posted
The very term might cause one to chuckle and grin...or think it's the result of some afrocentrict propaganda. But in this thread, I will show you that there is nothing afro-centrict about it...there is nothing anti-semitic about telling it like it is either.
The last site is mostly a religious one, but the sections they have about the Physical Appearance is important to the discussion.
Let's start at the beginning...with the Patriach of the Israelites...Abraham. He is said to have been from Ur, in Ancient Mesopotamia. It has been stated by a number of scholars that the ancient Sumerians were akin to the modern Black Dravidians of India. The Sumerians also had an affinity with a people known as the Elamites, the very first "Semitic" group mentioned in the Bible (Gen. 10:22). The fact that linguist David McAlpin has hypothesized that the Elamite language may have a genetic relation to Dravidian languages supports this claim...he calls it Elamo-Dravidian.
These are some pictures from walls of the Ancient Elamites...
Now, let's jump to Ancient Egypt. There has been some debate on this forum about whether or not the Israelites were ever in Ancient Egpyt, then whether or not they were persecuted and fled. But for the sake of the discussion, let's take the Biblical account (why you ask...because it's the only detailed account we have). The Old Testement is really the entire history of the "Jews." It says that Jacob and his family (roughly 70 people or so) left Canaan, and migrated to Egypt. By the time they left (which is also under dispute) they were a nation of people. Now, I'm not here to talk about the Exodus...because that's a matter of belief. But, they undoubtedly intermarried with the native population...a BLACK civilization!
The biblical Hebrews were indistinguishable from native Egyptians and Ethiopians. The Bible is full of examples which demonstrates this, and even ancient secular historians remarked of the physical appearances of the Hebrews. The historian Tacitus, for example, stated that it was a common opinion among the Romans that the Jews "were an Ethiopian race." In Roman times PalestinianIsraelites were classed among Black Africans because it was almost impossible to tell them apart.
The Eurocentric idea is that the African "Jew" is some new thing...when it's not. Actually, it's quite the contrary as it has been shown that modern European Jews are actually the descendents of converts from Greco-Roman and Medieval times. I suggest you all the The 13th Tribe by Arthur Koestler (who was a Jew himself)! The book traces the history of the ancient Khazar Empire, a major but almost forgotten power in Eastern Europe, which in the Dark ages became converted to Judaism. Khazaria was finally wiped out by the forces of Ghengis Khan, but evidence indicates that the Khazars, themselves migrated to Poland and formed the cradle of Western Jewry.
The cradle of western Jewry is the result of a Empire of converts!!! Which means, most if not all of Europeans Jews can claim no descendency to the Ancient Israelites!! Now, it doesn't mean they aren't Jews...since judiasm is nothing more than a religion...anybody can be a Jew and still lay claim to its religious benefits (if you believe anyway). Once again, this is not an anti-semitic argument...this is an argument to find out about the Ancient Israelites...not the Khazars.
I'm tired of typing so I'm going to stop right here. But read those links I posted above. Though, I do believe this subject is far from closed and there still needs to be a lot more research done.
Posts: 1219 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
We musn't forget that many, if not most people in the northern part of the Near-East today are light or pale-skinned.
Many scholars think the lighter populations originated from Central Asia, but whatever their origins there is little doubt that the aboriginal populations in the area were black.
Were the Sumerians also black? This is an issue I am trying to understand myself. There are not that many paintings of Sumerians and most of the depictions they made of themselves were statuettes. I have seen a few wall murals that depict them as pale or white but their clothes have the same color, meaning their true skin color is not shown. The features of the Sumerians however, look rather Indian as in non-Dravidian North Indian, so most likely they could have been brown. I have heard Ausar say they used the description of "black-head" for themselves but I don't know how accurate this is.
The Elamites did call themselves 'black-heads' is all I know.
The holy books like the Bible do describe the Sumerians as coming from the East from a place called Shinar. But what about the peoples that lived in the area that the Sumerians settled in?
Archaeology shows that there were a Neolithic people already living in the area that the Sumerians later settled. Archaeologists called these people the 'Ubaidians' after a site Al-Ubaid. However the Ubaidians became completely assimilated by the Sumerians and other than their remains, there are only traces of their language within the Sumerian language.
Another thing that must be taken into account is the migration of peoples from East Africa into the Near-East. The Natufians of the Levant area from Palestine to Syria show strong African features and this would explain why people in the region today as well as Greece carry East African genes. The Natufians are dated back to the Mesolithic period right before the Neolithic and there is evidence that they were the ones who invented Neolithic technology (agriculture)and spread it to the rest of Western Asia and Europe.
There is already a discussion started about the Natufians here
So yeah, with all the black populations that existed in southwest Asia and the Near East back then you have to wonder what happened to them. I have seen a few pictures one time of black Iranian who are probably direct descendants of Elamites.
By the way, I have not really heard much about Iranians destroying everything that was Elamite. The Elamites were the people who created the first civilizaition in Iran. The Persian civilization itself is a direct descendant of Elamite civilization.
Those pictures of Elamite archers are Persian depictions and ancient Persian royalty were known for having an armed gaurd of Elamite archers the same way Egyptians would employ Medjai archers as their soldiers.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: We musn't forget that many, if not most people in the northern part of the Near-East are light or pale-skinned.
Many scholars think the lighter populations originated from Central Asia, but whatever their origins there is little doubt that the aboriginal populations in the area were black.
BSSSSSS!
They are not pale nor were they anything near "black"...and neither were egyptians... here is some palestinians:
Though there are many Syrians/lebanese that are pretty light, also with palestinian it varies much.
posted
The area historucally has had lots of interaction with people from the Northern Mediterranean. Palestines themselves are mixtures of fellahin[farmers the lived in Palestine],bedouin Arabs,Upper Egyptians and Sudanese[I have sources that confirm this],Greeks,Armenians,and Circassian[Mameluke] from eastern Europe.
The Philistines originated from modern day Crete and settled in many areas of modern Palestine. According to Donald Redford in Egypt,Caanan,and Israel you had migrations of Indo-European speaking people like the Mitanni and Hurrians that settled in the Levant region.
After the death of Muhammed many Yemeni bedouins moved into areas of the Levant.
