iraq making up the majority of "blacks". From them came the Amorite peoples under Nimrod according to Middle Eastern tradition whom Josephus says were called "Kush" like all "Ethiopians" in Asia.
Since you brought up Sayce. Maybe you should have also mentioned the fact that he said the early Ubaid crania looked like "Negroids" with a "Mongoloid strain". Why ignore it?!
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Please read my post. I said that the most important African ancestry in the Middle East mostly dates to the Terminal Pleistocene. I'm not excluding more recent flow (following the Terminal Pleistocene), but there is no evidence that the folks in the pictures you've posted are biological descendants of Proto-Semetic speakers who exited Africa ~7kya--which is what Dana is claiming.
I wish you would stop putting words in my mouth KALONJI. And we've been through THAT before havent' we!
Amorites are as I have always contended related to the black people known as Canaanites who in part are connected to the Chalcolithic people of the Syrian Arabian desert. If you are going to try to pretend you are more up on these subjects than me and real peer reviewed scholars, at least don't twist my words to try and prove it!
Wherever these chalcolithic era elongated Negroids (Anati's words) descended from they were obviously connected to those of the Saharan deserts as the rock art and lithic stylistic similarities show. Whether that is from the ppn cultures of the Levant or direct from the Capsian cultures or from the Sahara and through the Rub-al Khali or freakin' Gobekli Tepe -like I said - something scholars ARE NOT agreed upon yet! But whatever is the case be they were ONE AND THE SAME BLACK NEGROID PEOPLE!
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: dana, love, at what time period did whites become a majority in Europe?
There is much info about when the dolichocephalic Mediterraneans i.e. Negroes disappeared or were absorbed into the non-black populations. Ricault and Waelkens talk about it and Brace in fact talks about it in his paper.
dana, don't cop out. You seem to be telling me "I'm not really sure maybe you can find out by reading this study"
you mean to tell me after what you have been claiming you have no position on this or you are not sure, no firm ground to stand on ????
that sounds suspicious
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: dana, love, at what time period did whites become a majority in Europe?
There is much info about when the dolichocephalic Mediterraneans i.e. Negroes disappeared or were absorbed into the non-black populations. Ricault and Waelkens talk about it and Brace in fact talks about it in his paper.
dana, don't cop out. You seem to be telling me "I'm not really sure maybe you can find out by reading this study"
you mean to tell me after what you have been claiming you have no position on this or you are not sure, no firm ground to stand on ????
that sounds suspicious
Sorry, oh jealous snakey one - but I don't have time for useless pitterpattering banter today. I'm sure there is a good movie on during these holidays. Go watch it! Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: dana. it's a reasonable basic question, you will have to take this as a loss
another meal for the lioness
NEXT !!!!
p.s. stop trying to hide behind the man's holidays
Incorrect snakey one "the man" got this from the original and first fishermen to turn Christian Minim i.e. Banu Ma'in tribe of the Yemen.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
and another thing stop beating on Sweetnet. The Explorer already threw him around like rag doll
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I am weary about the use or overuse of 'Dravidian' for a general look or appearance especially when strictly speaking Dravidian is a linguistic phylum and not a common ethnicity let alone phenotype.
I never said Dravidian was a single phenotype, just that the phenotypes in the Mari paintings can be found among them. This is not an observation that's debatable; in Truthcentric's thread I noted the long noted ties between certain Indus Valley remains and Iranian material. You agreed with it in that thread, but strangely question my reiteration of the said facts in this thread.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: That depends which pictures you are referring to. I agree with you that the Mari and other eastern Syrian people are not Africans, though I don't know about the pictures I posted of Canaanites and southern Levantine folk. I'm not saying they are, but they do bear a resemblance to Africans especially Delta Egyptians.
I can tell you still haven't read the post I asked you read. Again, I don't deny the presence of predominantly African groups in Mari or wider Syria, and I don't deny the potential derivation of Canaanite groups from Egyptians.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: Actually the Mari people I posted look nothing like the pure Dravidians who were and ARE short and black.
Shortness isn't necessarily a genetically controlled trait and the Mari folks seem to not have been devoid of what you call black either. Curly hair too, is not specific to Africans as evinced by the nearby Andaman Islanders, whose genetic material shows up in many Southern Indians.
BTW, is there a reason why you're ignoring my post to you, and why you're replying to my post to Djehuti instead? I have no interest in opening up new segues about brachycephalic Persians and what have you. Either respond to my post to you, or don't respond at all.
You claimed that Semitic speakers came straight out of Africa, and that Ehret supported that they were biologically African. You also said that there were skeletal remains that supported this link. Where is your evidence?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kalonji - there is really more to talk about. I have expressed what I've meant and you choose to put words in my mouth and misconstrue thoughts from my brain just as I have now noticed you do with other patrons on here - such as Explorer - who answers your questions which you continuously and typically modify and mistranslate into something else with your pretended logic.