I hope also you have not forgotten that Palestine was largely administered by Ottoman and Mamelukes both from the 1400's-1800's.
Although ''black'' Palestineans are a minority you will see many in areas like Jerico and Jerusalem.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
One thing though, that I'm hoping you guys can elaborate on (since I'm a real amatuer in this subject) is the "Cohen" gene that supposedly tells you if you are a descendent of the Ancient Israelites. I know that there was a big debate (even in the Jewish community) of whether or not European Jews could in fact lay claim as direct descendents of the Ancient Israelites...especially after books like the 13th Tribe came out (since it was somewhat assumed that they were all along). Even today if you ask Jews if they think they're direct descendents...some may say yes, some may say no...depending on who you ask. Then, all of a sudden, they discover this Cohen gene. I'd really like to get all of your opinions on this.
Does this evidence destroy my argument? Or does it show that, in reality, the Jews were most likely a mixed population...or at least around the time of the diaspora?
Posts: 1219 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is indeed a very interesting topic. I would like to say at least 4 years ago I was doing research on this particular subject, but when I studied this subject it was from a biblical point of view. Thus I can only comment from a biblial point of view on this particular topic.
Yes there are a few ancient historian who agreed that the ancient Hebrews were in fact of Ethiopian origins but many Eurocentrics as well as Afrocentrics (believe it or not) reject this as another attempt by African Americans to steal the jewish ancestry.
I've found that when these two parts as stated above reject any notion, then you will find the truth between their reasonings for rejection. Never the less... the so-called Hebrews made serveral claims in the bible that let you know they identified themselves as brown-skinned (West African/Egyptian colored) people. Another interesting point is that in the bible the Hebrew clearly believed as the Egyptians did that White-skin represented death. Please note: White skin doesn't have to mean European white... but in this case they mention Europeans because of the way the scripture was phrased.
I don't believe in dropping biblical scriptures like that but I think for this subject, just this once (hopefully!) it's ok.
Numbers 12:10 And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and, behold, Miriam became leprous, white as snow: and Aaron looked upon Miriam, and, behold, she was leprous. 12:11 And Aaron said unto Moses, Alas, my lord, I beseech thee, lay not the sin upon us, wherein we have done foolishly, and wherein we have sinned. 12:12 [u]Let her not be as one dead, of whom the flesh is half consumed when he cometh out of his mother's womb.
The last scriptures verifies that he was talking about living people opposed to dead people because one that is dead cannot be born from the womb.
There was something that I showed this guy about 3 years ago and it was dealing with Paul who was saved by some Roman soilders from being stoned to death by Israelites. They thought Paul was an Egyptian i.e. Essence (Note: I believe the bible spoke of the Quram valley community in this passage!). Paul was clearly mistaken for a Egyptian. Note: If the last Dynasty of the Eygptians were in fact so-called Nubians or Sudanese i.e. Black Africans... Then why was Paul mistaken for a black man when he was supposed be the same color of Grecians, Romans or modern day Jews?
Acts 21:37 And as Paul was to be led into the castle, he said unto the chief captain, May I speak unto thee? Who said, Canst thou speak Greek? 21:38 Art not thou that Egyptian, which before these days madest an uproar, and leddest out into the wilderness four thousand men that were murderers? 21:39 But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus,...
So then if the New Testament Jews i.e. Hebrews looked like the Nubian/Sudanese Egyptians of the last Dynasty that was destroyed by the same Roman Empire then what did the Earlier one look like according to the bible?
The Old Testament tells us the the 12 tribes did evil to its brother Joseph and sold him into slavery. To make a long story short Joseph became a visor of the Egyptians but a famine struck the surrounding lands and the Hebrews were forced to go to Egypt for the purpose of buying food. The brothers of Joseph made it to Egypt to buy some food and they spoke directly to their brother but didn't recognize him because he looked like and Egyptian.
Genesis Chapters 42-50 but I will give a few short scriptures.
42:6 And Joseph was the governor over the land, and he it was that sold to all the people of the land: and Joseph's brethren came, and bowed down themselves before him with their faces to the earth. 42:7 And Joseph saw his brethren, and he knew them, but made himself strange unto them, and spake roughly unto them; and he said unto them, Whence come ye? And they said, From the land of Canaan to buy food. 42:8 And Joseph knew his brethren, but they knew not him.
Now I believe you can take this scripture anyway one wants to view it, but Josephs brothers couldn't tell their Hebrew brother from the Egyptian. These same Hebrews were mistaken when they were out to bury Jacob i.e. Israel.
Genesis 50:10 And they came to the threshingfloor of Atad, which is beyond Jordan, and there they mourned with a great and very sore lamentation: and he made a mourning for his father seven days. 50:11 And when the inhabitants of the land, the Canaanites, saw the mourning in the floor of Atad, they said, This is a grievous mourning to the Egyptians: wherefore the name of it was called Abelmizraim, which is beyond Jordan.
This is how the biblical editors pictures the Hebrews. The O.T. discribed them as 'black' or looking just like the Egyptian Dyansty that existed in that time and again; they identified the Hebrews looking like the last Dyansty Egyptians.
If the Egyptians had several Dynasties and as the Eurocentrics proclaim some where of European decent... then why does the Hebrews in the New Testament look like the Nubian or Sudanese Egyptians (mistaken for Egyptian) and the Hebrews of the Old Testament (a few thousand years prior) look like the Egyptians? Does this mean the Ancient Egyptians were as black as the last Dynasty Egyptian? Were the Ancient Hebrews as dark as the last Hebrews in Israel?
So from a biblical point of view, one is to assume that the ancient Israelites were indeed black. The Elamites were said to be the brothers of the Israelites, so one would have to assume that if they are that dark in picture with all those like napps i.e. small locks... the then Hebrews who wore Dreadlocks were in fact as dark as their brother nation, possibly looking like the egyptian who were painted on the wall.
Just from a biblical perspective...
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by QUEEN OF THE THE UNIVERSE: is this the reason why israel took so many ethiopian jews in and gave them citizenship?
No, they did that because they felt they needed to be brought back to their "homeland" (from a Biblical perspective). The problem with that is, the majority of Israelis aren't even Jewish...they're secular! I've also heard that the "Falasha" Jews have been discriminated against...and called racial slurs!!!
Posts: 1219 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King_Scorpion: One thing though, that I'm hoping you guys can elaborate on (since I'm a real amatuer in this subject) is the "Cohen" gene that supposedly tells you if you are a descendent of the Ancient Israelites.
CMH - Cohen Model Haplotype is a Y chromosome marker that is found in high presentage of some Jewish groups, and is especially frequent among some Hebrew priests. Cohen is Hebrew for Priest.
It is associated with Haplogroup J which is of West Asian Origin.
Other populations that have this haplotype include Lemba of South Africa as well as the Kurds.
quote: I know that there was a big debate (even in the Jewish community) of whether or not European Jews could in fact lay claim as direct descendents of the Ancient Israelites...especially after books like the 13th Tribe came out (since it was somewhat assumed that they were all along). Even today if you ask Jews if they think they're direct descendents...some may say yes, some may say no...depending on who you ask. Then, all of a sudden, they discover this Cohen gene. I'd really like to get all of your opinions on this.
My opinion: religion and genetics are like oil and water - - they don't mix well.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by QUEEN OF THE THE UNIVERSE: is this the reason why israel took so many ethiopian jews in and gave them citizenship?
No, they did that because they felt they needed to be brought back to their "homeland" (from a Biblical perspective). The problem with that is, the majority of Israelis aren't even Jewish...they're secular! I've also heard that the "Falasha" Jews have been discriminated against...and called racial slurs!!!
The truth of the matter is that those Falasha Jews may not be the so-called original Hebrews as well. When they did DNA testing on the Falasha, they failed to tell poeple who know about this, that the test was based off of Modern day Jews DNA construct. Basically what that means is if the modern day jews are not the original Hebrews then the test is null and void.
Secondly, it means the modern Jews have found their link to Africa through the sect of Africans called the Falasha and not vise versa... like they would have us believe.
Historically, it can be proven that modern day Jewry are not the orginal Hebrews... What can't be proven is who those ancient Hebrews were.
I'm of the opinion that the ancient Hebrews were a sect of the Egyptian which was give a whole new history by those who seeked to control through religion.
Peace!
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:My opinion: religion and genetics are like oil and water - - they don't mix well.
This is so true but the only problem with genetics in this case is that there is no real starting point in which one can take an accurate DNA register.
Who can take claim to the orgins of these supposed Israelites?
We know that its not modern Jewry, thus the beginning of a lost cause or a gut wrenching battle to find the true origins.
Hotep~
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King_Scorpion: One thing though, that I'm hoping you guys can elaborate on (since I'm a real amatuer in this subject) is the "Cohen" gene that supposedly tells you if you are a descendent of the Ancient Israelites.
CMH - Cohen Model Haplotype is a Y chromosome marker that is found in high presentage of some Jewish groups, and is especially frequent among some Hebrew priests. Cohen is Hebrew for Priest.
It is associated with Haplogroup J which is of West Asian Origin.
Other populations that have this haplotype include Lemba of South Africa as well as the Kurds.
quote: I know that there was a big debate (even in the Jewish community) of whether or not European Jews could in fact lay claim as direct descendents of the Ancient Israelites...especially after books like the 13th Tribe came out (since it was somewhat assumed that they were all along). Even today if you ask Jews if they think they're direct descendents...some may say yes, some may say no...depending on who you ask. Then, all of a sudden, they discover this Cohen gene. I'd really like to get all of your opinions on this.
My opinion: religion and genetics are like oil and water - - they don't mix well.
So what are they saying? Everyone that has that haplotype are the descendents of the priests? That wouldn't make much sense. I'm also wondering how they came to the conclusion to use the Priest...what are they supposed to be the direct descendents of the Israelites or something? I think this Cohen thing was brought up as an answer to the Khazar debate...about them being converts. I need to find a jewish message board so I can ask around and get a clearer picture. But I agree with you...religion and genetics should not be mixed!!
Posts: 1219 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:So what are they saying? Everyone that has that haplotype are the descendents of the priests?
Did I say that? No.
quote: I'm also wondering how they came to the conclusion to use the Priest...what are they supposed to be the direct descendents of the Israelites or something?
You are like a person fixated on something: ancient isrealites in this case, and determined to see the discussion as a direct and simplistic commentary on what you are fixated on.
Just try to understand what is said and not bring a bunch of baggage to it - especially biblical baggage. CMH isn't either going to prove or disprove anything in the Bible.
quote: I think this Cohen thing was brought up as an answer to the Khazar debate
In this conversation it was brought up - by you.
CMH is a lineage - not an answer to and esoteric debate about who is and who is not Jewish.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Were the Sumerians also black? This is an issue I am trying to understand myself. There are not that many paintings of Sumerians and most of the depictions they made of themselves were statuettes. I have seen a few wall murals that depict them as pale or white but their clothes have the same color, meaning their true skin color is not shown. The features of the Sumerians however, look rather Indian as in non-Dravidian North Indian, so most likely they could have been brown.
All "blacks" have brown skin, so I don't know what you mean by this.
I would guess that, prior to the incursion of Central Asians into south Asia a little before 3000 BCE, all people in south Asia had dark complexions, possibly within the range of today's "black Africans". They wouldn't need lighter skin in the hot climate of southern Asia.
Reconstruction of Gilgamesh, from the computer game Civilization III: ConquestsPosts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Were the Sumerians also black? This is an issue I am trying to understand myself. There are not that many paintings of Sumerians and most of the depictions they made of themselves were statuettes. I have seen a few wall murals that depict them as pale or white but their clothes have the same color, meaning their true skin color is not shown. The features of the Sumerians however, look rather Indian as in non-Dravidian North Indian, so most likely they could have been brown.
All "blacks" have brown skin. I would agree with Sumerians having brown complexions, not olive like that of many Arabs in Iraq today.
Sumerians were black? Blacks are brown? no...the sumerian area roughly correlates with the southern iraq, kuwait, southern persia ,pakistan. BROWN skin color, just like
soemthing like these iraqi men: black people are NOT brown..so how the hell would that make sumerians black. Rediculous.