As I had said with the posting about Finkelstein's finding and Israel -there is no point. YOU are the one misinterpreting things so I'm done.
You just just made a statement "shortness isn't necessarily a genetically controlled trait. Everything does not revolve around your belief system Swenet and I never made a statement about shortness NECESSARILY being a genetically- controlled trait. In fact one can conclude that with even the "pygmy" groups if one wants to but there are certain things I am just not going to argue about.
BTW - beside, you are not here to explore the truth but to try and outwit others and have people kowtow to you a few of whom are quite clearly people you can be learning from. Explorer being one of them!
Maybe your expecting me to drive 10 minutes over to the University of Pennsylvania to get Sarah Tishkoff to give me a handwritten note to prove to you that shortness CAN BE directly associated with genes, or something. But you would have some excuse for arguing with that as well.
I don't have time for this kind of silly swiping back and forth at virtually nothing. Peace out!
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: ^^^^ more avoidance
and another thing stop beating on Sweetnet. The Explorer already threw him around like rag doll
There is always a 3rd time and I can honestly say after today I agree with you on that last point.lol!
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: Actually the Mari people I posted look nothing like the pure Dravidians who were and ARE short and black.
Shortness isn't necessarily a genetically controlled trait and the Mari folks seem to not have been devoid of what you call black either. Curly hair too, is not specific to Africans as evinced by the nearby Andaman Islanders, whose genetic material shows up in many Southern Indians.
Huh? I didn't look at this statement. Wow... There's all kinds of genetic material in south Indians silly. What the heck are you talking about. I've seen clearer thinking with Euronuts.
Never mind. Don't tell me. I don't want to know how your mind works.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Apparently, Dana thinks height isn't environmentally influenced. Apparently she is totally in the dark about the long noted height differences in related populations with different lifestyles (e.g., hunter gatherer, food producers, urban etc) or simply social class.
I WOULD Ask her about ''all kinds of genetic material'' (presumably she means substanial ''African'' ancestry) but after her lies regarding Ehret's and Finkelstein's beliefs, and blatant ignorance of elementary physical anthropology (e.g., the proven plasticity of cephalic index, height, robusticity and other characters she parades around as ''stable'' and highly correlated with ancestry), I hope everyone sees her for what she really is. The pseudo-scientific typology minded folk Keita and other Africanists have issued warnings for in their writings.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, like Obenga, I consider Semetic languages to be a language family unrelated to Cushitic, Chadic, Ancient Egyptian and Berber languages. While most linguists have accepted "Afro-asiatic" as a linguistic groups without questioning. It's probably because there weren't many African scholars in the field when Greenberg enunciated his classification (contrary to American scholars who have rejected his Amerind, native Americans language classification). The Afro-Asiatic grouping is much weaker than the Indo-European supra-language family. There's much more inter-languages diversity and the supra-language family would be much older than the Indo-European one. Also the 2 attempts to reconstruct the proto-Afro-asiatic language were so radically different to one another that it made people question its viability. In fact, other linguists than Obenga also have questioned the validity of the so called Afro-asiatic supra language phylum. We can note that the comparison among the debunked Afro-Asiatic languages family is complicated by long-term language contacts and borrowing (for example the arabization of North Africa during the spread of Islam).
You can read more about it in the other thread devoted to the subject:
posted
According to the Bantu Hebrew people the kongo and Bateke languages are Hebrew.
According to Nigerian historian Catherine Acholonu the English language come from the Celtic language and the Celtic people come from Africa. English is very close to the Igbo language. The foundation word in English are Canaanite. The English language received words from Latin, German and French. The ancestor of the Irish, Welsh, English and Scottish people are African people.
According to Catherine Acholonu the Gram or Garamarag language of the Garamante/Grimaldi empire of the green sahara call Agade(Maa confederation by Clyde Winters) was the origin of the Egyptian language, Sumerian language, Dravidian language, Latin, Greek, old French, new English etc.
According to Catherine Acholonu the Igbo language is the mother of the semitic languages like Akkadian, Canaanite, Hebrew etc. The Dravidian language come from the Igbo Afra priest singing language.
According to Akan prince Nana Branchie Darkwah The Hebrew are Akan people who breakaway from Egypt. The Hebrew language most have been Akan. Prince Darkwah states the Akan language influence English and German.
According to Melo Nzeyitu Josias Bantu languages like Kongo and Lingala are the mother of the Latin language.
Independent African scholars are saying African languages are the mother of many West Asian and European languages. Western imperialist scholars are saying something different. I believe the African scholars, if humanity come from Africa the many world languages most also come from Africa.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
)![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
So again ASAR I don't know what you are arguing about or now, in fact, what you are talking about. Ehret and Lipinsky both make the claim -although they diverge with regard to the time periods- that proto-semitic came to Asia by way of the Levant.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
- not surprisingly! 
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
of Catal Huyuk with their early cattle jumping traditions
Printer-friendly view of this topic