Posts: 54 | From: ny | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
You have never seen too many people commonly labeled "black", have you? Notice that these so-called "blacks" in truth have brown rather than literally black complexions.
Thanks for correcting me on Iraqi phenotypes though.
posted
Reviewing elementary facts about skin color.
* No people have skin tones that are literally white, red, yellow or black - terms denoting differing skin color in humans are therefore not literal, and literal references are therefore irrelevant.
** Skin color is produced primarily by melanin - the more melanin added to the skin the darker the tone, the less the lighter the tone.
*** In oder to have literally white skin, there would need be a complete lack of melanin - this trait is known as albinism and is also associated with leprosy. Even then, the skin may appear to be pink, as the blood shows easily thru depigmented white skin - this is known of course as blushing.
**** In order to have literally black skin, the level of melanin would have to be great enough to absorb all light - that is, in physics the literal definition of black. The function of melanin is to absorb ultraviolet light - a form of radiation which can damage dna. However light energy also aids humans with vitamin D synthesis, so all humans balance the two needs against each other, and this is the cause of variation in skin tone.
***** Distinct colors DO NOT EXIST in physics.
Color is only variable frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum, which is processed by the brain.
There is no cut off point where one 'color' begins and the other ends - nor do humans agree on labels for colors.
Anything said about color differences is then, by definition subjective: The sky is blue - the grass is green - ALL SUBJECTIVE. For example, some colors - like 'purple' exist distinctly in some languages and cultures but are discribed as forms of other colors in other languages.
Brown exists in some languages but is seen as form of red, or yellow or gold in other languages.
******* The Kemetic or ancient egyptian dialectic of color as and ehtnic appelative, is like other aspects of their culture - It is and African dialectic and point of reference.
Many African peoples denote black [for darker groups], and red for lighter groups.
Africans typically do not denote 'white' natively because extremely pale skin types are unknown to them.
In a Kemetic context Black denotes African peoples, and Red denotes Asiatic peoples called Aa-mu, and later perhaps some NorthWest African "Berber" called Tamhou.
"Ancient Egyptians" were Black African people - in the sense that they were dark skinned people of African origin - facts to which they themselves attested.
As that is the only coherent meaning of the term Black African, to begin with, that is what is most relevant.
The inert jabberings of hypocrtical protests from modern Eurocentrists are purely their emotional drama and are so, immaterial to the related facts. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Unfortunately Rasol, this is problem we are encountering.
Skin color is all a matter of Semantics.
quote:I said:
We musn't forget that many, if not most people in the northern part of the Near-East today are light or pale-skinned.
By this statement, I meant many people TODAY in modern times, but of course the situation in ancient times was much different as can be said with Egypt.
quote:Originally posted by oliva: BSSSSSS!
They are not pale nor were they anything near "black"...and neither were egyptians... here is some palestinians
Yes most are just light while some are pale.
But again, ancient times were much different and the Egyptians would agree:
Tut
Tiye
Pre-Persian Iranians:
Of course just because most Iranians TODAY are not black doesn't mean there weren't any black Iranians before. But some people like Oliva are just living in DENIAL
quote:Originally posted by ausar:
The area historucally has had lots of interaction with people from the Northern Mediterranean. Palestines themselves are mixtures of fellahin[farmers the lived in Palestine],bedouin Arabs,Upper Egyptians and Sudanese[I have sources that confirm this],Greeks,Armenians,and Circassian[Mameluke] from eastern Europe.
The Philistines originated from modern day Crete and settled in many areas of modern Palestine. According to Donald Redford in Egypt,Caanan,and Israel you had migrations of Indo-European speaking people like the Mitanni and Hurrians that settled in the Levant region.
This would explain peoples in these areas who have pale complexions and light-colored hair.
quote:Originally posted by Underpants Man: All "blacks" have brown skin, so I don't know what you mean by this.
Again, the issue is semantics and what I meant by 'brown' was hispanic 'brown' or Southeast Asian brown or as I said, the brown found among most northern Indians.
quote:I would guess that, prior to the incursion of Central Asians into south Asia a little before 3000 BCE, all people in south Asia had dark complexions, possibly within the range of today's "black Africans". They wouldn't need lighter skin in the hot climate of southern Asia.
You are right about this, but I postulate that there have been migrations from Central Asia into southwest and southern Asia long before the Indo-European speakers arrived.
quote:Oliva says:
black people are NOT brown..so how the hell would that make sumerians black. Rediculous.
Again, semantics. when most people say "brown" they mean the brown that Oliva is speaking i.e. pale brown like north Indians, hispancs, etc.
But we musn't deny that many people we call 'black' also fall within a range of browns like chocolate brown to mahogany etc.
This is why the issue of 'race' as it relates to color can be very confusing and always ridiculous, because people can use semantics to their own bias purposes. Recall the crazed 'mixed-up' troll Salsassin who calls a Dravidian man with the exact same complexion as a West Africa, 'brown' but never 'black'!! Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Man this is just a middle easterner, no different from todays population. How the hell is this "black". You guys are desperate. Come on...
No different from the typical brown skinned modern people in that area, as like I said real african black people are NOT brown skinned...so get your **** straight.
Lol guys, this is no different from the sumerian, modern iraqi:
quote:Originally posted by oliva: Man this is just a middle easterner, no different from todays population. How the hell is this "black". You guys are desperate. Come on...
No different from the typical brown skinned modern people in that area, as like I said real african black people are NOT brown skinned...so get your **** straight.
First, as has just been explained by Rasol and I, color is subjective.
Second, you need to get your eyes checked cuz that picture is a little darker than your "brown".
Funny how you managed to nitpick just 1 but left these others out:
I noticed that these ancient Egyptian royals look nothing like Hawass or the other examples of modern Egyptians that you have provided
Sorry but all the pics of the chaos in today's Iraq won't save you from the FACTS about its past. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by oliva: I said real african black people are NOT brown skinned
Yes, real African black people vs. the fake ones right?
You're going to have to elaborate on the difference between these real Black Africans who apparently don't have brown skin and the fake Black Africans who apperently do.
As well as give your biological justification for why some are real and some are "not real" and how we objectively verify the difference.
Every indegenious tropical African I've seen has some shade of brown skin.
I don't know that I'd consider the Elamites to be "black", judging by their language it would appear that they are related to the Dravidians of India.
This is what a Modern Dravidian looks like take note of his features alongside the Elamite warrior painting:
BTW Oliva, I love seeing images of people who have been brutally murdered.
It gives me a warm fuzzy feeling inside.
It must do the same for you since you keep posting them.
Posts: 1203 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mansa Musa: ..I don't know that I'd consider the Elamites to be "black", judging by their language it would appear that they are related to the Dravidians of India.
That depends on what you consider "black" to be. Both Elamites and Dravidians look black to me considering the pictures.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am just curious as to what indicators are out there, to suggest that the Elamites may be closely related to the Dravidians; is it genealogical or...?
-------------------- Truth - a liar penetrating device! Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: I am just curious as to what indicators are out there, to suggest that the Elamites may be closely related to the Dravidians; is it genealogical or...?
Listen dummy, if you claim to have an answer to my question, and not follow up, don't expect others to think for you; it is no one's fault that you don't know what you are talking about.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^LMAO Supercar, he's just mad that his a** got torched and the ashes blown away!
But yeah, the ONLY thing the idiot got correct is that the connection between the Elamites and the Dravidians is supposedly linguistic.
And some scholars say the Elamite language is disntantly related to Dravidian languages a few like David McAlpin even propose an Elamo-Dravidian family.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^^LMAO Supercar, he's just mad that his a** got torched and the ashes blown away!
But yeah, the ONLY thing the idiot got correct is that the connection between the Elamites and the Dravidians is supposedly linguistic.
And some scholars say the Elamite language is disntanly related to Dravidian languages a few like David McAlpine even propose an Elamo-Dravidian family.
Yes, Djehuti, show the troll what "substantiation" means, by actually providing references. From the link you provided,...
The Elamo-Dravidian languages are a hypothesised language family which includes the living Dravidian languages of India and Pakistan, in addition to the extinct Elamite language of ancient Elam, in what is now southwestern Iran. Linguist David McAlpin has been a chief proponent of the Elamo-Dravidian Hypothesis. In addition to Elamite and the Dravidian languages, some speculate that the extinct language or languages of the Indus Valley Civilization, also known as the Harappan Civilization, may be part of the Elamo-Dravidian language family...Proponents of the hypothesis noted similarities between the early Harappan script, which has not been definitively deciphered, and early Elamite script...Some who claim to have deciphered the Harappan script, including Asko Parpola and Walter A. Fairservis Jr., suggest that the Harappans spoke a Dravidian language, while others, namely S. R. Rao, suggest that the Harappan script represents an Indo-European language, similar to Sanskrit.
Interesting piece; any other complimentary indicators out there?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: That depends on what you consider "black" to be. Both Elamites and Dravidians look black to me considering the pictures.
I agree, but how about Hindus?
I've seen plenty of Indians who look like tropical Africans with elongated features.
This should come as no surpise considering they migrated from East Africa and settled a tropical region thereby retaining such affinities, yet like Melanasians are genetically distant from indegenious Africans.
I suppose the reluctance comes from the historical grouping of Indians into a sub-race of Caucasian (which ofcourse has no scientific validity).
Some Indians embrace those Caucasoid theories whole heartedly while others embrace other racial theories, though most Indians seem to identify with culture and ethnicity rather than race.
Posts: 1203 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So what are they saying? Everyone that has that haplotype are the descendents of the priests?
Did I say that? No.
quote: I'm also wondering how they came to the conclusion to use the Priest...what are they supposed to be the direct descendents of the Israelites or something?
You are like a person fixated on something: ancient isrealites in this case, and determined to see the discussion as a direct and simplistic commentary on what you are fixated on.
Just try to understand what is said and not bring a bunch of baggage to it - especially biblical baggage. CMH isn't either going to prove or disprove anything in the Bible.
quote: I think this Cohen thing was brought up as an answer to the Khazar debate
In this conversation it was brought up - by you.
CMH is a lineage - not an answer to and esoteric debate about who is and who is not Jewish.
Why the need for such a reactionary response...I was simply asking a question, lighten up.
Posts: 1219 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I emailed the administrator of the Hebrew Israelites page from the link above and asked him/her about the "Cohen" gene...this was their reply...
Shalom my brother
Those Genetics test are the bigggest deception. What they do is this:
They take the Genetic test from certain groups within the Ashkenazi population, these so called Cohen (preist) have a similar Genetic marker. Now they don't compare that Genetic marker to the DNA of the skeletal remains they have of ancient Israelites. They test other populations around the world and if they have a genetic marker similar to those Ahkenanzi Jews, they say this proves these people are Jews.
They have never taken the Genetic from a ancient Israelite skeleton, (and they have many) and said they match the genetics of the Jews. There is no relatlionship genetically between the Ashkenazi Jews and Ancient Israelites.
Posts: 1219 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Uh.. getting back to the topic of this thread, what about the Midianites? These were people living in the Levant and speaking a Semitic language, yet the Bible describes them as black.
This topic has been discussed before.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Were the Sumerians also black? This is an issue I am trying to understand myself. There are not that many paintings of Sumerians and most of the depictions they made of themselves were statuettes. I have seen a few wall murals that depict them as pale or white but their clothes have the same color, meaning their true skin color is not shown. The features of the Sumerians however, look rather Indian as in non-Dravidian North Indian, so most likely they could have been brown.
All "blacks" have brown skin, so I don't know what you mean by this.
I would guess that, prior to the incursion of Central Asians into south Asia a little before 3000 BCE, all people in south Asia had dark complexions, possibly within the range of today's "black Africans". They wouldn't need lighter skin in the hot climate of southern Asia.
Reconstruction of Gilgamesh, from the computer game Civilization III: Conquests
All black folks do have brown skin and it is wierd that Eurocentric people don't see this... lol.
When I look at this woman I see brown.
Or what about these boys.
Now this is the color of brown which is the color of most Africans…
Now this Mexican looks nothing like the color brown but more like tan. This is not a strike against any people but it goes to show how programmed we have become at European authorized color coding. This is extremely funny that we can allow such brainwashing to exist. There are Darker Hispanics and even they don’t look brown but dark tan. There are brown Hispanics where are of African decent. Indo-Arabs are tan and not brown. Those pics above are pretty sick to post but they are not brown… they are tan.
The color of these people are the brown-red that is drawn of the Egyptian walls, and on that Elamite bureau
I call to question our own agenda’s by allowing such European descriptions of African and people of the African Diaspora to allow such lies to continue. Some may think that it is nothing to complain over while I think if they can get away with a description that many feel is a curse or bad, then they will try to get away with everything that they have promoted up to this time, including a European Egypt.
Peace~
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: [QB] Reviewing elementary facts about skin color.
* No people have skin tones that are literally white, red, yellow or black - terms denoting differing skin color in humans are therefore not literal, and literal references are therefore irrelevant.
** Skin color is produced primarily by melanin - the more melanin added to the skin the darker the tone, the less the lighter the tone.
*** In oder to have literally white skin, there would need be a complete lack of melanin - this trait is known as albinism and is also associated with leprosy. Even then, the skin may appear to be pink, as the blood shows easily thru depigmented white skin - this is known of course as blushing.
**** In order to have literally black skin, the level of melanin would have to be great enough to absorb all light - that is, in physics the literal definition of black. The function of melanin is to absorb ultraviolet light - a form of radiation which can damage dna. However light energy also aids humans with vitamin D synthesis, so all humans balance the two needs against each other, and this is the cause of variation in skin tone...
"Ancient Egyptians" were Black African people - in the sense that they were dark skinned people of African origin - facts to which they themselves attested.
As that is the only coherent meaning of the term Black African, to begin with, that is what is most relevant.
The inert jabberings of hypocrtical protests from modern Eurocentrists are purely their emotional drama and are so, immaterial to the related facts.
You can say that over and over again!
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
India is one country composed of many ethnicities. The Northern Indians Punjabis, Rajastahnis, etc genrally regard the Southeners (south India) as their brothers despite the few who refer the them as 'darkies' when push comes to shove (conflicts).
The woman who assessinated Rajiv Ghandi was a South Indian seeking status for his mistreatment of the Sri Lanka thing and the 'lowered status' of South Indians wanting their own state (Tamileelam)!
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
The Cohanim (singular: Cohen) are members of a priestly lineage maintained by the mainstream Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jewish communities. Traditionally, they are considered to be the descendents of Aaron, the brother of Moses, who served the Israelites as the first High Priest (Cohen Gadol). It is accepted in the mainstream biblical scholarship that the priesthood in ancient Israel has been hereditary (e.g. Exodus 28), passed paternally. Recent DNA studies, as reported in Jon Entine’s 'Abraham’s Children', confirmed the existence of a shared genetic lineage among those who maintain the Cohenic descent today. This lineage scientifically traces to about 3,300 years, which is the most commonly presumed time period of Aaron.
Although the Beta Israel — the Ethiopian Jews, a minority of today’s Israeli population, who mostly came to the country in two waves in the 1980s and early 1990s—maintain the priesthood tradition, they are unique in that they do not consider it to be hereditary. Instead, the Beta Israel priest, called as Kes or Kahin (Cohen), is elected by his community. Traditionally, Keses, as Ken Blady explains, “were for the most part drawn from the general population, and each was selected based on his own merits” (p. 363).
Genetic studies also find no Cohenic genetics among the Beta Israel, which is often considered by scholars as further proof to the theory that the group has no ancient Jewish descent. *The problem with this suggestion is of course the false assumption that the genetics of Cohanim are exclusively determinative for the existence of an ancient Jewish lineage. In reality, this genetic trait reflects only a certain purported family lineage, that of Aaron.*
And the fact that genetic studies have found the Cohenic lineage existent among the Lemba—black African group from Zimbabwe and South Africa — is cited by scholars in context of the Beta Israel as being exceptional among the presumably Jewish black-Africans for not having ancient Jewish genetics. Jessica Mozersky provides an expressive summary of this situation:
Thomas et al. (2000) discovered that some of the Lemba carried the Cohen model haplotype and this was used as evidence that they were likely descended from Jews in ancient Israel, as their oral history suggests. Another group of Jews in Ethiopia who claim also to be descended from Jews in ancient Israel were tested and did not carry the haplotype, and this was taken as proof that they were not Jewish.” (p. 46)
Yet, it is clearly unreasonable to define the Jewish roots of the Beta Israel–whose Jewishness spans all historical, religious, and ethnic ground—against the Lemba, with whom they share nothing in common other than broad continental African origins. The two populations are radically different in genetics, traditions, culture and history...
Ironically as Ethio-Helix has shown here, J1-M267 occurs in significant frequencies amongst other Ethiopian, namely Habesha (Ethio-Semitic speakers) than among Beta-Israeli themselves!
Interestingly it is a well acknowledged fact that despite their Christian identity many Habesha peoples still preserve strong Judaic elements in some of their rites and customs. However these pale in comparison the overtly Jewish traditions of the Beta Israel.
The author of the above source goes with the alternative theory that the Jewish ancestors or at least forebears of the Beta Israel are not from Yemen but from Sudan and indeed both phenotypically and genetically the Beta Israel show more affinities to north Sudanese than Habesha, yet even Sudan has a concentration of J1-M267 that the Beta Israel lack.
Yet the Lemba of Zimbabwe do possess it.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The frequency of modern variation and the phylogeny of the J1a1b-Z18375 branch suggest an origin in the Caucasus or the immediate vicinity. Compared to other Caucasian lineages (J1b-F4306 and J1a2-PH77), this branch diversified later: in the Chalcolithic or the Bronze Age ~ 6.5 kya (95% HPD = 5.0–8.0 kya). Interestingly, an ancient individual from the Caucasus55 belonging to J1a1b-Z18375 is found in the assemblage of the Bronze Age Kura-Araxes cultural tradition56. This cultural tradition probably originated in the Caucasus and may explain the radiation of this branch. This finding is consistent with the autosomal DNA analysis of the Anatolian Bronze Age individuals who trace ~ 32% of their ancestry ultimately from the Caucasus hunter-gatherers/Iranian farmers57. The presence of the ancient Levantine J1a1b-Z18375 individuals58 and the sub-branch composed by an Assyrian, an Iraqi, and an individual with Turkish ancestry, coalescing ~ 3.3 kya (95% HPD = 2.4–4.3 kya), may be explained by the suggested connection of the Hurro-Urartian languages with the eastern Caucasian languages within the so-called Alarodian language family59. More samples are necessary to better understand the demographic processes that shaped the distribution of the J1a1b-Z18375 branch.
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Yes that section explains relatively more recent expansions of J1-M267, but from the Abstract: 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.
The only explanation is that J carriers in the north who adopted Semitic languages expanded south with some of them migrating into Africa.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fact is that Haplogroup J originated between Africa and the Arabian peninsula. This paper makes it clear that they don't have enough ancient DNA to properly reconstruct the history of this lineage. Not to mention Semitic Languages as a branchof Afroasiatic languages originated between Africa and Arabia. The idea that somehow J1-M267 proves the origin of Semitic languages or the entire J family outside of Africa and the Arabian peninsula is ridiculous..... And of course we don't have a lot of ancient DNA from actual Isrealites either especially early Isrealites prior to the exile period in Babylon.
quote: Y chromosome haplogroup J-M304 represents the major male lineage in West Asia today8,9,10,11,12. The 12f2a13 deletion and single nucleotide polymorphic (SNP) biallelic markers M3049 and P20914 define and characterize this haplogroup. It splits off from haplogroup IJ-M429 at ~ 45 thousand years ago (kya), while the time to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) of haplogroup J-M304 lineages is ~ 33 kya15,16. Studies associate haplogroup J-M304 with the spread of farming from the Near East to Europe11,17,18. Around the time of the Neolithic demographic transition3, the genome-wide ancestry of West Asian populations was geographically structured into three groups19,20,21,22. Among them, haplogroup J-M304 is found in the Caucasus/Iranian and Anatolian hunter-gatherers and farmers, but not in the Levantine ones. Unfortunately, so far aDNA studies are missing from the Arabian Peninsula and Mesopotamia, where haplogroup J-M304 is frequent nowadays. This haplogroup splits into J1-M267 and J2-M1729,11. While haplogroup J2-M172 is associated more with agriculture in the northern latitudes of West Asia, haplogroup J1-M267 has been connected with the spread of the pastoral economies in the West Asian arid zones23,24.
The distribution pattern of haplogroup J1-M267 is remarkable. It has two high-frequency regions—one in the Northeast Caucasus10,25,26 and another in the Arabian Peninsula, southern Mesopotamia, and the southern Levant8,10,12,23,27. The region between them has a lower frequency, but high genetic diversity8,9,10,26,28 (Fig. 1). A unique SNP marker—known as P5814 or Page823—defines the major branch, which according to different classifications, is named as J1c314, J1e23, J1b15, or J1a2a1a2 (https://isogg.org/tree/index.html v15.46). This branch is prevalent in the Arabian Peninsula, southern Iraq, and the Levant (Fig. 1).
And note the image that goes with the article showing Southern Arabia and Africa as key locations of these haplogroups. But of course that all came from Caucasus migrations even though Haplogroup J itself originated in the same regions..... Not suggesting that migrations from the caucasus didn't take place, but this idea that somehow Haplogroup J originated between Africa and the Arabian Peninsula but then somehow thousands of years later J descendants from the Caucasus simply migrated back to Africa and Arabia and replaced the original J carriers doesn't make sense.
posted
^ It's clear Haplogroup J1-M267 is still Eurasian and its presence in Africa is due to back-migration. Nowhere in the paper I cited did it say hg J has to do with the origin of Proto-Semitic but rather it is associated with the spread of its daughter languages including back into Africa. Southern Arabia and Africa were centers of development of J1's sub-branches but not J1 itself. This is like hg E1b1b-M215 having sub-branches in Southwest Asia and Southeast Europe as somehow proof that it's Eurasian.
Also what do how Lachish Judeans look like have to do with the topic? Lachish cranial features metrically resemble Egyptians and Nubians but non-metrically (genetically) they don't.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ It's clear Haplogroup J1-M267 is still Eurasian and its presence in Africa is due to back-migration. Nowhere in the paper I cited did it say hg J has to do with the origin of Proto-Semitic but rather it is associated with the spread of its daughter languages including back into Africa. Southern Arabia and Africa were centers of development of J1's sub-branches but not J1 itself. This is like hg E1b1b-M215 having sub-branches in Southwest Asia and Southeast Europe as somehow proof that it's Eurasian.
Also what do how Lachish Judeans look like have to do with the topic? Lachish cranial features metrically resemble Egyptians and Nubians but non-metrically (genetically) they don't.
Has there been a genetic study on the Lacish remains? And if yes from what era where the remains found?
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
The samples tested vary dating from the Late Neolithic, to Bronze Age, to early Iron Age. But unfortunately all these sites are in northern Israel and they've yet to test samples in southern Israel like Tel Lachish.
The only analyses done on Lachish remains was craniometric and dental nonmetrics, the latter confirming that they were not North African related.
Bioarchaeological Analysis of Cultural Transition in the Southern Levant Using Dental Nonmetric Traits Using the mean measure of divergence (MMD) statistic to study dental affinity, this study found the Lacish sample to be most similar to a sample Dothan and then a sample from a tomb at St. Stephen’s monastery in Jerusalem, dating from approximately 438–611 AD. A Natufian sample was **most distant** from the Lacish sample.
Interestingly this is also reflected in the genetic findings that Natufians are an outlier.
This makes me wonder if the Natufian dental nonmetrics show North African affinities.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ It's clear Haplogroup J1-M267 is still Eurasian and its presence in Africa is due to back-migration. Nowhere in the paper I cited did it say hg J has to do with the origin of Proto-Semitic but rather it is associated with the spread of its daughter languages including back into Africa. Southern Arabia and Africa were centers of development of J1's sub-branches but not J1 itself. This is like hg E1b1b-M215 having sub-branches in Southwest Asia and Southeast Europe as somehow proof that it's Eurasian.
Also what do how Lachish Judeans look like have to do with the topic? Lachish cranial features metrically resemble Egyptians and Nubians but non-metrically (genetically) they don't.
Actually the point I was making is they don't have ancient DNA coverage to confirm these proposed results based on modern DNA only. If haplogroup J originated between Arabia and Africa, then it only to the Caucasus in the first place due to migrations from these regions. And the bigger issue is that this is purely a reconstructed history based on limited ancient DNA from across Arabia and the Levant. The paper itself states this clearly and the current distribution of J related haplogroups between Southern Arabia and Africa don't necessarily reflect the ancient origin or distribution of those J related sibling lineages...... Obviously the history of haplogroup J still primarily in between Arabia and Africa and those later lineages don't change that. And until you actually get ancient DNA from these regions there is no guarantee that these proposed histories are absolutely correct. And no I am not saying that migrations from the caucasus hasn't happened, but that certain lineages may not have originated in the caucasus. Obviously to show migrations introduced new lineages to a region, you have to show a before and after set of lineages where the change from one to another. And they don't have that for ancient South Arabia or the Levant.
Obviously this applies to the Judeans depicted on the Lachish remains which represents the diversity of ancient populations in the region at the time. The question is what is the relationship between those populations and later Isrealites, because those Judeans are the exiled populations from which later Isrealite tradition emerged. Which means it is quite possible those later Caucasian lineages originated after the exile of the Judeans as seen in the Lachish relief in Assyria/Babylon.
Obviously the Southern Levant being close to Africa makes it easy to see African or Africoid populations there as part of a cline of phenotype and genetics. And you still have such populations in the region to this day.
quote: The history of ancient Israel and Judah begins in the Southern Levant region of Western Asia during the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age. The earliest known reference to "Israel" as a people or tribal confederation (see Israelites) is in the Merneptah Stele, an inscription from ancient Egypt that dates to about 1208 BCE, but the people group may be older. According to modern archaeology, ancient Israelite culture developed as an outgrowth from the pre-existing Canaanite civilization. Two related Israelite polities known as the Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) and the Kingdom of Judah had emerged in the region by Iron Age II.
According to the Hebrew Bible, a "United Monarchy" (consisting of Israel and Judah) existed as early as the 11th century BCE, under the reigns of Saul, David, and Solomon; the country later split into two kingdoms: Israel, containing the cities of Shechem and Samaria in the north, and Judah (containing Jerusalem and the Jewish Temple) in the south. The historicity of the United Monarchy is debated—as there are no archaeological remains of it that are accepted as consensus—but historians and archaeologists agree that Israel and Judah existed as separate kingdoms by c. 900 BCE[1]: 169–195 [2] and c. 850 BCE,[3] respectively.[4]
The Kingdom of Israel was destroyed around 720 BCE, when it was conquered by the Neo-Assyrian Empire.[5] While the Kingdom of Judah remained intact during this time, it became a client state of first the Neo-Assyrian Empire and then the Neo-Babylonian Empire. However, Jewish revolts against the Babylonians led to the destruction of Judah in 586 BCE, under the rule of Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar II. According to the biblical account, the armies of Nebuchadnezzar II besieged Jerusalem between 589–586 BCE, which led to the destruction of Solomon's Temple and the exile of the Jews to Babylon; this event was also recorded in the Babylonian Chronicles.[6][7] The exilic period saw the development of the Israelite religion (Yahwism) towards the monotheistic Judaism.
Not to mention it is fairly established tradition that the patriarch Abraham was born in modern day Iraq. And this is supported by both Jews and Arabs:
quote: Ur Kasdim (Hebrew: אוּר כַּשְׂדִּים, romanized: ʾŪr Kaśdīm), commonly translated as Ur of the Chaldeans, is a city mentioned in the Hebrew Bible as the birthplace of Abraham, the patriarch of the Israelites and the Ishmaelites. In 1862, Henry Rawlinson identified Ur Kaśdim with Tell el-Muqayyar near Nasiriyah in the Baghdad Eyalet of the Ottoman Empire (now in Iraq).[1] In 1927, Leonard Woolley excavated the site and identified it as a Sumerian archaeological site where the Chaldeans were to settle around the 9th century BC.[2] Recent archaeology work has continued to focus on the location in Nasiriyah, where the ancient Ziggurat of Ur is located.[3][4][5][6][7][8]
Other sites traditionally thought to be Abraham's birthplace are in the vicinity of the city of Edessa (now Urfa in the Southeastern Anatolia Region of Turkey).
quote: Most scholars view the patriarchal age, along with the Exodus and the period of the biblical judges, as a late literary construct that does not relate to any particular historical era,[8] and after a century of exhaustive archaeological investigation, no evidence has been found for a historical Abraham.[9] It is largely concluded that the Torah, the series of books that includes Genesis, was composed during the early Persian period, c. 500 BC, as a result of tensions between Jewish landowners who had stayed in Judah during the Babylonian captivity and traced their right to the land through their "father Abraham", and the returning exiles who based their counterclaim on Moses and the Exodus tradition of the Israelites.[10]
Ultimately reflecting that this movement of Northern Caucasian lineages into the Southern Levant took place during this post exile period due to Assyrian/Babylonian conquest and influence.
quote: Haplogroup J originated approximately 42.6 kya (95% CI: 30.0–64.7), with several of its earliest branches being found within the Arabian Peninsula and Northern Africa. J1b was found most frequently in the Near East and Arabian Peninsula, while J1c occurred most frequently in Europe. Based on phylogenetic dating, subhaplogroup J1c has its early roots in the Mediterranean and Western Balkans. Otherwise, the majority of the branches found in Scandinavia are younger than those seen elsewhere, indicating that haplogroup J dispersed relatively recently into Northern Europe, most plausibly with Neolithic farmers.
posted
I don't know what Doug is talking about. Yes a downstream branch of J1-M267 developed somewhere between Arabia and Africa but not original J1*-M267 itself. 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.
Unless he can provide an alternative source his claims are null.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Funny how you managed to nitpick just 1 but left these others out:![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic